Do you think there'll be a stark difference between the Allies and Axis in the form like perhaps the Allies are better at offensives while Germans are better on the defensive? Or do you think it'll be more nuanced and be on a unit-by-unit basis?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Like in Wargame, it'll be hard to really draw generalities like that. The divisions will probably be more different than the 'sides'.
I wonder if weapons will actually have their real life stat relativities or just all standardized like in RD
Don't think so. There were differences historically. But generally they had similar capabilities:
Germans had better equipment in general in terms of capabilities.
Allies had better spam in general
Germans late war were a mixed bag of quality in terms of troops
Allies were also a little green but also mixed because of veterans from Italy and the western desert\tunisia
German air force could not compete with the allies by this time but put on a good show from time to time especially defensively
Both Germans and Allies could both defend and attack well
Germans had better GMPG that squad was based around and some good assault/subs... but also a lot of bolts
Americans good LMG + lots of semi and auto rifles/subs
British good LMG but mainly rifles and not many automatic weapons
Germans shorter supply lines but allies better supply security
Allies of course had massive artillery superiority which is what the Americans won a lot of battles on the back of.
Germans had better equipment in general in terms of capabilities.
Allies had better spam in general
Germans late war were a mixed bag of quality in terms of troops
Allies were also a little green but also mixed because of veterans from Italy and the western desert\tunisia
German air force could not compete with the allies by this time but put on a good show from time to time especially defensively
Both Germans and Allies could both defend and attack well
Germans had better GMPG that squad was based around and some good assault/subs... but also a lot of bolts
Americans good LMG + lots of semi and auto rifles/subs
British good LMG but mainly rifles and not many automatic weapons
Germans shorter supply lines but allies better supply security
Allies of course had massive artillery superiority which is what the Americans won a lot of battles on the back of.
Please get away from the idea that the Germans were a homogenous force.
There are huge differences between several of their divisions:
In general it can be said that Wehrmacht-Panzer-Divisions (in Normandy especially the Panzer Lehr Division and the 21st-Panzer Division but also the Heavy Panzer Battalions) were the best trained and on average superior to their Allied-Counterparts. They are pretty much what most people think of, when they think of the Wehrmacht, but they were low in numbers.
Most "Infanterie-Divisionen" (or Grenadier-Divisions) are pretty much the basic average and the Wehrmacht Bread-and-Butter-Divisions. Due to the way the German replacement and training-system worked they had arguably a higher training standard than their Allied-Counter-Parts, but it really depends here on the exact division we are talking about (since there are also huge differences). On the other hand their level of mechanization is absolutely below anything the allies had. Unlike for example the US, which had an Armoured battalion in their Infantry-Divisions, in the German infantry-divisions several German soldiers of the German Infanterie-Division never saw a German tank during their war-experiences and most of their logistics was still horse-drawn. Some Divisions had a few(!) StuG and other self-propelled PAK, but not really much more. So here is, while comparable, a huge difference between both sides, maybe with a slight edge in Infantry for the Germans while a bigger edge for the Allies on anything mechanized (and thus more "allround").
And then there are the "Static Infantry Divisions"... pretty much the "throw-away-divisions" made up of men unfit for service in regular roles, Ost-Legions (thus foreigners)... these were the divisions that defended directly the beach (unlike what most people believe, the German idea of the battle for normandy was never to stop a landing directly on the beaches).
They are in every way below-average and can't compete with anything except in ideal conditions. Pretty much any unit the allies landed in normandy is superior to these forces.
Regarding the SS it really depends on the divisions. On average they are worse trained than their Wehrmacht counterparts but filled that lack with pure fanatism and usually a higher degree of better equipment, roughly equivalents to Allied-Amoured formations.
Luftwaffen-units really depend.
Fallschirmjäger in this context are pretty mixed. Usually Fallschirmjäger of the first 4 Divisions, of which the 2nd and 3rd fought in Normandy, had a pretty high degree of experience and training. Every other Fallschirmjäger-Division differ widely and are either on par with normal Infantry-Divisions or below (especially from Division 9 to 21).
So, I think while the Allied side will be a bit more "all-round" and fully mechanized with maybe certain elite-units, the Germans will probably offer a bigger variety and specialized formations.
Which is nice and offers a unique experience for both sides.
There are huge differences between several of their divisions:
In general it can be said that Wehrmacht-Panzer-Divisions (in Normandy especially the Panzer Lehr Division and the 21st-Panzer Division but also the Heavy Panzer Battalions) were the best trained and on average superior to their Allied-Counterparts. They are pretty much what most people think of, when they think of the Wehrmacht, but they were low in numbers.
Most "Infanterie-Divisionen" (or Grenadier-Divisions) are pretty much the basic average and the Wehrmacht Bread-and-Butter-Divisions. Due to the way the German replacement and training-system worked they had arguably a higher training standard than their Allied-Counter-Parts, but it really depends here on the exact division we are talking about (since there are also huge differences). On the other hand their level of mechanization is absolutely below anything the allies had. Unlike for example the US, which had an Armoured battalion in their Infantry-Divisions, in the German infantry-divisions several German soldiers of the German Infanterie-Division never saw a German tank during their war-experiences and most of their logistics was still horse-drawn. Some Divisions had a few(!) StuG and other self-propelled PAK, but not really much more. So here is, while comparable, a huge difference between both sides, maybe with a slight edge in Infantry for the Germans while a bigger edge for the Allies on anything mechanized (and thus more "allround").
And then there are the "Static Infantry Divisions"... pretty much the "throw-away-divisions" made up of men unfit for service in regular roles, Ost-Legions (thus foreigners)... these were the divisions that defended directly the beach (unlike what most people believe, the German idea of the battle for normandy was never to stop a landing directly on the beaches).
They are in every way below-average and can't compete with anything except in ideal conditions. Pretty much any unit the allies landed in normandy is superior to these forces.
Regarding the SS it really depends on the divisions. On average they are worse trained than their Wehrmacht counterparts but filled that lack with pure fanatism and usually a higher degree of better equipment, roughly equivalents to Allied-Amoured formations.
Luftwaffen-units really depend.
Fallschirmjäger in this context are pretty mixed. Usually Fallschirmjäger of the first 4 Divisions, of which the 2nd and 3rd fought in Normandy, had a pretty high degree of experience and training. Every other Fallschirmjäger-Division differ widely and are either on par with normal Infantry-Divisions or below (especially from Division 9 to 21).
So, I think while the Allied side will be a bit more "all-round" and fully mechanized with maybe certain elite-units, the Germans will probably offer a bigger variety and specialized formations.
Which is nice and offers a unique experience for both sides.
Similarly, there's a difference in quality of Allied divisions. While equipment availability and issuance among the US, UK, and Canadian forces were fairly even, the degree of training was not.
Out of the divisions that landed in Normandy, a number had fought in North Africa and France, and were more experienced than the green divisions.
While the US army was greatly expanded for the war, the "regular" divisions had cadres of professional volunteer soldiers from before the war. The First Infantry Division is an example.
Out of the British units the "best" ones are those that deployed with the BEF in 1939. Examples include the 1st Guards Brigade,
Both British and American Paratrooper divisions were volunteer only, and underwent more training than your regular infantryman.
You'd be Surpised; Out of all Divisions was present in the 21st Army Group (British & Canadian Units in Normandy & Europe) only Two Divisions took their Divisional battle school with them to keep up their mens level of training and skill, one of them Being the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division. The Division was involded with the Fighting around Caen. Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery (General at the time) Commanding the 21st Army Group named 8 Divisions that were reliable... Those Include: 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division, 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, 49th (West Riding) Infantry Division, 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division, 53rd (Welsh) Infantry Division, 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, 11th Armoured Division and 6th Airborne Division
Absolutely.
But from a Wargameesque standpoint these "Elite-Divisions" were usually rather comparable equipped to their normal counterparts, which means in the Deck-System are "just" a wider variety of "experienced" cards.
Some famous Divisions, like the US and British airborne divisions, nevertheless deserve their own entry, without a doubt.
Just one interesting side-note:
The Desert Rats, while experienced due to the Africa-Campaign, sufferend from low moral during the Normandy campaign. Most service-members in this division thought they had "done their job" and going into fire yet another time doesn't looked appealing to them. Other divisions (like the 51th Highlander) suffered from the same condition. They actually performed AFAIK subpar during the normandy-campaign compared to their earlier campaigns.
Thus there are two sides of the coin as always (another interesting comparison that springs to mind is the different perception of trench warfare by German and English soldiers of WWI, which isn't important here).
Thats actually True, Monty listed the 3rd Infantry Division, 51st Highland Division and 7th Armoured as not combat worthy after their initial performance when he mentioned the 8 Most Reliable Divisions.
A good one to read about this would be Mark Urban's The Tank War, which covers the 5th RTR's (part of the 7th Armoured Division) war, which I would recommend to anyone who wants to read about how godawful tank combat actually is. His description of how the 5th fought in Normandy comes to the conclusion that while they fought like devils, when they thought they'd done enough (or when they game seemed up) they wouldn't hang around very long, e.g the Retreat after Villers Bocage and the Island Box. So in gaming terms, units like the 7th Armoured or the 51st Highland (which was not only destroyed in 1940, but already had a demoralising reputation after the Salerno Mutiny) would be Crack Troops, but with poor morale (I believe Flames of War(hammer) refer to them as Reluctant Veterans.)
It will likely vary per unit type. Some units will be better at offense, whilst others will be better at digging in and holding towns, buildings, critical points, etc. Obviously there will also likely be your typical support units: bombers, fighters, artillery, mortars, etc.
What's important to remember is due to the intense amounts of hedges and other obstacles things like the Panther and King Tiger will be forced into close range engagements. It will be possible to balance a little thanks to some of closer engagements forced by terrain. I think as the allies using terrain will be highly important to knock out German heavies.
That's absolutely true. Hopefully the tanks modelled ingame are realistically sluggish in turret and hull traverse, plus speed. It always annoyed me in Wargame how quick they were 
The asymmetric balance in this game is going to be very weird if they go the realism route considering the superiority of the average German division over the Allied. The game is division vs. division and I can pick whatever I want to play? Gee, lets see. Do I play the 94th Wehrmacht infantry division or do I play the Panzer Lehr division? Do I play the British 56th infantry division or do I play the US 3rd Armored? ............. lol.
He's right. You can see their superiority in person even to this day... in the victor's museums
He's right. You can see their superiority in person even to this day... in the victor's museums
inb4 "history is written by the victors"
That's absolutely true. Hopefully the tanks modelled ingame are realistically sluggish in turret and hull traverse, plus speed. It always annoyed me in Wargame how quick they were
I also hope the HE accuracy of tanks vs. infantry is quite low. It's very difficult to hit a lot of people on a flat field from any kind of distance. You need to be pinpoint accurate without an object around them to hit. The way tanks in Wargame absolutely terminated infantry in the open with their gun was annoying. The tank's MGs are a different story though.
On the American m1918A2 BAR automatic rifle I am being generous here when I say this it was crap, too heavy terrible bipod, bad sights, the gas block rusted up in a salt water environment bad on D day terrible in the pacific, magazine was small and not very strong. It's WW1 incarnation was better as was the Polish version and the FN BAR D.
On GPMGs the Germans were the only nation with true GPMG's the rest were light machine guns or medium machine guns.
It must also be remembered the Germans had a massive mix of equipment from the nation's they conquered throw this in and you have elite units with anything from Czech mauser carbines (alpine warfare units) Zb26 LMGs reserve troops with French lebels and MAS 36 and God knows what else making supply a nightmare even without constant allied air attacks.
As for the allies Eisenhower put an absolute moron in charge who spent most of his time whoring in Paris instead of doing his job. ( can't help but wish Monty or Patton got hold of him they probably would have killed him)
As for British Small arms Britain had lots of automatic weapons in the form of the sten, and Thompson (often used by commandos) also the bren was used in a number of ways from firing from the hip on the advance too a pair of solider firing a magazine then advancing firing and so on. (My grandpa was a bren gunner)