PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 6:48 pm
On the note of going into fantasy and/or alternative what-ifs, the other thing that surprised me when I played the GC East (and I had mentioned it here on the forum previously already) is the following paradox phenomenon: so how does it work that you win DV after DV (in selected battles of a more or less single campaign path, not along the entire front of course) and then you still end up defending Berlin (in some way)… but then with an army full of Tiger IIs and Elefants? That’s also implausible for several reasons…
The game play itself is kind of nonsensical.
The whole idea of "elite reinforcements" is pure fantasy. I can lose 90% of a unit's strength and always be able to replace my losses with men and equipment that are at least as good? When was that true for any army in any modern war? And worse, there is no apparent impact on morale or support for the war in my home country.
My outlook on all this is that it is just a game and there is no point in worrying too much about historical accuracy.
I also think that part of the problem is that the original Panzer General came out in 1994, when the prevailing view among historians (especially in the English-speaking world) was based on the memoirs of German commanders like Halder and Manstein. So the PG series was somewhat premised on the myths of German tactical and technological superiority, the genius of their officer corps, and the possibility that Germany might have won if Hitler had listened to his generals. In the past couple of decades, as the German and Soviet war records have become available, a much different picture has emerged, and opinion among historians is shifting towards the view that Germany lost the war very early on.