Eastern Front Exclusivity?

[Wodin]

What he says..

Also the human element is fascinating aswell...

Oh and lots of toys for us wargamers..

Why the Russo-German War 1941-1945?

Well that was where the action was, 6 million Soviets fighting 3 million Germans over a continent 4,000km wide, hundreds of battles, dozens of campaigns lasting 4 years. Huge cities such as Leningrad under siege for 900 days, street fighting in Stalingrad lasting 4 months, everything is on an epic scale. 4 out of 5 German casualties happen on the Eastern Front, this is where the German Army was fought, beaten and destroyed. In the time period of CMRT the Ostheer loses 2 Army Groups destroyed.

In the West you have a 6 week campaign in France in 1940, a small campaign in the Desert, a slightly larger campaign in Tunisia and Italy but the German never commit more than 15 Divisions to these at a time when they have 150+ Divisions in Russia. The only campaign that comes anywhere close to the Great Patriotic War is the Normandy Campaign with its 2 million Allied troops against 1 million Germans but this only lasts June 1944 till April 1945 - 9 months and the German Army had already been gutted and its best troops dead.

From a historiography perspective, there is a lot still to be discovered, the Germans were anything but candid about their experiences in the East - their occupation policies saw to that and the Soviets wanted to hide their own appalling casualty lists, so modern researchers can still discover many new facts and accounts of events. You have to strip away years of Cold War rhetoric as well with propaganda being taken as received wisdom for many things that we read. Some are now hotly debated and some are not, but there is still a great deal to discover.

[Erwin]

It's interesting to see how tastes have changed over the last 30+ years. When I were a kid, you practically had to PAY someone to play the Soviets in the cardboard wargames we had at that time.

EVERYONE wanted to play the Germans, and particularly with the lovely white on black SS counters. It was also very hard to get anyone to play the Western Allies (or any west front game for that matter, aside from where the Germans were attacking, eg: Battle of the Bulge). Any of you "old timers" remember all that?

[mjkerner]

It's interesting to see how tastes have changed over the last 30+ years. When I were a kid, you practically had to PAY someone to play the Soviets in the cardboard wargames we had at that time.

EVERYONE wanted to play the Germans, and particularly with the lovely white on black SS counters. It was also very hard to get anyone to play the Western Allies (or any west front game for that matter, aside from where the Germans were attacking, eg: Battle of the Bulge). Any of you "old timers" remember all that?

Yup, that was me.

[Skwabie]

It's interesting to see how tastes have changed over the last 30+ years. When I were a kid, you practically had to PAY someone to play the Soviets in the cardboard wargames we had at that time.

EVERYONE wanted to play the Germans, and particularly with the lovely white on black SS counters. It was also very hard to get anyone to play the Western Allies (or any west front game for that matter, aside from where the Germans were attacking, eg: Battle of the Bulge). Any of you "old timers" remember all that?

Yep, at first I thought here comes the eastern front, some love for the Germans at last.

But nooooo, turns out not the case at all.

What changed? Cold war's over, is that it?

[slysniper]

I think the more a person understands about the war, the more they are interested in all the time frames and different locations. Each have a special aspect about it, but many do not take the time to want to learn or find out about that.

If you look at it from a casual point of view, The German/Russian war was the best match up as for gaming purposes. Each side has its strengths and they counter each other well. Who does not like going into a fight with the troops that can win.

Thus as one person pointed out, everyone always wanted to play the Germans, they had the best troops, rules and game pieces. there is not many people who dont like having a advantage, the Germans were easier to play in many games.

But if you had to pick someone else to match up well with them, Late war Russian army is it. Thus it seems to make sence to me why many casual players gravitate to it.

I like early war tactical battles myself, That is when Tanks are truely feared.

They might have been small and light compared to the later tanks, but infantry was naked as to what they had to defend against them and its where real Blitzkreig can happen.

[76mm]

And yet you played lots of CMx1 where your troops were quantum clouds of abstract Firepower spread somewhere in the 20m square... and calculated from the centre of it: an Action Spot for all Actions.

I really don't get what's so distasteful about that mechanic. Sure, it imposes some limitations, but such things are necessary in games, and the impositions are vastly less constraining than they were in x1.

Well, obviously I don't mind a bit of abstraction, and the point is that in CMx1 the troops would go where I told them even if abstracted, and not snap to an action spot grid.

Maybe I haven't figured it out yet, but i have a hard time getting troops to take advantage of folds in the terrain, building corners, etc., where it's important to be in a particular spot.

[Erwin]

I don't know if it was the Cold War or any kind of thoughtful analysis that made the Germans the favorite side.

IIRC it was simply that the Germans always were depicted as having large variety of interesting units/weapons systems with a wide variety of different strength factors and special abilities, whereas the Soviets in particular were always depicted on the counters of the time as identical hordes of brown counters - all pretty much the same. They were simply "boring". The Germans were "cool". Even their snappy uniforms (thank you Hugo Boss).

I have recently wondered if the old emphasis on the Germans being more "fun" was part of official governmental psyops of the time - designed to make us young players identify more with the Nazis than with our former Soviet allies.

But, even though I have no bad feelings towards the Russians (even after Crimea), I still much prefer to play the Axis side in all CM games. (And since attacking is more fun, am just a little bit disappointed that CMRT seems to feature Soviets attacking more. And yes, I do know that was historical in these years.)

[Blazing 88's]

….I still much prefer to play the Axis side in all CM games. (And since attacking is more fun, am just a little bit disappointed that CMRT seems to feature Soviets attacking more. And yes, I do know that was historical in these years.)

This…. My main reason for ALWAYS mentioning in other threads that I would love it if BF next (or at some point) would have modules starting during Op Barbarossa onward.

Same with North Africa 41 - late 42 or something at some point. I strictly use the German units the most if not only.

[Skwabie]

German player as well. Seems to me tho the majority on these forums plays the Allied side.

From my past gaming experience at least, the opfor gets less priority, therefore I'm holding off on RT yet to see what issues have crept in..

[Erwin]

I have to say the German Campaign looks interesting. Fired it up and was very excited to see the unusually large map (compared to previous CM2 games) for the first mission! Over 2500 metres per side.

One odd thing about the first German Campaign mission:

There are 2nd infantry company units but if you click on 2nd company in any unit's box, there does not appear to be any 2nd company HQ. The Bn HQ shows there should also be a 4th company, but that also I could not locate any 4th Co HQ or units.

There is also no Co HQ tank for 1st company tanks although there is a Co HQ for 2nd Co tanks.

Anyone know if this is deliberate or an oversight?

[db_zero]

The EF does seem to hold a bigger fascination for many gamers. I would like to see more of the 39-42 period, but ill take what I can get.

Italy interests me. I'm reading Day of Battle and it sounds like some of the toughest battles fir the American army was in Italy.

Salerno almost sounds worse than Normandy. They were seriously considering re - embarkation of the invasion force and that could have been a real disaster and had that occured it could have had huge ramifications for the Normandy invasion.

One of the surprise air attacks by the Luftwaffe was considered the second worse surprise attack after Pearl Harbor.

[mjkerner]

I have to say the German Campaign looks interesting. Fired it up and was very excited to see the unusually large map (compared to previous CM2 games) for the first mission! Over 2500 metres per side.

One odd thing about the first German Campaign mission:

There are 2nd infantry company units but if you click on 2nd company in any unit's box, there does not appear to be any 2nd company HQ. The Bn HQ shows there should also be a 4th company, but that also I could not locate any 4th Co HQ or units.

There is also no Co HQ tank for 1st company tanks although there is a Co HQ for 2nd Co tanks.

Anyone know if this is deliberate or an oversight?

Blunting the Spear, correct? I'm on the third mission but didn't notice anything strange in the first mission. As a matter of fact, last night my 4th Ko HQ got wasted when I forgot i had loaded it on a Panzer IV to move it through a village, and some Russky infantry shot off! It's possible they come in as reinforcements, just can't recall. (I am not sure if I'm playing the very last version or not, though.) Great campaign, btw.

[Erwin]

Yes, "Blunting the Spear". If you have time, start up mission one again and see if you have same issue. Hope the bug isn't mine alone.

[Dadekster]

Epic and variety are what immediately come to mine when I think of the EF. Things like hedgerows are pretty much the antithesis. I place Italy and Africa ahead of that even as what I personally find more interesting as far as battlefield goes. That said I realize of course the WT was just as important imho. It was after all a team effort that won the war no matter how hard each side tries to spin it.

[db_zero]

It's interesting to see how tastes have changed over the last 30+ years. When I were a kid, you practically had to PAY someone to play the Soviets in the cardboard wargames we had at that time.

EVERYONE wanted to play the Germans, and particularly with the lovely white on black SS counters. It was also very hard to get anyone to play the Western Allies (or any west front game for that matter, aside from where the Germans were attacking, eg: Battle of the Bulge). Any of you "old timers" remember all that?

I remember those days. You could also build models and have swastika on them and nobody would blink. I remember when an employee at McDonald's actually came to work in a full black SS uniform and poloroid pictures were posted with him and employees joking around.

Nobody though anything of it. You could never do that in todays hyper PC days. I recently had to go through training and it was mentioned that times have changed.

Personally ill play any side.

To me the Germans are like being Darth Vader.

[Childress]

The EF does seem to hold a bigger fascination for many gamers. I would like to see more of the 39-42 period, but ill take what I can get.

Not for the general game buying public. Given equal features the ETO will always outsell the Russian Front. CMBO did better than CMBB. And I too find the period less interesting than previous years. Germany had to strip the front to counter Allied invasions.

But the complexities of the Soviet OOBs in the earlier campaigns will be a bear to get right.

[Mr.X]

Almost always playing the Axis because my grandfathers both did, too

Regards

Frank

[JasonC]

How about, because it actually decided the war, and everything else seems like an irrelevant sideshow...

[tdogg]

^ What he said.....I had to find that out for myself, as we are not taught this in our spoon fed high school level US history classes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I still prefer late war West front for tactical wargames. Two reasons. One is that Soviet infantry is annoyingly weak against armor (no rocket-propelled tank killers). Second is that on the West front you have 3 major powers with distinct differences vs. only 2 in the East.

But for operational or strategic level games it's East front all the way.

[Skwabie]

I'm holding off on RT yet to see what issues have crept in..

I lied... damn this impulse buying thing.:mad:

I still prefer late war West front for tactical wargames. Two reasons. One is that Soviet infantry is annoyingly weak against armor (no rocket-propelled tank killers). Second is that on the West front you have 3 major powers with distinct differences vs. only 2 in the East.

But for operational or strategic level games it's East front all the way.

Come on Vanir, still looking for more tests from you yet!

[Redwolf]

I think the vastness in space alone is a large part of the attraction.

The troops are there like they have traveled to a different planet. Not in familiar landscape. Also, no French maidens get killed in the crossfire.

[Andrew H.]

I don't know if it was the Cold War or any kind of thoughtful analysis that made the Germans the favorite side.

IIRC it was simply that the Germans always were depicted as having large variety of interesting units/weapons systems with a wide variety of different strength factors and special abilities, whereas the Soviets in particular were always depicted on the counters of the time as identical hordes of brown counters - all pretty much the same. They were simply "boring". The Germans were "cool". Even their snappy uniforms (thank you Hugo Boss).

I think the reasons that the Germans were popular was primarily because they were seen as having high quality skilled troops, while the soviets were, basically, faceless red hordes. In terms of dramatic narrative, it is much more interesting to be in the small, outnumbered, but highly skilled group of individuals than it is to be in the faceless mass of soldiers whose only idea of tactics is the human wave attack. This is the view that you get in the books written by the German generals after the war, and it was the widespread wargamer view throughout the 60's and 70's (by the time I started wargaming more seriously, in, say, 1982, this idea was slowly changing...but there is still a strong "German super-soldier" contingent).

It's interesting how even US WWII war movies often try to put the US soldiers in the "skilled underdog facing the overwhelming foe" role - think "Battle of the Bulge" or the "Dirty Dozen".

I did tend to play the soviets at that time, though - and somewhere at my mom's house I still have a large fleet of 1/285 miniatures. But it was frustrating...if I won, it was because I outnumbered them 4-1; and if I lost, they would brag about how they fought off huge odds. (Even though this was SL and we knew that the scenario was balanced and also he had a 10-3 leader with an HMG in a stone building and I had to cross open ground with 48 squads. But I'm not bitter...)

And I think that the Cold War had a certain subconscious affect in how we thought about things, too. I didn't know anyone who wanted the Germans to win...but clearly the results of the war, as seen from 1983, say, did not lead to an optimal situation for Eastern Europe, and I think that there may have been a subconscious feeling that the end result would have been better if the USSR had won less decisively.

Of course now I find the Soviets more interesting to play because they present a different set of challenges - winning when you have a handful of super soldiers isn't always as interesting as winning when you have a lot of average soldiers.

[Redwolf]

The also is the "Soviet Operational Art" which you can interpret in various ways and deploy to a CM level game. It gives people something to think about and explore more rigid procedures. Fionn was a student of this, although there are some who attribute his success in CMx1 games more to knowing the game engine very well.

[dsf]

I suspect the German side was/is more popular because for decades, we never got the Soviet side. We got the American history and the German history and were told that everything the Soviets had or did was crap — they were the enemy. That's changed today. The more one knows about the Eastern Front (even the term is German) the more evident it is that the Soviets pulled a rabbit out of their hat to defeat the Germans by 1945. How they won is more interesting than how the Germans lost.

Regards

Scott Fraser