"Realistic artillery"

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: seille

ORIGINAL: Cpt Kernow
It wasnt Britain or America who defeated the Germans, it was the Russians, that is why the Nazis had 80% of their combat power on the East front. Italy and Normandy were just side shows to the main event.

Oha, you really think this is true ?
That must be a joke ...

Do you know why the russians survived the german attack in ww2 ?

1. The lend lease help
2. The allied bombing (especially fuel and other production)
3. The threat of being attacked in the west

I can´t tell you exact numbers, but the troops (especially armored divisions) which were
forced to protect France for example would have been enough to bring the german 1942
offensive to an end. Same for 1943 Kursk.
Not to forget some bad decisions by Hitler.

ONLY the support of the west made the successful russian 1944 attacks possible. That´s a fact !

Yes, Lend Lease helped, as well as the threat of attack in the west. But I really disagree with the statement that the armored divisions left in France would have been enough to help the Germans win in '42...the "bad decisions by Hitler" are more to blame for the Germans' loss, as well as the simple fact that the Russians had regained their footing and learned alot from the previous year, as well as still having enough troops for offensive maneuvers.

The contributions of the west shouldn't be discounted, but the idea that the West "won" WWII, etc., is just nonsense. The Russians sustained 7-10 million battle deaths compared to roughly 400,000 each for the US and UK...that's quite a difference...

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Kernow

Lets talk facts. You just speculate.

Fact: 80% of German combat power on East Front
Fact: Russians kill more germans in one month June44 than western Allies kill in entire war 1939-45.
Fact: The western theaters were a side show to the east theater as is evinced by the above two facts.

Massive speculation: I can´t tell you exact numbers (LOL), but the troops (especially armored divisions) which were
forced to protect France for example would have been enough to bring the german 1942 offensive to an end.

Also the idea the allied bombing was haveing a significant effect on German military production in 41 and 42 is totally false. It grew in effectiveness in 43 but was only realy hurting in 44. By then the Germans had allready lost the war anyway.

However even your speculation dosnt change the fact that the Eastern theatre was the main event. Yes what was happening in the west played a part in that event, but those events only play a contributing part to the main event, they do not make the west the most important theatre at any time during the war.

Let us reverse the situation, imagine the Soviets had not won MASSIVE victories at Stalingrad (42) and Kursk, an invasion of mainland France/Italy now becomes utterly impossible however much bombing the western allies engage in. It was only the massive destruction of men and equipment visited on the wehrmacht by the russians that made any invasion of Normandy possible. If the Germans had achieved victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, this would have left the western allies probably only able to achieve a victory via the use of Nuclear weapons.

What happens in the west is only made relevant by its effect on the East. What happens in the west is only made possible by what happens in the East.

Tell it brother! Right on the money...

[Zakhal]

.

[Awac835]

Ive tried a little scenario in PT where i had 10 arty units ehhh... in a unit. But anyway, compared to the 10 ligth tanks i had in another "unit", the arty consumed something around 1500 supplys while the 10 light tanks only consumed 200.
I to think that the arty in PT seems a little to powerfull, since you can simply sit back and get massive kills if the enemy have none himself. But then again it seems they take a extreme amount of supply to keep running. I havent quite figured out the supply system so i cant say if i think its balanced or not.

[machiavelli]

It mentions at the beginning of this post that artillery range is limited to 2? Please tell me that this is not true or that there is some other way of implementing ballistic missles (V2, Scud, etc for people who don't know what I mean). I have a pathological aversion to hard-coded limits.

[mtvaill]

I'm fairly certain I saw it mentioned that the artillery range is moddable, among many other things.

[Awac835]

Yes, im also quite certain i saw it mentioned that artillery range can be modified beyond a range of 2 in the editor. Atleast it can in PT.
 
But im not sure if you will be able to mod in SCUD's ,MLRS's etc. What you would have to do is give a unit strong artillary attack power and range. That all works fine, but im not sure if the supply model is up for it.
I mean say you have SCUDs or MLRSs available to you. You surely wouldnt be able to fire em every single turn like you can now, atleast in PT, given you have enough supply.
Im have no clue how the supply will work out in AT but for one to model strong artillery and cruise missiles i would guess you needed a system like the one in battlefront where you simply cant just nuke away.

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: Awac835

Yes, im also quite certain i saw it mentioned that artillery range can be modified beyond a range of 2 in the editor. Atleast it can in PT.

But im not sure if you will be able to mod in SCUD's ,MLRS's etc. What you would have to do is give a unit strong artillary attack power and range. That all works fine, but im not sure if the supply model is up for it.
I mean say you have SCUDs or MLRSs available to you. You surely wouldnt be able to fire em every single turn like you can now, atleast in PT, given you have enough supply.
Im have no clue how the supply will work out in AT but for one to model strong artillery and cruise missiles i would guess you needed a system like the one in battlefront where you simply cant just nuke away.

It is possible to create kamikaze subformationtypes in the editor. This way you can use those SFtypes only ones since they will destroy themselves after the first round of combat.

[Ande]

this game will be out about three minutes until someone starts making a ww3 scenario with a lot of nukes

[william64]

Here is the best way to say it. WW2's allies were perfectly matched. The russians supplied most of the manpower and we supplied most of the support. It is silly to argue which side was more important. Neither side could have gotten it done alone. What cannot be argued is that by far the greatest amount of casualties were on the eastern front. It is the russian people who suffered and sacrificed most to bring the nazi's down.

It is debatable whether america would have had the stomach to engage in a war that would have cost us 5 to 10 million casualties at that point in our countries history. Please remember there was not 300 million of back then. There were far less than half that number, so these type of casualties would have been unthinkable for us.

[william64]

Here is the best way to say it. WW2's allies were perfectly matched. The russians supplied most of the manpower and we supplied most of the support. It is silly to argue which side was more important. Neither side could have gotten it done alone. What cannot be argued is that by far the greatest amount of casualties were on the eastern front. It is the russian people who suffered and sacrificed most to bring the nazi's down.

It is debatable whether america would have had the stomach to engage in a war that would have cost us 5 to 10 million casualties at that point in our countries history. Please remember there was not 300 million of back then. There were far less than half that number, so these type of casualties would have been unthinkable for us.