What are you doing here then?
Responding to discussions in which historical claims were asserted by either agreeing or disagreeing with the assertions on the basis of the real world evidence.
Why are you participating in discussions about a game you never played?
First, much of the discussion involves claims made about the war as it was in the real world. Fair game for anyone to discuss that IMV. Second, I have played WitP. Third I played UV and GGPW extensively. And I can read the AARs. So I am in a very informed position to judge both whether the line of products derived from GGPW is consistent with "ballpark correct results" as compared with WW2.
Finally: As I have noted before. One does not need to own a calico cat in order to be able to talk knowledgeably about the general characteristics of a given calico cat because, in the end, it's still a cat. Or if you can't understand that analogy, imagine someone like you claiming that a person cannot possibly know anything at all about a 2012 Cheverolet Malibu because they have only owned a 2004 Chevrolet Malibu, read all of the CR reviews for each model year, and driven a 2012 Malibu.
In short, your objection is both meritless and illogical.
You've reached that last stage in your evolution with me
If you're deeply offended by me, feel free to use the green button. I honestly do not care what stage of "evolution" my status may be with you.
and I start to understand why some react like Pawlow's dog as soon as you appear...
It is, after all, in the nature of dogs to bark, wipe their rear ends on the carpet, and try to hump others legs.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?