ORIGINAL: Denbushi
I am considering the idea of adding to Russia's starting forces or their production capabilities to compensate for their initial tech disadvantage. Again I must note that in my games, Russia always had a tech ADVANTAGE by Barbarossa because they had nothing else to spend their resources on. In reality, Russian forces were always inferior to Germanys throughout the course of the war.
I wouldn't say that.
When the Germans invaded they had nothing that could really hurt a KV1e. I loved to make just those in Garies second front. All those years ago.... I keep a 486 to play it on. [which is too fast to see attacks]
Had they got rid of panzer II's at that time? The pz III's 50 MM was whimpy by soviet standards. Yes the soviets had some bad ones but they out numbered the germans a lot. 25,000 afv's to 2,500 or something like that. In fact some germans said if they knew how many tanks the russains had they would never have attacked their ally. [:D]
One of my co gamers had a write up of a KV that sat on a bridge for 24 hrs getting shot at & surviving. I think it was hit over 100 times. The crew were frazzled by all that.
And by the time of kursk the russians won the battle with a pretty equal number of troops. If they were inferior they would have lost in spite of the lack of radios and sights etc.
Though before that I can see saying the soviet troops were lacking I can't really see it after Kursk and possibly not even after Stalingrad.
I agree with a lot of your reasons but giving the Luftwaffe the ability to fly to scotland is not realistic. They had minutes of fuel if they went as far as london. I think the research is realistic. you are essentially sending your bombers without cover. If your fighters can fly 2 then redo the map so that they can't get to scotland I would be ok but 109's could hardly get past london in 1940. And spits have to be able to win at incredibly bad odds. Theres something funny re the map though for you can fly to malta which was further from italy than 20 miles or whatever dover is.
I like the heavy fleet getting a better attack but I dont know about armour the nelson rodney bismark tirpitz, yamamoto all sank seemingly easily in a 3 month turn. Light fleets sucked at dieppe and had nary an effect.
I agree with the arty comments though arty are always behind the front and would often not even be a target if there were infantry in front of them. Maybe only have them fired at, if all the infantry to the front are taking shots??? So you could have counter battery but not just pick off arty when you're fleeing for the hills.
Arty caused most of the casualties, but mine seem to die too often for that.[:@]
re air do mosquitoes get the evasion. I think they were quite fast. One of the probs is that as the war went on Americans reduced their bombload to add armour plating to the fortresses etc whereas tedder RAF got rid of armour to carry more bombs.
As for the best fighters in my opinion the Spitfire baby.
"It has been well recorded that during the critical weeks of the battle during late August through to mid-September, Goring became increasingly critical of many of his Field Commanders. On one such occasion after he offered them his assistance, Galland requested a “
squadron of Spitfires”, sending Goring into a rage."
In the battle of britain the germans had a far larger airforce and lost. IMHO you have to reflect that.
As for the italians being excellent how many did Wavells 30-40,000 troops capture and defeat? The greeks and yugoslavs pushed them back too.
I try sealion every time I play the germans usually in 41? When I research my fighters to 2 range and they can obliterate scotland or england.
