Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

...Will the Germans be able to match the rate of advance that they were able to do historically at the start of the campaign, particularly in the North and Central? I ask this, because for some reason, most Eastern Front simulations tend to make it very difficult or impossible to match those historical advance rates, mostly because the Soviet units are too over rated, or maybe the German units are under rated. I hope that this game does not make this mistake of over rating the Soviet Army at the start of the campaign, but lets logistics, weather and attrition take it toll on the Germans as was the case historically, of course assuming the German player does not make any huge mistakes at the start of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Do POW's factor into the produciton models as labor ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Do POW's factor into the produciton models as labor ?

I doubt that very much. Usually it's a border most gamedevelopers don't dare to cross. Besides, then you could also count in the Wounded in Action, and POW's do need food and shelter too, how would that count?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

...Will the Germans be able to match the rate of advance that they were able to do historically at the start of the campaign, particularly in the North and Central? I ask this, because for some reason, most Eastern Front simulations tend to make it very difficult or impossible to match those historical advance rates, mostly because the Soviet units are too over rated, or maybe the German units are under rated. I hope that this game does not make this mistake of over rating the Soviet Army at the start of the campaign, but lets logistics, weather and attrition take it toll on the Germans as was the case historically, of course assuming the German player does not make any huge mistakes at the start of the game.

To answer your question from a purely technical point of view, yes German units are fast enough to match their historical counterparts rate of advance. Does that mean they WILL match their historical progress? Not necessarily. Actual progress in the game depends both on how you, as the Axis player, handle your forces and on how the Russian player, human or computer, responds in kind.

As for a comparison for forces, the German Army is almost uniformly of very high quality while the Red Army varies from almost decent to abysmal. It won't be the quality of the Red Army that initially slows the Axis player down but if he doesn't utterly smash the Russians in the early going, the quantity of the Red Army will catch up to him and as the saying goes quantity has a quality all its own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4



What I am driving at is not only the quality and capabilities of each side, but the Command and Control of subordinate units. I am currently reading David Glantz's "Before Stalingrad, Barbarossa-Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941", and he states the C2 of the Soviet Army was non existent during the first two weeks of the fight on the axis of advance to Minsk, and I quote "In 18 days of combat, German Army Group Centre advanced 600km (360 miles), occupied all of Belorussia and inflicted 417,790 casualties on the Western Front...". As stated assuming the Germans player made the same moves historically could the Soviet player counter those moves, particularly along this axis of advance toward Minsk? My gut tells me if they can, then that would not be historically correct, as the Soviet C2 system broken down completely at least for the Western Front. Does the game have the ability to reflect this in any way?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phenix

is this game scheduled for release Christmas 2010? (didnt quite understand the releaseinfo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

Are there bonus for flank and rear attacks? and for combined arms attacks?

quote:

I have found that it is a good idea whenever possible to combine infantry units with armor units when attacking. The reason is that armor units (panzer divisions, tank corps, etc.) are usually weak in infantry and need the infantry heavy non-armored units to help absorb infantry casualties. Therefore it's a good tactic to attack with mixed stacks of armor and non-armor units but not an actual combat bonus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pford

quote:

I have found that it is a good idea whenever possible to combine infantry units with armor units when attacking. The reason is that armor units (panzer divisions, tank corps, etc.) are usually weak in infantry and need the infantry heavy non-armored units to help absorb infantry casualties. Therefore it's a good tactic to attack with mixed stacks of armor and non-armor units but not an actual combat bonus.

So one would expect similar results, given equivalent combat factors, assaulting- or defending- a major urban area, like Stalingrad, with panzer heavy forces as with infantry? This seems to fly in the face of conventional doctrine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings



...Combat is resolved at the weapon to weapon level (squads, vehicles, guns), and the terrain being fought over has a huge impact on how the weapons fight against each other. Combat resolution is literally calculated shot by shot, although you don't want to watch all those shots, or the war would play out in realtime. Armor is at a big disadvantage in urban fighting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw




The answer to your first question is no; the game is not that tactical.