But at what costs?
The game is just not designed for that. If you "win" a battle and lose 50% of your core, otherwise it will just feel like a blitzkrieg scenario in 1941, you will be doomed in the next scenario.
So there is just 2 ways, either you fight at the wrong spot, like in AO 1944 most of the time, and wagners tell you how your allies got owned. The other way was used in 1943, you always come to late with your core fore, all you allies get whiped out in a few turns and the game doesnt notice, that you killed all whole russian army.
Both ways are not really satisfying and I am curious if thery might be perfect solution one day.
Thats the same reason allied DLCs do not really how. How could you build up a nice core, which is still one of the major parts of the game, if you are losing 2 years long everywhere?
Thats an interesting approach but how do you explan sealion? Everyone sucks, you are the only army group that is making good progress. Talking about kursk there are two army groups, one sucks again, while you are curshing the russians easily. You cant say that your core had far more ressources than your friends...VirgilInTheSKY wrote: ↑Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:14 pm Think it this way, the resources others could have used to achieve something on their frontline was transferred to supply your forces because you are doing well and on the main operation direction. YOU DRAINED THEIR RESOURCES to achieve your victories, and makes it looking like all the others are not doing their job at all because they can't get what they need to do so.
And your core is not that big. For example if you check out the army size when you are defending the normandy, rommels army is huge, I would say 200-300 core slots. But they just suck, so its not like they did not get supplied, properly
And until 1944 you are fighting the hardest battles yourself. Stalingrad, Kursk, its not like you are bashing some noobs at some random spot, while the rest of your army is having a tough fight.