Today I have a great pleasure to host on The Boardgames Chronicle blog Adam Niechwiej, designer and founder of the Polish publishing house Strategemata. We talk about his new design, Festung Cherbourg 1944 – a game about the American assault on the fortress port of Cherbourg in June 1944, just after the Normandy landings. Enjoy!
To learn more about the game and to buy a copy, follow the below links:
Michal: Hi Adam and welcome to The Boardgames Chronicle blog! It is always a special pleasure to host a fellow Polish designer here. May I ask you, for those who do not know you yet, to tell the Readers about what you do for a living, what are your interests, hobbies and what games do you play? How did Strategemata come about as a publisher, and what is your role in the design and publication of Festung Cherbourg 1944?
Adam: Hello Michal and all Readers. I live in Wroclaw (a crowded city in south-west Poland). I am a CNC machine operator, but my true loves are military history and board wargames. I am also a big fan of basketball (GO New York GO!) and speedway. Writing these words, I am mentally preparing for the second match of the PGE Ekstraliga final. The first one was an unexpectedly heavy loss for Sparta Wroclaw.
I established the Strategemata publishing house in 2009. The main purpose was to publish my own games, and Festung Cherbourg 1944 is one of them. All the rules and map graphics are the fruit of my thoughts about the fighting for Normandy’s port.
Michal: Strategemata is well known to Polish wargamers for its series of games on the battles of the Kosciuszko Uprising – Raclawice, Szczekociny, Maciejowice or Niemenczyn – and you already took on a besieged German fortress with your design Festung Breslau 1945 back in 2017. What made you turn to Normandy, and specifically to Cherbourg? Where did the idea for Festung Cherbourg 1944 come from, and how does it relate to Festung Breslau 1945 – is it a follow-up built on the same foundations, or a fresh design? What did you carry over, and what did you change?
Adam: The battle for Cherbourg is treated in many games as an episode of the larger campaign in Normandy in June 1944. I decided to make it the central point of the game. Of course, the experience gained during the creation of Festung Breslau 1945 was helpful. There are a lot of similarities between both games – for example, the abstract method of combat resolution. It gives me flexibility regarding time and terrain scale, but it promotes an obvious tactical approach: the more hexes occupied by attacking units, the bigger the chance of success.
The new thing is the German defense line composed of fortifications of various quality. During play, some of them can be abandoned by their manning infantry. Units created this way can be used to form the next line of resistance or for counterattacks. I also changed the historical events and, for example, the special rules regarding American headquarters.
Michal: For us wargamers, theme and background are as important as the mechanics. Can you set the historical stage for our Readers – the VII Corps with the 4th, 9th and 79th Infantry Divisions closing in on the port, and General von Schlieben’s garrison behind its ring of fortifications? I was also very pleased to find the essay by Jean Paul Pallud in the rulebook – how did that collaboration come about?
Adam: In all my games I want to add historical background. In this way our games bring educational value, often extending typical history books. The essay by Jean Paul Pallud is perfect – it contains a detailed description of the events. By adding it to my game, I want to recall his work for After the Battle magazine in 2010.
Michal: What are the key components of the game? We get a 68×48 cm map, 216 counters and a player’s aid card, with one hex representing 1000 meters, units at battalion and company level, and turns of 8 hours. Why did you choose this scale? And who is responsible for the graphics – the map, the counters and that very atmospheric period photograph on the box cover?
Adam: As I mentioned before, the combat resolution system is abstract. The chosen scale is the result of a combination of several factors. Map – I wanted to show the whole front, not only the city. Counter mix – it gives both players options for creating reserves or concentrating forces at key points of attack. Taking into account the stacking rules (actually, no stacking is allowed), the board is not overcrowded, and I think it speeds up the gameplay.
Summarizing, the chosen map and unit scale are the effect of aiming for smooth gameplay rather than strict historical issues. But we still have historical American regiments, divided into battalions, and the remnants of German coastal defense divisions.
Most of the graphics on the counters and the board were created by me. I want to thank Krzysztof Korzeniak for his icons of the American and German infantrymen. The photo on the cover is taken from the US Army collection. I chose it for its connection with the idea of Festung Breslau 1945.
Michal: Can you elaborate a little about the core game mechanics? The 12-phase turn looks detailed, but combat itself is resolved in a very streamlined way – a single die roll against the target number from the Terrain Effect Chart, with no classic CRT. What was the thinking behind this approach? I also noticed that American units from different divisions cannot combine in one Assault or Defensive Fire – why was that restriction important to you?
Adam: In my opinion, the sequence of phases is a great help for players. It makes it easy to avoid the mistake of attacking the same unit twice in one aerial or artillery bombardment phase. The sequence of phases also helps me show the big difference between the two engaged armies. Generally, the American forces are on the attack – they move first and then assault. For the German army this sequence is reversed, so it is harder to coordinate more units. This portrays historical problems.
Also, axes of advance were important to avoid friendly fire, especially in a ruined city. I decided to add this rule for the American player to force him to face historical limitations.
Michal: The American player has a lot of firepower at his disposal – 20 artillery points every turn plus varying airstrike points, with a big spike to 35 on 22 June, the day of the massive air attack preceding the final assault. At the same time the bombardment table can produce Friendly Fire results. How did you calibrate American artillery and air support, and how important was it for you to show that this firepower was a double-edged sword?
Adam: The strength of the available artillery and aerial bombardment is abstract. It gives an overall picture of how intensive the American support was during a specified period of time.
The implementation of the Friendly Fire result has two purposes. First, it reflects historical events – the 47th and 60th Infantry Regiments of the 9th Infantry Division were strafed on 22 June. Second, the American player must be aware of the risk. The chance of Friendly Fire is always one in six, regardless of the bombardment strength used. Some bad die rolls can delay planned offensive actions.
Michal: The German side is especially intriguing to me. Most of the garrison sits in static fortifications, and the ‘breaking bunker paralysis’ and morale check procedures decide whether defenders become fanatic, leave their bunkers or simply collapse. On top of that, General von Schlieben is hidden among seven dummy markers on the Victory Locations. How did you model the very uneven quality of the Cherbourg garrison, and how do you keep the German player engaged in what is largely a defensive role?
Adam: The German player, like General von Schlieben historically, has limited possibilities at the start. Nevertheless, during play some of the fortifications can be abandoned and suddenly maneuverable units appear. Then it is decision time for the German player – where to use these units. The timing of the action is also a big question mark. Maybe it is a good idea to wait for more units to appear in a given sector?
For sure, they will be an additional issue for the American player to deal with. Time is crucial for the American player. Each new German unit acting behind American lines should be bombarded and assaulted, consuming resources needed on the front line.
Michal: Logistics seem to be at the heart of the American effort – divisional logistic centers, lines of communication needed to take control of Victory Locations, fatigued units returning via the Turn Track, and the German player able to disrupt a logistic center and push it back to the edge of the map. Why did you put so much emphasis on this element of the campaign?
Adam: I think that if the Americans had rapidly captured Cherbourg and then lost their line of communication with the rear echelon, it would not have been a success. In game terms, the American player must capture all Victory Locations, but the connection to the divisional logistic centers must also be maintained. This reflects American war doctrine. The safest way is an attack on a broad front and the methodical wiping out of all German fortifications. But again, time is crucial for the American player.
Michal: The Turn Track contains several historical events – the additional ammunition for the Germans, the artillery duel between coastal batteries ‘York’ and ‘Hamburg’ and the Allied Navy, and also the hypothetical airlanding of Fallschirmjager Regiment 15. How did you select these events, and why did you decide to include a ‘what if’ element?
Adam: I consider checking the ‘what if’ element the most fun aspect of wargames. This is the reason for adding the hypothetical landing of Fallschirmjager Regiment 15. It was considered, but not executed, by the German command. The chance of success is slim.
Some supply airdrops were made by the Luftwaffe – I combined them with stocks of artillery shells. The artillery duel between the Allied Navy and the German coastal defense batteries was an interesting event. To speed up the gameplay, it is represented abstractly, by a single die roll. Maybe it is a subject for a more detailed mini game in the future.
Michal: How do players determine victory in Festung Cherbourg 1944? The American player must control all Victory Locations at the end of any turn, while the German player wins by holding at least one of them until the end of Turn 21. How balanced is the game between the sides, how long does a typical play take, and is the game suitable for solitaire play, given von Schlieben’s hidden location?
Adam: Controlling all Victory Locations is necessary because of the historical circumstances. If the Americans had controlled the port facilities without capturing the coastal defense batteries, the port would have been useless. Here I completely ignore the fact that the port was methodically destroyed and an enormous repair effort was later made by engineer units.
The gameplay takes 4 to 6 hours. The American player is more engaged than the German player, but the time pressure makes the game interesting for both. Solitaire play is possible by playing the Americans and placing the real General von Schlieben counter on a randomly selected Victory Location.
Michal: Now, as for Festung Cherbourg 1944 itself, what makes this game unique? What would you like to call out for the Readers who are still on the fence?
Adam: Surprisingly, this is probably the first game (according to the BGG database) covering the battle for Cherbourg in such detail. The core rules are the same as in the well received Festung Breslau 1945. Festung Cherbourg 1944 fits perfectly into a one-evening session.
Michal: How are you publishing the game, and where can players interested in Festung Cherbourg 1944 get more information and buy a copy? Is the game available internationally, with English rules?
Adam: Yes, the game has all components in English. The game is available through my website, strategemata.pl. I also recommend checking the local stores, listed on my website as well, to optimize shipping costs.
Michal: What are your future plans? Any new designs or games in preparation at Strategemata – perhaps more ‘Festung’ titles?
Adam: ‘Festung’ titles are a good idea for the future. I promise the series will be continued, but right now I cannot give any details or publishing dates. At the moment, together with Jedrzej Jablonski, we are working on Aurea Mediocritas – a multi-player, card driven game about the rivalry of kingdoms in Central Europe on the verge of the Renaissance. For more information please visit BoardGameGeek.
I also recommend subscribing to my newsletter to receive information about my publishing house.
Michal: Thank you very much for the interview, Adam! Any last word you would like to add?
Adam: All the best and roll high (or low if you play Advanced Squad Leader)!