This idea of testing could even be done on a smaller scale, of a few divisions, and do several runs to see what the average results are, and answer some basic questions. Do the combat results match, can units match the historical advance rate, and so on. I think the computer program can handle several runs to get an average and let's see what that average is, not impossible at all.
I would be interested to know if anyone has been able to shift 3rd Pz Group to the North and match the historical attacks.
Anyway, I can see I am swimming upstream on this one.
I do understand what you mean but how can we possibly guarantee what specific experience or morale level would be for each unit? What about the replacements and supply provided that is done via the AI. We can't know that level of detail for most units in RL so how to model etc. I know it's details but those things also add into the combat results and also the RL advance.
That's just it, the test would confirm if current experience and moral settings are close, based on results, (and several runs, not just one), along with the other measures that quantifiable, like casualties and advance rates. If the current logistics model is close, then there are not issues. IF not then adjustments could be made to exp or moral settings or the logistics model. Anyway, I was just asking if these tests had been done, which they have not. And doing them will require a research effort that is more than likely beyond the desire of 99% of us.
I would assume that some of the scenario designers would be much more qualified to test this, or already have.
(I think asked this same question for the first WitE.) I know it looks like I am saying the "baby" is ugly here, which I am not. I love the game, it is the best we have. I was just asking how deep was the testing, and I know now.
"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
"Give me liberty, or give me death"
"Pass the salt, please"