Real prototypes

[King]

Originally posted by Jason R


Your point regarding training is an aside from equipment, but an interesting one. Blitz warfare and French Training were as you said in Doctrine, but the outcome in the west also has much to do with deployment and strategic position. In your example, France starts in 1936, and wishes to research “blitz” warfare. Although France has a good number of tanks (heavier tanks than many German ones), it lacks mobility, and the basics of the Army are still centered on WWI style warfare. So, it decides to concentrate on mobile warfare, at the cost of the Maginot line. (Remember, as the leader of France, your budget is limited, it is a parliamentary democracy). Then so be it. In 1940, there are two extra French armored divisions, and the French units get a tactical bonus modifier for all of their Mobile and Armored Divisions in combat resolution. That is fine.

The German amry was still primarly a WWI army, it was onlya few Panzer and Mechanised division that could be descirbed as modern. The balk of the amry marched on foot and had its heavy equipment drawn by horses. It would not be impossible for the French Army to build a similar type of Army (although you are right Parliament would make it difficult). I thought the Marginot line was pretty much finished by 1936, but even then you are right the French budget is limited.

Originally posted by Jason R

What still needs to be considered is that many of those units will be lead by the old-timers (Not many De Gauls) , and the leaders that you will be able to promote, at the Division level, are still part of that old school too. Also, there had to be sacrifices, because your Pre-war production will be limited by the Parliament, and you will need to make changes. You should also perhaps try to improve the anti-tank capability, but that may mean a delay on a tank development, within the limited context of the French Military development; still a lot of very cool decisions can be made within that context.

A couple fo thing spring to mind, you are right the French leadership isn't that great and the German leadership is better. This will give the Germans an advatage (all other things being equal). Another thing is isn't anti-tank capacy intertwined with tank development, I thought the Long 75mm gun on the late model Panzer IV's was the same gun used by the German anti-tank gun formations. So I am sure there is link between tank development and anti-tank development. Although I believe these could be modeled just as well with a generic tech tree.

Originally posted by Jason R

So, Germany sees this, decides that it will not force the Danzig issue (no fight with Poland), and decided to hold off the war till 1940, and hit France first. Many of the issues will still be there. You will have a more open Front, and France is still forced to face the Blitz, not use the Blitz. BUT, as the French player, you decide not to swing into the Low Countries, and instead leave the Bulk of the French 7th, 1st and 9th Army as well as the BEF WEST of the Somme. Wow, that move alone will play out the war differently. So, there are lots of great options.

Now, if you wish to attack Germany without provocation prior to the attack to Poland, the UK decides to leave you, Germany’s designs on Russia put of permanently, and perhaps they even assist Germany, and all of the sudden, the Communist, the Left, and even the Far right, form a coalition with the rest of the center who are pissed off, and perhaps force the French Administration out of office.

The point of all the above discussion is that with any nation, within its historical context, there are a ton of great historical options and trade offs, which the Player can decide on. That is the fun of such a game.

I think the politcal and diplomatic apsect is of vital importance. If you can't get these right then the game is going to flop. I these are more vital than the technology aspect. Some good WWII games have had no existant technology (WiF for example) but damn good dimplomatic system (if you use DoD as well). If it were up to me technology would be secordary to Politics and Diplomacy.

Originally posted by Jason R

Your point on the minors is true. They will find it very difficult if not impossible in many ways to go it alone. That is one of the great challenges of playing the minor nations. Using Diplomacy, and strategic position to guide your nation.

As far as the manufacture of weapons without great industry, some of this is true too, but then again, these were minor weapons, usually small arms ( rifles etc…) What is Fun is that if I am Poland, and I decide to go with a smaller force, and buy more trucks for Transportation, build less Cav, and add 50 or so more planes to the inventory, and begin to research mounting heavy guns on my existing tanks (whish they did do and had few at the Start, but they should have speed the process up two years before), then my nation will do better. When the war starts, I decide to deploy the Pozman Army and the forces in the corridor closer to the Vistula, as well as mobilizing earlier, then, I as a minor Nation of Poland will do much better.

You are also correct that it is limiting. That is the point. The above example is a minor nation doing better than it did in 1939. Can you do better within the historical confines of that minor nation’s position in 1936, or 1939? That nation’s position, its limitations, location, etc…bring with it the fun in trying to do better. Those limitation are just it position in 1936 or 1939, and define it as the Nation of “Brazil” at that point in time That is what truly test the player’s leadership, and what makes a game set in WWII fun.

I still think that minors should be through good play be able to become second rate majors by the end of the game. Maybe getting close to Italy status (which you have to agree had all sorts of problems, like no coal for example). I know 10 years might be too short a time span for this, but there again the global situation was very fluid and things could happen. Moving to being a Semi-Industralsied country was not impossible in 10 years (The USSR did more in less time, ok but they had more resources to start with, but we are talking about going to the level of the USSR here). Even then I still think your ideas could be accomplished and accoplished rather well with a single global tech system (if the tech system is done right). Poland might not be able to defeat German in a stand up war under my system but it can be given more of chance (with the right allies maybe more?)

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by King


The German amry was still primarly a WWI army, it was onlya few Panzer and Mechanised division that could be descirbed as modern. The balk of the amry marched on foot and had its heavy equipment drawn by horses. It would not be impossible for the French Army to build a similar type of Army (although you are right Parliament would make it difficult). I thought the Marginot line was pretty much finished by 1936, but even then you are right the French budget is limited.

Yes you are correct that at the time, the majority of the German army still walked, however so did most nations, except for the a good bulk of Italians in North Africa, which I can only say was a result of Italians hating to walk in the desert. J

However, unlike most nations, Germany did have a complete mobile arm that allowed it to execute and exploit the Blitz. The typical German Tank division was almost completely mobile, it had mobile artillery, mobile infantry, mobile recon, and of course it there were more of these formations than the French had. Ironically, from what I know, these units had to be kept more mobile at the cost of The Army’s Mobile Infantry divisions, and other trucks that made up the compliment in regular infantry divisions, to keep the Panzer Divisions as mobile as possible. But there were still a larger compliment of Trucks in the regular infantry divisions, as opposed to some French units that were almost devoid of such. Regrettably, the Few French Armored Divisions may have had some problems with this as well. In the end, the thing was that the Germans, with their large compliment of Panzer divisions, had more mobility than the French. The French Units that did have the most mobility are those that swung into the Low Countries, not the ones that Faced the Blitz in the center; again, as the French Player, he may wish not to deploy his units this way, altering history and giving France a better chance.

I think you are correct on the Maginot line, however, I think I was using it as an example of Trade-offs. Also, I think that this may be a variant for the Allies to Choose in Advanced Third Reich, by AH., may be what I am thinking of.

Originally posted by King

A couple fo thing spring to mind, you are right the French leadership isn't that great and the German leadership is better. This will give the Germans an advantage (all other things being equal). Another thing is isn't anti-tank capacy intertwined with tank development, I thought the Long 75mm gun on the late model Panzer IV's was the same gun used by the German anti-tank gun formations. So I am sure there is link between tank development and anti-tank development. Although I believe these could be modeled just as well with a generic tech tree.

This is true in some ways, but it seems that anti-tank guns and their development sort of ebbed and flowed. In 1940, the primary French Anti-tank gun I think was the 2.5.MM, and the primary armament on the French Tanks was the 3.7MM. You are also correct about the decision to mount the Long 75 on the PzIVH, hence the reason that this equipment and its development would be better suited for a National Tech tree in my opinion. One that would take into account earlier developments, national differences in experience, history etc…..

What is interesting about your point is this; there was a very acute shortage of anti-tank weapons in the French Army in May of 1940, and the training on them was poor. France exported over 800 2.5MM anti-tank guns just before May 1940, as well as last of the over 500 R35s manufactured. Imagine if the French Player decides, hmm…no I will build this equipment earlier, not sell it, and train more of the standing army to use it more efficiently. The Trade off is less money, but more anti-tank weapons. I mean, most had very little anti-tank guns, and two of the Divisions in the Critical French Ninth army had none at all. Again, a lot of decisions made in the context of what existed at the time by the commanders, would have made a difference, and the player could choose another course of action.

Originally posted by King


I think the political and diplomatic aspect is of vital importance. If you can't get these right then the game is going to flop. I these are more vital than the technology aspect. Some good WWII games have had no existant technology (WiF for example) but damn good dimplomatic system (if you use DoD as well). If it were up to me technology would be secordary to Politics and Diplomacy.

I totally agree with you here. It still would be nice to have both.

Originally posted by King


I still think that minors should be through good play be able to become second rate majors by the end of the game. Maybe getting close to Italy status (which you have to agree had all sorts of problems, like no coal for example). I know 10 years might be too short a time span for this, but there again the global situation was very fluid and things could happen. Moving to being a Semi-Industrialized country was not impossible in 10 years (The USSR did more in less time, ok but they had more resources to start with, but we are talking about going to the level of the USSR here). Even then I still think your ideas could be accomplished and accomplished rather well with a single global tech system (if the tech system is done right). Poland might not be able to defeat German in a stand up war under my system but it can be given more of chance (with the right allies maybe more?)

Weather or not a minor nation within the confines of its situation will be able to develop into a something of an Italy status, I too think may be possible within the Game. I mean, the Turks were able to get great aircraft from the Brits and some other equipment from the Germans, by playing both sides off each other. In the end, I think that it depends on both the minor nation, and how it is guided by the player, but still within limits of that nation’s reality of its situation in the time of the war.

Yes I can see where a Global Tech system, which is started at different levels for the nations, and requires innate national recourse to pursue certain tracks may work. However I do also feel that a National Tech Tree, that has all of the development, historical research from private firms, scientist, military as well as historical developments would be not only easier but more consistent and fun. It would mirror the situation as it stood in 1936, and its progress would capture the flavor of what came first, how it was developed, and most importantly how that chain of development could be altered by the player making better decisions, within this very short time span. It would also be easier for the player to pursue his destiny as it pertains to each nation within it historical context.

-Jason

 

[King]

Originally posted by Jason R



Yes you are correct that at the time, the majority of the German army still walked, however so did most nations, except for the a good bulk of Italians in North Africa, which I can only say was a result of Italians hating to walk in the desert. J

However, unlike most nations, Germany did have a complete mobile arm that allowed it to execute and exploit the Blitz. The typical German Tank division was almost completely mobile, it had mobile artillery, mobile infantry, mobile recon, and of course it there were more of these formations than the French had. Ironically, from what I know, these units had to be kept more mobile at the cost of The Army’s Mobile Infantry divisions, and other trucks that made up the compliment in regular infantry divisions, to keep the Panzer Divisions as mobile as possible. But there were still a larger compliment of Trucks in the regular infantry divisions, as opposed to some French units that were almost devoid of such. Regrettably, the Few French Armored Divisions may have had some problems with this as well. In the end, the thing was that the Germans, with their large compliment of Panzer divisions, had more mobility than the French. The French Units that did have the most mobility are those that swung into the Low Countries, not the ones that Faced the Blitz in the center; again, as the French Player, he may wish not to deploy his units this way, altering history and giving France a better chance.

I think you are correct on the Maginot line, however, I think I was using it as an example of Trade-offs. Also, I think that this may be a variant for the Allies to Choose in Advanced Third Reich, by AH., may be what I am thinking of.

The German real superiority came in deployment and Docterine. They deployed all thier tanks into tank divison. The tank division were deployed into tank corps. Supported by Moterised Infantry which fought in combined arms. This was the Germans advantage. I think that the French could of done this. Even if they had taken the effort to even learn the lesons of the Polish campaign but they did not.

I also think there must be trade offs, if you are the French and you building Mechanised forces and imprpoving your docterine. What are you not doing? Building planes, improivng your infantry, building Nukes . Even then another option for the French is to extend the Marginot line that will cost you as well. I think these trade offs can be included in the game.

Originally posted by Jason R

This is true in some ways, but it seems that anti-tank guns and their development sort of ebbed and flowed. In 1940, the primary French Anti-tank gun I think was the 2.5.MM, and the primary armament on the French Tanks was the 3.7MM. You are also correct about the decision to mount the Long 75 on the PzIVH, hence the reason that this equipment and its development would be better suited for a National Tech tree in my opinion. One that would take into account earlier developments, national differences in experience, history etc…..

What is interesting about your point is this; there was a very acute shortage of anti-tank weapons in the French Army in May of 1940, and the training on them was poor. France exported over 800 2.5MM anti-tank guns just before May 1940, as well as last of the over 500 R35s manufactured. Imagine if the French Player decides, hmm…no I will build this equipment earlier, not sell it, and train more of the standing army to use it more efficiently. The Trade off is less money, but more anti-tank weapons. I mean, most had very little anti-tank guns, and two of the Divisions in the Critical French Ninth army had none at all. Again, a lot of decisions made in the context of what existed at the time by the commanders, would have made a difference, and the player could choose another course of action.

I take you mean 2.5 cm not 3.5mm. However I don't know if you are right about it being national. How much different was there between long 75mm gun of the Germans, the long 76mm gun of the Soviets and 17pdr that the Britsh used. They are all faily similar. Is there enough difference in the scale of the game we are talking about to justify making them different

Now Arms exports there is another facet to the game. This did have a major effect in the war, if we just think about American lend lease. If we throw in the equipment that the German supplied to their allies then we have quite alot goin on there. You should be able to buy allies with Equipment (it would be nice diplomatic option). This becomes another interesting trade off. Do you spend for yourself or do you earn friends?

Originally posted by Jason R

I totally agree with you here. It still would be nice to have both.

Too many features and the minimum spec will say one IBM supercompuiter minimum, 2 recommended. The game will come out in 2005 . There is an unfortunate trade off between features here. We can;t have it all. We can onyl try to convince PAradox which are most important.

Originally posted by Jason R

Weather or not a minor nation within the confines of its situation will be able to develop into a something of an Italy status, I too think may be possible within the Game. I mean, the Turks were able to get great aircraft from the Brits and some other equipment from the Germans, by playing both sides off each other. In the end, I think that it depends on both the minor nation, and how it is guided by the player, but still within limits of that nation’s reality of its situation in the time of the war.

Yes I can see where a Global Tech system, which is started at different levels for the nations, and requires innate national recourse to pursue certain tracks may work. However I do also feel that a National Tech Tree, that has all of the development, historical research from private firms, scientist, military as well as historical developments would be not only easier but more consistent and fun. It would mirror the situation as it stood in 1936, and its progress would capture the flavor of what came first, how it was developed, and most importantly how that chain of development could be altered by the player making better decisions, within this very short time span. It would also be easier for the player to pursue his destiny as it pertains to each nation within it historical context.

-Jason

I agree here. To be able for a minor country to become powerful you will not be able to do it all yourself. You will need help, or even better make others pay you to do what you want to do. IT will be an interesting challenge.

I think that innate nation recourse would be unfortunate, Forcing the player down certain routes would be limiting. As a player would you like if you were almosted forced to research certain techs and not others? Perhaps a solutions would be to make the country AI's more likely to research certain areas. Also the starting techs are key, if you well down the road in one field you will be more tempoted to continue there than start a totally different area of research.

 

[Mike the Red]

This is an interesting discussion; but isn't the game supposed to give a total picture rather than a closely defined one.

I guess my argument is that as Argentina, for example, I should be able to focus my attention on building a quaisi Tiger tank, but, because I do not have a strong economy, mass prodiction experience, other tank design history, etc. that tank should take forever to research and if and when it is finished, it should be the only "modern" type of equipment that I can produce.

Or another example, if I play the UK, I may decide that I really would like to produce stronger tanks than historically happened. Now I have the basics already taken care of and devote a fair percentage of my resources to this super tank. The problem is however, that in devoting resources to the tank, I am diverting resources from anti-aircraft and naval technology and quite possibily do develop the tech for these tanks, but will be unable to actually produce them, because I can't keep my factories from being bombed, nor can I obtain the materials because my transport ships are being sunk.

Even a country such as the US, which has tremendous resources, can't be the best at everything and has to reserch those technologies that give it the best hope of victory; historically: strong navy, bomber, mass production etc. but weaker in armored tech as an example.

I guess my point is, that I as a player should be able to take whatever path I choose, but that there should be potential negative consequenses if I choose counterfactual historical options.

Mike the Red

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by King


The German real superiority came in deployment and Docterine. They deployed all thier tanks into tank divison. The tank division were deployed into tank corps. Supported by Moterised Infantry which fought in combined arms. This was the Germans advantage. I think that the French could of done this. Even if they had taken the effort to even learn the lesons of the Polish campaign but they did not.

The French model, as you stated was still basically the WWI model and yes, the Germans increased this superiority greatly by deploying their Tanks into Divisions (Fully mobile) and then into Tank Corp. For the French, Granted some changes in deployment and having more motor transport may have made a difference, but according to some of the stuff I have read (and its been a while) in General, the French were under motorized across the board.

Doctrine, yes is one of the biggest factors, and leads to how the army will be formed, equipped, and deployed.

Originally posted by King


I also think there must be trade offs, if you are the French and you building Mechanised forces and imprpoving your docterine. What are you not doing? Building planes, improivng your infantry, building Nukes . Even then another option for the French is to extend the Marginot line that will cost you as well. I think these trade offs can be included in the game.

I agree here, and this could be one of the best parts of the Games. Sort of like our chat earlier. Everything has trade-offs and an effect down the road.

Originally posted by King

I take you mean 2.5 cm not 3.5mm.

No I mean MM....you should have seen those guns!!. .....Yea I meant cm, I had a bit of a brain/type cramp there, actually am going to go back to the post and change them, so silly.

Originally posted by King

However I don't know if you are right about it being national. How much different was there between long 75mm gun of the Germans, the long 76mm gun of the Soviets and 17pdr that the Britsh used. They are all faily similar. Is there enough difference in the scale of the game we are talking about to justify making them different

The differences were not great in the above mentioned guns, but if one looks at who was mounting what gun, on what type of tank, and anti-tank platform (both towed and mobile), there is a sharp contrast.

That is one of the neat things about the Tech and development. How each nation was trying to out-gun and out-protect one-another. In addition, much of this Tech predates the war in some way or another, and why it would be neat for the player to tinker with the historical tech tree for his nation. Lots of cool decisions there.

Originally posted by King



Now Arms exports there is another facet to the game. This did have a major effect in the war, if we just think about American lend lease. If we throw in the equipment that the German supplied to their allies then we have quite alot goin on there. You should be able to buy allies with Equipment (it would be nice diplomatic option). This becomes another interesting trade off. Do you spend for yourself or do you earn friends?

Yes, this could be a major aspect of the game for the Major Powers. It will also let the some of the folks playing minors to really show their stuff in the diplomacy part of the game.

Originally posted by King

Too many features and the minimum spec will say one IBM supercompuiter minimum, 2 recommended. The game will come out in 2005 . There is an unfortunate trade off between features here. We can;t have it all. We can onyl try to convince PAradox which are most important.

I have to disagree here in some ways. I do not think it’s a matter of computer spec. To model individual weapons, and count them with just an attack/def and anti-tank factor etc...Would be more time consuming then anything else. Look at how low the specs of War in Russia were, or even the Operational Art Of War. In the end, it could be a matter of time, and as you stated; where they put their efforts.

I do think it would add some Great Chrome to the Game, and historical flavor. Some of those RPGs and First Person Shooters put a ton of extra eye-candy into their games, which also takes a ton of time and hard drive space. For us playing a history game, historical equipment would be our "eye candy" in some way.

Originally posted by King

I agree here. To be able for a minor country to become powerful you will not be able to do it all yourself. You will need help, or even better make others pay you to do what you want to do. IT will be an interesting challenge.

I think that innate nation recourse would be unfortunate, Forcing the player down certain routes would be limiting. As a player would you like if you were almosted forced to research certain techs and not others? Perhaps a solutions would be to make the country AI's more likely to research certain areas. Also the starting techs are key, if you well down the road in one field you will be more tempoted to continue there than start a totally different area of research.

I would think of the minors as more of a new set of problems, and part of their situation is their limitations. That is sort of what defines them. Clearly, some minor nations will have "Door Matt" written all over them, but as in the example of Latin America, their strength will be that unlike Poland or France for that matter, they are not in harms way. Their Strength will be that they can pursue all sorts of strange small wars and diplomatic options, while the Major nations are beating each other.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Jason R


The French model, as you stated was still basically the WWI model and yes, the Germans increased this superiority greatly by deploying their Tanks into Divisions (Fully mobile) and then into Tank Corp. For the French, Granted some changes in deployment and having more motor transport may have made a difference, but according to some of the stuff I have read (and its been a while) in General, the French were under motorized across the board.

Doctrine, yes is one of the biggest factors, and leads to how the army will be formed, equipped, and deployed.

I guess here is how much control should the player have. If the players control who the army is formed and deployed then docterine is a more abstarct concept. I guess the question is how much does the player control and how much should the player control.

Originally posted by Jason R

The differences were not great in the above mentioned guns, but if one looks at who was mounting what gun, on what type of tank, and anti-tank platform (both towed and mobile), there is a sharp contrast.

That is one of the neat things about the Tech and development. How each nation was trying to out-gun and out-protect one-another. In addition, much of this Tech predates the war in some way or another, and why it would be neat for the player to tinker with the historical tech tree for his nation. Lots of cool decisions there.

I suppose the next question is how bigga componet of a tank division are the tanks? If you look at a 1941 German Panzer Division it had what 13,000 men and only about 120 tanks. Does the differences in tank you describe really factor in when we make comparisons between armoured divisions? Obviously there must be some difference but how much?

Originally posted by Jason R

Yes, this could be a major aspect of the game for the Major Powers. It will also let the some of the folks playing minors to really show their stuff in the diplomacy part of the game.

I guess we have to wait and see what Paradox provides us on the diplomatic front.

Originally posted by Jason R

I have to disagree here in some ways. I do not think it’s a matter of computer spec. To model individual weapons, and count them with just an attack/def and anti-tank factor etc...Would be more time consuming then anything else. Look at how low the specs of War in Russia were, or even the Operational Art Of War. In the end, it could be a matter of time, and as you stated; where they put their efforts.

I do think it would add some Great Chrome to the Game, and historical flavor. Some of those RPGs and First Person Shooters put a ton of extra eye-candy into their games, which also takes a ton of time and hard drive space. For us playing a history game, historical equipment would be our "eye candy" in some way.

I too liked the the comabt systems of War in Russia and TOAW. However there is a difference between HoI and these two games. HoI is a real time game while the other 2 are turn based. With TOAW ccomabts are doen sequencially and the programme can take as much time as is neccessary to resolve the combat. WIth HoI this is not the case combat is resolved in paralell with other combats, AI actions and player actions. This will place an added burden ont he processer. Plus with the it being in Real Time there is a time limit on how long cambat can last. You do not want combats lasting 6 months in game time.

If I could have it I would like the unit system and production system they had in WIR. It was excellent. It seems that this is not going to happen, but ti would of been nice to have. I agree the historical equipment would of been nice to have, and it would of pleased a lot of players. However I can see why it was not done this why.

Originally posted by Jason R

I would think of the minors as more of a new set of problems, and part of their situation is their limitations. That is sort of what defines them. Clearly, some minor nations will have "Door Matt" written all over them, but as in the example of Latin America, their strength will be that unlike Poland or France for that matter, they are not in harms way. Their Strength will be that they can pursue all sorts of strange small wars and diplomatic options, while the Major nations are beating each other.

I am not sure if any of the minors are neccessarly doomed. As Poland you could always ally with the Germans against those pesky Russians. It would certainly extend your game by some distance. WIth others though you are given a free hand virtually. Like the LA countires, who do you ally with, who do you attack what do you do? Well the options are limitless giving great replayabilty.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by Mike the Red
This is an interesting discussion; but isn't the game supposed to give a total picture rather than a closely defined one.

I guess my argument is that as Argentina, for example, I should be able to focus my attention on building a quaisi Tiger tank, but, because I do not have a strong economy, mass prodiction experience, other tank design history, etc. that tank should take forever to research and if and when it is finished, it should be the only "modern" type of equipment that I can produce.

The problem with Argentina being able to build a heavy tank is that it requires so much in the way of research, industry, experience, and historical development, that it should not be possible during a time span lasting only ten years where most of the developed world is involved it a Hot war and prior to that there was a depression. The fact is that you could almost be 100% sure that Argentina, at that time in history was not capable of undertaking such a thing, no matter what the leadership decided to do.

But, that is just part of playing Argentina. Its what defines it, not just geography and resources. So, as the leader of Argentina, the player needs to take advantage of his "advantages." He is out of harms-way, has lots of resources, in a fairly good geographic position to pursue some interesting policies in South America.

Originally posted by Mike the Red

Or another example, if I play the UK, I may decide that I really would like to produce stronger tanks than historically happened. Now I have the basics already taken care of and devote a fair percentage of my resources to this super tank. The problem is however, that in devoting resources to the tank, I am diverting resources from anti-aircraft and naval technology and quite possibily do develop the tech for these tanks, but will be unable to actually produce them, because I can't keep my factories from being bombed, nor can I obtain the materials because my transport ships are being sunk.

This is a good point, and some of the great decisions in trade-offs that could be made in the way of development by the player. Also, most if not all-major powers did have real proto-types of better equipment of all types in the wings (Even France had a heavy new multi-man turreted tank). If you add to this the very early post war developments, there will be more than enough to add to this tech development, and allow the player a lot of great things to pursue within the historical context. Imagine a Pershing in early 1943.

Originally posted by Mike the Red


Even a country such as the US, which has tremendous resources, can't be the best at everything and has to reserch those technologies that give it the best hope of victory; historically: strong navy, bomber, mass production etc. but weaker in armored tech as an example.

Again, this is true, and would ultimately provide the player with the same decisions that must be made to win the game.

Originally posted by Mike the Red


I guess my point is, that I as a player should be able to take whatever path I choose, but that there should be potential negative consequenses if I choose counterfactual historical options.

As the player, yes you should be able to choose what you want to do, but within the context of the history and realities of that short time period. That is what could make the game so cool; the fact that you as the leader have to take into account all the historical limitations and advantages that come with nation "X" and see if you can do better than the historical leaders of that nation during WWII.