Is the game biased towards the Soviet side?

[Mynok]

Axis freedom won't do squat if their casualties are excessive and their morale can't recover.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
What you have in this game is one side that has an invested capability to be strategic in gameplay terms (the Soviet can build ALL TYPES of units, move production centers, let certain production centers die at the expense of others) and one side absolutely does not.

I agree with this: there's an asymmetry in gameplay.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

The issue with mortars you bring up is unclear to me. There are indeed observations on mortars being incredibly effective in the defense, not on the attack. As far as I know, you cannot attach Mortar Bn's to combat units (they qualify as artillery units). So exploiting this seems to me a bit hard, since arty SU commitment is chance-based (and capped to a max of 6 SU's by eligible HQ). The thing is that rifle corps feature a massive amount of mortars in its TOE, it's just the TOEs of three regular Rifle or Guards Rifle divisions added up together. Therefore, "exploiting" this mortars thing would mean to invest massively on Rifle Corps (which seem to be what every Soviet players do sooner or later). The question is whether WiTE allows Soviet players building too many Rifle Corps (or too many Mortar Bn's, or too many Tank Bn's, or too many Sappers) too soon rather than questioning the feature itself.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
The German player is stuck with the toys that history gave him, and nothing more. Where the Soviet can see his Pools totals and build spare units around surpluses, the German can't even get Pool tanks into the front line units that need tanks...

If you're referring to the massive Tiger tank pools one accumulates by early 1943 the answer was already given: they account for the equipment of "future" units not present ones.

Actually I'm not finding much trouble for Panzer Divisions in 1943 to get tank replacements. What I miss is the ability of focusing arrival of the best equipment to units with the best morale. An example: I got 20 PzDiv badly mauled after eight weeks of nearly constant combat. So badly, it's now featuring a morale in the high 60's. I certainly don't want that unit to as likely to receive PzIVh and Panther D's as, say, 16 PzDiv, which has morale of 90. I grudgingly accept that the motorized divs which are almost elite have to fight back hordes of T-34 with a mix of PzIIIj and PzIVf2.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm not saying this to 76mm, but to anyone: if you can't see how this system creates a bias in favor of the Soviets, I don't know how to help you understand it.

There asymmetry in strategic & logistics options indeed, but the thing is, as Mynok very clearly states, that until the issues that have come up during this year in the tactical combat simulation, fortification and national morale aren't ironed out, it's unclear whether more freedom at the higher level aspects of the game would make any difference whatsoever.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

But many 1942 withdrawals, such as those of SS units, occurred because the 1941 winter required units to be replenished which was historically chosen to occur in France. If Das Reich doesn't take Demyansk Pocket style casualties, Das Reich STILL withdraws. (If my memory is wrong and it's not Das Reich, please substitute the appropriate unit).

It was in fact the Totenkopf. But it is a good point.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

Yep, this is very to the point. The Soviets have the ability to adapt, the Germans haven't. And as Darwin pointed out, it is those most able to adapt that survive! (Not "survival of the fittest" though, that was Herbert Spencer).

[Wheat]

And a perhaps minor, but annoying point on the withdrawal.

You carefully build up the morale of Das Reich, send it to Germany for the first blizzard, and return it to the front with a morale of say 92.

Then it withdraws for a good rest and shiny new equipment and returns, with a MORALE OF 85!!!!!

Grrrrrrrrrr.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I agree with this: there's an asymmetry in gameplay.

This asymmetry can be leveraged by a player to ensure unbalanced effects while playing. Personally I dont understand a system in which a Soviet formation is allowed to create ad hoc formations while restricting this capability from the Axis. It does not jibe with the actual flexibility of these two opponents.

The issue with mortars you bring up is unclear to me. There are indeed observations on mortars being incredibly effective in the defense, not on the attack. As far as I know, you cannot attach Mortar Bn's to combat units (they qualify as artillery units).
So exploiting this seems to me a bit hard, since arty SU commitment is chance-based (and capped to a max of 6 SU's by eligible HQ). The thing is that rifle corps feature a massive amount of mortars in its TOE, it's just the TOEs of three regular Rifle or Guards Rifle divisions added up together. Therefore, "exploiting" this mortars thing would mean to invest massively on Rifle Corps (which seem to be what every Soviet players do sooner or later). The question is whether WiTE allows Soviet players building too many Rifle Corps (or too many Mortar Bn's, or too many Tank Bn's, or too many Sappers) too soon rather than questioning the feature itself.

If you knew that mortars were effective, would you build any howitzer, gun, or arty formations? Why would you? Players will always attempt to minmax a system (maximize effect at minimum cost- six or more mtr SU's surely would fit that, correct?)

If you're referring to the massive Tiger tank pools one accumulates by early 1943 the answer was already given: they account for the equipment of "future" units not present ones.

I thought that referred to pools either in transit or at Home.

Actually I'm not finding much trouble for Panzer Divisions in 1943 to get tank replacements. What I miss is the ability of focusing arrival of the best equipment to units with the best morale. An example: I got 20 PzDiv badly mauled after eight weeks of nearly constant combat. So badly, it's now featuring a morale in the high 60's. I certainly don't want that unit to as likely to receive PzIVh and Panther D's as, say, 16 PzDiv, which has morale of 90. I grudgingly accept that the motorized divs which are almost elite have to fight back hordes of T-34 with a mix of PzIIIj and PzIVf2.

Agreed here - randomly assigning replacements can make one grind their gear, but its not a deal-breaker. Just massively irritating...lol

There asymmetry in strategic & logistics options indeed, but the thing is, as Mynok very clearly states, that until the issues that have come up during this year in the tactical combat simulation, fortification and national morale aren't ironed out, it's unclear whether more freedom at the higher level aspects of the game would make any difference whatsoever.

That may be true. How much combat power is gained or lost for changes in morale? I will need to look at the manual a bit to see if there is a description that documents this.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
With any game, players will find the incentives built into the system that are disproportionately effective and leverage them to maximum advantage. Mortars are the classic example right now. Once mortars are balanced, the Soviet players will move on to the next best leveraged unit or SU as determined by trail and error. Maybe it's tank brigades. Maybe it's cavalry corps. Whatever it is, the Soviet can stack their OOB with those types of units and leverage the advantage. There's no need to produce anything but what is maximally favored by the combat engine.

Soviet cannot build unhistorical number of tank brigades becouse they eat up vehicle pool dry if they try to do that. For same reason they cannot make unhistorical number of other mobile troops either. If they try then Soviet cannot keep their army supplied and suffer big CV losses and cannot recover ammo, fuel and supplies.

What comes to cavalry corps versus rifle corps there are tradeoffs as rifle corps are stronger than cavalry corps while cavalry corps have little bit more MP's. Generally it is not sence to do excessive numbers of cavalry corps over rifle corps. Some cavalry corps are nice for exploitation but still rifle corps are better breaking the line and bulk fighting unit.

There is hardcoded gap how many SU's can take part in combat so it is not sence to make excessive amonth of SU's either. There are tradeoff for SU's setups one way to go is not good for everything. If Soviet makes too many SU's most of them just sit in reserve never taking part of combat.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: pwieland
This asymmetry can be leveraged by a player to ensure unbalanced effects while playing. Personally I dont understand a system in which a Soviet formation is allowed to create ad hoc formations while restricting this capability from the Axis. It does not jibe with the actual flexibility of these two opponents.

Historically, the Soviets experimented with quite a few types of units as they were undergoing a very bloody and costly learning process. They got right the basic idea of deep operations, but coming up with the *right* formations for the job took some time. WiTE allows Soviet players to try out their own solution to the problem of defeating the Wehrmacht.

Now, going to the Axis, I don't think there was at all any kind of "experimenting" with formation and doctrines at the operational level. On the contrary, I would dare to say that the Wehrmacht didn't really "embrace change" as its Soviet and American counterparts did. There's that thing with late war Panzer Brigades - a concept which is very similar to present day Brigade Combat Teams - but my opinion is that they were more a child of necessity than an actual shift in doctrine. I might be wrong, of course.

ORIGINAL: pwieland

The issue with mortars you bring up is unclear to me. There are indeed observations on mortars being incredibly effective in the defense, not on the attack. As far as I know, you cannot attach Mortar Bn's to combat units (they qualify as artillery units).
So exploiting this seems to me a bit hard, since arty SU commitment is chance-based (and capped to a max of 6 SU's by eligible HQ). The thing is that rifle corps feature a massive amount of mortars in its TOE, it's just the TOEs of three regular Rifle or Guards Rifle divisions added up together. Therefore, "exploiting" this mortars thing would mean to invest massively on Rifle Corps (which seem to be what every Soviet players do sooner or later). The question is whether WiTE allows Soviet players building too many Rifle Corps (or too many Mortar Bn's, or too many Tank Bn's, or too many Sappers) too soon rather than questioning the feature itself.

If you knew that mortars were effective, would you build any howitzer, gun, or arty formations? Why would you? Players will always attempt to minmax a system (maximize effect at minimum cost- six or more mtr SU's surely would fit that, correct?)

Because mortars work well - too well, yet unconfirmed until we see some change on patch notes - on the defense and against soft targets. Very much like AT guns. So prioritizing them over other platforms would be an optimal strategy while in the defense. To defeat fortifications, hard ground elements and the like you need other types of SU's (tube/rocket arty, sappers, tanks, AT, etc.).

ORIGINAL: pwieland

There asymmetry in strategic & logistics options indeed, but the thing is, as Mynok very clearly states, that until the issues that have come up during this year in the tactical combat simulation, fortification and national morale aren't ironed out, it's unclear whether more freedom at the higher level aspects of the game would make any difference whatsoever.

That may be true. How much combat power is gained or lost for changes in morale? I will need to look at the manual a bit to see if there is a description that documents this.

It's hard to quantify pwieland. Nonetheless, the one aspect where high morale (and experience) is key is in limiting losses due to retreat. One of the major problems with the Axis. This, in turn, leads us to the 1:1 -> 2:1 rule thing, which makes retreat to be a more likely outcome. No wonder devs & testers are so prudent: both things are intertwined in a feedback loop.

[BletchleyGeek]

Talking about asymmetries: has anybody ever found himself needing to use HQ buildup on a Soviet HQ?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Talking about asymmetries: has anybody ever found himself needing to use HQ buildup on a Soviet HQ?

Very very rarely. And only late in the war once the Red Army is perfected or you are closing in on the kill. Not a whole lot of people seem to have played the game to this point.

It's a highly inefficient use of APs from the Soviet standpoint before that point. The Germans start with their perfect army, the Soviets do not, and getting their perfect army comes well before dumping APs on buildups.

To put this in another way: I can get a rifle corps or two or a tank or mech corps for the price of a build up. And those aren't one shot deals.

The other reason to avoid buildups: the Red Army is starved for trucks. You won't be in a position to burn them recklessly until late in the game.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Talking about asymmetries: has anybody ever found himself needing to use HQ buildup on a Soviet HQ?

Very very rarely. And only late in the war once the Red Army is perfected or you are closing in on the kill. Not a whole lot of people seem to have played the game to this point.

It's a highly inefficient use of APs from the Soviet standpoint before that point. The Germans start with their perfect army, the Soviets do not, and getting their perfect army comes well before dumping APs on buildups.

To put this in another way: I can get a rifle corps or two or a tank or mech corps for the price of a build up. And those aren't one shot deals.

The other reason to avoid buildups: the Red Army is starved for trucks. You won't be in a position to burn them recklessly until late in the game.

So there's no real incentive for the Soviets for the kind of logistic build-up modeled by the HQ Build Up mechanics, since they hardly seem to be pressed for time at all. However, I would gladly trade a couple corps for the possibility of bagging a full German Army [;)]

[Flaviusx]

The possibility for bagging a German army will arise when you've dramatically improved the Red Army. It doesn't naturally occur merely by spending APs on buildups.

No matter how you slice it, improving the Red Army is very much more a priority than buildups. APs simply play a different role for the two sides. Germans can afford to spend APs recklessly and also burn their trucks recklessly. The Red Army is in no position to do either for a long time.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
The possibility for bagging a German army will arise when you've dramatically improved the Red Army. It doesn't naturally occur merely by spending APs on buildups.

No matter how you slice it, improving the Red Army is very much more a priority than buildups. APs simply play a different role for the two sides. Germans can afford to spend APs recklessly and also burn their trucks recklessly. The Red Army is in no position to do either for a long time.

Making sure of having 50 MP's should - theoretically - make possible really deep penetrations, allowing to close rings in one single turn (and convert enough hexes "exploiting" the breakthrough to make really hard for the German reserves to react). Build ups negate, to some extent, the effect of morale on mobility by granting it "extra" MP's. I think this should be a bigger thing for the Soviet side (and the Axis side as well).

I am perfectly conscious that building a workable Red Army is the priority. However, I do feel - no objective data to back it up - that sacrificing time to achieve this works out too well. Perhaps the Soviet game would be very different if there was an incentive to push hard and fast to finish the war. I must admit I haven't played the game any later than autumn 1943, but I wonder whether the Germans can really recover from a Bagration-like debacle (hence my challenge to a 1944 game). This points towards using HR's for victory conditions, in the lines some games that recently started take.

Another approach would be to put a hard cap on the amount of MP's of mobile units unless under the effect of a Build Up, making more dramatic the compensation effect I mention on Morale vs. Mobility. Which would in turn mean increasing the penalties to enter enemy controlled hexes due to morale level. Another additional tweak could be giving some sort of CV modifier (indirectly or directly) for units attached to a built up HQ.

Such a change would be really big, and should lead to a radically different tempo of operations when compared with the kind of continuous pumping of local offensives one see in the Soviets from summer 1942 onwards. It would also oblige the Axis to play in a more thoughtful way in summer 1941, as there would be a reason to stop and prepare a major push.

[elxaime]

I haven't played WITE although I have some time in the other monster game, WITP AE. I suspect the situation in both games is similar, which is that unless the Germans/Japanese REALLY land an epic knock out blow at the start, they eventually will be ground down. So what may seem a "pro-Soviet" edge may in fact be a closer approximation of reality.

Historically, although the Germans did well that first year in the East, the aftermath was indeed a steadily closing circle of success. From the all-out across the front attacks of 1941, they were reduced to attacking on a single front in southern Russia in 1942. The 1942 German offensive was greatly aided by Stalin's overextending the winter assaults and the overconfident but disastrous Soviet Kharkov offensive. As it was, Hitler's 1942 goals (the AAA line) were almost certainly overreaching. They depended on Axis satellite armies to cover the vast flanks and these satellites were no match for 1st line Soviet forces in either equipment or morale. By 1943, we can see in retrospect that the balance had already shifted and the Soviets were able to meet and hold off the massive German Kursk attack head on with equally massive force.

In WITP, you tend to see less complaining about the Japanese ultimate doom because, I suspect, US gamers more readily accept the notion that the USA Arsenal of Democracy really could not have been beaten. I think the edge is narrower, but a similar expectation should be placed on Soviet resistance.

Hitler and his generals, using flawed calculations based on their 1939 and 1940 victories in the West and Balkans, drew up plans that proved to be wildly over-optimistic. The only way to redress the imbalance would have been to re-ignite the Russian Civil War, which for ideological reasons the Nazi regime was unwilling to do. It is fair to assume that the German onslaught against Russia was about as futile as the Japanese onslaught against the US and others in the Far East. As heinous as Stalin's system was, you have to give it its due for being able to take punches that would have floored other nations (including, likely, the US if we were on the receiving end) and still fight on. And the peoples of Russia and Central Asia showed that they can be some tough SOBs.

We don't necessarily accept this because a lot of post-WW2 historiography is heavily influenced by the self-justification of the German generals who placed all the blame on Hitler and his mad leadership. "If only we professionals had been free to do X or Y..." the story goes, the Germans could have won. This is quite unlikely.

So before trying to tilt the field more, the designers need to keep these facts in mind. Trying to add to the German possibility of success may make for a better game, as it would if you tried to buff up the Japanese so they could invade California. But would it be historically justifiable?

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

So what I'm reading here is that the following actions should be taken to improve the game:

1. Artillery should have no effect.
2. Except German artillery. Any Soviet unit attacked by German artillery should be eliminated.
3. Soviets should be limited to stacking 3 brigades in a hex, or 2 divisions, or 1 corps. This is because a Soviet brigade is equivalent to a German division in terms of stacking ability.
4. Any Soviet unit attacked by a Panzer regiment should be immediately eliminated.
5. Any Soviet unit attacked by a German unit should be immediately eliminated.
6. Any lower morale unit attacked by a higher morale unit should be immediately eliminated.
7. Closely related, German attacks that fail should not be counted as a defeat.
8. Any German unit that is attacked should hold its ground at all costs.
9. German units recovering from the disabled pool should have 100% morale and 100% experience due to them being veterans.
10. The 1941 scenario should be modified to move all Soviet units to the border line. No Soviet unit should be allowed to move from its starting position.
11. Soviet industry shouldn't be able to be railed out, and shouldn't be able to produce anything.
12. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that the Germans capture a Soviet held city.
13. The game ends with a German victory on the first occasion that any Soviet factory is damaged or captured.
14. In any case, the game ends with a German victory on the first turn of July 1941.

That'd make a better game for some, I'm sure. The rest of us have already stopped taking the princess pills.

Sounds like the "I win" button Axis players have been looking for. [:D]

[PeeDeeAitch]

I think a very good argument was made about the assymetric nature of the German and Soviet sides in WitE a while back. I will quote it:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

This is not a bad suggestion - and on the face of it makes some sense. Why not let the German player create new support units in the fashion the Soviet player does?

However, I would argue against it - although I will also admit straight up that my argument is very subjective.

But here it is...

One thing I really like about WitE is that opening up the game as the German player is *vastly* different than opening it up as the Soviet player. The two sides are ridiculously asymetrical - almost to the extent that you are playing two different games.

Playing the Germans, you are handed this incredibly well designed, capable, and powerful tool, and then expected to achieve some pretty amazing results with that tool. The tool (the Wehrmacht) is very powerful, but also very precise. You do not have much flexibility in how it is organized, or how it is designed. The challenge is to make it work the best way possible, but within the rather severe limits that the tool is designed around.

And there is kind of a problem - the tool is really freaking awesome, but it isn't quite the *right* tool for the job. Seems the guys who made the tool didn't exactly understand the task that it was designed to solve. So while the tool is powerful, resilient, and well organized, it doesn't quite fit the task at hand. Your challenge is making it work anyway.

The Soviets are totally different. Here your tool is a piece of ****. It doesn't work at all! It is unwieldy, has all the moving parts in the wrong place, most of the moving parts don't even move, and it breaks every-time you try to do something with it.

But...you have a huge workshop at your disposal. You have lots and lots and lots of war material, and while the tool you have is almost certainly going to be destroyed, you get to try to organize, design, and deploy a new tool, one better suited to the task at hand. THAT is the challenge of playing the Soviets - how do you make the Red Army actually work?

So that is why I don't want to see the German player be allowed to create new units in the manner the Soviet player can - it would take away what I personally see as the unique challenge of each side. The Germans already have an incredibly potent war machine - letting the player tweak and over-optimize it is just going to make them that much more powerful, and in a fashion that fundamentally changes what makes the German job so hard, despite their incredible army.

The Soviets get that capability, but then, they are starting with utter crap. Turning their crap army into something that actually works is the entire fun of playing the Soviets - why play them if the Germans get a better army, AND can turn around and fix its flaws as well?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I think a very good argument was made about the assymetric nature of the German and Soviet sides in WitE a while back. I will quote it:

ORIGINAL: Berkut

This is not a bad suggestion...

That is a good observation, but doesn't really alter the fact that the Soviets can adapt and mass produce whatever is most efficient in the current version of the game, while the Axis cannot, which creates an imbalance.

I suspect the root cause of the difference is simply that it is impossible to find an accurate OOB for all Soviet support units.

[misesfan]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Historically, the Soviets experimented with quite a few types of units as they were undergoing a very bloody and costly learning process. They got right the basic idea of deep operations, but coming up with the *right* formations for the job took some time. WiTE allows Soviet players to try out their own solution to the problem of defeating the Wehrmacht.

Now, going to the Axis, I don't think there was at all any kind of "experimenting" with formation and doctrines at the operational level. On the contrary, I would dare to say that the Wehrmacht didn't really "embrace change" as its Soviet and American counterparts did. There's that thing with late war Panzer Brigades - a concept which is very similar to present day Brigade Combat Teams - but my opinion is that they were more a child of necessity than an actual shift in doctrine. I might be wrong, of course.

I must disagree with this - the Germans invented the concept of kampfgruppe - that is an ad-hoc formation anywhere from company to corps sized units to suit the task or operation at hand.

The most famous example perhaps was Kampfgruppen Peiper in the Battle of the Bulge, an over-strength Panzer regiment if there ever was one.

And, one could argue that the flexibility of the German Army was unmatched throughout the war - at least within the tactical zone. Operations and strategy - well they were certainly outclassed late in the war, especially since they were hamstrung by a leader that felt retrograde operations could be punishable by the firing squad.

[Helpless]

I suspect the root cause of the difference is simply that it is impossible to find an accurate OOB for all Soviet support units

The problem is not to find the OOB for the support (and not only) units, but the complexity of all the events which needs to be modeled otherwise.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: elxaime
In WITP, you tend to see less complaining about the Japanese ultimate doom because, I suspect, US gamers more readily accept the notion that the USA Arsenal of Democracy really could not have been beaten. I think the edge is narrower, but a similar expectation should be placed on Soviet resistance.

Indeed. Even in ucronies, such Thomas Harris' where the Third Reich is embroiled in a 20 year long asymmetric war against the Soviet government in Siberia, the author is careful to not incide too much on those aspects which jeopardize the suspense of incredulity. Offtopic: I love novels with ucronies, one by aSaville guy just released about the Third Reich conquering & submitting Africa (!!!) looks particularly promising.

ORIGINAL: elxaime

We don't necessarily accept this because a lot of post-WW2 historiography is heavily influenced by the self-justification of the German generals who placed all the blame on Hitler and his mad leadership. "If only we professionals had been free to do X or Y..." the story goes, the Germans could have won. This is quite unlikely.

Yes, highly unlikely. More probable the whole affair would have lasted longer, inflicting even higher losses on the Allies armies. Perhaps there wouldn't even exist Germany today, very much as Prussia or Pommerania don't exist anymore.

ORIGINAL: elxaime
So before trying to tilt the field more, the designers need to keep these facts in mind. Trying to add to the German possibility of success may make for a better game, as it would if you tried to buff up the Japanese so they could invade California. But would it be historically justifiable?

Speaking for myself, I'm not that much after "tilting" the floor, but rather introducing mechanisms where players decisions involve taking risks. My feeling on WiTE is that it's spirit is to cater for a game where variance in the process - not the final outcome, which might well be predetermined - makes it enjoyable and interesting for both sides. And having people to use their judgement to take risks looks to me as an excellent and cheap "variance generator".

[LiquidSky]

It may be an imbalance, but it is a historical capabilty the russians have that the germans do not. Giving that capability to the Germans enters a world of fantasy, that I would rather not see.

As for 'bias' towards victory, well..change the victory conditions. Call 'history' a German Major Victory, and force the Russians to do it faster. Make the Russians need to take Berlin before the Allies land at Normandy for a 'major' Victory.