Sgt Joch

Best way to optimise FPS is to just use the BALANCED setting for model and texture. The game will then automatically optimise graphics based on the FPS, although in fact that only decides what level of LOD model to use. On BEST, you are forcing the game to always use the highest LOD model, while on BALANCED, you will switch to higher LOD models depending on the FPS.
If you have a decent rig, units will pretty much always be at the highest LOD model when you zoom in on them, but you wont get the choppinees on large map/scenarios when you zoom out.
I did a test over the weekend in a medium size scenario using the in game model setting and there was no perceptible difference between BALANCED and BEST when zoomed in and even when at a medium zoom at level 4, the difference was small, mostly in the LOD models used for trees.

I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
 
This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they have done.

Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.
Scoring in scenarios will be one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
 
 
This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.

Problem with threads like these is that people make assumptions about how infantry behave with a HUNT command without bothering to check how they actually do behave in the game. When this topic came out last year, I ran a series of tests to see if there was an issue. As far as I can tell, infantry on HUNT behaves in a realistic manner. This are the results I had posted:
so, basically, infantry on HUNT will cancel the order and go prone in the following circumstances:
1. they spot an enemy unit;
2. they take a casualty;
3. their suppression meter goes up to the second bar, which can take as little 1-2 MG bursts coming close or 2-4  shots from a single shooter coming close.
Tweaking the sensitivity to fire is always a balance, you don't want your troops to keep advancing when they are fired on, OTOH you don't want all your troops going prone because of some enemy fire in the general area.
Again if anyone has a save game where you feel infantry is not behaving in a realistic manner, post it so we can take a look at it.

Blunting the Spear is one of the best campaigns in Combat Mission, any title, as far as I am concerned. but it's massive and definitely not noob friendly.
For me one of the best campaigns for new players is Task Force Raff in CMBN.  It's an excellent primer scenario that gives the player a taste of bocage without feeling restricted, plus attack and defend missions on very nice maps. Time limits are generous, allowing plenty of time to scout, recon and maneuver without feeling rushed. Reinforcements are also generous, and you get a real feel for combined arms and using off board artillery. The lavish tank strength eventually on hand allows for some setbacks without losing momentum, making it an ideal scenario for new players (and vets too!).

Personally, I rarely use HUNT for infantry outside of buildings, except in very specific situation. The troops are easier to spot and target on HUNT as you can see when you are playing the other side. I prefer to use a QUICK order over a short hop, 25-50 meters, with a HIDE order at the end, so they are up and into their new position in under 30 seconds. If any enemy unit fires on them, there is a very good chance they will miss and I have other units on overwatch to spot where the enemy fire comes from.

The Combat Mission games are often mentioned to be simulations of the battlefields of WW2 and more modern days. But although they probably are good simulations I feel that there are too many limitations to these games. The list contain 28 things that probably could be added to the promised engine 5 of CMx2 or to a hoped for, but not promised, future CMx3 engine.
Most of the things that follows are the same as I have mentioned earlier in this thread. The difference is that I now have added a few pictures and a link to a video.
We begin this with a few changes I'd like to the editor:

1) Trees could sometimes have a broader variety. I often get the feeling that the trees are too thick and look too much the same. Instead of only having one single tree, two trees and three trees of each type to choose from, there could also be trees of different angle, height and thickness to each type. This variety could be randomly decided by the AI. If I for example would choose to place two single trees of type A beside each other the AI could choose two different looking type A trees; for example one thinner and smaller which is slightly bent towards the east and one thicker and larger which is pointing straight up. There could also be the options to choose different type A trees just as there are options to choose a fence which is going in different directions or are to be used as corners.

2) When talking about placing trees in the editor it would help tremendously if there in the 3d environment was the possibility to mark a section of different trees with for example Shift key + clicking on trees, just like how we mark groups of infantry, and copy them to be pasted where ever we want to have more trees in woods or a forest. If we wanted to make some changes to the copied and pasted trees we could maybe remove some of them with Ctrl + clicking just like we remove props we don't want. An option like that would make the tedious work of placing trees much easier and quicker when the scenario map is supposed to have larger forests or many smaller woods. If it would be a problem for a 2d map to register those copied and pasted trees, the copying and pasting could maybe be done on the 2d map.
3) The possibility to make the direction of roads more like they are on the maps we use as a reference would be great instead of having roads that only go straight to the left/right or up/down and bend in 45° and 90°.
4) It would be great if the update of the current engine, or a new CMx3 Engine, could add some more editor props, like for example abandoned cars and lorries which can be placed on the roads and in villages and towns, and more buildings, for example cafes, more shops and houses of different sizes than there is now, which will help make towns and villages become more interesting to fight in.
5) It would be good to have the ability to set an AI-artillery fire order anytime in the AI's battle plans and not only for the first three minutes. The ctrl + c command is only for small arms fire, armoured vehicles and mortars. But sometimes it could be challenging for the player if there was a heavier AI-artillery barrage a few minutes before the AI-troops are sent forward to assault a position. Another thing that would be great is if it was possible to choose how intense that AI-barrage would be, just like how the player does when fighting the AI, and whether it should be to harass the player or a short, medium or heavy barrage.
One thing that would help in this would be to have the ability to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group so it's possible to use the Ctrl + C command with the off-map artillery AI-group. The AI-officers and FOs seem to prefer to choose the on-map artillery when they request artillery support. When the AI-officers and FOs choose the on-map mortars instead of availabe off-map artillery, the on-map mortars, which have been assigned to the Ctrl + C order by the scenario designer, don't shoot as much on the red marked areas as hoped because some of them have been ordered by the AI-officers to shoot somewhere else although there is off-map artillery available. Being able to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group would be of help to avoid the trouble with the AI and on-map mortars.
6) AI to be able to use smoke shells which we order by painting an area on the 2D map with for example Ctrl + S or similar.

7) Have the ability to use more than one trigger area for an AI-group. If we could connect more than one trigger area to an AI-group at a time the AI-group will stay in position and move when the enemy has entered any of the two or three trigger areas.
An AI-group could for example be connected to two trigger areas which would mean that an AI-group stays in the position where it's been placed. But if the enemy would enter any of the trigger areas it moves to the position for defense which the scenario designer has decided for the group to move to in cases of necessity.
If both triggers areas would get activated at the same time there could maybe be another string of code, or strings of codes like a counter tied to the trigger area, which would make the AI-group move to the position where the threat seems to be the most severe.
If the trigger areas were able to count the amount of enemy soldiers that enters them, scenario designers could decide in advance how many soldiers that are needed to enter to be counted as a threat and cause the AI-group to leave its position to move towards the threat. It would probably have to work a bit differently when it comes to trigger by enemy armour as one or two armoured vehicles can cause a lot of damage.

8] More than 16 AI-groups, preferably at least 32 or 40, so the scenarios can become more tactical, more interesting and more fun to play against the AI. It's sometimes a bit frustrating when you need to decide which units are "less important" so they all can be put into one or two groups when you really would like to have them in four or maybe six different groups to make them able to for example surround the player's troops.
Sometimes it would also be useful to have an officer responsible for off-map heavy mortars as his own one-team group, or their own groups if there are two batallions with such an officer in each, so they can sneak up to a good position where they are more able to hide, being only a three or four man team, and direct requested off-map heavy mortar artillery fire on the Player's troops.

9) Most likely for a CMx3 engine: If there was the possibility to go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load any of them, making maps would be much easier and go much quicker. One way to make this possible could be to have a tab system in the editor where the 2d map is on one tab and the 3d result of the 2d map is on another tab. To control the result and make other changes one would only have to go between those two tabs. To go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load either of those two would also make it much easier and much quicker to do the AI-orders as one sometimes have to go to the 3d environment to make sure that what is planned for will be possible, for example to make sure a unit hopefully will be able to have eyes on a certain area from a certain spot.

Now let's go to playing the game:

10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker.

11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies.

12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.
13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building.
The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls.
14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot.
15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario.
Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns.
  Moving Guns 40 meters
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18           2.30 minutes
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37           3.15 minutes
German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38                       4.00 minutes
German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40                       4.20 minutes
German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36                       5.00 minutes
German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33    5.00 minutes
US     57mm AT-gun M1                                 3.30 minutes
US     76mm AT-gun M5                                4.20 minutes

16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function.
Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them.
If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it.
And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows.
So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality.
17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this.

The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back.
18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play.
If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much.

19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest.
To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait.
Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now.
20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect.
21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.

22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back.
Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away.
In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers.
23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them.
24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too.

25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.
26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle.
If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable.
It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.
27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that.
28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun.
That's it for my list of changes.

Read a book on the battle of Hue, 1968 recently. Marines never went in through windows or outside doors since they assumed, usually correctly, that: 1) they were mined/booby-trapped; and 2) that enemy troops had weapons targeting the opening just waiting for someone to poke his head through. What they did is create their own "doors" by blasting through walls.

this is the most recent unclassified info on Russian forces.
 
https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/Russian-Forces-in-the-Western-Military-District.pdf

Read a book on the battle of Hue, 1968 recently. Marines never went in through windows or outside doors since they assumed, usually correctly, that: 1) they were mined/booby-trapped; and 2) that enemy troops had weapons targeting the opening just waiting for someone to poke his head through. What they did is create their own "doors" by blasting through walls.

One big advantage of CM is that it accommodates all sorts of play styles, single player, Real time MP, PBEM MP.
I have been playing CM MP for close to 20 years and rarely had a bad experience or players disappearing. Human players provide a challenge and satisfaction that the AI never will.
Nice thing about clubs like TFGM is that they organize campaigns and tournaments which provide a more immersive experience and different gameplay.
Some games like First Person Shooters or Flight Sims work well in Real Time, but CM is well suited to PBEM WEGO. It gives you the time to properly plan your moves and accommodates your schedule and players in different time zones since there are CM players everywhere.

On later T34/85s you see that bulge/patch on the lower left turret side? That's the placement of the electric turret drive motor. You don't see that bulge on T34/85 (M1943) or T34/85 (1944 early) in the game and turret rotation speeds reflect that. (1944 late) and (1944 latest) have the turret drive and it is VERY fast.
The electric drive was just for slewing the turret around. The finer movements for aiming are still done by hand crank.

Campaign briefing:
On the 16th of march 1944 a Fieseler Storch with SS-Gruppenführer Herbert-Otto Gille, the commanding officer of 5. SS-Panzer Division "Wiking" and his adjutant SS-Hauptsturmführer Westphal on board landed inside the town of Kovel. 
Kovel was just about to be surrounded by soviet units, many of them from the 47th army, your main adversary.
Kovel with the German garrison: 5000 soldiers and civilians inside it, was completely surrounded by the Red Army on the 19th of march 1944. 
Gille would be a major morale boost for the Kovel garrison and even though some would criticize Gille for not being at his divisional HQ outside Kovel during the battle his confidence in his officers abilities convinced him it was the right thing to do, besides that Hitler had declared Kovel a "Fester Platz" and had ordered Gille to get into Kovel and hold the city at all costs.
 

Get it here: FR Breakthrough to Kovel (thefewgoodmen.com)

this is the most recent unclassified info on Russian forces.
 
https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/Russian-Forces-in-the-Western-Military-District.pdf

Yes, it has been posted before a reminder is always good. Very good overview of the current state of Russian forces.
If you are loking at something more Cold War focused, a good over view is FM100-2-1:
The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics (wikimedia.org)

Yes, it has been posted before a reminder is always good. Very good overview of the current state of Russian forces.
If you are loking at something more Cold War focused, a good over view is FM100-2-1:
The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics (wikimedia.org)

if someone wants to discuss Afghanistan, we are having a lively discussion here:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-your-thoughts.33410/#post-319695
TGFM is a good club if you are looking for MP games as well...

if someone wants to discuss Afghanistan, we are having a lively discussion here:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-your-thoughts.33410/#post-319695
TGFM is a good club if you are looking for MP games as well...

@DownSized join a gaming club, like thefewgoodmen linked above and you will find all the PBEM games that you want. They also organize competitive tournaments.

I'm all nostalgic now for 2011 and the posters who predicted BFC was about to go belly up if they didn't follow their weirdly specific advice on how to run a computer game company. Good times, good times. 

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Now that is a bloodbath:

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.

Operation Barbarossa did pretty much as well as it could, starting a few weeks earlier or capturing Moscow would not have made a difference in the long run. The Op was based on the belief that the Communist regime would implode. That was not the case in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a reasonable assumption based on opinion of Russian emigres, the purges in the Russian army and Russian performance in the Finnish war. US and UK in 41 also expected Russia to collapse.
Once it was obvious Russia was fighting on, the Germans had to face the fact that the logistic challenges made it impossible to conquer all of Russia. Based on pre-Op planning, the Germans estimated that the maximum that they could supply their troops was 500 km from the bases and that is where the initial offensive petered out in July. After that, they had to move bases forward to support additional offensives. Problem was the railroad network was inadequate, not just the type, but the number. The Germans needed at least one dedicated rail line per army, they fielded around 10 armies, but they could only count on really one rail line per Army Group, so troops on the front line were always short of everything. Best example is winter clothing. The Germans had all the winter clothing they needed for the entire armies in the east in storage in Germany and Poland, problem was the entire rail capacity in Russia was taken up by fuel, ammo and food so they were unable to transport winter clothing to the front line troops.