ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I'll say that the campaign has been tested many times before release and I expect as time goes on you'll find that it's possible for the Axis to exceed its historical performance even with equal player skill, just comes down to the choices each player makes. I'm assuming both players have learned how to play their side though and from what I've seen there's still a lot of climbing the learning curve going on. However, the historical challenges are all there, which tend to lead to some of the same decisions that historical commanders had to make. If that's what you're saying feels "scripted" then I'd suggest it's more like "realistic" as there is no script for the player (or the AI after Turn 1).
1.07 is no longer beta, it became an official update. As far as I know, it did not make any changes to combat resolution.
In reference to the above and the following posts, has the game even been tested between two players trying to do exactly what happened historically? In other words, match the same moves and attacks as happened in the war. Perhaps this is a bit much for the entire operation, but at least on one front like the drive to Leningrad. And if so, did the casualties figures match what happened, did the advance rates match what happened? Because the one and only true measure we have is history, and to make a game based on history, that bills itself as the most accurate, the "game" or "simulation" should roughly match what happened historically. Also, I would say this should be done across the board for all scenarios, do advance rates match history, casualty rates, prisoners were taken, and so on. If this has not been done, then I feel like we the public are the testers, trying to see if the programming matches. Because frankly, I feel like this is "adventure" learning" so far, even with the manual and charts as aids. This is a simple question, has the game been tested using history as the benchmark?
I find it very difficult (impossible) to execute a historical maneuver, and I will use the following example. The 3rd Panzer Group was sent north to aid Army Group North in surrounding Leningrad, after Smolensk falls on 17 July 41. To get the 39th Pz Corps in position to attack and take Novogorod by 25 August 41 rested and with some CCP is well difficult while at the same time maintaining the gains made around Smolensk. The same would apply to the 57 Pz Corps attacking towards Demyansk, which fell on 8 Sept 41. The combination of moving, resting, CCP accumulation, and last the terrible terrain in both axis of advance all combine in this game to make this (for me) an impossible move to replicate. This is why I ask the above question, has the game been tested in this way to see if the programming matches the historical results?
Last I am on my fourth game, to try and replicate this very maneuver in the game, trying to stick as close to historical moves and routes as possible.
Also, let me add, I am loving the game, just trying to learn it, get better and understand what I am missing.
< Message edited by Zemke -- 4/16/2021 3:51:59 PM >
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"