ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
Longer reply:
Air combat: As already mentioned: Imo planes as tank busters are overestimated. Tanks have the protection to resist shrapnels and shockwaves, so you need very heavy bombs or direct hits to kill them. The effect of bombing against soft targets or the transports is a completely different thing. I have not digged deep enough into the air war to comment much on this. Just one more thing: Soldiers reporting that they were scared of planes is a bad indicator. A soldier is probably scared by everything which can kill him. What counts are numbers of destroyed manpower and ressources.
Pockets: IMO the % of personnel escaped should be calculated based on the situation at the time of surrender. If it is a result of a 6 side attack, almost no one will escape. If the pocket is loose and the unit is attacked from one side only, many should escape. But always most equipment should be lost, usually soldiers care more about their life than the artillery.
Fatigue: According to van Crefeld, the German army, also caused by the experience from WW1, was very good at managing fatigue and exhaustion among the troops (unlike for example the americans), especially if one considers they never had real reserves to shuffle around. Not sure about the Soviets. Of course no soldier likes to be on the front and will not be happy to fight. Many got psychologic problems caused by the intense fighting. But this is not of interest here. The only important question is: To what extent was the fighting capability reduced by exhaustion? A mentally ill soldier can still be a good fighter.
The thing is: You can run your car engine for a month with 4000-6000rmp all the time in the first gear and you will suffer a breakdown.
Or you drive in a high gear and you can drive for 10 years. If I got Crefeld right, its the same with soldiers.
Experience: Agree that it is a kind of Sqrt(time) function aka most is gained in the first time.
Officers:
What exactly do you mean with "they (the Germans) diluted their officercorps"?
Manpower: I agree, that the Germans ran dry on manpower. But the Soviets, as far as I know, had similar problems. If the soviets lost to much, they should too have problems to get enough first class recruits.
theres a few errors here. in 41/42 tanks weren't heavy and artillery was a factor, the game doesn't really actually factor in mne damage which was the big threat or at gun damage which was a threat as well. The tanks were very heavily overweight and this was a key in many design decisions such as short guns and THIN ROOF ARMOR. this meant that planes equipped with 20mm cannons were very successful in destroying tanks from above. Germans managed exhaustion with amphetamines and accidents from driver fatigue were frequent. im a bit shocked about your comment on reserves. the combat was intense casualties were enormous and the units exposure to cobat itself n a pitched battle very short - battles were fed by constantly feeding n reinforcements piecemeal from from other formations and leaving the command staff in place for continuity.the examples being far too numerous to cout but there some excellent accounts in the Germany at war series as well as a superb divisional analysis showing that permanent losses were pretty small for the majority of units through much of the war. the key factor in vdeterming casualties is in fact and has been for known history determined by mobility or the ability to ride down ones foes. the game models it nicely in the first winter and casualties are pretty accurate, a units exposure to combat was for the most part minimal and during intense combat even smaller due to force rotation it was only when a unit was overrun that problems arose. that damage factor being determined by the density of the opposing attack, one of the core issues in the game model and I agree with you in this case is the multi front attack if a unit is attacked simultaneously from opposite directions by an INFANTRY unit casualties should be much higher. DEVELOPERS NOTE A pocketed units casualties need to be determined by the presence of infantry as a percentage of the attacking force, the current model is fatally flawed and reflected in the tactics of pelton type strategists such as yourself. a unit forced to surrender by a tank unit should get a higher percentage of troops escaping than one screened by infantry - dramatically so to the point it affects player tactics in a substantial way. it would change the game dynamic in a positive manner