Matrix Games Forums

Thanks for added info Ramus.

The reason I hit the ratio so hard its very easy for SHC to grind down GHC because of the low ratio in wite. Vs MT hes going 5-23 and easly grinding down GHC.
Hoooper is also very good at this in our past game.

the 42 ratio and 43 ratio are much to high. This all can be made more historical with some tweaking even under the current engine.

Most players don't realize that grinding down GHC does not require a win ratio higher then 30%. The things SHC need to build to grind doesn't require any large equipment because the combat engine focuses on close combat and not ranged combat. Even if SHC lost 100 arm pts it will have more then enough,because of the exploits that can be had.

I know that the CE is being over hauled for witw. I hope it is more reflective of historical combat and focuses on range/firepower and not small ball as the current engine does.

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

While people would like to debate Pelton's maths, as they say, I think the community misses two points which are indisputable:

A) There's no point playing Germany if you want to enjoy your game

B) Both the air war algorithm/model and the ground war algorithm/model do not reflect World War 2 combat dynamics at all accurately.

I'll be back to remind people of this as War in the West approaches release.

A is totally subjective. So while this might be true for u, u seem to make that a universal truth, its not.
From ur rantings over the times. It seems unless u sure to win as germans, A wont be what u want it too be.
I can only support others, thats fine, play HoI or some thing. Its possible with ease there. Doesnt mean its historicly true and well
WiTE as said by other choose a path of gaming closer to history. Even if not every thing is perfect.

On B u have some merit. i've done my share about complaining about it, non the less if B is just to make ur vision of A true. I think there would be an disparity in the change u and i would want.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

While I agree that A is subjective, and a bit hyperbolic, because I have enjoyed several of my 'losing' games as Germany (which actually is every single one that I've lost).

The problem, which I'm not sure you would concede since you seem to be a Sovie-o-phile, is that Soviet Russia has the initiative from about Turn 4 onwards, and they have it by sitting back and doing nothing but ZOC blankets with piece of sh!t ant units while the giant soviet nurse-maid raises Soviet morale for units in the rear echelons, safeguards cavalry to Voronezh to await the mud and snow, and all meaningful industry always gets railed to the east.

The problem, as I've said again and again, is that Germany is a bit-player in the epic saga of the amalgamation of the Soviet juggernaut. That's the game. Wait for the Soviet to have the horde big enough to beat you back every single turn for the rest of the game (except Mud).

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Thanks for added info Ramus.

The reason I hit the ratio so hard its very easy for SHC to grind down GHC because of the low ratio in wite. Vs MT hes going 5-23 and easly grinding down GHC.
Hoooper is also very good at this in our past game.

I know, but so have u been able to grind the SHC down to point of ppl giving up on ur other games Pelton. Taking single occurances/games as an all end are rather dangerous. U should know that both things indeed are possibly highly depending on how the game develops.

the 42 ratio and 43 ratio are much to high. This all can be made more historical with some tweaking even under the current engine.

Well in ur current games that might be true Pelton. Just looking at the 1st page u have 2 current AARs where the germans are able to launch highly succesfull 42 campaigns capturing sigificant forces. The post blizzard loss ratio in 42 alone those are prolly not far from more historic ones. Again noting u cant really have historic rates as the in game russian army cant sustain it. If we look at all ur other recent AARs most are only at start of summer 42, so i cant tell what will happen there. Maybe u have more info. In some alrdy been able to in 42 capture/pocketing a number of russian forces.
Would interesting too filter of the post blizzard 42 losses in those AARs and see what the actual ratio is there once summer is over.

Most players don't realize that grinding down GHC does not require a win ratio higher then 30%. The things SHC need to build to grind doesn't require any large equipment because the combat engine focuses on close combat and not ranged combat. Even if SHC lost 100 arm pts it will have more then enough,because of the exploits that can be had.

I dont know of any exploit on russian Production/factories. Well, there are some "sneakiness" that can be used, but in terms of overall balance those thing matter nada. I dont play games that use exploits while i can and so play games using the rules. My guide russian fac evac is certainly an optimezation strategy and ill use that. I wouldnt consider that an exploit tho i cant say if others do.
If there are any exploits i would hope ppl would post them in the support forums.

As too the combat engine we have alrdy other places had discussion about that. As pointed out i have misgivings about it, and the way offenses is being biased. Every given following a fairly historical line of action teh german would be on defense most of the time so helping defense would help thme the most, but ofc it would also makes things hard/different intially.
As u migth have read MT has actually made some notes on his arm consumption and the way the machine handles the upgrades of squads and what it does too him.
Considering that, if u had removed 100 arms(just under 1/3) from him one can only assume the "problems" he had/notes he made would be far worse than now. So i dont buy the losing 100 arms doesnt matter. If he is using some "kinda" exploit, well he has before posted them in the support section and i woudl hope he does with this too.

I know that the CE is being over hauled for witw. I hope it is more reflective of historical combat and focuses on range/firepower and not small ball as the current engine does.

Time will tell.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The problem, which I'm not sure you would concede since you seem to be a Sovie-o-phile,

Well since any one that doesnt adhere to ur line of thot gets this title i guess its a cross i hafta bare.
And no i wouldnt concede too that. i go around pointing out the flaws in ppl logic and faulty history at times. Is there a prespondance in times i raise issues on things ppl bring up with the germans sure, but that cuz its what reciving the majority of the posts and few really seems to bother actually looking at stuff also from the russian side.
I've read far more and also have more books on the german army and campaigns than any other army in WW2.

A good example of where ppl IMO ends up reading faulty history into things. Nicklas Zetterling which IMO is an excellent writter and points out many myths through his statiscal analytical work.

There was a thread some time ago on how the destruction of AGC was far worse in terms of casulties tha´n Normandy was. Using Nicklas Zetterlings book at "evidence" in their case. Its a quite importand pice of work he has done in that book. Among other things noting that previous writters haver claimed that a a number of divsisions in normandy was totally destroyed. Which they in fact werent. This is entirely correct and good work on his part to point out.

This is then, by the before mentioned ppl, "used as evidence" in that as many AGC divisions was totally destroyed. There for the losses was higher in Bagration. Problem is that a german division in AGC in mid 44 had on average around 7000-7500 man in it. So if it was totally destroyed and not a single man escapes, it would take that number of casulties. It cant take more casulties than men it has.
The average for a german division is normandy is on the other hard around 13000 with quite a number being higher. Up too over 20k.
If such a division only takes half of the division as casulties and the rest escapes u end up with 6500 casulties which isnt far from what a totally destroyed div losses in Bagration. Further more because of the retreat acros sfrance most of the divs in normandy generally losses very high proportion of the heavy weapons. Since they start with more men and heavy weapons than the typical german divs in AGC have, u generally end up losing more than u have in the german divs in AGC.

So while ppl in this case gets it right that indeed, unlike what some previous writers has written, the german divs wasnt generally totally destroyed in normandy/race across france and the tail end of most of the divisions escapes. Funnily enough this misconception is largely based on german officers post war interviews. They then wrongly concluding that then the losses wasnt particular high in normandy compared to AGCs destruction, cuz they arent looking at absolut numbers. If only chooses to read half of what Zetterling says and pointing that out makes me a "Sovie-o-phile", so be it.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
is that Soviet Russia has the initiative from about Turn 4 onwards, and they have it by sitting back and doing nothing but ZOC blankets with piece of sh!t ant units while the giant soviet nurse-maid raises Soviet morale for units in the rear echelons, safeguards cavalry to Voronezh to await the mud and snow, and all meaningful industry always gets railed to the east.

The problem, as I've said again and again, is that Germany is a bit-player in the epic saga of the amalgamation of the Soviet juggernaut. That's the game. Wait for the Soviet to have the horde big enough to beat you back every single turn for the rest of the game (except Mud).

U been saying this for ever and non the less ppl have and still are winning as the german, read soviet players gives up. So if above was universially true that couldnt happen. Thats not to say the above cant happen, but it far far from does every time. Lots ofd AARs show that.
On industry, as historicly all or very near of all "meaning" full industry was evacuated so if u trying to depict history u then on spot there.

Kind regards,

Rasmuis

The thing that gets me the most is how poeple still cling to the dated fact that Russia could have some how soloed Germany when the numbers clearly show, Germany was winning the war of atrition hands down.

Russian total population 170 million
Germany 86 million

A ratio of 2 to 1 basicly. If you want to throw in the minor allies it just makes the case even worse for Russia.

Combat losses from 1941-1944 was a 3.5 to 1 ratio and thats the very best case with minor axis allies included.

I have seen others based on new data who put it at closer to 4.5 to 1, but I will give it the best case.

The only reason Russia survived was because:

1. Early 1942 Russia was able to move 500,000 men to Moscow area from the Far East. Becuase of USA fighting Japan.
2. 363,000 trucks allies gave to Russia/ 12,500 tanks/7,000 HT. Many of these arrived in the 2nd half of 42, just in time.
3. Germany had close to 1,000,000 men in Western Europe in 1941 and even more (close to 2 million) tied up in Western and Southern Europe in 1942.

Germany vs Russia ( 1 front ) only and it would have been over in 1941 or at the latest 1942. With the 1941-1942 ratio clearly being at least 5 to 1 there is no way Russia could have survived vs all of Germans army and airforse on the eastern front.

Put another 20-30 divisions in Russia in 1941 and Moscow/Leningrad would have easly fallen and then add in even more German divisions in 1942 and its over.

I am not down playing the brave russia soldiers who had almost no trianing and who were fighting for leaders using basicly WW1 tactics.

I also know Germany lost the war, thats for the Red Fanboys.

But based 100% on the simple math and not PC or feelings, Germany could have soloed Russia.

Hitler failed to follow his on advise and got Gemany into another 2 (3) front war.

Be interesting to see how 2by3 over comes this when they start testing The War in Europe.

Because if they don't forse Germany into a war early with the west Germany could solo Russia in 1941.

Over all because of 150 missing Russia divisions, 2by3 is forsed to lower the combat ratio to balance the game.

The combat engine needs a major over haul.

But they were right to fix the Airwar and logistics system first as they are not close to realistic.

Germany kicked butt because of tactical air support from 1939 to 1942. The fact that in most cases they were outnumbered and out gunned can't be over looked.

The old 3 to 1 to beable to attack, simply did not apply to Germany until they lost control of the air. 1 to 1 in most cases vs British/French or Russian was more then enough for an easy win.

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The thing that gets me the most is how poeple still cling to the dated fact that Russia could have some how soloed Germany when the numbers clearly show, Germany was winning the war of atrition hands down.

Russian total population 170 million
Germany 86 million

A ratio of 2 to 1 basicly. If you want to throw in the minor allies it just makes the case even worse for Russia.

Combat losses from 1941-1944 was a 3.5 to 1 ratio and thats the very best case with minor axis allies included.

Problem is while the population is roughly 2-1 its not the same as that they 2 nation was able to recruit a similar proportion of its population into the army.
The roughly 30 mio drafted by the russians is a higher proportion that the german were able too/did, until the very end. This means they are able to take a higher loss rate and they needed too than the population figurs indicate.
Not only that along with getting such a high proportion of the population into the army, they still were able to keep an industry tho tailor suited for the army keep up a production far higher than at start of war and far higher than tee that the german was able too, until near the end, when it didnt matter.

Tho im not a big fan of Richard Overy he has written a couple of books on the subject.

So again taking pure population vs population here is far from the whole story.

I have seen others based on new data who put it at closer to 4.5 to 1, but I will give it the best case.

What are these new data?

Again the newest research i know of on the german side as per above post indicate that the german loss figurs are too low.
Per above post in regards to Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans research. His research indicate that the OKW figurs are to low and if they are
the loss ratio will fall not, rise.

The only reason Russia survived was because:

1. Early 1942 Russia was able to move 500,000 men to Moscow area from the Far East. Becuase of USA fighting Japan.
2. 363,000 trucks allies gave to Russia/ 12,500 tanks/7,000 HT. Many of these arrived in the 2nd half of 42, just in time.

Define many? look at the number of LL delivered in 42 with what arrives in 43 and 44, what arrives in 42 is a fraction of the whole.

3. Germany had close to 1,000,000 men in Western Europe in 1941 and even more (close to 2 million) tied up in Western and Southern Europe in 1942.

And a few 100s other reason, but thats a lengthy discussion. Not that it isnt fun to speculate on what might have happend, but as always u dont know and when u historic reasoning u dont know what the what if situasion might end up with.

For example u assume that the 1-2 mio men men that was on the western southern front would have been used on the eastern front. If we look totally past the fact that this was germany's doing not some thing comming from the out side. That they needed those 1-2 mio there.

Well the german army started to demobilize after france, they didnt need army as large. If there had been no western front who knows how much the germans would have been mobilizing for a "russia only " adventure. U assume and this is a typical grave error in doing what ifs, is that if u alter the situasion the the things that make up the situasion stays the same. The world is dynamic if u change conditions usually that in it self alters peoples perceptions and there for the premise for the situasion.
It could have been 5m it could have 3m as around the historic or another figur. The german didnt think Barbarossa would take long and be over by the end of the fall. So they had no reason to use more forces than they did. It was a done case. There no particular reason to think that with out a western front they wouldnt make the exact same calulation/conclusion and there for have an army of similar size than the historic one. If they historicly thot it would do, why would removing a western front alter that fact?

In ur list ot dont mention any of the self admitted errors the german commited in regards to Barbarossa. Logistic come first in mind. Removing a western front doesnt necesarrily and actually there is nothing to indicate they arent bound to make the same mistakes. Have u made a study on what an extra 2 mio men on the eastern front would have done to the german supply system? is its even feaisble to have more men? could u supply them given the alrdy historc limitations?

Again the world is dynamic when u start to alter pre existing conditions its far from ensured u get the same expection of added results.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The thing that gets me the most is how poeple still cling to the dated fact that Russia could have some how soloed Germany when the numbers clearly show, Germany was winning the war of atrition hands down.

Russian total population 170 million
Germany 86 million

A ratio of 2 to 1 basicly. If you want to throw in the minor allies it just makes the case even worse for Russia.

Combat losses from 1941-1944 was a 3.5 to 1 ratio and thats the very best case with minor axis allies included.

Problem is while the population is roughly 2-1 its not the same as that they 2 nation was able to recruit a similar proportion of its population into the army.
The roughly 30 mio drafted by the russians is a higher proportion that the german were able too/did, until the very end. This means they are able to take a higher loss rate and they needed too than the population figurs indicate.
Not only that along with getting such a high proportion of the population into the army, they still were able to keep an industry tho tailor suited for the army keep up a production far higher than at start of war and far higher than te that the german wasnt able too, until near the end, when it didnt matter.

Tho im not a big fan of Richard Overy he has written a couple of books on the subject.

So again taking pure population vs population here is far from the whole story.

I have seen others based on new data who put it at closer to 4.5 to 1, but I will give it the best case.

What are these new data?

Again the newest research i know of on the german side as per above post indicate that the german loss figurs are too low.
Per above post in regards to Dr Per Rüdiger Overmans research. His research indicate that the OKW figurs are to low and if they are
the loss ratio will fall not, rise.

The only reason Russia survived was because:

1. Early 1942 Russia was able to move 500,000 men to Moscow area from the Far East. Becuase of USA fighting Japan.
2. 363,000 trucks allies gave to Russia/ 12,500 tanks/7,000 HT. Many of these arrived in the 2nd half of 42, just in time.

Define many? look at the number of LL delivered in 42 with what arrives in 43 and 44, what arrives in 42 is a fraction of the whole.

3. Germany had close to 1,000,000 men in Western Europe in 1941 and even more (close to 2 million) tied up in Western and Southern Europe in 1942.

And a few 100s other reason, but thats a lengthy discussion. Not that it isnt fun to speculate on what might have happend, but as always u dont know and when u historic reasoning u dont know what the what if situasion might end up with.

For example u assume that the 1-2 mio men men that was on the western southern front would have been used on the eastern front. If we look totally past the fact that this was germany's doing not some thing comming from the out side. That they needed those 1-2 mio there.

Well the german army started to demobilize after france, they didnt need army as large. If there had been no western front who knows how much the germans would have been mobilizing for a "russia only " adventure. U assume and this is a typical grave error in doing what ifs, is that if u alter the situasion the the things that make up the situasion stays the same. The world is dynamic if u change conditions usually that in it self alters peoples perceptions and there for the premise for the situasion.
It could have been 5m it could have 3m as around the historic or another figur. The german didnt think Barbarossa would take long and be over by the end of the fall. So they had no reason to use more forces than they did. It was a done case. There no particular reason to think that with out a western front they wouldnt make the exact same calulation/conclusion and there for have an army of similar size than the historic one. If they historicly thot it would do, why would removing a western front alter that fact?

In ur list ot dont mention any of the self admitted errors the german commited in regards to Barbarossa. Logistic come first in mind. Removing a western front doesnt necesarrily and actually there is nothing to indicate they arent bound to make the same mistakes. Have u made a study on what an extra 2 mio men on the eastern front would have done to the german supply system? is its even feaisble to have more men? could u supply them given the alrdy historc limitations?

Again the world is dynamic when u start to alter pre existing conditions its far from ensured u get the same expection of added results.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Study? We have a lab right here called wite.

Just add in 20 divisions and we all know the ending.

When TWiE comes out I am guessing GHC players will not be demobilize after France and will be putting the German Industry in war mode in 1939 and not late 1943.

The main focus of GHC players will be taking Russia out.

Historically speaking mobilizing German population in 1939 and not 1943 would be a great start.

Europe was Germanys war to lose and they did, not because of the allies but because:

1. Hitler did not put industry in war mode until late 43
2. Hitler demoblized after France
3. Hitler did not mobilze manpower until late 43.

If they had done these things in say 1941 to say nothing of 1939 it would be a different world, but its not.

Germany held all the cards, but simply did not play them or they played them 2 years to late. Hitlers bad.

Thanks for chatting about this in a civil manor Walloc most guys go all ape shit and ignore the basic data.

I know of no exploit in Soviet production or anything for that matter. I optimize. If I find anything I think is over the top I disclose it.

As for grinding, well what else can the Soviets do?

I have 8.5 million men and 361 Arm factories. I disregard losses. Just attack. Kill the hun. Simple.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I know of no exploit in Soviet production or anything for that matter. I optimize. If I find anything I think is over the top I disclose it.

As for grinding, well what else can the Soviets do?

I have 8.5 million men and 361 Arm factories. I disregard losses. Just attack. Kill the hun. Simple.

Would you mind telling me how this makes Germany fun to play?

Walloc, no disrespect intended, but English obviously isn't your first language and I found your last counter to me incomprehensible, so I'm leaving it alone.

We STILL have the game where USSR can 'optimize' away ALL of the historical doctrine and more importantly, actual limits to its early war capabilities, meanwhile the German is tied on rails to degrade at exactly the historical rate (i.e., the yearly code that forces morale degradation prevents Germany from fielding a more capable army than it might have had were it not for these rules that artificially degrade the army). You cannot 'optimize' Germany enough to match what the Soviet can 'optimize.'

The game remains nothing more than a Soviet World War 2 optimization simulation.

Just because I've been saying it all along is not an argument that effectively counters me.

The game fails in regard to forcing Soviets to more historical tactics (more reckless offensives would be needed), that allows them to conserve manpower and build very large army. This is offset somehow by reduced build capacity, but still very powerful. This is all because of lackluster victory conditions. If I had spare money I'd buy Twilight in the East and would send it to 2by3 so they could learn something about victory conditions from that game.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The game remains nothing more than a Soviet World War 2 optimization simulation.

I've been reading this thread with great interest. I think your comment is a great summation of the issue.

There is nothing fun about my game with Pelton, for either side. He has made it this way. He is merely reaping what he has sown.

What do you think would have transpired had Germany invaded then retreated to Poland? That the Russians would sit around and wait to be attacked again?

Germany is fun to play if you know how to play them. Not many do know how though. 42 is the year of fun now, as long as you hold your nerve and don't run like a little child in 41 HEHE [:D]

I think I am so far under your skin you are a little unnerved. We all know your not happy you dont have to post it for the 2567 time hehehe

Your deluding yourself herr Pelton. When we switch sides I will show you how to play Germany. You need some tutoring it would appear

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Your deluding yourself herr Pelton. When we switch sides I will show you how to play Germany. You need some tutoring it would appear

post 2568 hehehehe

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Walloc, no disrespect intended, but English obviously isn't your first language and I found your last counter to me incomprehensible, so I'm leaving it alone.

Sorry its a flaw of mine and isnt exclusive to english. Sadly the same is true in my written danish. Any how i reread my post and tried to edit it for better understanding if u wish u reread it.

We STILL have the game where USSR can 'optimize' away ALL of the historical doctrine and more importantly, actual limits to its early war capabilities, meanwhile the German is tied on rails to degrade at exactly the historical rate (i.e., the yearly code that forces morale degradation prevents Germany from fielding a more capable army than it might have had were it not for these rules that artificially degrade the army). You cannot 'optimize' Germany enough to match what the Soviet can 'optimize.'

The game remains nothing more than a Soviet World War 2 optimization simulation.

Just because I've been saying it all along is not an argument that effectively counters me.

Well Helio, could that be cuz ur mind is made up on the matter and there is no way to change it then.

Pelton latest theories as i read them is that u can grind the SHC army in 42 from a purely AP point of view. Ill say this is nothing new. This has been know by a number of ppl for quite a while. Obviously not going terribly well so far in his game vs MT, but he has 3-4 other AARs starting about same time as the one vs MT. Tho a number of them doesnt seem to be updated recently, they have seemed to take another path.
U get 60 AP per turn plus a few from HQ arriving here and there. If u kill near that or above that russian army cant "optimize" any thing.
U need to stay above a certain lvl of divisional equaliants or u cant defend ur front.
If ur able to go above that number the russian army is actually in decline, no matter manpower situasion and arms situasion.
I cant argue with with the fun factor its up to ppl them self. Whats fun for one might or might not be to another.

But if u consider the alternative to the AP system "buying" units. A system just like the german one. Where u would get the units for free when they died. U can then use refit to manipulate the army as fitting, leaving shells if u like or not behind own lines.(possibly as rules are now to stop fort degrations and so on. Or keep all ur units in teh front depending on what u have as a manpower pool. With such a system every thing like on german side is free and it cant be targeted. As it happens automaticly.

This isnt the case of the current system, its a system in it self that with out regards, to manpower pool , equipment and so on can be attack in it self. Kill more than 60 AP worth of units per turn and its a system in decline. u can have 10 mio in manpower pool but if u got no units it will do u no good. Is that a thing that sound terribly realistic. A artificial imposed limit on units, with out regards too actual manpower and equipment situasion.
As it is now its actually a system in it self that can be targeted. With out regards to other factors. While u within very strict limits can "optimize" the system as a whole is a liablity for the russian side not a advantage. We seen plenty a AARs where APs become a the real constraint in the rebuilding of a SHC army v 2.0. A restraint that would never been wiith the same system as GHC side uses as every thing would just come for free and automaticly. While we also seen AARs where there isnt a directly constraining factor in the AP we still never to my knowledge ever seen an army reaching historic proportions unit wise, ever.

Now within the AP system as it is now can u tailor suit ur army, yes u can to a certain extend. If we saw lots of AARs with pure mech armis or arty division in many times the historical there would be a problem, i agree. The opposite happens while u in single factors might see a few more tank corps than historical or arty divs when u look at the army as whole. Going by historical reinforcement likes the german side would give in my best guess around twice as many units on a whole as the top army we ever seen so far. Again the rules would be just like on german side they come back for free if destroyed. The AP system as is, limits not expands the russian army in game compared to a historical reinforcement schedule. There is no ifs or buts about it. Turn on a 44 scn or a 43 scn and compare to AARs that on how many that reach those force lvls by then in units. Its simple, its never been done as a whole.

U cant no matter how hard u try and whether u have 10000 tanks in ur pool as SHC side make a 44 OOB Mech coprs in july 42. U just as tied into the historical OOB decisions as the german side is. The progression of the SHC side is just as tied into history as GHC no matter how the game actually played out. What if u manage to save ur entire mech force in 41 as SHC and go on a rampage in 42. Would a reconstitusion have taken as long as it did. Prolly not, u might have had mid 44 OOB corps in mid 43 and so on. If it goes worse than history does it go slower? no. The rails on what happes on SHC side is the same OOB wise as the german side. Can u build 500 tank corps? no u cant. The vehicle pool is very much the limiting factor on how much of the SHC army u can motorise. There is next to nothing that the SHC side can manipulate in those numbers. If u do a full vehicle factory evacuation u end up with around 5.000 vehicles more than what the game deems as historic or around 2 mech corps worths. Or around 0.3% more than what u else would get. On the other hand if u lose more than 5 vehicle factories u lose more than what the teh game gives u. There is no way to manipulate the production in any way.

The choice of optimezation as is, is giving the SHC side 5 cubes to play with. 4 of which is needed for inf divs and eventually corps the remaining 1 u can then optimize as u like. In Historical reinforcement schedule u would have 10 cubes to play with. The choice is not what to have but what 5 to leave out.

If the fun is in what u make of those 5 cubes yes then u have fun as russian, but the arguement that having it as the germans side aka historical OOB of units would only enlarge the number of units on the SHC side, giving more capabilities than now. The system is an liability as it can be attack in it self, it wouldnt be with a historical OOB.

If u wana force SHC to more "historical" tactics going to a historical OOB/system like the german one isnt the way to go. It would only give SHC side more units, aka more carpets, more soaking up units and so on. Making the perception of the issue even larger.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

Losing armaments factories does hurt the Soviet side; I had a badly played game against the computer and the armaments factories dropped to about 260. In December 1941 a lot of rifle divisions didn't fill out, since there was a deficit in equipment for even the rifle squads. Ohhhhh, it does make a difference. ( Especially since the combat engine makes close combat inaccurately too important? )