Panzeh

If you can't make the ranges realistic compared to real life, it would be good if the ranges were realistic compared to each other. It may not look so nice, but it's reasonably realistic.

Had the French defended themselves more logically, I do not think the US would be needed. However, wargames do not like the French and thus they have to die every game.

CM doesn't do corps/army scale battles..

I don't see why the Germans can deviate from their historical strategy, and the Allies get no chance. The US is not allowed to land in Normandy with M26s, the Soviets always have to put up an inept defense, and the French always get simply bulldozed(this isn't really how they fell, but you have to make the french pathetic and weak). Had the Russians defended their country logically, then the Germans would not have gotten near enough to Moscow to threaten anything.

You've got to be pretty badass to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

Are there any grand strategy games that let you correct France's mistakes in its defense? Are there any grand strategy games that let you not make the mistakes Roosevelt and Marshall made?

I think the big 'german-lobby' has so much of a grip on ww2 wargaming that they don't even make France a challenge for the Germans. They let the Germans change their history, but not the Western Allies. Who's to say the French can't change their deployment or respond rationally to a German advance? You'll be like 'but it won't be ww2 without france falling'. I say it won't be ww2 with the Axis winning, either.

Why do the Axis powers get the benefit of the 'what if' scenarios but the Allies don't? What if the French and British had not aggressively pushed into Belgium? What if they had not walked into the German trap and actually blunted the armored spearhead?

The eyeball mk.1 is the most effective mine detector, particularly when a soldier is prone.

Hell, you could probably have some Shanghai and other Chinese scenarios for more interesting battles.

Well, I don't think a game about dropping rods on each other and using wacky 'remote killing machines' would be all that fun. Would you want to play a game like that?

It takes a lot of space to load a PIAT.

Destroy will basically keep you from being complacent and it'll give true fighters their advantage over 'heavy fighters' and bombers. True fighters will be drawing a lot of cards and will most likely have something to do about the enemy(of course, most people are afraid somehow to discard attacks). Planes like the BF-110 will be at a disadvantage against the destroy card, but they do get the gunner attacks as a small compensation.

People really love playing with highly exaggerated stereotypical armies. Mass human wave charges were not the only or even the most common attack the Russian army had. Comissars shooting their own men is highly exaggerated. Just because the Russians used a 'command push' doctrine instead of a 'recon pull' doctrine doesn't mean that their army was bad. German troops weren't "inherently" better than anyone else's. They had their good units, but everyone had their good units. Tank quality is way overdone in importance in battle. Did the quality of tanks ever decide a major battle? US, German, and Russian troops were practically equivalent in real quality. The differences came in organization, lower-level doctrine, and in the officers.

The Polish did not have a cavalry corps.

I'd like to give Rommel a C-96 but Heinrici a P.38 and Kesselring a Browning!

If you make a squad a single 'vehicle', it would have none of the ability of infantry to take cover individually. A general lack of cover on the maps would not lend itself well to infantry warfare, though I do prefer larger open areas to CQB-fests that end up as twitch games. I wouldn't mind infantry, it's just that if they do it just a little wrong, it would either be too powerful or too weak. I've nothing against including infantry per se; in fact, commanding an IFV and its accompanying infantry could be interesting, but unless infantry is done perfectly in its capabilities, it will be to no one's satisfaction. There are no armor sims that do infantry dynamically enough as of today..

I just don't think one could have a viable infantry element on big maps like this one without either huge amounts of players or good squad control. Would you rather the game be just another half-assed FPS?

This game is not CM in space. There is no infantry..

I have the impression this is more of a sim than an RTS, thus it really wouldn't work turn-based..

I'm not a fan of mechs at all..

If grogs had their way every time, the game would always be favored heavily toward the Axis because they have a knack for picking out every little advanced thing they developed then totally ignoring the allies in this respect.

Planes historically were much better able to interdict the logistical tail of a unit than do much about the unit's combat capability itself. Remember that logistical assets must generally remain on roads, rails, and near cities. Combat units don't. I think air strikes should sap supply instead of strength.

The BAR saw more use like this than the Bren.

The Danish casualty ratio was better than 1:10000 if you just use statistics.