Slitherine

As a fan of world war 2 militaric history, it is important, that the ww2 strategic games, which I play, focus to be as historical, as possible (except the what-if campagins). So I made a little research, since with the Finnish war equipment I was not 100% familiar. I knew about the Stugs and that there were some Pz IVs too. But, what armor was fought in the Winter War, it was not known for me.
It showed out, that the Finns had only about a dozen Vickers tanks available at the beginning of the war. But a lot of T-26s were captured and later incorporated in the armored battalion. Even in 1944 these were fighting.

That means, sadly the developers paid not enough attention to make it historical enough. Sure, without tanks, the game would be not so fun, but if we "expand" the known facts, the situation can fun and still historical. Although, the T-26's have not yet fought in Winter War, but that is not so far from reality, so, with "expanding" the historical, they can be used already. So, the changes should be: you get the tank unit in the 2nd mission, but instead of captured T-26's, we get as reinforcements, the Vickers tanks. (I anyway do not like to capture something and already, in hours, these captured armor is battle ready, with trained crews... - arty, or guns are a different type, there is much more realistic to use captured equipment right on the battlefield. I guess. )
And in mission 6, we get the captured T-26's instead of the Vickers.
Oh, and the rule for captured equipment, which can be replaced only 1/turn can be also applied to these types, because Vickers were rare, while the T-26 were captured in larger quantities.
I will look in the editor, to see, if it can be changed. Who already beyond mission 2 - as me too -, a solution can be to change the name and icon of both tanks. As they were technically anyway very identical, the stats will make no big difference (if any).


It is sad, the the devs did not pay attention overall to the historical accuracy: with the units availability, units in the scns, unit stats. It would have took exactly just 2-4 workdays for one man research the facts and stats on the internet and incorporate it correct in the game.
It's the same, as with the PzC's vanilla DLC's, where only the theater and region was right, almost every else was far from historic.

UPDATE:
As historically the Vickers were first used in 26 February 1940, in the battle of Honkaniemi, which is simulated in 05 Summa scenario, so I will put them only from that scn in the campaign. The captured T-26's were first used in the Continous War, so they will be available from 1941. Hopefully some extra scns will be created for this time period and also the 09 Someri scn will be taken out, because it is a total fantasy scn for this campaign (even only a few hundred Finnish soldier participated in it).

Uhu wrote:As a fan of world war 2 militaric history, it is important, that the ww2 strategic games, which I play, focus to be as historical, as possible (except the what-if campagins). So I made a little research, since with the Finnish war equipment I was not 100% familiar. I knew about the Stugs and that there were some Pz IVs too. But, what armor was fought in the Winter War, it was not known for me.
It showed out, that the Finns had only about a dozen Vickers tanks available at the beginning of the war. But a lot of T-26s were captured and later incorporated in the armored battalion. Even in 1944 these were fighting.

That means, sadly the developers paid not enough attention to make it historical enough. Sure, without tanks, the game would be not so fun, but if we "expand" the known facts, the situation can fun and still historical. Although, the T-26's have not yet fought in Winter War, but that is not so far from reality, so, with "expanding" the historical, they can be used already. So, the changes should be: you get the tank unit in the 2nd mission, but instead of captured T-26's, we get as reinforcements, the Vickers tanks. (I anyway do not like to capture something and already, in hours, these captured armor is battle ready, with trained crews... - arty, or guns are a different type, there is much more realistic to use captured equipment right on the battlefield. I guess. )
And in mission 6, we get the captured T-26's instead of the Vickers.
Oh, and the rule for captured equipment, which can be replaced only 1/turn can be also applied to these types, because Vickers were rare, while the T-26 were captured in larger quantities.
I will look in the editor, to see, if it can be changed. Who already beyond mission 2 - as me too -, a solution can be to change the name and icon of both tanks. As they were technically anyway very identical, the stats will make no big difference (if any).


Hopefully, there are no other historical inconsistencies in the campaign. I really disliked the PzC's vanilla DLC's, because they were totaly unhistorical. Only the theater and region was right, almost every else was far from historic.

Well, If you want complete historical accuracy you may need to stop playing and stick to reading history books.

No offence, but there needs to be some room for making the campaigns fun and varied imo.

Thrust me, it can be done to be fun and (at least mostly) historical accurate at once. Paying attention to this is just a decision in game design and concept. Were are here not speaking about a Call of Duty, or Battlefield style game, where it is total unimportant and the world war 2 theme is just a clothing to make the game more popular. At such complex, strategy genre games, as OOB, a significant part of players awaits from the devs, that the game pays attention to this segment - or the game will loose it's atmosphere, or even the motivation will be gone to "fight heroic battles".
Or do you think, that if the first tank appears only a few scns later in the campaign, than it can be no way fun? I think, even, the players would more value the armor, if they already struggled through several battles without it and feel the pain of the absence of such units. Also, it gives the feeling to the players, how the Finn soliders felt, fighting the enemy without armor.

WarHomer wrote:Well, If you want complete historical accuracy you may need to stop playing and stick to reading history books.

No offence, but there needs to be some room for making the campaigns fun and varied imo.

i agreed , the more immersion, the more fun the game give.

Nowadays, the developpers under-estimate this. with just some pictures from ww2 like in events, jut some real commanders like paavo tavela in mission 2, it cost nothing but it add so many immersion.thanks for that! but i think it is not enough.

when my son of 12 play winter wars, he has the impression to play morning sun but just with white color... why? because he doesn't know the winter history and the game doesn't give a lot of historical information.

Yes, putting the real Finnish commanders in the game, was a nice move from the devs!

If you are patient - or replay it later - I'm modifiing greatly the original campaign to make it more historical accurate. With a lot of more screens, for information and for immersion too.

jeff00t wrote:i agreed , the more immersion, the more fun the game give.

Nowadays, the developpers under-estimate this. with just some pictures from ww2 like in events, jut some real commanders like paavo tavela in mission 2, it cost nothing but it add so many immersion.thanks for that! but i think it is not enough.

when my son of 12 play winter wars, he has the impression to play morning sun but just with white color... why? because he doesn't know the winter history and the game doesn't give a lot of historical information.