Panzeh

The only problem with the French was their desirable operational speed. The French were well-prepared for a fight, but their command was slow and exacerbated by Gamelin, who simply didn't command. If the Germans walked into Belgium and swung wide as in the Schlieffen plan, the French would move up and engage them(the standing orders were basically to madly rush into Belgium as soon as the Germans did), and at the very least slow things down.

The Ardennes idea wasn't brilliant. It was sheer luck that the original plan was lost. The only reason Hitler switched plans was because his only other plan was Manstein's, and he hadn't time to formulate plans. The original German plan was to slash through Belgium ala the Schlieffen plan. Instead of hitting the French at the gap between the strong mobile forces and the Maginot line, they would have been hitting the aforementioned strong mobile forces. There would be no 'blitzkrieg'.

Romanians and Hungarians hated each other so much that they could not put their armies adjacent to each other, thus the Germans usually put the Italians between them. The Hungarians did much, much better in 1944 than 1942.

Hungarian troops should get a significantly higher morale when fighting Romanian troops.

The ME262 is grossly overrated in its fighter ability by most people simply because it's a jet. It was better at slashing through bomber formations than dealing with fighters, because of its lack of maneuverability.

Having tank destroyer armies is just ridiculous, they never even made full divisions, much less corps or armies.

Kursk and many other battles proved entrenchment and fortification still had a place on the battlefield. When panzers charged the Maginot line they were butchered by its guns.

The Germans were varied in their quality. The Germans lacked standardization in anything, so that should be some of their disadvantage. The Allies should have a set of leaders that are around average, with a few good ones and a few bad ones. The Germans and Soviets should have wildly varying quality in their leadership.

They were scattered but they scattered the Germans, too. They did their job.

The Hungarians fought hard near the end of the war, particularly when the Romanians turned allied.

Vicky is a monstrosity with divisional combat.

I think that would be good for representing smaller units, militias, and other forces that are out of scale but have a little effect.

I really don't mind waiting for a good game. If HOI, EU2, and Vicky are all the same game, let's just use the economics systems as an example. EU2's economic system ran under the hood. It was there, but you didn't have to do a lot to make it work. HOI didn't have an economic system really. It could be controlled, but really it wasn't deep in the least bit. Vicky's economic system is all run by the player, and it's a monster. I can say that it's micromanagement hell to try and run an economy there. Oh yes, all the same game. I guess Korsun Pocket is TOAW, too.

If you think HOI, Vicky, EU, and EU2 are all the same game with different graphics sets, then you've obviously never played them.

So you hate that Paradox supports its games?

I think the Germans were lucky to get as far as they did. Their supply situation was dire from day 1.

The Polish Paratroop brigade was slaughtered because of an awful LZ, though they did a good bit of fighting.

Well SC has a lot in common with CoS; it's more simplified but easier to play.

It resembles CoS more than HC.

Wargames can be played by any system of dividing the ground, be it hexes, dots and lines, or squares.

Now now, start including German tanks that didn't have much of an effect and I'll unleash M26s and Centurions.

The US had a lot of 'average' generals; guys that could follow orders reasonably well and use initiative. This was nothing spectacular, but compared to the leadership problems of France, Italy, and Russia, this is far preferable.

Patton was a smart guy and probably was one of those few generals that understood what was going on. You have to admire a guy whose speeches cannot be aired on cable TV yet teaches his junior officers military history. Part of Patton's army was involved in the Vosges campaign.

I do agree with the comments that Germany's military tradition is one of the key elements of German military expertise. I think the US also had a military tradition, too, particularly in the South.

Well I'm not saying the Germans were particularly bad, militarily speaking, but I'm saying they could lose without Hitler doing it for them, which the Vosges example shows.