>WW2 game
>allied campaign
>set in 1944
>Germans outnumber you 3 to 1
>Germans have complete air support
>German tanks are only Panthers and Tigers
>All German units are elite infantry
>WW2 game. >allied campaign. >set in 1944. >Germans outnumber you 3 to 1
Literally all panzer general clones no?
Yeah, I'm playing the Allied DLCs for Order of Battle and it's such bullshit
The reason why US and UK didn't invade Germany by Christmas was because of logistical issues and not because germans were superior in combat.
Well thats the problem of all those games, because of their rigid scenario structure they cant show very well effects of your success or even some historical roflstomps like battle of the bulge being doomed from the start. Same problem with Panzer Corp 2 german campains post 1942, or even some pre barbarossa ones like the one taking place in yugoslavia where yugoslavs somehow can go toe to toe with germans yet historically didnt put up almost any resistance
Who nobody made panzer general clone but with sandbox campaign is beyond me, only attempt that i know of is Strategic Command series
Itd be fun to do a polish campaign knowing you're just holding them off as long as possible.
There are always too many games where you can play the evil side. Need more presentation for the heroes of WW2
Yep.
Woow so evil. The good guys totally wouldn't have songs about a pure maiden picking flowers among a swarm of honeybees.
>genocide is ok if you have a nice theme song
Yes.
yes
>what is Hürtgenwald
pound for pound there were even with complete allied air superiority
Don't forget, they were going to take over the United States too!
I mean if it was historically accurate it wouldn't be much of a game, would it?
Then create a fictional scenario you like, and don't try to cash in on history, then.
This. People clearly love alternate history. Man In The High Castle, the entirety of the Alternate History Hub channel on Youtube, Turtledove books, and all those HOI4 mods. Why not make a game set in an unusual timeline? There's so much potential, but I suppose that would require executive shitheads to have a modicum of creativity/innovation.
>People clearly love alternate history
People who play WWII games will b***h and moan over the slightest misplaced rivet.
People love alternative history when it changes something they don't like in actual history and hate it when it changes something they actually like.
Also
>The Man In The High Castle
There's a total of like 15 people who ever read the actual PKD novel.
They need to give us a WW2 game where we have to fight Germany to an armistice with the allies.
Fight as Germany.
Ergo, pull a Rommelgay's (if Rommel got what he wanted, Hitler might have won) bullshit scenario.
Germans did perform better in ww2, I had a links were an USA general wrote about it. You deserve shit to be poured in your mouth for playing war games that are post ww1
I like how Battle Academy slowly introduces tiger and such.
>redditjak post
The point is to have a challenge.
Literally a non issue because the most popular battles (Normandy, Market Garden, Bulge) are where the Germans have tactical advantage and use superior tactics and panzer concentrations to btfo the allies.
The Germans are total buttholes. Why did anyone agree to fight them?
Meanwhile, in 1940s Germany:
"The Americans aren't Communists, right?"
"I heard that once, ja."
"Why are they helping the Soviets?"
"I dunno."
FDR was a pinko warhawk, that's why. He and Stalin were best buddies, and US-Soviet relationships only deteriorated when wheelie finally got sent to hell.
Just wanted to say that Patton was a mediocre general at best, and his best offensive was the one he crashed his car and died. Hoorah
>Cold War game
>The Fulda Gap holds
>Soviets open a second front by invading Scandinavia/Brighton Beach/Alaska/Jersey Shore/The Moon
The Scandi levels in WiC were pretty dope though
>WW2 game
>allied campaign
>set in 1944
>You outnumber Germans 3 to 1
>Germans have no air support
>German tanks are few and unreliable/broken
>All German units are children and old men
>Play on hardest difficulty
>Still win easily
Realism sure is fun!
>Still win easily when supplied
FTFY. Any allied game should have the issue of the terribly inefficient Red Ball Express hindering forward progress. After D-Day, the Allies failed to capture large ports in good working order besides the few in Normandy far away from the front, and the truck borne supply lines were horribly inefficient to handle it. This why the broad front strategy stalled out despite have numerical superiority every on the front line, and why Allies pushed for Operation Market Garden. Just as boomers keep wanting to war game the same three battles in WW2, they also insistently ignore meaningfully modeling supply.
The solution is simple. Henceforth all WW2 games will only have axis campaigns. Throughout the campaign your enemies will get better and better equipment, have access to evermore support all while yours dwindles.
It will fit both accuracy and game design.
Sounds good anon.
Also the axis should typically win by using some kind of superweapon.
That was never the plan. The actual way an Axis campaign should end is they bleed the Allies on the western front and the UK is forced to white peace. Germans manage to capture Moscow and the Caucasus, and the Soviet government collapses into infighting. America curbstomps Japan because that's the only way that theater ends.
Boring, but realistic. None of the German superweapons would actually have won the war. Not even a fricking UFO would have changed the above.
Germany did have a superweapon: the Messerschmitt Me 262. This alone ensures that if Germany manages to fight the Allies into a standstill, they will never be nuked like Japan because the U.S can't get a bomber near it. And without paperclip, the Allies probably wouldn't be able to develop ICBMs until the 60s to circumvent German air superiority.
The Me 262 was superior to whatever the allies could have fielded until around 1947 or so, maybe less due to rising pressure to combat german jet aircraft and considering their own projects were already quite advanced, but the Me 262 would have reigned the skies for some time.
But that hinges on some preconditions, which are enough appropriate material to build sufficiently large numbers, enough supplies to fuel and munition them and enough capable pilots and, by extension, flight instructors. A superweapon is considered one to be able to deal damage to an enemy on a strategic scale with low numbers, possibly even with just one of them and without too great requirements in supply and infrastructure to utilize them.
So no, the Me 262, for all of its strenghts, was not going to be a super weapon. If you write a alternte history campaign where the air dominance afforded by the Me 262 comes into play, you need to account for the prerequisites to be satisfied first and that means either securing enough resources through capturing soviet territory up to Baku or north Africa and the middle east, maybe find some more sources for aviation related resources or diverting existing resources, e.g. backing out from attacking the Soviet Union in the first place and putting some of the resources and production capacity saved into constructing your modernized air fleet.
But for most cases, you would still have to deal with the fact that the war was already decided by the time the Me 262 took to the air for the first time. So you'd also have to write around that by either including a strategic victory of sorts, i.e. destroying the allied or soviet capability to wage war enough to make the Me 262 still matter or find a way to plausibly have it researched, prototyped and mass-scale produced way earlier, as in taking at least two years off it's production cycle. The Panzer Corps 2 Grand Campaign incidentally did that with their Sea Lion Scenarios.
You underestimate the power of die gloke... But your far more realistic scenario sounds good too.
Supply and logistics are boring though anon. They're never modelled in a way that makes them fun either. HoI4 supply and logistics makes me want to weep. Factorio is the only game with complex supply and logistics that's actually a fun part of the game.
>Supply and logistics are boring though anon
WW2 is a logistics war and games like Shadow Empire, Gary Grigsby's, UoC, etc. are (relatively) popular precisely because they are highly mobile logistics and entrapment simulators, HoI is just a terrible game.
In a sense, thats the best way to make the WW2 scenario engaging gameplay-wise. If you play as the allies, you know they'll win in history, so you cannot add anything to it from playing well, but playing the losing side, you can have tht much more agency.
I would add, that you might preserve at least some resources that have been wasted historically by either avoiding doomed endeavors or playing said scenarios well enough that said resources are not squandered. Maybe start on havin a Prestige pool like Panzer General/Corps and then add a global reinforcement pool that stocks up (or decreases) every week or month of campaign progress, possibly even for every side, so as to possibly reflect enemy losses and encouraging defeating more non-essential enemy units and ahistorical axis successes like capturing the Suez and beyond.
That being said, the abtraction into just prestige workes well enough if executed well. The worst blunder in campaign design would be the Stalingrad Scenario in Panzer Corps 1, where every single outcome from plain defeat to a decisive victory takes you to Kursk without any difference, despite a decisive victory having you capture Baku and Stalingrad itself and being way more taxing on your troops.
>If you play as the allies, you know they'll win in history, so you cannot add anything to it from playing well
What do you mean? If you perform well and capture an ahistorical objective or take fewer casualities then you'd naturally skip battles, progress to a different front, be in a better position in terms of manpower and hardened troops, etc. This has all been done before and is nothing new.
Maybe, but in the end, you will still just gain a victory as has happened in history, just with minor differences, at best. Referring back to Panzer Corps, the allied and soviet grand campaigns might give you one last extra scenario in which you attack the other side, but it isn't expanded upon.
So, if you could go on to march past the rhine as the soviets and capture paris, then there would be a real point to achieve better mission outcomes rather than just conquering berlin 2 weeks earlier or so, which leads to the same point as in history, i.e. germany capitulating.
But since I gave a possible example to this myself, I agree with you that it has been done before already.
>just with minor differences, at best
You are ignoring the gameplay bits, the actual important part which I reckon is plenty dynamic in most games nowadays, not the story bit you can post on reddit afterwards. If you want some weird alt history campaign where the axis wins and the campaign is entirely speculation that's fine I guess, but I'm not sure why you are pretending its some super desirable thing.
>USA is the easy campaign
>Germany is the less easy campaign
>Britain is the intermediate campaign
>USSR is the hard campaign
>Japan is the end campaign
>France, Italy, Finland and China are ignored
I want an ultra difficulty Finnish campaign ffs
unity of command 2 has a fun historically accurate allied campaign if you like dealing with crappy terrain and managing supply while you shell the frick out of krauts
Is there any strategy game with a campaign that is based around Operation Unthinkable?
A whole campaign? Not to my knowledge. There is HoI2 Doomsday, but thats kinda directionless after the beginning. Games with single missions depicting it exist. Maybe there are mods out there which go more in depth.
Other than that, there are some games dealing with a conflict of the western allies vs the soviets.
>there will never be a WW2 strategy game where if you end up losing the war the game gives you an uncomfortable electric shock.