Guest kevi Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 I am new to this board ... but very old to PC wargames CM should have East Front WW2 units. I know I know .. expansion ... But the initial buy-in to the game needs to include the critical area of WW2 operations. The Russian Front. The fate of the 20th Century was determined on those fields. The West, after Normandy is not very interesting. No ... sorry ... a group of battles based on Bulge 44-45 might be cool.. But the war was still won in the EAST.... Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 kevi, The sequal to Combat Mission, Combat Mission 2 will be the Eastern front and only the eastern front. It will also include some engine improvements and the like (i think) so it will be a new game, not just an expansion pack. Can't wait! (for either) - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 Kevin, I think that most people would STRONGLY disagree that "the West... is not very interesting". In fact, at the tactical level I think it is MORE interesting than in the East. And this is coming from someone who has almost exclusively studied the Eastern Front. In fact, the bulk of my thousands of dollars of books, and ALL of my rare/expensive books, cover the Eastern Front. Now, at the operational or startigic levels I would take the Eastern Front without a second thought. And you have NO idea how long it is going to take to get an Eastern Front version ready. Most likely a year. So unless you think we should not release CM for another year... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arien Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 Steve.. don't even kidd around many of us are waiting for you to release the first verson let alone the second.. give some of us a break.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 In my study of history I have discovered that the war in the West may not have been quite as devestating to the defeat of Germany, but, it was extremely important in shaping the post war world. I am actually amazed at the number of German units which served on the Western front during 1944-45. Truely, most of the German casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front, but, without the mass destruction of German forces, especially so late in the war, the Russian's could not have proceeded as fast, indeed, they might have had their advance checked. Thousands of German Planes, Tanks, and Troops were lost in a previously quitet area where forces could refit and regroup after their mauling in the East. There is much more history in the West front than just the Battle of the Bulge, which, in reality was not much of a threat or interesting of a battle. It had the same success possibility as the relief attempt on the pocket of Stalingrad. The Americans lost the strength of a couple Divisions, which isn't much in relation to the losses suffered throughout the conflict. Some amazing battles were fought in Normandy by the Americans, British, Canadians, French, Polish, Belgians, Dutch and Czech. The Clearing of Holland by the British, and most notably the Canadians was a bitter and important struggle. Freeing up Antwerp, and the Schelt (SP?) resulted in Patton having the fuel supply to successfully break the Rhine line. Even today, the Dutch still have a nation wide thanks given to Canada for leading their liberation. The Battle for Bastogne may be one of the most known in American history books, but, the less heard of conflicts are not any less interesting, just unknown. The East front on Divisional size is indeed a much more interesting war, just by it's scale. But, on the micro, Battalion level the West and East are just about equal. Personally, I never had as much interest in the East front than that of Africa/Italy, Western Europe 39-40 or 44-45, or the Pacific War. The smaller actions were more insignificant to the greater picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 OK folks, how long do you think it would have taken the Russkies to beat back Germany without the strategic bombing campaigns inflicted on their infrastructure? Although they still maintained an impressive level of industrial production, I just dont think Russia could have done it alone. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 This is a ridiculous argument since both campaigns were vital but never forget that the Russians bore the brunt of the fighting, inflicted the majority of the casualties, and sucked up the majority of germany's war effort. (You guys have been reading and believing too much of what Ambrose says...) If the Russians weren't doing this we would have gotten NOWHERE on the western side of things. So both sides played a vital role. Cheers... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 Guys - Nice thread. I don't want to hold up CM to include the EF. I just wanted to see if/when it whould be included. Now I know. I do think tactical combat on the EF is just as interesting as WF. Although I agree with the poster that the war was fought on a "larger" scale perhaps best simed on the operational level. But under all those division "counters" there were companies and platoons moving ahead (or back) using small unit tactics. If I recall, the very first Squad Leader scenario was in Stalingrad and the whole of Cross of Iron was EF. See I go way back. There are plenty of tactical situations other than massed Soviet mechanized attacks to sim with CM. Even with all the famous tank battles, the EF was really an infantry war having much in common with the WF. Yet, well meaning wargamers can disagree on this. I just can't wait to design/game some EF stuff using CM2. In the meantime, there will be many a long night when CM1 arrives. In my view, the signicance of the WF is this. If Normandy had failed all of Europe would have fallen to the Reds. Stalin was planning that since the mid 30's. Do you think he would stopped at Berlin? The Soviets from June 22 to August 23 advanced from just outside Orsha to the gates of Warsaw. That's about 400 miles. The Allies in the same time period advanced 200 miles (Cherbourg to Paris). The point is the Soviets had become very good operationally. Sure the war would have been longer if Normandy failed. The Soviet flag would have flown in Paris late 1946. Given the alternatives of a Nazi or Communist Europe (YIKES) the WF was significant in that the West kept a large part under their influence. After the Nazis were defeated in Russia (by 1943), the war boiled down to a race to see how much or Europe the Soviets and the West could claim (reclaim). - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 Don't worry, we never would hold up CM for the Eastern Front. We would go out of business if we did, plus we don't see the need in the first place. At the tactical level there is as much excitement on the West as the East. I think slightly more in some regards because the Allies had inferior armor for the most part. In the East it was, to a large degree, an even match after 1942. In terms of infantry quality, the West had the Soviets beat on average. Sure, I want to recreate lost of Eastern Front stuff, but it in no way diminishes my desire for Western Front battles. Again, at the tactical level there is a lot of great stuff in the West, while at the operational/strategic level it can not compare with the East. It is important to not confuse the levels of combat. It is also a fact that the bulk of the German Panzer force of 1944 fought and died in France, not the Soviet Union. Why do you think Bagration was such a success? Partly because Army Group Center had (IIRC) only *one* PzGren division as its armored componant. ONE. Where were all the armored divisions? In the West, getting chewed to pieces in Normandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 Little known fact is that Soviet Union dropped twice as many bombs on Germany as US. So their Strategic bombing also did damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 BTS wrote:- "It is a fact that the bulk of the German Panzer force of 1944 fought and died in France, not the Soviet Union. Why do you think Bagration was such a success? Partly because Army Group Center had (IIRC) only *one* PzGren division as its armored componant. ONE. Where were all the armored divisions? In the West, getting chewed to pieces in Normandy" I think you'll find that there were over 20 Panzer division in the East in June 1944 compared to around 10 in the West. The fact that AGC only had 20Pz as reserve was due to the fact that Hitler totally misread where the Soviet offensive was going to happen. Granted that Operation Bagration would not have been anywhere nearly so successful if those Pz Divs had been in Russia but how long do you think it would have been before they would have been burnt out? Probably faster than in Normandy. Those few divisions would have had only a temporary effect on the Eastern Front. One only has to think of 48 Pz Korps counter offensive at Kiev in November 1943. Sure it halted the Soviets west of Kiev. They then promptly launched the Cherkassy offensive, nearly destroyed Army Group North in front of Leningrad and staged another devastating offensive from the Kiev region. By the summer of 1944 defeat was a forgone conclusion for Germany whether or not the Allies landed in Normandy, although it would certainly have lasted longer. One could argue that the Western Allies did not have to land a single man in Normandy to achieve the same effect as D-Day - i.e. the threat was enough to keep German reserves in Western Europe. Of course the flip side to this is that most of Europe would have been under Soviet control! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted December 28, 1999 Share Posted December 28, 1999 To Gary T: agree To All: Again, happy to hear CM2 will be EF. On the tactical scale, just about any balanced battle is interesting as a test tube case. Will CM have historical scenarios? I am new this week to the demo and this BBS. It has always been my perference to game EF stuff. However, over the years, I have also spent countless hours enjoying battles(PC and board) across France, the Low Countries and into Germany. The demo has kept me at the PC into the wee hours of the morning. So I eagerly await the release of CM1 even w/o the EF available. In the meantime, this is a great place to talk tactics and history, which we all enjoy. - Kevin PS: The wife has even taken an interest in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts