The Dark Summer - analysis from a friend

 The Dark Summer : new on the Normandy theater

by Romain Ducoulombier

Thanks to Romain for offering this argumented and in-depth analysis of the last Ted Raicer game on the Normandy campaign.

Ted Raicer's game dedicated to the Normandy campaign was expected to say the least. Famous author of GMT, in particular with his recent series of "Dark" (Dark Valley on the war in the Soviet Union 1941-1945 then Dark Sands on the war in North Africa), his ludic contribution to the simulation of the Normandy theater had to be original. In our opinion, the job is done.
Raicer's choice is first to simulate the whole Normandy campaign, from the landing itself to the breakthrough at the end of August and the Falaise pocket. This is an original choice that distinguishes it from strategic games on the campaign, such as the excellent Liberty Roads by Frenchmen Yves Le Quellec and Nicolas Rident (Hexasim) or Normandy '44 by Mark Simonitch, a commercial success of GMT that allows to play the campaign until the end of June 1944 (historical fall of Cherbourg). The advantage of Raicer's game is to extend the campaign to the end of August, a period rarely simulated, and to present a game playable in a few sessions, with static combat phases during the first few turns, then breakthrough and movement in the second part of the game. The material is sober, clean, efficient: this refers to design choices which, as we will see, go in the direction of simplicity.

The whole game is based on the weather. We know that it played an important role in the campaign, by complicating the task of the Allies in the first days of the landing. Here, everything is based on the drawing of weather chits. Their number is fixed: roughly, 4 turns of good weather, very advantageous to the Allies against a paralyzed German, 3 turns of mixed weather, and two turns of bad weather favorable to the more reactive Germans. The draw of this chit at the beginning of the turn is decisive: it influences the number of activations of both sides, the German reactions, the German movement capacity, the availability of support and in particular the Allied Prepared Offensive -PO,- which are devastating, but in limited number (2 per turn during the fair weather turns). I have to say it: this design choice is excellent. Its main drawback is that it allows both players to predict the endgame weather. But it also provides pre-calculated opportunities that contribute to the balance of the game and avoid the cursed sequence of bad weather rolls that can be structuring (as in Normandy '44 for example). The Ally will have his time, like the German... After three games played in their entirety, I think that the good initial weather is to the advantage of the German, who has a lot to gain from the slowing down of the Allies at the end of the game, and despite the cold sweats when a stack is vaporized by a successful Allied attack. The player can of course play the "historical" weather, also favorable to the Allies by allowing them two turns of good weather and evacuating the turns of bad weather when they are entangled in the bocage and in front of Caen anyway. This may be a way to balance a game that, for the moment, I consider to be favorable to the German side: experience with the game will confirm or not this feeling.

The other mainstay of the game is the principle of drawing activation chits. This mechanism allows to escape the classic alternating activation scheme, but here Ted Raicer's choices make it even more interesting. In Dark Valley, a skilled German player could multi-activate his best units by placing them in the radius of his not-yet-drawn HQs, resulting in triumphant runs across the steppe. In Dark Summer, chits activate troops by nationality: that's all. This allows for alternating frontline activity and a succession of "move" and "fight"; the "combined action" marker allows for a combination of limited movement and more difficult combat to compensate for the attack/movement dichotomy imposed by the chits, while the "prepared offensive" marker allows the Ally to launch a sustained offensive when well placed. Finally, to face a catastrophic situation, the German player has reaction chits at his disposal, thanks to which he can activate a formation (a mechanized division, for example) to play the role of firefighter. This is effective and convincing. This mechanism gives the game an excellent rhythm; you cannot escape the unfavorable succession of chits, it is true, but it is limited by the constant number of German chits (3/turn), by the German reactions and by the limited number of chits in the end (determined in the last instance by the weather, let's remember). The designer made the choice to limit the number of possible "moves" or "fights" per turn; by chance, due to the forgetfulness of this rule, I played my first game without this limitation: it is even more tense and it could be another possible option to play the game (which is not considered by Ted Raicer) As for the landing itself, it is handled by two special chits at the beginning of the game, followed by German reactions. This amounts to a series of often victorious battles, and a few failures that can influence the Allied game in the medium term. Let's add that this mechanism allows Dark Summer to be perfectly adapted to the solo game: each situation is solved one after the other.

The whole thing is deliberately free of the chrome that we often encounter in Mark Simonitch's games. Here, no special units, no complex unit categories, even armor has no advantage (except for speed and possible speed of replacement). The ability to move is limited by the weather, increasing the price of clear terrain, limiting the use of roads and complicating the crossing of rivers: it's brilliant. Supply is determined at the time of combat and movement, every turn for the Germans (it is absolutely necessary to avoid small encirclements, very simple (and not very historical), under penalty of being harshly punished by rapid destruction). The paratroopers are under-simulated, this is pure "design for effect" : they are put on the map, do not move and do not fight during the first 2 waves, but they play their role afterwards to put the pressure on the German. Same thing for Cherbourg (see below). This may shock the purists, but the result is conclusive in my eyes. No bonus to the combat dice either: the CRT is "dry" and only knows the column shifts. Finally, it relies on the constrained attack of enemy stacks adjacent to the main attacking units: it is therefore designed for attack (even at 1:3 you sometimes get a favorable result).

This CRT is worth considering: it is indeed dangerous for both sides, with its fatal "EX" result (exchange). One may regret this brutality, but it allows to fluidify the game and to give it a good replayability. It can pulverize German infantry stacks, but also dangerously weaken the Ally (especially the British). The Ally will therefore have to choose before launching into these risky, but essential fights to advance. From this point of view, the British are the Achilles heel of the Allied camp. Despite his strength, he had to secure control of the right bank of the Orne and take Caen, which was no easy task. He receive fewer replacements and his losses on the infantry are hardly reparable. A German counterattack could turn into a drama, even at 2:1 or 3:1. If it is difficult to recapture the beaches, the British can be put out of action. Conversely, from 4:1, the danger becomes major for the Germans: the total destruction of their batteries opens gaps that are increasingly difficult to fill. The terrain is there to mitigate these risks (the cities are very difficult to take), but there is no escape on a devastating 5-6. The wear and tear is further enhanced by the limited flow of replacements that reach both sides. Over the 9 turns (no rpl on turn 1), the American receives 12 mechanized RPLs and 7 infantry RPLs (or 11M/8I); the British 7 RPLs for their armor units, 4 infantry RPLs and 4 Canadian RPLs, and the German only 2 mechanized RPLs and 4 infantry RPLs (or 1M/5I)), with the pace again determined by the weather. Eliminated units cannot be rebuilt, nor can certain units when they are damaged (e.g. paratroopers, 88s); therefore only the survivors are repaired. For the German, this is emergency treatment; for the Allies, it is more comfortable, but not huge either. Worse: if things go wrong, you lose the unused points. The British can therefore use their Armored troops as a spearhead, but not as a sacrifice; the Canadians are a kind of cannon-fodder... Nevertheless, a lot of losses are necessary to take Caen, and the strategic bombardment, reserved for good weather (and twice per Allied side and per game) is essential to take the strongest positions before turn 7, when the Americans become more mobile. In fact, it is not the CRT that simulates breakthroughs, it is the succession of chits.

The game has been criticized for not simulating the capture of Cherbourg. The episode is managed by a simple "Box" in which the German units are evacuated once the Contentin peninsula is isolated, which can happen relatively quickly (as early as turn 2 in my third game). The American's choice of his initial axes of attack is really crucial at the beginning of the game. More flexible than the British, whose "combat" chits can fall into the void, he also has more to do despite the plethora of units at his disposal. His objective is to invade the "Brittany Box" in the south of the map (i.e., to invade Brittany), and then to fall back to the east and Paris: this is very difficult, the bocage is hell (the German cancels all simple retreat results (DR) and mitigates DRs with losses until turn 6). The American player must therefore liquidate the Contentin as quickly as possible, which forces him to choose his axes of attack carefully; he earns victory points (VPs) for the rapid conquest (before turn 4) of Cherbourg.

Victory conditions are mostly based on points accumulated by card releases, if the game pushes to turn 10. This is one of the lessons of my play experience: try to play the game to the end, because the final outcome can be decided by a ½ VP. However, the failure of the Americans to reach the "Brittany Box" is almost fatal to the Ally. The only sudden death condition that really threatens the Ally is the failure to capture Cherbourg before turn 7; reconquering the beaches is not impossible but difficult (the beach hexes must be adjacent, too!). For the rest, the Allies must withdraw as many units as possible, preventing the Germans from withdrawing as many as possible on turn 10, which is not at all easy! One Allied flank can push the German out, while the other Ally stalls and loses the game. The VP counting system allows to take into account indirectly the German losses: the less regiments there are on the map, the more difficult it becomes to "get out" at the end of the game... That said, and this is a provisional conclusion that deserves discussion, the game advantages the German in my opinion: the Allied objectives are difficult to reach, and this is why I advise against using the two small options left to the German (Stug and evacuation move by reaction).
This is a game where the designer's choices are very strong and go against the usual. We really feel that we are facing an author who thinks, and who is not a prisoner of a system imposed on very different game situations. In a word: it's excellent, try it!