Unused World War 2 Settings

[CrazyMedic]

I have always wanted a survival game like stalker set during the storming of berlin granted you would be playing a german civi but like say you play a father with a wife and child hunkered down in a basement and having to charge though explosions and rummage though a burning building to get a can of beans for your family and constantly fighting off russians with what ever you can find and make it so that you always get over whelmed in the end and have to watch as the russians take your family.

 

[Nashura]

An overall story line that would be great is these bunch Koreans who fought around the world, switching sides constantly. There story was as follows: They we're captured after fighting the Japanese in Korea. As POW, they managed to escape to Russia. In Russia, they were taken as Japanese and made POW, and got deported to the east front (Moskou or Stalingrad, I dunno) In that battle, they were taking as POWS by the Germans, who transported them to the Atlantikwall, one of the beaches to be precisely. After D-day they got captured by the allied, who held them in the US untill the end of the war.

A fascinating story, I think it was in the book D-day by Stephen E. Ambrose I read it.

 

[Dalek Caan]

Battle of Britian to mt knowledge.

 

[notimeforlulz]

As far as WWII settings go, I'd be intrigued by a game about the Siege of Tobruk. 240 days of desert warfare and siege, the first time the Blitzkrieg was actually brought to a complete stop. The Australian 9th Division was ordered to hold the town for eight weeks, they held it for five months until the German forces were driven off by Allied reinforcements.

To be fair, a large reason that blitzkrieg failed was because of the crippling lack of adequate support ironically caused from its great success in previous missions.

That and the Australian defense was ridiculously suicidal, they sat in the trenches even after some of them had been run over by passing tanks until they were ordered to fire on the tanks from behind. Although attacking tanks from behind was a common practice for anti-axis forces since the German tanks were 3 times more heavily armored in the front than other tanks, I doubt the German's expected soldiers to hide in dugouts and die from being crushed before they ever dared to show themselves.

Thats incorrect, the panzer III and IV we're equal and later on inferior to the allied tanks in armor, they were just used by crews that were better trained.
However your right about the Aussie troops being too damn stubborn to let the Germans win

I was talking about the tanks early on in the war, that the germans used that didn't have sloped surface armor. The russians actually utilized sloped armor for as their main tank force very early in the war. The sloped surface armor which would lead to a 10mm thick piece of steel being equivalent to a 20mm thick piece of steel when hit at an angle (sloped so from the front). The german tanks were special because they had very thick armour, and long ranged guns. I didn't say their armour was better than that of the allied tanks (sloped armor) I said it was thicker. Turns out it wasn't 3 times thicker though. That documentary I watched was pretty inaccurate.