From: Bedfordshire UK
I don't want to get into a quoting war, mainly because I am on a campsite and don't have access to the books and limited access to the internet, the memory alone is not up to it. Supply in the game has always been an issue for me, but I think that it is glaringly obvious that the Germans lacked full supply (they had to choose between ammuntion and winter clothing) as they moved deeper into Russia and the game makes it too easy to capture cities and rail supply into the depths of Russia in the middle of winter.
To return to the main thread 'wanting to like the game', remembering that the game is covering WW2 from Northern Norway to North Africa, from the Atlantic to the Mid East. To get a game system to handle these extremes is a huge challenge.
I can't speak for others on what's to like about the game, but the game has many options in settings and mods to provide for most needs.
I like the game, because of its flexibility and the uncertainty that it throws up, are these things always highly accurate and completely historically correct, maybe not, but it can be very enjoyable to be faced with situations that you don't encounter in other games (accepted that they have to be reasonble alternatives).
The scale is Strategic and Operational, at a high command level, the detail is not so impotant, as the decisions are more to do with - should I attack Spain, or Turkey, land in Normandy, or Calais, or Norway, or Corsica, will I attack in 1941, or 1942 and so on. Will I concentrate on Air builds, Armour, how much sea transport will I need in 6 month time.
On this scale the game has to work on generalisations and some of the detail is going to be lost, how much that ruins your enjoyment of the game is up to personal taste. Personally I get more out of the game than I lose and the more I learn about the working of the game, the more I can adjust it to my needs. My modding skills are limited, but I have been able to change the look and working of the game, others have been able to create full scenarios and I am sure that there is more to come.
Combat becomes a way to resolve your strategic decisions, obviously you want this combat model to be a accurate as possible for ground, air and naval combat and still get an AI that can keep up. The more complicated you make it, the harder it is for the AI to function credibily. Put too many detailed changes into the game and the system will collapse.
The AI can be made to understand and react to the importance of cities on the map, it's much more difficult for it to come up with a strategy to cope with railheads, which may appear anywhere on the map. Not ideal, but I can accept that, as many historical events were based on the need to hold, or capture, certain city rail hubs, Kharkov, Rhzev, Stalingrad and Moscow itself.
There are the needs of solo players (needing a competent AI) and those using PBEM, who need a more detailed game, making the balance even more difficult.
We can continue the discussion on Rail, etc., but I am experimenting with adjustments to all aspects of supply (rail/air/sea/city), looking for the right balance, as I see it, but that will probabily not satisfy others with different views. The main point is the game allows me to do this, which is a big plus over many other titles.
Even though it is far fom perfect, I really like this game.
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me