Why Stalingrad?

[Bearcat]

While a bit of info on losses is interesting and relevant perhaps, let's not divert this thread into a discussion of factual accuracy concerning sortie/loss ratios. 

With luck, the other theatres will come along once this one has taken off.

 

That is the thing we all need to keep in mind.. This product an d it's sequels will depend on our support .. I am confident based on what I have seen so far that it will be worthy of that support .

[hiro]

I agree with that's its  sum of several things why the war was won / lost by this or that side. There are always many factors into why x war was lost and several 'turning points', some major, some minor that contribute to why one side one and lost.  And those factors on different aspects, such as logistics / mindset of individuals - > armies involved, situation, terrain . .  etc. 

 

The turning pointage plays a low level factor for me. It's more what the theater / battle options this presents. Don't get me wrong, for both sides it was crucial and winning was even more, and the sacrifices it took is very important, but I'm looking at this from a sim standpoint. 

 

But Stalingrad presents a good area. The map can be made large, it encompasses urban and country side. It's a well documented battle. Both sides are roughly equal footing / presence / numbers. There is always some sort of action going on, ground or air, heck even river.  The battle can use both mud movers and fighters. There is industry (railroads :D ), and a target rich environment. The weather / climate is good with all seasons (unlike med or pac), so it gives the devs a chance to develop the game further in regarding weather etc as patches come along or with a sequel, adding a new dimension to the original game.