|
RockinHarry -> RE: Why the Fascination? (4/11/2005 5:59:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Major Destruction
From the standpoint of a scenario designer, I find it difficult to model the German force and then entrust it to the whims of the AI. Allied tactics are far more predictable and therefore the AI does a good imitation of that. It takes far more skill to get the computer opponent to use the German forces in anything close to a historical manner.
Therefore I like to model scenarios from the Allied side. It is more challenging.
Stuart, although you´re basically right on the matter, I think you´re doing a lil bit of a generalization! [:D] Yes, the AI is dumb as a nail , but to say it models the allied tactics better does only partly apply and roles are even reversed for late war, when german tactics suffered and the allied ones improved! But that´s more scenario design topic...
Take a look at german army and you´ll notice that it was (as any other army) >95% composed of infantry divisions which numbers go into the hundreds! How many Panzer divisions did exist at any time? 25-30 at best (incl. Waffen SS)? Even those division, while not all existing at the same time (some destroyed, disbanded, refitting...) seldomly were at full strength! So if someone says he likes to play the "cool" german stuff, he/she most likely means those rare AFV´s or weapon systems that the average Landser (and his adversary in the opposing army) never has seen in his life! It sure is much fun and motivation to play as german side with these toys, but when it comes to "challenges" a more realistic force compostion would do the purpose better! Play PzIII/IV and Stugs, not Panthers and Tigers. (Same as playing US with dozens of M26 or Brits with all "Comet" tank forces). German army did all its victories with thousands of Pz-II and Pz-III. The long barreled Pz-IV still was rare in 1942/43 and the Panthers first "show" was....Kursk. A standard german infantry bataillon was usually supported (assuming full TOE) by 6 light (75mm) and 2 heavy (150mm) infantry guns, 12 heavy machine guns, as well as some mortar support and a battery or 2 of light (105mm) artillery batteries. I can´t remember to have seen any such force composition in any user made scenario for a long time (if any). The usual tank/infantry german force compositions I see so oftenly in scenarios have little to do with reality and even when they were correct (Kampfgruppen), most of the ordnance/vehicles used are rather "wishful thinking". (Halftracks instead of trucks, Panthers/Tigers instead of Pz-x, ect.) Off course it´s all a matter of taste at last what toys you use in your scenario/game, as long as it´s all fun and challenging. No play style preference is "better" than the other.[:)]
I´m very much intensively researching the german infantry army for a couple of months and the more I do, the less I find the "average" german OOB/TOE portrayed in any ones scenarios. This is not meant to be as critics towards the scenario makers or players, but I have the impression that there still is lots of belief the german army was all "elite" and "Panzers" ect. The german soldier as such was generally well trained (at least at the beginning of the war) and disciplined. The german officer was considered to be equal to his soldiers and expected to "lead" up front! This earned him lots of respect and confidence from his subordinates, ...a not to be understimated peculiarity in any army! Combined with the "Auftrags-Taktik" (translation, order tactics??) the average german force was oftentimes able to achieve its goals with inferior means (too little troops), but not always! I think the "Auftrags Taktik" pulled the maximum potential and creativity out of any soldier to solve any particular military tasks in most efficient and flexible ways! The dumb german automatons you so oftenly see in Hollywood movies surely do not reflect these facts well. Off course it all suffered the longer the war lasted. German soldiers then received less (or no) major training, the officers were more influenced by Nazi indoctrination (than actual combat experience) and tactics on higher levels hampered by "stand fast" orders. I think if the german "doctrine" would have been used by the French in 1940 or Russia in 1941, the course of the war would have changed for the germans in bad ways much earlier!
My (military) view of the Waffen SS: Highly motivated and trained at the beginning of the war, but as combat performance in Poland 39 and France 1940 showed, they were not bullet proof and suffered excessively high losses! Mid war Waffen SS, still good experience and high motivation (morale), but Nazi indoctrination makes itself felt in the known bad ways. Late war Waffen SS, only a small core of highly trained veterans left, the remainder either was draftees from parts of europe that germany still had under occupation at this time, or Nazi indoctrinated youngsters that had little to offer than what you would consider combat morale. The same btw. counts for all other army branches as well, incl. the German Para´s late in the war. I think the major difference between most german unit types (SS, army and Paras) in 1945 was their uniforms only.
Wild Bill, I´d wish for more german played scenarios that would be as challenging and difficult to win than maybe an average russian force (Many BT and T-26!) in 1941 or French in 1940![8D]
|
|
|
|
