RUSSIAN VS GERMAN? IS IT BEING MADE?

[GAZ_NZ]

IM wanting to know if a east battle pack is gonna be made up with Russians vs the Reich.

ALso a hypotheical Us vs Russians hehe would be fun to.

Any one know if the russians are gonna be included ever?

AWESOME GAME I MUST SAY......

GAZ_NZ

[Hawk]

Yes, CM2 will be East Front.

Hawk

------------------

Our's is not to reason why, our's is but to do and die!

[WendellM]

I'm really looking forward to the real WW II, the Russian Front, as opposed to all this fringe stuff. Yeah, Normandy, the Bulge, etc.; it's all interesting in its own way. But every gamer worth his salt knows that the real WW II battles took place on the Russian Front!

This isn't to take away from the current CM. The parade of the minor nations (USA, UK, France, Poland, etc.) is very interesting, but only when great Mother Russia is represented will the game be complete. Da!

[NetRunner23]

Troll!<grin>

Actually, I love to tweak my fellow Americans by citing that it was, in fact, the Russians who bore the brunt of the fighting and could credulously claim that they won the war. The 28 million casualties they incurred is ususally outright denied ("You must have it worng, it's 2.8 million!)

[GAZ_NZ]

Cheers for the reply, was hoping somefink would be made.

WWII isnt the same without the east front.

It would be difficult fighting the rusians as u have so many attacking, ie outnumbered 4-1 at least. hehe they would be charging with there shovels and picks and the odd gun or too. With 20 t-34 behind the infantry hehe good old russians.

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it was, in fact, the Russians who bore the brunt of the fighting and could credulously claim that they won the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn straight! As tough as it was for my American pride to swallow, I had to accept the facts. This led to a whole new appreciation of the Soviets vs. the Germans as the main theater of war in Europe, which is why my interest in the Eastern/Russian Front is my only rival for my attraction to the suicidally overmatched Japanese.

Man, but that six-year period, 39-45, really captures the imagination!

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-14-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM:

But every gamer worth his salt knows that the real WW II battles took place on the Russian Front!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every historian worth his salt knows that "biggest" doesn't always translate to "most important" or "most interesting".

I will give the SOVIETS their due, they had a really hard time, losing something like 20 MILLION people (incl. civilians). All the Ukrainians/Byelorussians(etc., etc.) I know have problems with the USSR being described as "Mother Russia".

Bad translit follows:

"Zhivot na zhivot i vcyo zazhivyot"

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the Ukrainians/Byelorussians(etc., etc.) I know have problems with the USSR being described as "Mother Russia".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, of course. I simply let my enthusiasm get the better of me with 'Rodina' talk. There's just something infectious with Soviet propaganda of that time than makes you want to believe in the Great Patriotic War .

[MichaelU]

Having read a few accounts of the war in Russia, I really feel sorry for the average Russian soldier. The only thing as dangerous to him as the Germans was his own side.

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really feel sorry for the average Russian soldier. The only thing as dangerous to him as the Germans was his own side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, Michael. In the early period, it was like "STAVKA wants us to do WHAT?!" Later, things became more balanced and then in the Soviets favor. A thoroughly fascinating war.

[Dragoon44]

The East Front version of CM should just be kick ass!!!! Imagine the bloodbaths were gonna enjoy!!!!! OOOOOPS sorry letting a bit of the real personality show there,,ahhhh ummmm yes I think from a historical standpoint CM 2 should be a very accurate representation of that theater of WW II. GODDAM CM throw in some Finns for fun too!!!!!

[killmore]

As someone pointer out the German to Soviet Soldiers losses were about 1:2.1

So in the fighting there were 2.1 Soviet soldiers killed for every german soldier. So don't tell me they were attacking with shovels all the time. Thats bull.

28 million includes civilian losses. And lots of them.

[markk]

Yes,the Russians bore the brunt of the war and suffered enormously.But remember they had the numbers and the material.Fact is the German army was better.Try cranking the German side up to equal the Russians when the game comes out and see what happens.

[killmore]

Not totally true markk.

T-34 was much better then german tanks (until 1943). Soviet conscripts were frequently fanatical...

If the game does it right 1:1 should be an EVEN game.

Now if you make realistic 1:1, where Soviets are green/conscripts but germans are regular/veterans - then obviously germans should win.

Soviet advantage was not that large most of the time it was 3:2. (Sure they could have local advantage of 10:1 - but so did the germans)

I see no reason why same quality Soviet troops should be any worse then German.

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM:

I'm really looking forward to the real WW II, the Russian Front, as opposed to all this fringe stuff. Yeah, Normandy, the Bulge, etc.; it's all interesting in its own way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i tend to agree that the war in the east is more fascinating, but must say that, playing this beyond overlord thing has given me a real appreciation for american hardware.

i'm enjoying this much more than i thought i would.

at first it was like, 'man why didn't they do the russian front first?'

well apparently it has to do with the scope of the various vehicles. apparently it takes a lot of work do do each vehicle, so beyond overlord with its more limited vehicle set was the place to start.

as i said already, this beyond overlord has given me a real fondness for american hardware (m8 greyhound, m8 hmc, t8 recon in particular).

and the bazooka is a fine weapon... i don't like playing british simply because of that god-awful piat... and their tanks are too slow.

give me shermans and stuarts over churchills and cromwells. churchill is nice but with that kind of slow speed i might as well switch sides and enjoy using 'real heavy armor, with designs borne out of experience in the east' instead of the british 'wannabe' heavy armor.

i must say though that the firefly is a nasty one.

indeed, beyond overlord really showcases the war in the west very well.

a couple of other really cool ones will be france, 1940, and the desert.

but you're right, in light of 'drag nacht osten' (pardon my german) all of this other stuff pales in comparison.

almost can't wait to get my hands on su152 'zverdoy' =grin=

very content in the meantime with beyond overlord.

if you look at the 'little picture' - the battle at hand - fronts and stuff don't matter. it's more a question of, given the terrain in front of you, what are you going to do in the here and now with the units you have at your disposal?

taken from that 'micro' perspective beyond overlord itself has almost 'unlimited replayability.'

andy

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NetRunner23:

Troll!<grin>

Actually, I love to tweak my fellow Americans by citing that it was, in fact, the Russians who bore the brunt of the fighting and could credulously claim that they won the war. The 28 million casualties they incurred is ususally outright denied ("You must have it worng, it's 2.8 million!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh and they (americans in general) have a difficult time with the fact that our 'war of the states' caused more casualties than all of our other wars combined.

the casualty figure for wwii was something like 292,000 dead for america. yes that looks 'puny' in light of 20-50 million dead russians (depending on whose figures you use).

on the other hand, many of those american casualties were in the air war, where arguably each casualty represented a much greater loss of material and 'firepower' as well.... sort of 'high tech' versus 'low tech' casualties.

i think that the russians in any case would have had a much more difficult time of it if they'd not received murmansk and persian-rail-delivered aid... at least if carell (hitler moves east, scorched earth) is a credible source ...

i've heard russians didn't like western (lend-lease) armor in general but were impressed by the sherman's reliability, which surpassed that of even the legendary t-34. the lee was a 'coffin for 7 brothers.'

andy

[Zebulon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

Every historian worth his salt knows that "biggest" doesn't always translate to "most important" or "most interesting".

I will give the SOVIETS their due, they had a really hard time, losing something like 20 MILLION people (incl. civilians).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To get an idea of the magnitude of the Soviet contribution, in addition to looking at their casualty figures, examine the casualties they inflicted on the invaders. According to Stephen Ambrose, 9 out of 10 Germans killed in WWII were killed by Soviets (I don't recall if this figure included civilian casualties, my guess is it does not). Even though the Western Allies may have contributed more than 10% to the conquest of the Axis through strategic bombing and other means, it appears they only contributed 10% to the hardest part, killing enemy soldiers.

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelU:

Having read a few accounts of the war in Russia, I really feel sorry for the average Russian soldier. The only thing as dangerous to him as the Germans was his own side. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah for example i've read of some of the fighting just northeast of the black sea in late '42 and early '43... the attacking soviets were backed up with machineguns... as in... 'if you don't attack the germans we machinegun you in the back.'

the germans were shocked and appalled at those conditions, having had radio intercepts in the area and hearing the communications of the soviets, and piecing that together with what they were seeing with their own eyes.

andy

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

Not totally true markk.

T-34 was much better then german tanks (until 1943<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah but the germans had coordination of vehicles down to a science and the russians did not. (radios were a major factor)

also the t-34 had a 2-man turret until the t-34/85 came out...

having said that, i've heard that guderian (sp?) once said, 'if i'd had 1000 t-34s in 1941, the russians wouldn't have stood a chance.'

andy

[tss]

Killmore wrote:

I see no reason why same quality Soviet troops should be any worse then German.

Soviets did have some pretty good troops and generally they fought better than Germans in forests and in cities.

Particularly the border troops were generally excellent. There was one border company that held a fortified hill against a reinforced Finnish batallion and threw all attacks back with heavy casualties. It finally retreated through forest (taking all equipment along) after its supply road had been cut. The men of the company had enough humor to raise a Finnish flag to the highest point of the hill when they left.

- Tommi

[killmore]

Recently released Soviet archives put total tonnage of Soviet strategic bombing at 2 times the allied tonage. I wonder if thats true.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

Not totally true markk.

T-34 was much better then german tanks (until 1943). Soviet conscripts were frequently fanatical...

If the game does it right 1:1 should be an EVEN game.

Now if you make realistic 1:1, where Soviets are green/conscripts but germans are regular/veterans - then obviously germans should win.

Soviet advantage was not that large most of the time it was 3:2. (Sure they could have local advantage of 10:1 - but so did the germans)

I see no reason why same quality Soviet troops should be any worse then German.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The T-34 was an excellent tank, but it had its own problems, and some of them were very serious. The 2-man turret was one of them. Having the commander be the gunner is a huge disadvatage. The lack of radios made coordination problematic at best.

Some of these problems were resolved by the later models of T-34.

I would agree that some quality Soviet troops should be no worse than the average Germans, but on the whole, the Soviets had a decided quality disadvantage almost across the board up until late 1944.

I will re-iterate what someone has already mentioned: biggest is not always most important. The Eastern Front was decisive in WW2, but not because the Soviets managed to get 20+million people killed. I am not sure why exactly people think getting trully astonishing numbers of your sides people killed is an indicator of the importance of the fight.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 07-14-2000).]

[Steve Snake Driver]

While the Russian contribution to defeating the Axis powers was quite large, I think some people are missing the fact that the Western Allies were also engaged on a separate front that was resource and material hungry...the war against Japan.

[tss]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

I am not sure why exactly people think getting trully astonishing numbers of your sides people killed is an indicator of the importance of the fight.

Well, I'll quote Terry Pratchett on that (not the exact words, but you get the idea): "For his kind of general the most important thing in a battle was that there should be lots of casualties. If they were on the enemy side, that would be bonus."

- Tommi

[Tekman]

Just think of doing Kursk the worlds largest tank battle both sides equal to the task (except the Germans were low on fuel) this would be great! And yes 90% of the most decicive battles were fought in the Eastern Front. Just think the battle for Lenningrad had more casualties ( just military casualties) 3million killed & wounded on both sides combined than the rest of the Allies had the whole war. This is usually glossed over by the Americans & British who like to think they were the only ones who did any thing in this war.