Long campaign questions

[noxiousnic]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

Yeah, but sealion or Olympic can't be propperly played since we cant have beach landings in meeting engagements, i cant remember if para/glider insertion is possible in these battles(if they were to happen,both, Olympic and sealion would have paras holding key roads to prevent the landing forces from counterattacks)

This is not the Operational Art of Warfare
Not even close to being an operational centric game : it's purely tactical, and that is its greatest strength.
Its scope doesn't lend itself to modelling entire operations, but rather to the actions that make up a military operation.
And focused on the boots on the ground element, not modelling naval or air in an appropriate way for operational wargaming : both are only tools for the infantry in SP, not being able to do their own operations if you will.

A campaign, or long campaign even, is not the modelling of a complete WW2 or modern operation, but rather, again, a sequence of actions that form a small part of the much bigger, operational level, goals.

I understand the desire to do everything in the same game/engine, but you risk falling prey to very "gamey" workaround to make it all work, probably in a very clunky, unhistorical way.

Sticking to what SP WW2 and MBT excel at is a surer way to gaming bliss : small scale, tactical warfare.
The command and control restrictions of the game are a sure indicator that's it not meant to model operations like Barbarossa, Olympic, Gulf War, OIF or even D-Day landings in their entirety.
It's meant to take you deep inside the Ops, down to where each pair of boots matter, not your ability to move a corps or army group and its logistics train half across the world

Thus a campaign does NOT model a complete large scale ops, but only the part taken in it by a small element of the whole.
e.g the series of actions taken by a battalion in the course of a bigger campaign.

Not many games attempt to model all scales of military operations, even less including many strategic concerns (economy and diplomacy, for example) with detailed tactical combat. Those that do, often do so so that both micro managers and god view type of players can all have their cake and eat it, but stray away from modelling reality, striving for "fun" gameplay.
Often, this leads to part of the modelling not being really satisfying, etc.

And that's now, when the restrictions imposed by the PC platform have changed completely and allow complex modelling of multi layered simulations : when the Steel Panthers series were designed and originally developed, the restrictions were much more constrictive

Or the game stops being a game and solely becomes a simulation, in that it's not fun any more for most gamers who would otherwise enjoy a near simulation game (or serious game), because it becomes entangled in its complexity and the user's ability to tweak everything

The SP series concentrates on an often badly executed topic : tactical combat. And does a fine job at it
Maximum enjoyment will be had if you leverage its strengths rather than trying to punch through its limitations.
Cheers, have fun

[Imp]

Exelent andy you are a wealth of information.
It sounded insane but I did not realise quiet to what level.
Did the Germans invent LSD?

[Charles22]

Actually, I debate that we would had never used the bomb against the Germans, True, there was the Dresden raizing raids, but I think only Britain, had they the bomb, would had seriously comtempleted that, if only for their taste for bombing populations exclussively, afterall, though they wouldn't had known it then, the bomb drops on Japan were far less damaging in casualties than many fire bomb raids (which I think includes the British fire bomb vareity, not just the B29 raids). Could the bomb do better in Germany? I don't know.

Remember also there was the time factor. Germany had to last about as long to get bombed, because I don't think the bomb, or at least two of them, were ready by 5/45. But the primary reason, was that we weren't as mad at Germany as we were with Japan. What's more, if you go by the "scare the USSR" theory by their use, you wouldn't go using them in Germany too, should you just have to use them in Japan; one nation was enough for a scare. What's more, drop some bombs on Germany, though they didn't know it then necessarily, amounts to exposing USSR occupiers to radiation. Reason for the USSR to declare war on the US? Probably more on the practical side though, how much would dropping these bombs hamper both the allied offensives? You have to remember, part of the charm of the bomb in Japan was that it avoided casualties and speeded the war where there wasn't a foothold already, with fanatical resistance expected otherwise.

No, given how Japan was in it, and the USSR was advancing on Germany too, there's no way you nuke Germany.