Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:04 pm
Scrapulous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:25 pm
Xenos wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:11 pm
Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.
I get what you're saying, but I differ with your claim of what's realistic. After Germany opened up the eastern front, the outcome (in terms of "win" or "loss" for Germany) was no longer a matter of dispute, it just became a matter of when. It's easier to see that now than it was at the time, of course, but certainly after Stalingrad, generals on all sides were basically fighting for time and lives saved, not to change whether Germany wins or not. There are definitely some "hinge factor" battles that have outsized consequences, but once the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, the outcome was certain. The best that German generals could hope for at that point was to stall for time or make things so expensive for their enemies that Germany could negotiate a peace that wasn't crippling. It's also arguable that German success on the battlefield created an environment where a negotiated peace was impossible; in other words, the success of German generals resulted in worse fortunes for Germany.
Very few things are certain in history... sure, if you mathematically compare all the factors, production, terrain, manpower... then the situation looks fairly grim for Germany. But a political collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't out of the picture. Let's just say you manage to take Moscow swiftly and capture the whole Politburo, the republics declare independence and rise up before German atrocities pushes them away. Or let's say that the kind of colossal victories you achieve in this game, even larger in magnitude than reality, convince the Japanese to purse a northern strategy instead of a southern one... there are possibilities.
One word: oil.
The big strenght of the germans was the
combined fighting of air force and fast moving tank spearheads, that opened holes in the enemy lines to encircle them and force them to surrender. They
never had enough oil in the german russian war, after the
first few month in 41. Every german general knew, that if they dont win 41, its over. (and the german logistic experts said before barbarossa started: 300km, then our supply line is dangerously stretched - and they didnt imagine 1 million partisans attacking their supply lines all the time which happened later on) Hitler expected russia to be much weaker, because of his incompetent secret service. (its leader was executed 45 for that) They told him that russia is a giant on weak feet, that will easily fall. And it looked like that, when the russians blamed themselfes in finland. (combined with the nazi hubris, that was created through their chain of victorys and their natural arrogance all this created a picture that let the russians look weak in hitlers eyes) But we all know, that russia was much stronger then all germans expected. Its a different story if you fight against total annihilation of your people. Hitler was a fool, he united stalin and his people, he united capitalists and communists. He was no good politican. His major skill was talking in front of many people.
Even the first big victorys only happened, because the red army had lost many experienced commanders through stalins "cleanings" and other self made problems of the udssr. It was the perfect moment for barbarossa, but without the necessary strategic reserves and ressources, it was a useless effort that killed millions for nothing. Maybe russia would have fallen, if japan would have been a part of barbarossa, but in the end you have the oil problem again.
If the japanese would have won a decisive victory at midway (sink all us carriers and loose few themselves) and invade the us full scale, maybe there would have been possibilities. (but i doubt, that they would have had the necessary ressources for such an invasion)
If PC2 would be realistic, you would have absolutly no air support, after a few days in stalingrad or kursk. Without air cover your ground troops are easy kills, even the superior german tigers. If your enemy has 90% of worlds oil (usa), then you loose. I think the sea wars (atlantic, pacific) have been more decisive, then anything else. If you control the oceans, you control world trade and the war critical ressources.
The allies had it all: Big navy, strategic bomber fleet, massproduction of everything, even without russia, germany would have had no chance. It would have lasted longer and the allies would have used nukes ag. germany. Good that we lost soon enough.
And if you think that the russian oil could have been the solution: its one thing to conquer oil fields. The other thing is to make them productive and to transport the oil where its needed. There was a reason, why no german general wanted the attack on russia.
I see only one way for german victory: no hitler. A leader that is
really a good alternative to communism and the capitalists. A leader which a much more intelligent plan, a plan that puts communists ag. capitalists. (shouldnt be so hard, they are natural enemys) A leader that threats people in russia with respect for example. Then people might join willingly and everything could have been different. Their crazy hate for jews and other races, combined with their arrogance, made it impossible to win. You cant take and hold the world with lightning warfare, even if you have enough oil.
PC2 is a great
game, but dont take it too seriously. Its good that its not realistic, reality is just no fun.
