El_Condoro wrote:The Germans may have rolled over the Poles in Sept '39 but it would be boring to do that in a game without some good resistance for challenge's sake.
Well, I would expect the resistance of various countries to follow history to some degree.
If already Poland provides "maximum resistance" then what would be different from facing the 1945 Red Army?
I deeply hope the campaign designers move away from the base game scenario construction philosophy where late game DVs can only be obtained by utterly fantastical results, only for the next campaign to completely ignore the true impact of the previous outcome.
It would feel much MUCH more satisfying if the goals for each scenario are set with realistic aims in mind.
"difficult goals" does not have to mean "wipe the map of enemy units".
Meaning that a scenario against a historically "easy" opponent (such as Poland perhaps) can still be made challenging by DVs requiring steep goals (taking ALL of the map; killing ALL enemy units) etc.
While a scenario against tougher opponents (in the late game) should have its DV goals be more modest. Taking and holding a single victory hex for instance. Killing off all enemy units within a limited part of the map etc.
Nothing wrong with the occasional "all-out assault" scenario (particularly if the DLC campaigns operate on a much smaller scale, allowing the entire map to encompass historical gains). But a smaller scale also means that to take entire maps, the germans were historically enjoying numerical superiority at least on that particular part of the front, at least temporarily.
The scenarios to avoid is the original campaign late-war ones; where you need to obliterate entire Soviet Fronts if you want to achieve a DV. And specifically, to obtain such a DV only to see the war continue as if you hadn't just killed 5 million men... Such a scenario outcome would have meant instant peace negotiations, if not a new push towards Moscow (changing history completely).
In regards to what we're discussing here; do not fall in the trap of making Poland 39 as "difficult" as Russia 44. It's okay to slice through the polish army like a hot knife through butter. Difficulty can still be had; though not by inventing entire brigades of Polish Armor, but by stipulating really challenging DV goals (reach the far end of the map in a short few turns even though there's an entire army between you and there).
I would hate for players to come away from playing the game thinking that the 39 Poles had as many tanks as the French in 40, or the Americans in 43... just for the sake of providing "difficulty" through blunt force...
