Moscow '42 balance opinions thus far?

[Volcano Man]

I find the discussions about historical casualties to be, well, quite silly. The main problem with casualties is that it depends on who is controlling both sides. If one side refuses the budge, and the other side MUST push them back to win, then both sides may hurl themselves at each other with much greater intensity than it was in reality. And this is really the problem in any wargame, mainly because the "commander" doesn't have to take into account long term repercussions. Why should I care about preserving my forces for the rest of the war when all I have to worry about is *winning* by turn 201? Again, who you play against usually determines how "fun" and "historical" the experience will be. As for F14 in particular though (since it was called out by name), I made some improvements there -- by taking VPs from losses into greater account so that should help, and I will likely make further improvements in that area in the coming updates. That said, "losses" in the game must be taken with a pound of salt. Historical losses usually only tally KIA, where as losses in the games can be KIA, MIA and WIA (any type of loss). Many of these losses could be returned to service (ie. wounded or knocked out vehicles that are recovered) and then KIA or WIA again, we just don't know that (hence the difference between "recovery" and "replacements"). The point is, I don't think the total losses are really important, rather it is the difference in the final total in losses that matters (that actually might be historically comparable in these games).

As for movement rates in winter campaigns, this is usually something very difficult to deal with, especially if some of the movement can be done through road networks. Having been in deep snow myself, moving TACTICALLY 1000m in two hours is not a stretch if the snow is three feet deep or more (which was pretty typical in the harsh winters on the eastern front IIRC). If you disagree, then I suggest that you clearly haven't tried moving through deep snow carrying full gear -- it is a terribly fatiguing experience so this is not unreasonable to me. The problem however (and I am guilty of this myself) is determining what level of weather conditions should be for a given day. I have come to realize that, for the sake of mobility, the weather condition should only reflect the absolute WORST condition, so in reality maybe there should be more MUD and SOFT conditions (in general) to represent occasional warmer days mixed in. Or then again, determining actual ground snow thickness by day is what you would need to do to be "accurate" and I don't know anyone that has information like that.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and "Sounds like another shoddily put together campaign" isn't quite a helpful opinion. ;)

I suggest to you guys to make your own mod -- do some tweaks until you feel like you have achieved your vision of what the campaign should play like. Everyone knows that you won't find two people in agreement.