This game is too balanced.

This game is too balanced. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

Copper -> This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 12:16:56 AM)
When I head in to a WWII game as the axis, I expect the fight of my life. However, when I head into commander, some skillful management skills, and I can conquer the world with ease, even against a human opponent. I think they need to take the war in the pacific route, and make it so that the Axis can win the game, just as easily as the allies, but not the war.

targul -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 1:50:15 AM)
There skill as programers seem below those needed for the Japanese theater. Let them figure out how to make Europe work first then maybe with some hard hitting AI fixes. Basic game problem fixes they will be able to move on. This maybe the company who can do it but you need to walk before you start to run.

Copper -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 2:02:28 AM)
hmm, what i intended to say was that they should go the route of Gary Grigsbys War in the Pacific, and make it so the game is realistic, but the underdog still has a shot to win.

gmothes -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 3:01:17 AM)
Don't speak too soon Copper, we just started our game [;)] Gerry....

SMK-at-work -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 5:41:03 AM)
Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against. In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else.

geozero -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 6:30:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against. In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. I believe that they produced more from 1940-44. However, depending on data sources, sometimes this includes Lend Lease aircraft from the U.S. Also, the British had an entire "empire" to defend, and some of these aircraft figures were in other theaters including middle east, India, Burma, and other Pacific areas. The production outputs were almost equal, with the British putting out 5-10% more each year. The Brits also send The Soviets some of these planes. Generally speaking the German aircraft tended to be superior (FW190's for example), although the Spitfire was truly an amazing machine. The Soviets production was also greatly higher than the Germans from 1941-44. Also amazingly is that German production increased nearly 400% during the war years even though they were being pummeled by U.S. and British bombing. So all these facts and figures tell us that clearly Germany was on the losing end of "production" and always would be. But with skilled pilots and good aircraft the German Luftwaffe did an amazing job. Hitler never planned for a long term war. That was perhaps the biggest blunder of all. He thought that no one would oppose him in Poland and after the fall of France he thought that Britain would sue for peace... he didn't figure that Churchill would come to power... So you are correct in that Germany should win by diplomacy and how long it holds out. But this game has no diplomacy...

Forwarn45 -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 6:38:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against. In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. Several people have expressed this kind of view in the forums in the past, and usually I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. But I have to say that this ignores how close things were - even with all the German "mistakes." In 1941, the Germans were at the gates of Moscow even after sending a good bit of the army south to deal with Russian resistance there. And the winter of '41 was especially brutal. And then in '42, the Germans elected to advance in the South and again achieved huge success until Stalingrad. Even in '43, the Germans were not in a terrible position until the disastrous attack on Kursk. I just don't think the outcome was inevitable at the start, despite the evidence of the end result.

targul -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 6:41:32 AM)
I have to say numbers certainly dont make or break the Axis. It was commander and unit skill. Tactics of the allies were poor and it cost them. Hard to demonstrate that in a game.

SMK-at-work -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 7:02:06 AM)
In 1941 when the Germans weer at he gates of Moscow they were completely at he end of their tether - they had run out of supplies, and there was nothing more they could do - they outnumbered the Soviet defenders, they still had hte advantage in tactics and leadership that they had at the outset, and they were stopped. Dead. Even if there had been half as many Soviet defenders they would still not have lost Moscow - the Germans literally couldn't advance any further - they had no supplies, their equipment was worn out, their men were exhausted. It was the high-water mark of the 3rd Reich in exactly the same way that Cemetary ridge was the high water mark of the Confederacy. The idea that capturing Moscow would have made the USSR surrender is also highly questionable. the Soviets were massing reserves behind the city and if the Axis had captured it (impossible in the first place) they may well have found themselves surrounded in it - Moscow would have been an early Stalingrad. I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not. But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning. there are any number of "what if"'s from WW2 - but they can only ever be speculation. Germany knew what it's real enemy was - the "Ural bomber" of the early 1930's was the "Amerika bomber" of 1938-39. The UK outproduced Germany in the first half of the war, the USA out-produced any 2 other combatants of both sides combined for the rest of it!

Forwarn45 -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 7:24:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning. It's not that I think it was the more likely outcome - it's just the historical inevitability "no chance" that gets me. As for Moscow, I think there was a possibility they could have taken it - particularly if weather hadn't been a logistical nightmare. And I think there was also a chance of a knockout blow in '42 - particularly if the Germans had different objectives in mind. There is a point where battlefield failures leads people to start looking for how they best they can survive. For example, if Moscow fell - it would not necessarily mean Soviet surrender - but there is a point where the "soviet" people would have no stomach for the war at all because they felt it lost. Germany in World War I is a good example - the Allies were not even on German soil at the time of surrender.

Ancient One -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 9:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! Perfectly doable if the Axis focus on other things, as they did in the real war. quote: In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. Isn't that mostly how it is in this game? At least between two competent players.

Dave Ferguson -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 12:08:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zagys quote: In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. Isn't that mostly how it is in this game? At least between two competent players. If the allies can hold out the players who know how to thwart the Axis juggernaught are keeping the secret to themselves. Plus the developers say the normal setting is unbalanced in favour of the axis ????

JudgeDredd -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 12:31:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not. But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning. ...- but they can only ever be speculation It's exactly this statement that makes me rue playing any games that are "historically" accurate with the same outcome...especially the bold part....the fact that there is speculation makes the possibility of a German victory in WWII a viable possibility and if there is a viable possibility, then it should be catered for in gaming. Sure, if the German player sticks to historical play, then the outcome should/would be the same....but "what if" Germany hadn't attacked Russia? Does that mean they lost the war? Would Russia have come in on the side of the Allies? Would the allies have been strong enough to push a more concentrated German defense out of France? Germany wasted a large amount of their resources going after the sleeping bear. The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia? There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war"....

Dave Ferguson -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 12:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia? There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war".... I suppose the game sort of takes care of this as Russia eventually joins in. In the game it is November 1941 IIRC. You could argue that if germany had waited until 1942 to attack russia the russians would have been a LOT stronger. eventually i suppose the ideologies would have clashed.

JudgeDredd -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 12:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia? There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war".... I suppose the game sort of takes care of this as Russia eventually joins in. In the game it is November 1941 IIRC. You could argue that if germany had waited until 1942 to attack russia the russians would have been a LOT stronger. eventually i suppose the ideologies would have clashed. Yes, but that's another what if.....what if their ideologies clashed? But hat if they didn't? What if they actually just left each other alone? What if Germany, with a more competent leader who was less of an egotist, was to be content with sitting on Northern Europe? Or even with his expanse into North Africa? Would the Allies have had enough resources to deal with it? It's well known by 1944 support was drastically waining in the US...the people had enough of corpses coming home. If Germany had stayed concentrated in Europe and even North Africa the war would've gone on for longer.... But then there was the Atom bomb...

bbmike -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 2:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against. In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. Sad necessity? Why would I play the game if I knew the Germans would lose every time? I think there should be an option for the historical settings, but also options for 'what-if?' scenarios as well. Replayability is key in ANY type of game.[:)]

Dave Ferguson -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 4:19:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd Yes, but that's another what if.....what if their ideologies clashed? But hat if they didn't? What if they actually just left each other alone? What if Germany, with a more competent leader who was less of an egotist, was to be content with sitting on Northern Europe? Or even with his expanse into North Africa? Would the Allies have had enough resources to deal with it? It's well known by 1944 support was drastically waining in the US...the people had enough of corpses coming home. If Germany had stayed concentrated in Europe and even North Africa the war would've gone on for longer.... But then there was the Atom bomb... The simple answer is no, the allies would not have been able to deal with germany alone, without russia fighting the bulk of the german army there is no way back for the allies. The germans would have been able to seal up France etc easily with a couple of dozen extra divisions, meanwhile the germans build lots of u-boats and fighters. A game without russian involvement is not going to be worth playing. The Atom bomb is irelevant as a allied player would have to be a masochist to sit there for hundreds of turns hoping to have a bomb or so. Lets face it, WW2 in europe was mostly about the titanic struggle between germany and russia. What the game does need is the activation of those political rules that must have been playtested or at least discussed? Apparently someone took Spain as part of his rampage through europe. Where is the political fallout from this? Spain was a 'pro' german neutral so what do the other axis leaning nations make of it? The game needs the interlocking network of cause and effect that politics brings. There are spare tick boxes in the option menu and the developers should make use of them.

MengCiao -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 5:41:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work Pretty much all WW2 games "suffer" from this AFAIK - the allies are always downgraed so the Axis can win - did you know that the UK produced more aeroplanes in 1940 and 41 than Germany? Try to do that in the game!! It's a sad necessity tho, because "the average wargamer" simply won't accept that the Axis had no chance of winning, and they expect any WW2 game to reflect that perception. any attempt to reflect "reality" is bitterly protested against. In a "realistic" scenario victory would be determined by how long the Axis could hold out before being defeated, and nothing else. Several people have expressed this kind of view in the forums in the past, and usually I have the good sense to keep my mouth shut. But I have to say that this ignores how close things were - even with all the German "mistakes." In 1941, the Germans were at the gates of Moscow even after sending a good bit of the army south to deal with Russian resistance there. And the winter of '41 was especially brutal. And then in '42, the Germans elected to advance in the South and again achieved huge success until Stalingrad. Even in '43, the Germans were not in a terrible position until the disastrous attack on Kursk. I just don't think the outcome was inevitable at the start, despite the evidence of the end result. The Bundeswehr staff studies of the 1970s concluded that the chances of the Wehrmacht defeating Russia in 1941 or 1942 were very low. By 1943, the best the Germans could hope for was a stalemate. There really was no long-term strategy worked out by the Nazi Regime and the "opportunistic" invasion of Russia in 1941 was not a very good idea. For example, some studies have suggested that the Wehrmacht had about 10% of the truck tires it needed to actually keep supplied in 1941. A 90% shortfall in basic gear is not going to win you any wars.

targul -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 8:26:07 PM)
Wars are not won or lost simply based on tech or numbers. They are won by men being willing to fight. Leaders motivate men to fight. Leaders direct that effort and properly directed with a sincere need to win will prevail. But you must remember both sides have leaders and both sides have men who believe in their cause. The early part of WWII the German's where equal to France and Britian in force with many considering the French equipement superior but the German won due to superior tactics (leadership) and well trained and determined soldiers. The French just didnt have the will to win. Not even sure if the English did at that point. While Poland was still there German's were outnumber and gunned with there Allies. They lost because there allies which could have turned the tide did not have the will to fight. The Axis was finally defeated because they simply were tired. The leadership lost faith and this trickled down to the soldiers.

MengCiao -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 9:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: targul Wars are not won or lost simply based on tech or numbers. They are won by men being willing to fight. Leaders motivate men to fight. Leaders direct that effort and properly directed with a sincere need to win will prevail. But you must remember both sides have leaders and both sides have men who believe in their cause. The early part of WWII the German's where equal to France and Britian in force with many considering the French equipement superior but the German won due to superior tactics (leadership) and well trained and determined soldiers. The French just didnt have the will to win. Not even sure if the English did at that point. While Poland was still there German's were outnumber and gunned with there Allies. They lost because there allies which could have turned the tide did not have the will to fight. The Axis was finally defeated because they simply were tired. The leadership lost faith and this trickled down to the soldiers. Sure, but, all things being equal, the side that bothers to check its tires and the viscosity of its lubricants is going to win. Why did the Axis get defeated? Was it because they started out believing that the only thing that mattered was motivating people to fight and soon discovered that motivation alone will only get you so far? You may have the bravest sailors in the world, but if the other side has radar and carriers and is reading all your signals, your fleet is going to get sunk most of the time...and then you will feel defeated because in fact you are defeated: no boats, no fuel, no winning the war.

Syagrius -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 9:56:35 PM)
How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed.

MengCiao -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 10:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Syagrius How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed. Exactly. When planning wars, the first question is "How can we win?" If the Axis had really thought about it, they would have quit while they were ahead ie in early 1939 with Austria, Czechoslavakia, Eithiopia and a big Chunk of China and (sort of) Spain. They should have read the warning signs when the RN started getting itchy trigger fingers in blockading Spain and thought twice when the giant radar towers went up on the coast of England. The hints were in the ethers and wiser heads might have read the barometric pressures of technology, science and Industry a little better and seen the writing on the wall: "Don't push your Luck."

Forwarn45 -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 11:02:01 PM)
I'd just suggest that there is a difference between technical ability and practical and political reality. Arguably, the Germans could have forced a negotiated settlement with the Soviets or whatever government took its place if they had great success against the Soviet Union. I think Moscow was a possible objective that could have been secured in '41 or '42, as mentioned. I concede I am also giving the Germans the benefit of the weather in '41 being up to chance, whereas by historical hindsight we know they were in for a nasty winter. On the other hand, one different decision that could have been made is to have begin to prepare in 1941 itself for winter (again, not accepting as historical inevitablity the decisions that actually WERE made after the point of invasion). The people in the Soviet Union suffered horribly in the war (look at statistics concerning food production and consumption) but made it through. If things had gone even worse, I think it is at least hypothetically possible (albeit not probable) that Germany could have broken their will. As for the US and Britain - if the Germans did force the Soviet Union out of the war, an invasion in Europe would have been very difficult. I have read that the great percentage of German manpower remained on the Eastern Front from 1941 all the way through the end of 1944 (can't recall the exact figure but something like 75%)? Many wars before and since WWII show that even something that is technically possible can come with politically too great a price. If the British and US were looking at risky invasions (or failed invasions) and millions of casualties taking the war to Germany, they might have been forced by circumstances to accept a negotiated peace even if technically after a long struggle they might have been able to take Germany out by themselves. I think of many wars where the loser was not technically beaten into surrender, but could no longer continue and was forced to compromise (WWI (in the sense Germany was not conquered), Korea, Vietnam - even the Falkland Islands war - the British were nowhere close to taking Buenos Aires). [:D]

MengCiao -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 11:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 I'd just suggest that there is a difference between technical ability and practical and political reality. Arguably, the Germans could have forced a negotiated settlement with the Soviets or whatever government took its place if they had great success against the Soviet Union. I think Moscow was a possible objective that could have been secured in '41 or '42, as mentioned. I concede I am also giving the Germans the benefit of the weather in '41 being up to chance, whereas by historical hindsight we know they were in for a nasty winter. On the other hand, one different decision that could have been made is to have begin to prepare in 1941 itself for winter (again, not accepting as historical inevitablity the decisions that actually WERE made after the point of invasion). The people in the Soviet Union suffered horribly in the war (look at statistics concerning food production and consumption) but made it through. If things had gone even worse, I think it is at least hypothetically possible (albeit not probable) that Germany could have broken their will. As for the US and Britain - if the Germans did force the Soviet Union out of the war, an invasion in Europe would have been very difficult. I have read that the great percentage of German manpower remained on the Eastern Front from 1941 all the way through the end of 1944 (can't recall the exact figure but something like 75%)? Many wars before and since WWII show that even something that is technically possible can come with politically too great a price. If the British and US were looking at risky invasions (or failed invasions) and millions of casualties taking the war to Germany, they might have been forced by circumstances to accept a negotiated peace even if technically after a long struggle they might have been able to take Germany out by themselves. I think of many wars where the loser was not technically beaten into surrender, but could no longer continue and was forced to compromise (WWI (in the sense Germany was not conquered), Korea, Vietnam - even the Falkland Islands war - the British were nowhere close to taking Buenos Aires). [:D] Well...the Axis did not have clear objectives in their blundering into WWII. They took what they could and that really did not include Russia or even Yugoslavia and Greece. The Japanese at least planned to stop somewhere and go for a stalemate. Quite brilliant for an Axis Power. The best way to win a war is to get what you want without a war, the second is to take just what you need and hold that (in the aptly-named Falklands War the Brits just took the Falklands...Had Argentina invaded a US territory the US would still probably be bombing Argentina into the Stone Age every Christmas until the Argentines accepted Our Way of Life and stopped Dropping Populists Out of Helicopters)...anyway the game assumes that total victory is the only way to stop the Axis from bumbling on and on...which seems reasonable.

HansBolter -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 11:32:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Syagrius How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed. While they certainly could not have won, they MOST certainly could have kept the allies from winning as well. Had some one other than Hitler been in charge, or if he had simply listened to Manstein in the east and avioded playing into the hands of the western allies with the attrition battle in Normandy........without the debacles of Stalingrad, Tunisia, Kursk, Mortain/Falaise, all orchestrated by the bumbling of Hitler as a "strategist", the German army could easily have fought the allies to a stalemate. Even the Soviet steamroller was near the end of it's manpower tether in 1945. Had the Germans played the defensive game of elastic defense and riposte against overextended and spent allied offensives instead of allowing the opposite to happen to them we would be living in a very, very different world right now.

Zinfandel -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/3/2007 11:38:39 PM)
Another what if would be Germany simply stoping after the fall of France in 40. Hitler was under no obligation to go to war against the U.S after pearl harbor, and the American populace at the time were quite willing to fight thier war against the japanese in the pacific, and leave the european war to the europeans. In this situation, England probably would have come to some kind of terms with Hitler, as there were politicians in high offices of government that wanted that to happen, something not talked much about.

Charles2222 -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/4/2007 11:01:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work I'm not arguing that hte Germans were a beaten army in 42 or 43 - clearly they were not. But they had no chance of winning the war as soon as they planned on conquering the USSR in 4 months - ie well before Barbarossa was launched because of poor planning. ...- but they can only ever be speculation It's exactly this statement that makes me rue playing any games that are "historically" accurate with the same outcome...especially the bold part....the fact that there is speculation makes the possibility of a German victory in WWII a viable possibility and if there is a viable possibility, then it should be catered for in gaming. Sure, if the German player sticks to historical play, then the outcome should/would be the same....but "what if" Germany hadn't attacked Russia? Does that mean they lost the war? Would Russia have come in on the side of the Allies? Would the allies have been strong enough to push a more concentrated German defense out of France? Germany wasted a large amount of their resources going after the sleeping bear. The big "what if" for me is what would've been the situation had Germany not invaded Russia? There was plenty of opportunity for the Germans to win "a war".... Go back even further. You realize that France and England had a pact with Poland, but to this day I would have thought somebody would have commented on it, for what few times I have brought it up, but they have not. This pact with Poland, was it simply to go to war in support of Poland if she were invaded? Or was it more specific, such as if Germany invaded they would fight with Poland? That's a key question, because you realize if it was a more general pact, then they violated the terms of the pact by not declaring war on the USSR, for their part in invading Poland. You talk about a massive change on the face of the war.

Syagrius -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/4/2007 6:04:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Syagrius How can you possibly win when your fighting against the combined might of the USSR, USA and the British Empire? In a word the germans were fighting against the whole world. After the attack of the USSR and the US entering the war the Axis were doomed. While they certainly could not have won, they MOST certainly could have kept the allies from winning as well. Had some one other than Hitler been in charge, or if he had simply listened to Manstein in the east and avioded playing into the hands of the western allies with the attrition battle in Normandy........without the debacles of Stalingrad, Tunisia, Kursk, Mortain/Falaise, all orchestrated by the bumbling of Hitler as a "strategist", the German army could easily have fought the allies to a stalemate. Even the Soviet steamroller was near the end of it's manpower tether in 1945. Had the Germans played the defensive game of elastic defense and riposte against overextended and spent allied offensives instead of allowing the opposite to happen to them we would be living in a very, very different world right now. I agree 100%. Its true that even if the Germans were against almost impossible odds, they could have, without mistakes from Hitler, Goering and Cie, hold their ground. An exemple is the invasion of Yugo and Greece that delayed Barabarossa for two months, if they had attacked at the start of May they would have taken Moscow. However my assessment was based on the fact that Hitler was in charge and taking too much space.

Warfare1 -> RE: This game is too balanced. (7/4/2007 7:31:15 PM)
I am afraid that had Hitler not meddled in the war and had left it to his generals, things most certainly would have turned out a little differently. Examples: 1) Hitler stopped Guderian from advancing on Dunkirk - over 330,000 British and French soldiers escaped to fight another day. 2) Make a concentrated effort to take all of the Middle East before starting a war with Russia, which meant giving Rommel more troops. 3) Building more subs earlier. 4) Steering clear of "wonder weapons" like the Tiger and Panther tanks, and instead concentrate on churning out PzIVJ tanks, StuG variants and Hetzers. The Allies (US, UK, USSR) all concentrated on mass production of Shermans and T-34s. Germany should have done the same. WWII was a war of attrition and production. Germany was losing it big time. 5) Start Barbarossa in May or June. The delays in August and September led to a late attack on Moscow. The division of forces to the south vs a concentrated attack on Moscow all kept Germany from capturing the capital. 6) Hitler conveniently declared war on the USA on Dec 11/41 even though he didn't have too. The list could go on and on.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.078125