REFERENCE BOOK - GMT Gamespink for panzer regiments, scarlet for panzer artillery regiments, black for pioneers, and gold for armored reconnaissance battalions (Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilungen)

REFERENCE BOOK

Designer’s Notes ............................................................ 2 26.0 Footnoted Entries ........................................... 2 27.0 Game Elements .............................................. 13 28.0 Units & Weapons ........................................... 21 29.0 OB Notes ....................................................... 33 30.0 Historical Notes ............................................. 39

Table of Contents31.0 Mapmaker’s Notes ................................................. 4032.0 Order of Battle ....................................................... 4133.0 Selected Sources & Recommended Reading ......... 48

GMT Games, LLC • P.O. Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232-1308www.GMTGames.com

Operation Dauntless Reference Book2

© 2015 GMT Games, LLC

Designer’s NotesI would like to acknowledge the contributions of lead researchers Vincent Lefavrais, A. Verspeeten, and David Hughes to the notes appearing in this booklet, portions of which have been lifted rather liberally from their emails and edited by myself. These guys have my gratitude for a job well done. I’m very pleased that they stuck with me to the end of this eight-year project.

26.0 Footnoted EntriesThe following notes refer to the footnoted entries in the Rule Book and Scenario Book.1 2.2.1 Interpreting the Unit Counters. For the ID boxes of the German units, I used the historical color-codes where practical: pink for panzer regiments, scarlet for panzer artillery regiments, black for pioneers, and gold for armored reconnaissance battalions (Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilungen). I have A. Verspeeten to thank for this excellent suggestion. Light green is normally associated with Panzergrenadier units, but since there are so many German units of this type, I opted to use white instead to keep the total amount of “color clutter” to a minimum. 2 4.2.2 Seulles Boundary. The British 50th Northumbrian Infantry Division (a.k.a. the “Tynes and Tees”) was facing off against the remainder of Panzer Lehr just west of the Seulles. The bridge at 0207 is not a valid exit for Lehr/21PD units because it would place them right in the front lines of the 50th Infantry Division. 3 4.5.1 Attached Transports. Universal Carriers have light armor, granting them immunity against small arms fire. Note that those units denoted as having Universal Carrier attached transports (“U”) include models such as the scout carrier and Bren gun carrier. The marginal CS, RAS, and AT values of these units are derived from a number of Bren LMGs and PIATs, and in the case of the Carrier Platoons, 2” mortars. By contrast, the Loyd Carriers have no armor or weapons.

More info on the Univ. Carrier can be found in the notes section for British Weapons (28.2.2) while more info on the British Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons can be found in the Unit Notes (28.2.1) as well as footnoted entry 12.6.1. See also notes pertaining to Cru-sader Tractors and Schwimmwagen in the Weapons section (28.2.2 and 28.3.2 respectively).4 4.5.6 Survival Table. This table provides a simple method for determining what happens to transported units when their transport takes a hit. If the transported unit is a mortar, British MG, or towed gun a step reduction is more likely than with other types of units. Mortars and British MGs qualify because they are the only weap-ons which are loaded into open-topped transports. Unlike infantry, which could quickly dismount under fire, these types of weapons were more difficult to unload or unhook, and were more reliant on their transports to carry their bulkier ammunition. Infantry units also suffer step reductions less frequently because they represent a relatively large number of men as compared to a heavy weapons unit. 5 5.0 Terrain. Lloyd Clark’s book Operation Epsom says of the ter-rain: “The most northerly section, the first to be crossed by the British attack, was made up of hedgeless fields up to the insignificant Mue stream. (…) Further south (…) there was good defensive bocage

countryside characterized by small fields rimmed with thick and steeply embanked hedges and sunken roads, containing small stout farms with neighbouring woods and orchards in a broken landscape. Studded with small villages, ideal for defensive strongpoints…”6 Close Terrain. There are few gameplay differences between close terrain types. Apart from victory objectives, which are typically village or woods hexes, the only differences are a +1 DRM to Re-covery rolls in village hexes, a Modifier Chit which favors village and woods over heavy bocage, and a higher MP cost to enter woods. Furthermore, woods is the only terrain type that blocks LOS with respect to spotting units at higher elevation. For all other purposes, close terrain is close terrain. Note that all three types conveniently use the same dark green background color on the map.

7 5.1.2 Bocage. The ground over which these battles were fought had a number of wide open areas, but the photo recon imagery also shows many regions of dense bocage. This is especially true near Cristot and Tilly-sur-Seulles, in the regions west and north of Juvi-gny, and pretty much everywhere on the southern half of the map. By “dense” I mean there are portions of as many as six or seven individual fields in a single 425 yard hex, all separated by hedge-rows! However, this is not the norm, with one to three fields per hex being more typical of a bocage hex in the game. Early versions of the playtest map and Terrain Effects Chart distinguished between orchard and bocage, but in reality this terrain is a mish-mosh of both, and rarely does orchard appear in a hex without hedgerows. The need for two densities of bocage became apparent as soon as I began to code the hexes according to the aerial photography. I had to make a judgement call, sometimes quite arbitrarily, as to whether a particular bocage hex should be classified as light or heavy. In general, where three or more individual hedgerow-bordered fields exist in a single hex, or where two or more oppose a north-south axis of advance (i.e., an east-west orientation of hedgerows), I have classified them as heavy bocage. Such hexes offer the defenders multiple lines of hedgerows behind which to fall back, making a series of “mini-retreats” possible within a single hex and within the course of a 90 minute game turn. In the game this is abstracted by preventing ZOC from extending into them, and by their increased defensive bonus compared to light bocage.8 5.1.3 Woods. There are fewer wooded areas in the vicinity of our map area today than in 1944. Some woods, including a sizeable section of Tessel Woods itself, have been clear cut for more farming space. Have a quick look at Google Earth and you’ll see what I mean.

Operation Dauntless Reference Book 3


9 5.1.4 Village. Since lone farms, manors, and chateaus are also classified as village, “settled” might have been a more apt name for this terrain type. Village derives its defensive benefit not only from the buildings themselves but from the numerous hedge-lined fields, orchards, and stone walls usually found in very close proximity to them. For notes on Strongpoints, see footnote #55.10 5.1.5 Waterways. As of late 2010, I’d been unable to find any reliable data on the depth and width of the rivers in the region circa late June ‘44. Furthermore, I knew that the Germans had intention-ally flooded some regions at the time of this operation, making things difficult from a research standpoint. Enter Vincent Lefavrais.

Vincent took a field trip to the battlefield, walking it extensively and taking lots of photos and notes which proved incredibly useful. For those who are interested, I have presented his findings as an article that can be downloaded from the GMT website. The article contains more than 80 photos and map images, making it a great starting point for players who wish to better visualize the terrain over which these battles were fought. Among the images is a key that Vincent cre-ated on an early playtest map to indicate his location and direction of facing for each of the photos. To a game designer, this kind of information is invaluable. You simply can’t get this level of detail from any number of books, maps, or websites.

In general, most of the waterways represented in the game are not particularly wide, but they cut across the countryside with rather steep, deep banks, making crossing difficult for vehicles. As a result, vehicles in the game need to cross at bridges, putting a premium on the control of bridge hexes. The non-Seulles waterways were little more than small streams which normally might have been crossable by tracked vehicles. However, as Georges Bernage says about the Salbey in La bataille de l’Odon (Heimdal Publishing, 2008): “…usually a starved rivulet but the profuse rains had caused it to swell and the whole surrounding sector had become swampy.”

Vincent’s photos were taken on a day following some sizable rainfall. This gave us a broad idea of the actual conditions at the time since Operations Dauntless and Epsom were launched under heavy rain. If anything, the historical conditions must have been even more muddy and soggy than the ones Vincent experienced. He wrote, “given the fact that I almost got bogged down on a couple of occa-sions after parking my car on the roadside, I shudder to think how it must have been 70 years ago in a 30-ton Sherman under heavy rain...” Waterways in this area have ever-present vegetation such as trees, brushes, shrubs, and thorns growing along their banks and, for this reason, block LOS in the game. The banks were often quite steep—a sudden drop of half a meter or more—with water depth ranging from about half a meter to a meter. Width of the waterways was in the ballpark of two meters. The Seulles was much wider, ranging from about five to eight meters, with one-meter-high banks and a depth of more than a meter with strong currents. Since the war, the topography has changed slightly, notably concerning the hedgerows, a lot of which were torn down to increase the size of the farming plots. What could not be judged from Vincent’s photos is the extent of the flooding caused by the Germans in 1944. The photo recon images we worked with to create the map suggest that no areas were entirely inundated. Still, my supposition is that low-elevation areas near the many waterways, as well as most roads, might have been affected by the water level, especially after the rain started up again on June 26, making them soggy and less than ideal for vehicular movement. Only better and raised roads would have

been unaffected. The rules for weather, roads, supply, and (Optional Rule) Tigers in the Mud all combine to reflect this.

After some discussion and consideration, I opted to make waterways impact leg units minimally. The delay on leg movement (+1 MP) amounts to a mere fraction of a 90-minute game turn and is due mainly to the prominence of brambles along their shores as opposed to the depth of water or strength of current. My guess is that the Royal Engineers (abstracted in the game) could make most of these narrow streams easily fordable for a company-sized leg unit, given about twenty minutes to do their job. Smaller waterways might be crossable even without log bridges and the like if the men were willing to get wet up to the knees or waist. Where the streams are less than two meters wide, the men might simply jump over them; the prominence of thorns and vegetation would again be the bigger impediment. I feel the +1 MP requirement is reasonable, and it is both simple and easy to remember.11 5.1.6 Slopes. Elevation is not absolute in this game. The slope hexsides are not contour lines but rather specific changes in elevation which are significant enough to block LOS. The hills in this region are not very dramatic and not really hills in the way Americans understand the word. There are certainly a few notable spots—the Rauray spur and the hilltop wood near Tessel among them—which command a nice view of the surrounding countryside. A good example for those who own the Saunders book Operation Epsom can be seen in the photo on page 30-31 which shows the view from Rauray. It’s evident that it’s not so much elevation that’s important, but line of sight. In the game, hilltop locations are often objectives. VP rewards aside, the open nature of the nearby terrain, such as the open fields to the north and east of Rauray, should make it obvious to the players why they would want to hold these objectives. These hilltops offer nice Reaction Fire opportunities.12 5.2 Roads. The road network generally favors the Germans be-cause it runs counter to the British axis of advance. It also allows the Germans to shuffle units east or west across the front line to fill gaps. Numerous small sunken roads exist in nearly all bocage hexes, which is why the MP cost for bocage is not as high as it might otherwise be. Although vehicle units are not always assumed to be tackling the hedgerows, in many cases the roads were mined or otherwise trapped (by hidden AT guns, for example), so the most direct route was not always used. The movement cost for village and bocage is a sort of average between these minor dirt roads and alternative routes over or through the hedgerows.13 5.3.1 Temporary Reveal Upon Firing. Players may wonder why it is that a Concealed unit which Returns Fire is only revealed across its three frontal hexsides. I can hear you crying, “This makes it too hard to get a flank shot!” Consider the following graphic (overleaf) of a situation involving two tank troops in a heavy bocage hex. A platoon of German tanks (G) are concealed in a bocage hex with respect to British tanks (B). As the German tanks emerge from behind the hedgerow to fire, as two of them are doing in the graphic, they become revealed with respect to Return Fire only across their three frontal hexsides. The graphic should hopefully make it obvious as to why. Next, consider the hex scale and the fact that units in adjacent hexes are always revealed. The rule doesn’t seem so strict anymore.



14 6.0 Stacking. Stacking is limited to two British companies per hex to simulate the way the British infantry companies were fielded historically. These units required a front of about 250 yards per company in order to operate according to doctrine. There is no such restriction for German companies. Theoretically, the German player may stack four companies per hex, though the +4 DRM to enemy Ranged Attacks would make this rather foolish.Elimination of overstacked units sounds harsh but it almost never occurs in practice. The fact that ZOC does not extend into close ter-rain makes it difficult to surround a unit and cause additional step reductions during a Retreat. Units will typically have a retreat path unless completely surrounded by the enemy. Furthermore, 8.5.2.4 Retreats and Overstacking allows units to continue their Retreat to avoid elimination due to overstacking. We never had to do this in our playtests because the hexes behind the front line typically contain only a handful of mortar or transport units. This leaves only one situation where elimination due to overstacking will occur: voluntary overstacking. Don’t do it, or you lose your units. The stacking limit of four units per hex (plus markers and indepen-dent transports) is intended to keep things reasonable from a physical handling perspective and is not necessarily a realistic upper limit of the number of units that might function together within the same 425 yard hex. However, it conveniently forces the British player to use historical frontages for his infantry companies. Between the stack-ing limit of two British infantry companies per hex and the Assault rule which mandates the first two attacker losses be taken as step reduction in an Assault, a savvy British player will handle his units in a manner very similar to the way they were historically deployed, with two companies up and two companies in reserve (but over the course of a 90-minute turn, the two reserve companies will usually be thrown into the fight as well due to the heavy nature of the fight-ing in this game). What we are likely to see is two separate waves of British attacks per infantry battalion with each wave consisting of two stacks of two infantry companies, usually supported by tanks, MGs, or the Carrier Platoon.The stacking limit works well from the German perspective as well. The Germans are spread thin, so there is rarely a need to stack more

than four units per hex—especially since the transport half-tracks don’t count towards this limit.

8.2-8.3 Combat Modifiers15 #2. Red-boxed CS Unit Attacking into Close Terrain. Most AFVs suffer this penalty, which represents the inherent difficulty in using vehicles and vehicle-mounted weapons in close terrain. 16 #5. Yellow-boxed CS AFV Unit. These AFVs are equipped with flame-throwers or 290mm mortars. These weapons generally have a limited range of 50 yards or less, making them useless in Combats but highly effective in Assaults. See also footnote 20.17 #12. Orange-boxed CS Unit. These units are either AFVs with short barrelled guns firing high explosive (HE) shells or IGs firing high caliber shells—weapon types that are very useful against soft targets.18 #14. German Combined Arms Bonus. Players may wonder why the British do not receive a similar combined arms bonus. British coordination between infantry and armor was less than stellar during this campaign. By most accounts, the 8th Armoured Brigade fared better in this regard than most armored formations in Normandy.19 #16. British Coordination Penalty. This modifier forces a small Command & Control consideration on the player, even if Optional Rule 21.5 OSMs is not in use. It discourages the building of “rain-bow stacks,”—the term we used in playtesting for unrealistically mixing and matching units of differing brigades in order to achieve maximum stacking efficiency. Note that the brigades in question are color-coded by greens, blues, and warm colors for ease in identifying them for this purpose.20 #18. Yellow-boxed CS Unit. This bonus applies to units armed with flame-throwers (Crocodiles, Flammpanzerwagen, and pioneer infantry) or 290mm Petard spigot mortars (AVRE)—short-ranged weapons designed to destroy buildings or oust the enemy from fortifications.

21 8.7.1 Multi-hex Advances. British leg units may not perform multi-hex advances due to a combination of German snipers, sparse but fanatical resistance, and an overall approach by the British which emphasized caution and casualty conservation. 22 9.0 Assaults. Assaults within the context of this game are not prepared assaults but mobile attacks. If the lack of defensive support seems odd, consider that units which move adjacent to the enemy often take FF as they move. Units which started their Action Phase adjacent were already eligible to be targeted by Ranged Attacks and Combats during their opponent’s Combat Phase. Also consider that non-supporting Ranged Attacks may be conducted prior to conduct-ing an Assault during the Action Phase in this game (unlike in Red Winter) and this lack of support becomes mostly semantic. I felt that the British and Germans by June of ‘44 should have greater flexibility regarding coordination of barrages and Assaults than the Soviets and Finns in 1939.23 10.0 Ranged Attacks. The RAT has been calibrated to light bo-cage, just as the Red Winter RAT was calibrated to forest in winter.Three exceptions allowing Ranged Attacks into adjacent hexes may at first seem tricky to remember. New players are encouraged to use this handy rule of thumb: If the target of the Ranged Attack isn’t in a field hex, two of the three cases can be immediately ruled out; both FF and Adjacent Defensive Support must be into field.



The remaining case is a Return Fire Ranged Attack, which requires one of the two units involved (firing unit or target) to be a vehicle. Usually, it’s a situation where a tank or Carrier Platoon is returning fire on an AT Gun.

Ranged Attack Modifiers (on the PAC):#7-8. Direct fire at a range of 3 or more hexes. A -1 DRM applies to direct fire at a range of 3 hexes, and the firing unit’s RAS value is halved at ranges beyond that. Apart from the obvious reason that a target becomes harder to hit as it becomes further away, these penalties exist because AFVs derive most of their anti-personnel value (RAS) from their MGs, which have a limited range of 2-3 hexes. Beyond this, only their main gun is in range. Units with an orange circle beside their RAS value have main guns capable of firing sufficiently high caliber and/or low velocity High Explosive (HE) shells so as to not suffer this penalty.

#11. Buttoned. Even while small arms fire cannot destroy AFVs, it can still be helpful because it causes the AFV to “button up,” with the crew closing the turret hatch and seeking shelter inside the tank rather than spotting from the open hatch. Buttoned units have reduced visibility and therefore a reduced ability to successfully employ their anti-personnel weapons. This is reflected by a Suppressed marker in the AFV’s hex causing both a negative DRM on the RAT and a negative modifier for Tactical Advantage.

24 10.4.1 Suppression. The cumulative “Suppressed” results simulate varying degrees of disorganization enemy units suffer from incoming fire. These are conditions from which they will quickly recover unless the situation is quickly exploited via good old fashioned combat.

It helps to think of Suppression as the suppression of a unit’s com-bat potential rather than a literal “pinning down” of the unit over the duration of a 90 minute turn. Perhaps the suppressed unit has indeed gone to ground, but only for a portion of the turn, leaving it less time to employ effective tactics. Players shouldn’t take the term “Suppressed” too literally since it refers to a temporary state and Suppressed units can still Retreat or Advance After Combat.Since a “Suppressed” result against an enemy hex that is not sup-porting a Combat prevents units in that hex from supporting future Combats in the same phase, players should leave these units marked “Suppressed” for the remainder of the phase. Note that in most cases, the unit will not be in a position to support a future Combat, so no marker is necessary. During the Action Phase, when it’s important to prevent enemy units from conducting FF, the markers will be more useful.25 10.5 Spotters. Self-spotting mortars receive only a +1 DRM as compared to +2 for other weapons. This is because the mortars’ RAS ratings are already inflated to account for their greater flexibility. The +2 for other weapon types (which are limited to IGs and 88s) imitates the +2 for Soviet IGs used in Red Winter and encourages their use in a self-spotting manner.26 10.6.3 LOS and Elevation. Slopes and elevation are abstracted in this game. Players shouldn’t take the slope locations too literally since their placement is based on LOS considerations rather than steepness or elevation. While upslope generally means at higher elevation, the slope hexsides in no way indicate absolute elevation. They are not contour lines.

The undulating terrain, bocage, and tree-lined streams severely limit LOS in many parts of the battlefield. Many key objectives are on high ground and provide nice, clear views of the surroundings.We studied several contour maps and refined the current slope loca-tions again and again over about four years to arrive at those you see on the map. This required overlaying semi-transparent layers in Photoshop and comparing some WW2-era contour maps of the area, a modern day satellite map with 5m contours, and the game map itself. In general, places where the rise over run equals .05 or greater qualify for slope hexsides. For example, the approach to Tessel Woods from the south has roughly a 19 yard rise over the distance of a 425 yard hex, for a slope of .044. This is quite steep for this battlefield where most hills are of the gently rolling type. Many waterways also qualified for slope hexsides as they cut valleys into the surrounding land. The contours of the various elevation maps that we used didn’t always precisely agree, so what you see on the final game map is, in many cases, an amalgam of the sources. The 3D battlefield map created by Gina Willis (described in more detail later in these notes) proved invaluable in determining where LOS should or should not exist between two given map hexes.As a final note on the topic: I hate LOS rules and feel that many otherwise excellent game systems are marred by vague, inadequate, or overly complicated LOS rules. I’ve attempted to keep the rules as simple and precise as possible, given the importance of LOS in this battle. Inevitably, gray areas arise where multiple elevation levels and dead zones are involved. When in doubt, reread the rules and refer to the illustrated examples to see if your situation is covered. If that fails, have a peek at the included LOS Determination flowchart. If still in doubt, feel free to email me with your specific situation and I’ll see if I can be of assistance.27 10.7 Friction Fire. While FF is normally used by the non-phasing player against an enemy unit that is actively moving during its Ac-tion Phase or Advancing After Combat during its Combat Phase, it can also be used by either player against a retreating enemy unit.It may help Red Winter players to think of field hexes in this game as the equivalent of frozen lake in Red Winter. FF is only allowed against enemies in field hexes. I read one criticism of Red Winter stating that FF is exactly the same thing as opportunity fire in other games and asking why it isn’t just called opportunity fire. In my mind, they aren’t the same thing. Op-portunity fire is typically handled as a normal Ranged Attack that uses the same routine as other Ranged Attacks. It just happens to take place against a moving unit. In this game system, FF is different from a normal Ranged Attack. Rather than resulting in a Suppressed result (or a Suppressed plus a step reduction at very high modified results), it results in an interesting choice for the receiving player: halt the move in the current hex or take the number of step reduc-tions shown and continue moving. By calling it something other than opportunity fire, I was trying to highlight the fact that it isn’t simply handled as a ranged attack against a moving unit. I chose the name Friction Fire because I felt that would serve as a good mnemonic (friction inhibits movement). Originally, the effect of FF was to “drain” MPs from the moving stack, but this created too much tracking and was cumbersome in play.New players will find a comparison of FF and ARC in 23.0 Tips and Strategies.



28 11.2 AT Fire DRMs (on the PAC):2. Range (in hexes) to target. As described in detail in the Game Elements section (27.0), this DRM accounts for the greater difficulty in hitting a target as range increases as well as a drop in penetration capability by roughly 1 cm per 425 yards for most of the main gun types represented in the game.

3. Flanking Fire. Most AFVs had thicker armor in the front than to the sides and rear, and the +3 DRM accounts for an average distribution of armor. Some AFVs (the Panther, for example) had an even greater disparity, with very thick and highly sloped frontal armor but only a fraction as much armor on the sides. Flanking fire against these AFVs receives a more favorable DRM (in the case of the Panther, a +5). Thinly armored vehicles such as half-tracks grant only a +1 DRM. Players may find it curious that they generate any kind of DRM at all, given that the difference in armor thickness between front and sides of these AFVs isn’t pronounced enough to warrant a DRM against the AT shells of most tanks’ main guns. I rationalized that the flanking fire DRM should simulate a larger target profile and the element of surprise, apart from just armor thickness.

4. Terrain. There is a lessened penalty for Return Fire vs. units in these terrain types because the vehicle that originally fired had to emerge from cover and reveal its position in order to fire. The benefit of the terrain is mitigated, but the vehicle’s position is still more favorable than a field due to partial cover and the close proximity of full cover.

6. Target’s Amor > Firing Unit’s AT Rating. This modifier is nec-essary because the bell curve alone cannot account for the difficulty in achieving a meaningful hit against an AFV with armor thicker than a round’s maximum AP capacity.

7. Firing from Hex with one or more Suppressed Markers. The AFV has buttoned its turret hatch or the crew has otherwise taken cover due to incoming fire, making it more difficult for them to spot the target.

29 11.2.1.1 ARC Fire along Hex Spines. Since Return Fire against a newly revealed target must be through a frontal hexside, these rules effectively mean that a unit in close terrain cannot be an eligible target for the Flanking Fire except in two situations: Assaults and adjacent enemies.30 11.3.2 Zero-Range (AT Fire) Units. The AT ratings of these units are based on a combination of training, experience and weapon qual-ity (accuracy, armor penetration, and whether the weapon is single-shot or can be reloaded). British infantry are typically armed with the reloadable, spring-launched PIAT, while most German infantry are equipped with the single-shot but more powerful Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck. Nearly all leg units are also equipped with grenades. 31 11.4 Tactical Advantage. These rules were originally optional and called the Ambush rules. By the time I arrived at the final ver-sion, I discovered that they streamlined game play considerably, so I made them mandatory.Tactical Advantage uses a chit draw mechanic which introduces a high degree of friction and uncertainty into Assaults, making them more interesting and realistic in my opinion. While these rules might at first appear to complicate game play, they in fact speed things up by limiting the number of units which can perform AT Fire during a given Assault, as well as the number of modifiers that apply. It was

lead playtester Gina Willis who first suggested the idea of making Assaults less predictable by somehow introducing randomization of the DRMs that could apply. Lead playtester Eric Edwards came up with the idea of using a chit draw mechanic to determine how many AT attacks should be allowed in a given Assault, and the order in which they should be resolved. Previously, I had been doing all of the above using three tables, each with their own list of modifiers. I was initially rather proud of these tables, but, when I taught Eric how to use them, I realized how ludicrous it was all beginning to sound. (“Okay, you roll on this table and use these DRMs to deter-mine which units get to roll on the AT Fire Table and in what order, and this third table determines which DRMs will apply to the roll on the second table…”) The game was getting too unwieldy and too complicated. Migrating the information from these tables over to a simple chit draw was a huge step in the right direction, but it still took months of trial and error. We tested many variations before honing in on the combination of factors that felt “just right.”

It was moderately late in the testing that I came up with the idea of making the penetration factor (Armor minus AT) a chit-drawn DRM so that it would not always factor into a given Assault. Formerly, infantry AT

weapons such as PIATs and Panzerfäuste always succeeded in eliminating thin-skinned vehicles such as armored cars and half-tracks; there was no point in even rolling the AT Fire dice. This felt very disappointing to me. Surely armor thickness and weapon penetration stats weren’t everything in these situations. What about the many other relevant variables such as morale, terrain, the element of surprise, and enemy fire? That’s when it occurred to me that the penetration factor should be included as a modifier chit. It’s on three of the thirteen chits, actually, so it will factor into the AT Fire roll quite often, but its inclusion is no longer a given. As I continued to playtest and refine the two new sets of chits, I felt a giant weight lifted from my shoulders. The Assault system was now much faster and cleaner, and the chit draw interjected the sort of chaos and unpredictability that Gina had desired. It was no longer enough to merely crunch numbers and set up for a perfect-odds attack. There was now a very real chance that things could go hor-ribly wrong. For example, your opponent might use AT Fire twice, eliminating your AFVs before they ever granted you a bonus or got off a shot. After two further years of testing and fine tuning the chits, I felt I had a subsystem that produced the right sorts of outcomes while remaining true to the spirit of the game series.Players may at first perceive the Tactical Advantage procedure as a lot of sound and fury signifying very little. I assure you that it is not. As players become more familiar with the game, they will quickly come to realize the importance of AFV kills in Assaults. Each Assault in this game is its own little microcosm of the battle, often with combined arms forces facing off amongst the maze of hedgerows. Choosing your assaulting stack carefully so that it is well-rounded and appropriate for the target hex is important, and the order of allowed AT Fire attacks is everything. Of course, a little luck during the Modifier chit draw never hurts. Occasionally, your draw will be so lucky (or unlucky) that rolling the dice isn’t even necessary. I let that slide as being in the spirit of the unpredictability inherent in this type of conflict. This is controlled chaos, after all, and even your best laid plans can occasionally go awry, just as you can occasionally pull an unexpected victory from the jaws of defeat.Players may at first perceive the +1 modifier for assaulting from any non-field hex into a field hex to be too small (i.e., not punishing



enough for the infantry defending in the field) given the openness of farm fields and the extreme vulnerability of infantry in the open. The reasoning for the modifier becomes apparent when one recalls that the Tactical Advantage procedure is concerned mainly with infantry units’ ability to fire on tanks, and the field crops were thigh-high to waist-high this time of year, offering excellent hiding places for the lone infantryman wielding a PIAT or Panzerfaust. 32 11.4.2 Modifier Chits. The players may notice that while zero-range AT attacks normally apply to infantry units armed with PIATs, Panzerfäuste, and the like, there are a couple of AFV types that also qualify—namely, British AVRE and German Flammpanzerwagen. If it at first seems odd that these AFVs are handled as infantry, consider for a moment how they are fielded when pressed into an AT role. They can’t simply engage enemy armor at close range; they have to engage at really close range! To do this effectively, these AFVs need to remain hidden and then fire from ambush positions, much like infantry units. By allowing them to behave in this manner I avoided the need for special rules for handling them in Assaults.

The rationale behind a few of these chits is worth mentioning.Target’s Combat Strength. Drawing this chit infers that the target vehicle is in a position to use its anti-personnel MGs against the unit using AT Fire against it.

Target is open-topped. Unlike other AFVs, these units are vulnerable to small arms fire, and especially to grenades.

Target’s CS is in orange/yellow box. Drawing this chit infers that the target vehicle is in a position to fire its high caliber shells or flame-throwers against the unit performing the AT Fire against it.

Lack of Modifiers for Strongpoints and Dug-In Hexes. Note that there is no Modifier chit for Dug-In or Strongpoint hexes, nor are these improvements reflected in the Tactical Advantage modi-fiers. Defending vehicles are not considered to be benefiting from these improvements, and defending infantry occupying them would typically need to leave them in order to ambush tanks with PIATs, Panzerfäuste, and similar infantry-AT weapons. One could argue that the occupation of a static defense position in no way equates with having a “tactical advantage” in terms of maneuvering into ambush positions from which to fire these types of weapons. A static position is, by definition, static and can be avoided. The effect of the static position comes into play later, during the actual resolution of the Assault. 33 11.5 ARC. The ARC is covered in detail in the more general notes section, 27.0 Game Elements. 34 11.5.2.3 Reaction Move. The rule states that the Reaction Move need not be away from the enemy which performed the AT Fire. In-deed, in some cases it may make sense to move towards the offender. 35 12.1 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). Players may wonder why AFVs are “special units” when even a quick glance at the coun-ter sheets reveals that over half the units in the game are AFVs—and many of the remaining leg units are treated as AFVs on their attached transport sides. Keep in mind that this game system originated with Red Winter, which is basically an infantry-only game. Also consider that a number of special rules apply to AFVs. Section 12.0 should

more accurately be called “Units for Which Special Rules Apply,” but that’s a mouthful.36 12.1.1 AFVs and Losses. These rules present a key difference from Red Winter, where AFVs suffered losses normally in Assaults and could even take voluntary step reductions to satisfy losses. This is because Operation Dauntless uses the Tactical Advantage routine, absent from the former game, to resolve zero-range AT attacks. AFVs’ ability to ignore losses in Combats and Assaults has some important ramifications. Players cannot successfully capture a hex containing one or more AFV units by merely performing a Combat, even if that hex is held by a lone half-track unit. This may seem “gamey” until one considers that nearly every unit in the game has an AT rating and therefore has an adequate opportunity to destroy such units. Assaults by units without AT capability will be equally useless against defending hexes containing one or more AFVs. In both cases, the AFVs will simply ignore any losses, while the attack-ers run the risk of step reductions as a result of the CRT. All this may at first seem odd because it is in fact quite different than most games. However, the player should consider the entire turn sequence rather than focusing on the instant of the Combat or Assault. In order to capture a hex, the player will first need to eliminate (or cause the voluntary withdrawal of) any AFVs in the hex by using AT Fire during the Action Phase. Failing that, he can make further AT Fire attacks during the Combat Phase, before declaring the actual Combat. If all that fails and the defending hex still contains AFVs, he’ll need to hold off and assault the hex and/or hit it with more AT Fire during the friendly Action Phase of the next game turn. The “big picture” emerges and we see that AFVs cannot hold hexes indefinitely—they can merely delay the advance by a turn, and usually at a great risk to their own safety. Don’t forget that Suppressed markers in the target hex yield a bonus to the Tactical Advantage chit draw. Hitting the target AFVs with Ranged Attacks—even if it can’t destroy them outright—can be helpful and oft overlooked strategy.37 12.1.2 AFVs and Overruns. AFVs which overrun cannot per-form a multi-hex Advance After Combat; they must expend MPs to enter each hex beyond the original vacated defending hex. This is a difference from Red Winter, where the tanks’ MAs were calibrated to account for the effects of winter weather on the poor roads. In that game, armor could perform multi-hex advances for free, then continue to overrun with any remaining MA. Playtesting showed the need for this change. Without it, the high MAs of the British and German AFVs combined with the extensive road network to allow stacks of rampaging AFVs to achieve far too much in a 90 minute game turn. They could chase retreated units clear across the map while hitting other weak units along the way. 38 12.2 AFVs with Special Attributes.AVRE. The Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE) are the vehicular heroes of this game for the British—possibly even more so than the panzer-killing Fireflies. The British player will need to commit them early and often if he is to make progress in the Cam-paign Game. Their bunker-busting 290mm Petard spigot mortars are formidable weapons, but due to their very limited range they are only useful in Assaults. The AVRE are the only British tanks in the game with armor heavy enough to stand up to fire from the German tanks and AT guns. While not suited for an anti-tank role themselves due to their extremely limited AT Range and miserable FC, their Armor rating makes them ideal for supporting British



infantry against German Strongpoints. It is often possible to get a combined stack of British infantry and AVRE into Assault range of the German Panthers or Tigers so that the infantry can take out the German tanks with their PIAT. At times, this is the only viable option. The Shermans, with only half as much armor as the AVRE, are often vulnerable in this role, especially when up against Panthers or Tigers. See also 28.2.2 British Weapon Notes.

Sherman Crabs. Apart from being fitted with the mine-clearing flail, these tanks are equipped with the standard 75mm gun. Therefore, their AT, CS, and RAS ratings look much like other Shermans. See also 28.2.2 British Weapon Notes.

Crocodiles. These Churchill flame-thrower tanks excel against Strongpoints and Dug-In hexes. As explained in detail in the Brit-ish Weapon Notes section (28.2.2), Crocodiles were rare and were committed very sparingly. Not featuring them in the game would have been wrong, but featuring too many, or allowing all but infre-quent use, would also be wrong. I have chosen to leave them out of scenarios with no German Strongpoints, while leaving it up to the British player whether or not to commit them in the other scenarios. Note that the AVRE have two steps (vs. only one for Crocodiles), a better Armor rating, and still provide a column shift in Assaults, so they will be the better choice in most game situations. The ex-ception is use against Strongpoints, where the Crocodiles excel. The Crocodile troops’ relatively high price (2 points per unit—the same as a two-step AVRE) is intentional and intended to reflect the historical problems associated with these units; it ensures that they will not be committed too frequently in the game.

Flammpanzerwagen. These are portrayed as type SdKfz 251/16 flame-thrower half-tracks. The dual flame-throwers have very short range and are useful only in Assaults, but in Assaults they are deadly. See also 28.3.2 German Weapon Notes.

39 12.3 Artillery. The British can fire their artillery each and every turn rather than rolling for its return. They enjoyed a surplus of shells for their artillery, unlike the Germans who faced severe sup-ply difficulties.40 12.3.1 British Artillery. The British kicked off their attacks on the German-held villages with enormous rolling barrages by hundreds of guns. This sometimes included naval gun fire from off-shore Royal Navy ships. The infantry followed closely behind the moving “wall” of fire. In the game, no dice are rolled to handle these types

of barrages. There are too many guns and it would require far too much wristage! To simulate the effects of the creeping barrages, special rules are included in the scenarios to which they apply. On June 16 (the attack on Cristot) and June 25 (the attack on Fontenay), the effects of the massive opening barrage are abstracted into the Special Rules for the first game turn. On June 26, there was little artillery support in the Dauntless sector due to the newly launched (and larger) Epsom offensive, just off map to the east. 41 12.3.2 German Artillery. While the game portrays all German non-mortar and non-IG artillery units as operating from off map, in reality some of them did operate somewhere within the area of the game map. The off-map system is a quick and simple way to reflect the effects of their availability, as well as ammo shortages, without resorting to markers, extra die rolling, or bookkeeping. Historical sources are silent or unclear about the precise locations of some of these units during the battle. Additionally, playtesting showed the units had little to no chance of becoming involved in direct fire or Assault situations. Migrating these units off map allowed us to cut down on counter clutter and, more importantly, streamline the game by removing a host of former rules. These included rules govern-ing minimum ranges (for the Werfers which could only hit hexes 3 or more hexes away from their map location), special rules for SP artillery (since these units could move and fire in the same turn, as opposed to towed artillery which could do one or the other, and had to be tracked as such), rules which allowed the Werfers to “shoot and scoot” (effectively a special use-it-or-lose-it movement phase), and more. The off map migration also freed up about four spaces on the countersheet which were formerly occupied by ammo markers for tracking 105mm, 152mm, and rocket ammo. I have Gina Willis to thank for these changes. It was her constructive criticism that showed me the need to simplify and streamline what had become a rather cumbersome process.Regarding the two ranges of values on the flip-sides of the German artillery units: British air superiority made the movement of supplies to the front very difficult for the Germans. Ammo was becoming scarce as well as being diverted to resist the British Epsom offensive that kicked off on June 26. From that date onwards, it becomes more difficult for the German player to commit his increasingly scarce artillery resources to the battles being gamed. The British player suffers a similar fate on June 26 when several useful Asset chits are removed from his cup, representing assets diverted to support Epsom.42 12.3.3 German Self-Propelled Rocket Artillery. These units never qualify for FF or ARC because they are only placed for the purpose of Support. Similarly, they never qualify for Adjacent Defen-sive Support because they can only be placed 2 or more hexes from all enemies. The rule that they cannot make non-supporting Ranged Attacks is not meant to infer that these weapons weren’t capable of doing so, but rather a restriction on the types of situations where German command was willing to commit such a valuable resource. I felt they should not be usable “off the cuff” or in situations where they’d have little chance of an effect (FF, ARC, and non-supporting fire). Instead, they are limited in use to situations where their fire actually supports a Combat. The other reason I felt they shouldn’t be usable “off the cuff” is that aiming these weapons was nearly impossible. They were used for saturation fire against a large target area such as a village. See also 28.3.2 German Weapons.



43 12.5.1 Mortars and Infantry Guns in Combat. The German self-propelled mortar half-tracks (SdKfz 251/2 and 250/7) were designed such that the mortars could still fire while loaded on the half-track. In the game, they have attached transports and can fire even when flipped to their loaded sides. 44 12.6.1 British Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons. Players may find it odd that these units do not have a red boxed CS value like other armored units. This was intentional. The red box represents the inherent difficulties of AFVs in maneuvering into good firing positions in close terrain. However, the Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons can dismount from their carriers and embed themselves in the close terrain, even taking the carrier-mounted Bren guns with them. Carrier Platoons originally had only one step, but playtesting re-vealed that the British player was too reluctant to use them in their historical role. They were simply too vulnerable. The solution was to grant them another step, but mitigate this somewhat by making it harder for them to recover and more costly for them to take replace-ments. After these changes, they really came into their own. While they are the only two-step platoon-sized infantry unit in the game, they are also better trained and much larger than other platoons (at 63 men vs. only 37 in a standard British infantry platoon); both helped justify the additional step. The bullet list of special rules for these units (12.6.1, PAC) isn’t as bad as it looks once you realize that each rule basically just states whether the unit is treated as infantry or armor in a specific game situation. These rules made it possible to avoid separate carrier transport counters for many units, shaving a total of seventeen counters from the mix.Carrier Platoons receive a negative DRM on the Recovery Table because they are smaller than company-sized infantry units; a step reduction therefore represents a greater percentage reduction in man-power. This means that reduced Carrier Platoons will take longer to recover and return to the action, on average, than infantry companies.Players may find it odd that the Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons have a marginally higher CS than the standard infantry companies. A Carrier Platoon has 12-13 Bren LMGs vs. only 9 in an infantry com-pany. I believe that the higher CS is accurate—especially when you figure in the cover provided by the carriers themselves. A member of Consimworld asked me whether a British Scout Platoon really put out that much firepower in combat, and, doctrinally, if it would have been used in a manner that allowed that firepower to be “noticed” on the battlefield. I believe so. However, what the marginal CS superior-ity doesn’t reveal is that the single-step Scout Platoon has almost no staying power under fire. If it takes but a single step reduction, it is eliminated. That means the British player won’t be committing it to many offensive actions, except perhaps where carefully calculated (against a weaker enemy recon force, perhaps, or in support of a friendly infantry attack from LMG range). The infantry company, on the other hand, can take and hold a hex because it has two steps, and, when it loses a step, it can recover by spending a turn to roll 1d6 in an attempt to flip back to its full-strength side. This makes the infantry company much stronger than the Scout Platoon in the long run. Also note that the infantry company is immune to AT fire, unlike both the Carrier Platoon and Scout Platoon which are highly vulnerable to AT weapons. Hits from AT fire against these units are tracked as reductions to the Transport Pool and generate VPs for the German player. Additionally, each such hit has a 2 in 6 (33%)

chance of inflicting a step reduction on the infantry unit itself. So, while capable of laying down some good firepower, these units are more vulnerable than they first appear. I believe the game system encourages the British player to use both Carrier Platoons and Scout Platoons in roles consistent with their historical and intended uses. The Carrier Platoons will mainly sup-port the infantry or grab objectives and hold on to them for a turn until the infantry arrive or the 6-pdrs roll up to deploy. The more fragile Scout Platoons will mainly be used for spotting, although they will occasionally be committed to support a combat action.Notes pertaining to the historical use and makeup of the Carrier Platoon and Scout Platoon can be found in the British Unit Notes (28.2.1). Notes on the Universal Carrier can be found in the British Weapon Notes (28.2.2).45 12.7 Flak. While “flak” is technically a German term, it applies to all anti-aircraft units in this game. Flak units do not shoot down air assets per se—the scale does not allow for that—but, rather, they increase the likelihood of an airstrike’s failure. This encourages players to keep their flak units close to their other units.

Players will note that the flak units have good RAS and FC ratings. As these units were built to target aircraft, they have good targeting systems and a very high rate of fire. I toned down their FC ratings slightly from what they might have been based on the statistics alone, lest these units be used in an unhistorical manner as light AFV hunters. If further rationale is needed to justify this reduction, consider the “fear factor” involved when flak crews are ordered to engage enemy AFVs. 46 12.8 British Assets. British naval guns were originally included as an Asset. Our research suggested that they should not be “on call” like the divisional artillery and their effects would be better handled abstractly in those scenarios that begin in the wake of such barrages. 47 12.8.2 Aircraft. Air attacks do not play a particularly large part in the game. They are included for added realism and fun. The British artillery plays a much larger role than aircraft. This is due to the scale—we’re looking at a handful of days and a rather focused portion of the Normandy front. That said, a well-implemented air strike can occasionally be extremely helpful and satisfying!Aircraft cannot be committed on late afternoon or dusk turns. Low sun angles at this time of day made picking out ground targets extremely difficult. Shadows became long and overlapping. The pilots also needed time to return to base while some daylight yet remained. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Germans believed that the British air attacks dwindled in intensity from about 1700 onwards, and the Germans felt secure enough to begin moving at around this time. 48 12.8.2.1 Fighter-Bombers. These aircraft are mostly Hawker Typhoons and Supermarine Spitfires of 83rd Air Group based in Normandy. They attack with a combination of rockets and strafing.49 12.8.2.2 Bombers. These are mostly Mosquitos—excellent all-weather aircraft that proved incredibly useful during the Normandy campaign, despite the fact that they were made of wood and therefore highly vulnerable to flak. The type of bombing represented here should not be confused with tactical bombing. It is not as accurate and this explains the distance requirement and the fact that a hex but not a particular unit may be targeted. High altitude bombers are not part of this game. The Mosquito bombers cannot target hexes which are adjacent to British units. While our research suggests that



the actual danger zone is only about 200 yards, we felt there was no way the ground troops would have trusted the RAF to that extent. According to one source, at 700 feet you have a 1% chance of being hit by a lethal fragment. One of the real dangers is fragments that go steeply up, and come down a long way away. Since they come down at a sharp angle, many types of cover are not helpful, and be-ing prone can present a larger target. Apparently, one intervening hex is a reasonable estimate for a safe distance, but this assumes a forward air controller, some sort of landmark, and an attack run parallel to the front line. Two intervening hexes is probably more realistic. By allowing Mosquito bombers to target enemy hexes two hexes away from British units but by making British units at this range vulnerable to possible friendly fire (if using that optional rule), the British player is encouraged to maintain a safe distance of three hexes. He may reduce this to two hexes, but in doing so he runs the risk of subjecting his units to stray bomb fragments.50 12.8.2.3 Tactical Recon. These Assets represent reconnaissance aircraft—mostly Auster Mk V’s and Spitfires. Utilizing them to their full potential requires some planning on the part of the British player, who should not underestimate their usefulness. 51 12.9 Crusader Tractors. These are the only AFVs with an Armor rating greater than 1 that track losses via the Transport Pool. See 28.2.1 for more notes on these units.52 13.1 Reinforcements. These rules highlight the idea that the battle is not being fought in a vacuum. Troops can be pulled from the flanks, off-map, and committed to hotspots as needed, but at the price of weakening the line elsewhere. The VPs earned for unspent Reinforcement Points at the end of some scenarios emphasize this idea and give the players an incentive to not over-commit units. Players must decide which units are needed, and when and where to commit them. The starting allotments and accrual rates of Rein-forcement Points were carefully selected so that players can afford the units that were committed historically at roughly their historical times of commitment. Yet the system allows some variability in how a player spends his resources. For example, if more tanks are needed but infantry are plentiful, a player can opt to spend his points on tanks rather than commit more infantry, even if this is at odds with what occurred historically. This offers a type of flexibility and realism not found in games with scripted unit entries. 53 13.2 Replacements. Replacements for weapons and AFVs rep-resent the recovery and repair of pre-existing weapons or vehicles, including AFVs in short term repair status which have been returned to their former units. To a more limited extent, they also represent the scrounging of weapons and vehicles from rear and reserve units and HQ. German ammo increases (if using Optional Rule 19.14) represent the effect of supply vehicles which succeed in reaching the front, typically under the cover of darkness.The number of destroyed AFVs which return to the field over the course of a three-day battle is probably slim to none, and I’ve attempted to craft the replacements rules accordingly, or at least balance reality with game needs. It’s quite easy to rationalize that a proportion of tank step losses are actually thrown tracks, shell-shocked crews bailing out from tanks with minor damage, and the like, making these tanks eligible to come back on the next day as replacements. Incidentally, the Zetterling book indicates that three Panzer IVs were returned to the field following short-term repair on the a.m. of June 26. In game terms, this would equate to roughly two steps. After careful consideration, I decided to use the current

random mechanic for Replacements, rather than going with a set number of steps like in Red Winter. This decision was made for a handful of reasons. There are problems associated with set rates. For one, they assume that the game designer and research team know what the return rates actually were, and, in most cases, we didn’t. Historical replacement rates are also dependent on what happened historically—the number of weapons or vehicles of a given type that were knocked out and recovered—yet the game could swing in a wildly different direction with respect to type-specific losses. Finally, when the players know ahead of time how many steps they’ll be receiving for each unit type, they are tempted to adjust their play styles according. For example, the German player might send his Panzer IV platoons on high-risk missions just prior to the night turn to ensure that the two soon-to-be-gained steps won’t go to waste. I wanted to avoid such gamey behavior, while attempting to match the relative return rates as closely as possible. I also wanted to keep both players guessing, as I believe this increases the tension in the night turns and reduces the appeal of “high-risk dusk missions.”54 13.3 Recovery. Because the Recovery DRMs are cumulative, a unit that is OOS cannot succeed in recovering unless it also ben-efits from one or more positive DRMs. Since German units always receive a -1 DRM due to supply problems, a successful German recovery attempt will require a minimum of two conditions which yield positive DRMs.The +1 DRM for night turns reflects the longer duration of these turns, which generally have less combat action and offer more time for units to rest.55 14.0 Digging In and Strongpoints. Digging In represents minor improvements to a hex’s defensive potential and includes scouting for the most defensible positions, defining kill zones, digging slit trenches and foxholes, and possibly piling small obstacles such as sandbags. Digging In is not to be confused with Strongpoints, which are more permanent and beneficial but cannot be placed once the game begins (with the exception of the June 26/27 night turn). Strongpoints represent walled farms and chateaus or simply stout houses that have been reinforced.56 15.3 Supply Sources. Players may wonder why Les Nouillons (1422) is the only supply hex on the map which uses a tertiary road. This hex was the most direct route to our map area for 12SS units held in reserve in Missy, a few hexes directly south of 1422. It wouldn’t have made sense for these units to use the (off-map) road network to enter the area depicted on the map via Belle Jambe (0923) or the railroad (1123); this would have taken them too long.57 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #1 Heavy Smoke and Fog. The 2R column shift to British Assaults on turn 1 is due to the abstracted effects of the opening barrage by 250 artillery and naval guns.The Germans’ inability to move simulates shell-shock, severed communications, and general confusion arising from the massive British barrage. The British movement restrictions simulate both the thick fog and the need to advance in an orderly manner behind the creeping barrage. While some German units begin further south, out-side the bombardment area, these units can’t move anyway because they begin the game inactive. Along with the German off-map units, they are waiting to receive orders once the severity of the situation has been assessed and communications have been restored. 58 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #4 Panzer With-drawal. The German player has a tough choice to make in deciding whether to withdraw reduced on-map companies or inactive, full



strength off-map companies. The latter yields the best short-term gain, but the former grants more total panzer steps over the long haul. It is up to the German player to balance his immediate need for armor with the long-term need for reinforcements. The choice to remove Panzer IVs or Panthers also isn’t as obvious as it might at first seem. The Panzer IVs are clearly inferior, but they’re twice as likely to receive Replacement steps. Until shortly before publication, we played the game with the withdrawal requirement as four companies, and with four or more remaining steps necessary to qualify. While the withdrawal of four companies seemed to be consistent with the historical withdrawal, it doesn’t address the fact that gamers usually take greater risks than their historical counterparts and typically lose more units in a shorter time span. Adjusting both numbers (withdrawn companies and steps to qualify) from four to three helped address what I felt was a slight pro-British bias on the second day of the battle, becoming a more pronounced bias on the third day. The supposition was that by keep-ing a few more panzers on the map and/or available for purchase, the Germans might have a bit more staying power late in the game. When a new book (Cazenave’s Panzerdivision Hitlerjugend. Vol. 2, SS-Panzer-Regiment 12, Normandie 1944) was published in June of 2015, we realized that the 7th Company of Panzer IVs was not at any point present at these battles, and so the withdrawal requirement was lowered yet again. By staging the withdrawal across three game turns over two days, we were able to increase the total number of withdrawal companies back to three while making these withdrawals roughly coincide with their historical counterparts. I believe that the final state of this rule is both the best balanced and most accurate.The game doesn’t specifically address the fact that on the night of June 26/27, one Panzer IV company was withdrawn, and then later returned. However, there was a bit of a lull in the fighting during this time which the game may or may not reproduce, depending on the number and condition of the British on-map infantry battalions. I didn’t want to force this kind of late-game withdrawal and return on the players because I felt that such an event should be reactive and based at least partly on on-map events. For example, if the British attacks had increased in ferocity late on June 26, the Germans might well have kept the withdrawn company in the vicinity of Tessel-Bretteville/ Rauray in order to counter the attacks.59 18.5 The Campaign Game: Special Rule #5 Deactivation of British Formations. Withdrawn formations would realistically be recovering in villages near the north edge of the map, such as St-Pierre, Le Haut d’Audrieu, and Cristot. Placing them on the Turn Track, instead, reduces counter clutter. More importantly, it prevents gamey “hunting missions” by the German player with the goal of collapsing (per Special Rule #6) already-battered infantry battalions.

The average result of the dice (1d10+1d6+10) will be 19 turns, or roughly a day and a half, which happens to be the historical times-pan for most British infantry battalions (from the time they were withdrawn until the time they were recommitted to the line). For example, the war diary of the 70th Infantry Brigade mentions that the 1st Tyneside Scots relieved the Lincolns on June 25 (in Bas de Fontenay, we guess). The Lincolns were back in the line on the morning of June 27, when they progressed southwards between Tessel Woods and Rauray to clear the La Grande Ferme area along the Bordel. That means the time of their “deactivation” amounts to roughly a day and a half. The Hallams were also back on June 27 before dawn, establishing positions at the southern end of Tessel

Woods; this also amounts to a day and a half. The 11RSF, having suffered 201 casualties on June 25, was withdrawn from the front lines and did not return to action until June 28, meaning they were off the line for at least two days. So, while the rule originally dictated placement of the withdrawn units on the Turn Track 13 turns (24 hours) in the future, the history made a good case for increasing this to an average of 36 hours as well as introducing some variability via the dice.60 18.5 The Campaign Game: Victory Conditions. Front Line VPs. The historical frontline at the evening of June 27 was not a straight, easily defined hex row, as explained in the 18.5 Historical Notes. In general, the British advance hadn’t penetrated as far south as hex row 18, but we decided to use 18 as our measuring point in or-der to account for hex 1318 of Rauray, which was British-controlled. 61 19.1 Fire Control. These rules started off as mandatory rules, and I hope that most players will try them out once familiar with the basics of the game. These rules reflect the quality vs. quantity aspect of the historical armor engagement. As any treadhead knows, not all tank crews and weapons systems are created equal. Armor and penetration are not everything—you first have to hit your target. In general, the German AFVs have an edge here. Players using these rules will quickly come to realize that some units are much better (or worse) than their ratings might otherwise suggest.Sherman tanks are considered the standard, and the FC rules have been calibrated accordingly. The Shermans of the SRY have FC ratings that are one point higher than the other tank regiments. This is intentional. The Sherwood Rangers comprised veteran tankers, unlike the other two British tank regiments appearing in the game.Most armored cars, half-tracks, assault guns, and turretless tank destroyers are classified as FC Class “Poor” and have negative rat-ings. Most British tanks and German armored cars are classified as “Standard” and have no FC stat (an assumed rating of zero). Panzer IV Hs, Panthers, Fireflies, and Achilles are classified as “Good” and have positive ratings, while the superior German Tigers have a +5. The game’s original FC system classified all units as one of five classes: Superior, Good, Standard, Below Average, and Poor. Play-testing revealed that this didn’t allow enough fidelity. We tried many methods before settling on the final one. Note that weapons with a high rate of fire might have FC ratings which are better than players might otherwise expect. For example, the German recon half-tracks, with their 20mm guns, are FC class Standard rather than Poor. However, for many of these weapon types, I have also weighed in a certain “fear factor” because armored cars, half-tracks, or flak units ordered to fire on enemy AFVs may be able to do so at a high rate of fire, almost ensuring a hit, but they will also engage the enemy with great reluctance. For example, the stats alone for a recon car might suggest that it should have a FC rating of +2, while the penalty for using this unit in high-stakes situations (the unit is intended for recon!) is a -2. The final, printed FC rating is 0. 62 19.2 Luftwaffe Nuisance Raids. While the Luftwaffe had been mostly grounded by this point, the Germans did still conduct night-time bombing raids on a semi-regular basis, mainly to deprive the British troops of much-needed sleep. While these raids certainly occurred further north, near the beaches, we found no evidence that they were conducted near Fontenay during the time period covered by the game. I included them just for fun.



Note that the resolution of the raid takes place during the German Reset Phase. Since Suppressed markers go away at the end of the phase in which they are placed, any result other than a step reduc-tion can be ignored. This means that the best target will be a British hex containing two infantry companies and no close terrain. After DRMs, a step reduction will occur on a modified 9 or higher, making reduced units prime targets.63 19.5 British Tank OSMs. The British had a sharp distinction between “Independent” and “Divisional” tank brigades, and also between “under command of” as opposed to “assigned to.” We don’t have to worry about the former in the game since divisional tank brigade squadrons only went with divisional battalions. Put very simply, when a tank squadron was assigned to a battalion it was in all respects under the orders of the battalion commander, and therefore needs no OSM of its own. The exception is that the major commanding could appeal to his colonel if the tanks were being mishandled (irrelevant to the game) or (which does matter) that the tank regiment commander was either by order or by choice taking back command. In game terms, this might mean massing all the tanks of a regiment for a purpose the player thinks best—a sort of “mini-Goodwood.” What this all boils down to is that we were able to justify getting rid of five British tank OSMs and converting the remaining three into regimental OSMs—one for each tank regiment. The rules state that when a tank squadron is not using the OSM of its regiment, it is governed by the OSM of an infantry battalion. This shows the no-compromise nature of British practice—either the tanks fought detached to battalions or they fought as a regiment.64 19.7 British Sabot Ammo. June of ‘44 marked the arrival of the new British 57mm ATDS (anti-tank discarding sabot) ammo at the front. This ammo type greatly improved the penetration capability of the 6-pounder guns, giving them a reasonable chance against the heavily armored Panthers and Tigers. However, the new ammo was not yet perfected and its accuracy dropped off drastically after 500 yards. At the time of this operation, it was still not widely available. 65 19.8 Massed Artillery vs. Armored Spearheads. The inability of off-map artillery to perform ARC under the standard rules is mainly for simplicity. Additionally, since indirect fire has its RAS halved, I felt these types of “hip shoot” barrages would be fairly inaccurate and better used elsewhere. But certainly there is some justification in allowing such fire if both players are willing to tackle the additional rules. Both sides had excellent coordination with their artillery (the British had AGRA) and there’s no real difference between on-map artillery, such as the German IGs, and off-map artillery that was historically assigned to directly support on-map units (the British 25-pdr batteries being a prime example since these could be reas-signed at a moment’s notice).66 19.9 12SS Fanatical Defense. This rule changed many times over the years. I rather like how it turned out. The final version is simple, elegant, fun, and an all-or-nothing gamble. There is more depth lurking beneath the surface of this simple rule than may be im-mediately apparent. The requirements encourage the German player to spread his 12SS infantry units for coverage rather than stacking them, while also discouraging stacking with units of Panzer Lehr and 21st Panzer Divisions. The steep penalty for failure (all German units eliminated) means that a savvy German player will only mount fanatical defences with lone reduced or single-step units which are overwhelmed and unlikely to meet their retreat requirement. When used in situations where the 12SS infantry is about to be eliminated

anyway, the German player becomes capable of dealing some real damage to the British. This nicely mirrors the historical actions of these fanatical teenagers. The reward for success is great—the choice to do a step reduction to any attacking unit of the German player’s choice, including armor! This rule should create some tough and interesting decisions for the German player. 67 19.10 Plunging Fire vs. Vehicles. These attacks consist of falling shells or bombs which are more likely to flip over a vehicle than destroy it by piercing its armor. The DRM for Armor increments is a crude way of factoring in a vehicle’s weight. Very heavy vehicles like Tigers will be difficult to “flip” (-4 DRM). Note that a separate roll is resolved against every AFV unit in the target hex. This is dif-ferent from both AT Fire and normal Ranged Attacks. Also note that the -1 DRM for FF/ARC effectively cancels the +1 DRM for field.

Since a maximum of one step reduction from Plunging Fire can be inflicted per attack, it is usually in the firing player’s best interest to start by rolling against the most desirable target in the hex.68 19.11 Counter-Battery Fire. Players may wonder why the Ger-man Nebelwerfer rocket artillery units are immune to counter-battery fire. The rockets left obvious smoke trails which greatly aided Brit-ish forward observers in pinpointing the launchers’ positions, and standard practice for the Germans was to “shoot and scoot” with their Werfers, mobilizing quickly and efficiently after firing. I opted to abstract this practice by simply prohibiting this type of counter-battery mission. The relatively high number of turns required for Werfers to return to play after firing further reinforces the notion that they are in transit for some time after firing.69 19.17 Tigers in the Mud. The name of the rule is a nod to the Otto Carius book of the same name. “Tigers, Mud, and Bridges” just didn’t have the same ring.70 19.18 Increased Stacking Limits. While the increase is realistic in the sense that sixteen platoon-sized units should be able to physi-cally fit into a hex 425 yards across, it makes it theoretically possible to field units in a manner inconsistent with their historical use. Of course, a bit of concentrated fire from the opposing player will quickly reveal the problem with this approach. As players increase stacking beyond four units per hex, the game also gets more dif-ficult to play from a physical standpoint since the physical stacking of counters becomes necessary.

Officers of the 21st Panzer Division inspect a map.



27.0 Game ElementsOverviewThe idea of doing a game that focused purely on the British effort in Normandy was intriguing to me on many levels. I think Mike Wind-sor, an American Consimworld user, put it best when he posted on the game’s forum: “Unfortunately, the British story is not well told over here (if at all), and most of what we do ‘know’ comes from American movies.” I find this very true. Yet it was our British allies who bore the enormous and unenviable responsibility of tying down the best-equipped of the German panzer divisions, indirectly aiding other Allied divisions in breaking out of the beachheads. A game analyzing the organization and contributions of a British infantry division in Normandy will hopefully help to address the imbalance in the current crop of Normandy games, while offering players some insight into the nature of the sacrifice and perseverance of the British troops against staunch resistance.

I’d been gaming and reading about Normandy for two decades but, like Mike, I knew little about the British involvement until I started to follow up the various Gold/Juno/Sword books with ones that focused on the inland battles. I was attracted to the situation near Caen because it has not been extensively gamed, and it offered a mixture of infantry line battles and sweeping armored counterattacks. The importance of combined arms tactics and specialized units were emphasized time and again as the British 49th Infantry Division, untried before landing in France, threw itself headlong into the breach between two panzer divisions. There were also some massive tank battles on this part of the front. These battles, along with the July battles for Hill 110 and the even larger Operation Goodwood, may be as close as we get to a “Kursk in Normandy.” Overall, it makes for good wargaming material, and it’s very different from the American experience in Normandy.

The British at the onset of Operation Dauntless have the advantage in quantity, as opposed to the Germans who have a clear edge in quality. The British artillery dominates the battlefield, but a quick look at the terrain reveals many conveniently-spaced walled farms and chateaus which heavily favor the defender. On the surface, when comparing a British infantry battalion to a German Panzergrenadier battalion, the odds appear to be stacked rather heavily in favor of the Germans—not just because of the German units’ stats but also due to their wealth of supporting units (Stummels, armored transport half-tracks and the like). However there are ten such British battalions (nine infantry and one elite rifle battalion) to only two German battalions (three includ-ing the German armored recon battalion, plus elements of two other Panzergrenadier battalions). The Germans suffer from supply shortages due to total Allied air superiority and they get fewer replacements. In fact, they have to withdraw units to deal with the British Epsom of-fensive on day two of the battle. Meanwhile, the Brits enjoy a steady stream of supplies, a more lenient recovery game mechanic, a large number of towed 17-pounder anti-tank guns to keep the Germans’ superior armor at bay, and the newly arrived sabot ammo for their smaller but more numerous towed 6-pounder AT guns. This is going to be one fierce fight...

GenesisMy interest in Operations Martlet (a.k.a. Dauntless) and Epsom began when I impulsively picked up the book Operation Epsom by Lloyd Clark, which was sitting alone on the top shelf of a local secondhand bookstore. This very affordable little book is more of a tour guide

than a detailed account of the battles, but it includes some nice maps and a general OB. It served to pique my interest in these fascinating and rarely-gamed battles, and I quickly followed up with other books, including Patrick Delaforce’s The Polar Bears and K. Meyer’s Grena-diers. A vivid picture of this battle began to emerge. I was still working on Red Winter at the time and a few quick calculations demonstrated that the Dauntless battles could be gamed using the same unit, time, and hex scales as Red Winter—and all on a single map. With the exception of the game Panzergrenadier: Beyond Normandy (Avalanche Press), which focuses exclusively on the Scottish Corridor near Cheux, and a handful of web-published miniatures scenarios for Battlefront: WWII, I knew of no wargames on this topic. Certainly there were none that focused on the Polar Bears Division at Fontenay and Rauray. That made the idea of this game all the more appealing.

I initially thought that designing and developing this game would be a simple matter of translating a new OB to the existing Red Winter rules. That game was rapidly approaching a finished state at the time I began working out the particulars of Operation Dauntless. I reasoned that the core rules could stay the same, so creating a new game for the system would be as easy as identifying which aspects differed and in-venting new rules or subsystems to handle those aspects. I was wrong. As it turned out, nearly everything differed, and Operation Dauntless was more difficult and time consuming to develop than Red Winter by about a factor of ten. Many of the new mechanics and subsystems gave me fits and took years of playtests and revisions. Several were thrown out and started from scratch multiple times. Among the worst offenders were the ARC, Anti-Tank Fire, Concealment, Elevation, and LOS. Simply put, this game is much more ambitious than Red Winter. Had I known when I began how difficult the hurdles would be, I probably would have canned the project and opted to work on something simpler instead. But now that it’s nearly behind me, I’m really glad that I stuck with it and persevered. I feel the reward was worth all the fuss, as this is now a refined and robust system that can be applied to any WW2- or Korean-era battle. There are rules or at least guidelines for handling all the complexities associated with this era of warfare: combined arms, minefields, air support, flak, fanatical defense, strongpoints, infantry AT weaponry, ambushes, the increased intensity and compressed time scale of armor vs. armor interactions as compared to the slower, more methodical infantry battles, and a wide variety of specialized unit types. All these aspects of WW2-era warfare and their associated rules have their genesis in Operation Dauntless and can now be used more-or-less intact for future games in this series.

Comparisons with Red WinterCompared with the former game of this series, Operation Dauntless has a richer spectrum of tactical possibilities and considerations. It is the more complex game, but this has more to do with the thought processes involved in playing the game well than with the modest increase in rules length and complexity. Players will find this game to be more puzzle-like than Red Winter. By that, I mean players are often required to use their units in a particular order or in a cooperative manner to succeed. I personally think Operation Dauntless is the better game, but I suspect that a certain percentage of gamers, wanting another Red Winter, won’t think so. I hope they’ll take the time to delve into this game’s new subsystems and give me the chance to prove them wrong. This game is less free-wheeling and more comprehensive, and it has a more methodical pace. But meeting each of your successive goals in Operation Dauntless feels more rewarding, in my opinion. Take flanking maneuvers, for example. You won’t see the same kind



of wild and crazy maneuvers here that you saw in Red Winter. There are more units crammed into a smaller piece of real estate, and the weather, lighting, and reconnaissance conditions make those massive “Winter War-style” flank marches impossible to pull off. Maneuver is more restrained here. When your flanking attempts do succeed, even though they may only represent a few hexes gained in map terms, you’ll feel a certain satisfaction—much more so than in Red Winter—in part because you’ll receive a very tangible reward. Pocketing even a small number of units in this game (especially Germans) can have a major impact on the remainder of the game. Successfully pulling off this kind of coordinated action means you’ve successfully orchestrated a multi-phase, multi-mechanic, multi-turn plan. You can step back and view the new situation on the battlefield and appreciate exactly how and why it developed. Those wishing a more comprehensive comparison of differences between Operation Dauntless and Red Winter will find one in section 22.0 of the Play Book.Portions of the remaining notes in this section were lifted from the Red Winter designer’s notes. I apologize for the redundancy. I figure that fewer than half of all Operation Dauntless players have played the former game, so a few words about the game system itself are probably in order.

Design Goals As a successor to Red Winter, the goals here were similar to that game’s:• Highlight the similarities and differences between the forces

being gamed—in this case, the British infantry battalion and the German mechanized panzergrenadier battalion in June of ’44.

• The system should be generally applicable to other WWII era battles at a similar scale.

• Gameplay should be fast paced and interactive.About that final bullet point: The overall pace here is slower than that in Red Winter because there is more going on each turn. However, the players certainly interact much more in this game. The ARC, Friction Fire, and the new rules for Tactical Advantage in Assaults all make for some great interactions that keep both players engaged throughout their opponent’s turns, moreso than in the former game.When I set out to design Red Winter, I wanted a game system that was fairly simple on the surface but gave rise to a greater depth of possible strategies and tactics than what was immediately apparent—“simple but not simplistic.” An example of the type of mechanic I was going for can be seen in the game’s unit Recovery system, whereby reduced infantry units may attempt to recover to full strength during their Action Phase in lieu of other actions. This requires rolling a “6”or higher on a 1d6. Units gain a bonus to the die roll for maintaining their distance from enemy units. This provides a simple yet realistic incentive for players to withdraw their reduced units to the rear and move forward fresh troops.

Combats The Combat Results Table is calibrated such that light bocage is the norm. It is shifted two columns towards more lethal (a 2:1 attack in Operation Dauntless has the same range of outcomes as a 4:1 attack in Red Winter). This is due to both a difference in terrain and condi-tions and in the quality of the combatants. The addition of 3:2 and 2:3 columns allows for greater fidelity. I felt these new columns were nec-essary to highlight situations where one side had a marked advantage

in strength, but not enough so to achieve 2:1 odds. The forces here are more evenly matched in terms of combat strength than they were in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, and small differences in strength are more common and more relevant. After playtesting the game both with and without the 3:2 and 2:3 columns, we discovered that they helped achieve the right outcomes and were worth the weight of their inclusion, even if they occasionally required the use of a calculator.Players will note that the odds are capped at 5:1 in this game, whereas they are capped at 6:1 in Red Winter and even higher in many other games. This is intentional. Apart from giving the German underdog a bit more of the required staying power, I felt that this cap was reason-able given the nature of the dense bocage, wherein bringing greater numbers to bear on the enemy didn’t necessarily translate into a victory. We briefly tried playtesting the game with 4:1 as the maximum odds column, but found it to be a step too far; it was frequently frustrating for both players. Each LMG accounts

Documents

REFERENCE BOOK - GMT Gamespink for panzer regiments, scarlet for panzer artillery regiments, black for pioneers, and gold for armored reconnaissance battalions (Panzer-Aufklärungsabteilungen)