Matrix Games Forums

The rating system is not as overwhelming as you think it is. Each point difference between commanders is like 1% change in casualties up and down. So a 2% swing. So Manstein against an average general is +5%,-5%....

If I rated every general accurately Monty would be a 3. He was terrible. Only his incompetence let Rommel get away. Rommel was that good either.

So I gave higher #s and smaller advantages

But also realize that with way less material Germany did incredibly well.

Take quite a few of the major battles later in the war and removed the names and you can't tell who won almost.

Kursk? Soviets lost way more
Bulge? Germans didn't lose that much
Only in 1944 did the Soviets finally inflict more casualties to the Germans than the Germans to them.

This small nation against 2 juggernauts and one equal to it. How it held out was pretty incredible.

I'd love to see Montgommery rated 3, that would be funny. But no one would use him... come to think of it, I refuse to use him ever, always use any other general than him.

AlbertN wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2024 3:16 pm I've noticed that - and I think it's plainly wrong the Allies in '42 would evaluate some invasion of mainland Europe. Or places where Germany can reinforce easily.

They simply have a far too rich economy, and are swimming in manpower. While Russia is relying on Lend Lease (which is factually good) but struggles with manpower.
That teamed up with how 'easy' is to invade, and eventually embark again from a port to escape.

That's my perception at least.

What you depicted above I did in a game, and sure I got some units shattered (which reform), I may have lost 1-2 corps which US / UK economy breeze through, but saved Russia from a brutal Summer '42 offensive? Smooth.
And by the time summer '43 comes I think D'Day historical will pale by how many troops and planes the Allies are churning out.

Well again this is player dependent. I have never had much of a issue with the Axis keeping the Allies out of Europe in 42.

The only country with manpower is the US...since at this point the UK should be suffering in the BOA and trying to keep enough ships a float...If they focused on manpower they have lost the seas...and that is a dangerous proposition...

But again...opponent dependent.

AlbertN hasn't even finished a single game. Some of us have probably played a hundred. I'd say play a few games before you decide how balance is.

Anyway I'm making progress with my Allies, some new unconventional things I'm testing out. Quite counter-intuitive some of them.
Just had an OK player quit in late 1940, after taking France. That's a first.

Still the Battle of the Atlantic vs land units is on a knife edge, and if you get it wrong...

To me the Game is fairly well balanced. I've played many mirrored Games which point in that direction. If as the Axis I chase the Russians back to the Urals and slaughter every Allied beach landing I also likely as Allies burn Berlin and Rome in 1944 at the latest. Same thing in reverse.

One thing I question is the easy availability of landing craft. One German infantry corp and a para corp hitting England in 1940 should be the limit plus what is brought thru a captured port. Same in North Africa. OTOH eight or nine Brit Corp in France is just not reasonable. A cap of four would be about right. Infrastructure is simply not there for either side to deploy 15 or more Corp. Ability to break down Armor, Mech, Para corp to divisions would also be a good thing. Logistics in Russia should be on a par with what we see in a Balkan or Turkish campaign. What we see is almost like western Europe.

All in all, minor complaints.

AlvaroSousa wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2024 3:35 pm But also realize that with way less material Germany did incredibly well.

Take quite a few of the major battles later in the war and removed the names and you can't tell who won almost.

Kursk? Soviets lost way more
Bulge? Germans didn't lose that much
Only in 1944 did the Soviets finally inflict more casualties to the Germans than the Germans to them.

This small nation against 2 juggernauts and one equal to it. How it held out was pretty incredible.

AlvaroSousa, it seems that you also fell into the arms of propaganda of the incredible effectiveness of Germany and its Wehrmacht Look at the facts with an open mind, as you yourself suggest:
The Polish campaign of 1939? Germany has a twofold superiority on the Polish front and a modern army at that time, against a brave but outdated and small Polish force. In addition, the Polish government almost immediately abandoned its people and fled the country, betraying them. The result is 2 weeks of war, and the Wehrmacht is resting from the fighting.
The French campaign of 1940? Holland, Belgium and France clearly did not want to fight and surrendered as soon as they had at least some reason, and England, as usual, was unable to field large ground forces. The result is 6 weeks of war, and the Wehrmacht is resting from the fighting.
Denmark? She surrendered without a fight. Norway? Small short-term "battles for the forester's hut", at the level of the army corps.
The spring of 1941? Yugoslavia had no chance in any case, only the Serbs fought, the army is much weaker than Poland's. Greece? It is even weaker than Yugoslavia, but it received at least some help from England, but the forces are also incommensurable.
The African campaign? The entire British Empire fell on 3 divisions of the "fox of the desert" (how much is 1% of the Wehrmacht?!). This is where Rommel's Afrika Korps really showed their skills. Or, another option – the British fought extremely clumsily.
The War on the Eastern Front… And that's where the Wehrmacht broke down.
Do not forget that this was not a "Russian–Prussian" war, but another "crusade to the east" of the whole of Europe (except England) against Russia. There were no truly neutral countries. Even Switzerland helped to launder Nazi money. Even Portugal participated in supplying Germany with petroleum products from South America, which were supplied by US firms. Even Turkey supplied rare earth metals. The entire European economy, all its resources, all its industrial and human potential were thrown into the conquest of the "living space" in the east. And these forces were clearly greater than those of the USSR.
The first strike, "Barbarossa", was terrible and capable, but the Red Army with great difficulty and with great losses, withstood it. And then she fought alone against the whole of Europe for 2 years, from the summer of 1941 to the summer of 1943, at least. That's who: "with much less materials, he acted incredibly well"...
Landlease? A very important thing, of course! As much as 10% of the USSR's military production. But even these supplies in 1941 extremely insignificant, in 1942, were negligible in 1943 they could already be felt. The peak of the landlise was in 1944-45.
The USSR, this heroic country, fought alone against the whole of Europe for 2 years. "The way she stood up was pretty incredible." During this time, the widely advertised Wehrmacht could not defeat the Red Army, the powerful coalition of the Axis countries, with the support of the whole of Europe, could not defeat the USSR.
The Wehrmacht was extremely strong and able, firm and disciplined. The Wehrmacht and Germany were serious and dangerous opponents. But the Red Army of the Soviet Union turned out to be even better…

I just look at number of casualties when attacking and defending. Germans should have lost long before they did. You can look up the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.