ORIGINAL: micha1100
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
ORIGINAL: pompack
I was just trying to point out that if you take Leningrad, sit on the outskirts of Moscow and fort up in Rostov after inflicting 3,000,000 casualties then you are in for a very rough winter. OTOH if you are holding the line Riga-Minsk-Vinnitsa-Odessa after slaughtering 5,000,000 then you should count on an auto victory NLT mid43.
That is correct, however it's incredibly hard to inflict that many casualties in HvH game.... so the game should find a way to "award" Axis players for territory not only casualties.
Common sense would suggest that Axis player is (sort of) awarded for the territory he took by the VP system, where he can retreat slowly, and, having more territory than historic Axis, may win on points in 45. However, that is not the case if in blizzard he loses all that he gained (and more).
I haven't tried it but I strongly doubt that killing 5,000,000 Soviets will result in an automatic German victory if the Wehrmacht only reached the mentioned line by the first winter. I could be wrong but I'd imagine all the production from the unconquered cities would make a Soviet recovery possible, especially given the time necessary to take the vast areas still held by the Red Army.
I also don't believe that common sense suggests that the VP system should automatically reward the German player for taking more territory than historical. If you overextend to take territory and get crushed because of that then there is obviously no reason to be rewarded for that. It's different, of course, if you only get crushed because of unrealistic game mechanics.
+1
me too... the germans should have no chance (by points) to win in 1941. The russians had to much manpower left to roll over.
also it has the problem that a german player just do things that are silly (like the further advance in november 1941 in real live)