Page 1 of 1
June 6 '41 Panzer OOB, non-historical
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:38 pm
by gwgardner
I conquered France in Sept '40 and have spent my MPPs since then strictly on armor. It is now June '41, and I have been able to create 2.5 Panzer Armies.
This is with the general notion that a Panzer Army would be made up of 2 Tank Groups and 2 Panzergrenadier or Medium Tank units.
Having bought zero infantry, air, or subs, my conclusion is that it's impossible to come up with an OOB by June '41 approaching the historical one, with 4 Panzer Armies and substantially higher numbers of infantry than in '40.
I HAVE NOT played beyond June '41 yet, so have no idea if my non-historical OOB is remotely enough to achieve success in Barbarossa.
Concerning my complement of infantry units, calculating as 3 divisions per corps and 4 divisions per army, I have 63 infantry divisions. I think that's approximately 2/3 of the historical number of infantry divisions the Germans fielded for Barbarossa.
RE: June 6 '41 Panzer OOB, non-historical
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:46 am
by TheBattlefield
ORIGINAL: gwgardner
I conquered France in Sept '40 and have spent my MPPs since then strictly on armor. It is now June '41, and I have been able to create 2.5 Panzer Armies.
This is with the general notion that a Panzer Army would be made up of 2 Tank Groups and 2 Panzergrenadier or Medium Tank units.
Having bought zero infantry, air, or subs, my conclusion is that it's impossible to come up with an OOB by June '41 approaching the historical one, with 4 Panzer Armies and substantially higher numbers of infantry than in '40.
I HAVE NOT played beyond June '41 yet, so have no idea if my non-historical OOB is remotely enough to achieve success in Barbarossa.
Concerning my complement of infantry units, calculating as 3 divisions per corps and 4 divisions per army, I have 63 infantry divisions. I think that's approximately 2/3 of the historical number of infantry divisions the Germans fielded for Barbarossa.
Despite the love for historic detail, we are still dealing with a richly varied strategy game. You can win the campaign on various manner and in the long term hardly lose - at least against the AI. You should say goosbye to the historic requirements in terms of time and material already in the French campaign.
RE: June 6 '41 Panzer OOB, non-historical
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:26 am
by gwgardner
Axis & Allies is richly varied also. I don't want to play Axis & allies. SC3 is so much more. I believe the flagship scenario should allow for historical approaches to play.
However, if it's too late to alter things, then I'm certain there will be other scenarios added or mods that will achieve what I'm looking for.
RE: June 6 '41 Panzer OOB, non-historical
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:21 pm
by Ostwindflak
I think with the way SC games play, you have to be prepared to give up a certain level of historic OOB for the game to work right. I always felt SC had the right amount of flavor (minus no Waffen SS units) for the scale it is. With no stacking I do not think it is possible to see a historic OOB for this game. The jumble of units would look ridiculous imo.
But with that said I too like historic OOBs, I just do not think this game is designed to represent that.
RE: June 6 '41 Panzer OOB, non-historical
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:21 pm
by BillRunacre
Ostwindflak is right, we're trying to get the fine balance between fun to play and historical OOBs. It does require some sacrifices in a campaign like this, less so in smaller scenarios.
It was certainly the same in all previous SC releases, the actual extent varying from campaign to campaign, SC1 being probably the most abstract.
In our WWI release while the initial OOBs were fairly historic, plus or minus a few adjustments, as the war went on they became less so as the armies expanded dramatically, with Corps taking up less and less frontage.
There are issues with having lots more units, not least being the effect this has on increasing playing time, and AI thinking time.
That doesn't mean that I'm totally opposed to any tweaks, but I thought I'd lay out my thinking. [:)]