An all tank/AT core may be doable, but it would definitely be harder. You simply need infantry for covered spaces- even though they perform poorer than tanks even in covered spaces on a one-to-one comparison, they are much better to use in those cases, because they are 4-5 times cheaper, and cost half the CPs. However, I definitely felt like 8-9 infantry units was enough for my play style and didn't need more.Ichthyic wrote: Just saying that this campaign is indeed entirely doable with a pure tank/AT core.
They do have better AT weapons by virtue of having 30% more strength compared to medium difficulty level. Making units even stronger would make the game too unpredictable where if something attacks you out of the blue which is 50%+ stronger than your unit and before you've had a chance to reduce its efficiency, then your unit will suffer huge losses and be out of action for sure. This is frustrating gameplay wise because as good as you are, you cannot always scout everything. In addition, it is also very unrealistic because during WW2, what happened was that even though Russians had numerical superiority and even better gear, Germans utilised communication to achieve numerical superiority on a tactical level at the points of contact and thus achieved more with less.Ichthyic wrote: I played on the standard difficulty level, but it would be great if on higher difficulty levels, the russians had better AT weapons. then you'd be forced to diversify your army more.
I think the way to go harder (if devs decide on a higher difficulty) is the PzC way with its Rommel/Field Marshall difficulties where units gain experience slower and/or where you get less resources.
