Campaign 41 - should I fail on purpose?

[AgentTBC]

I'm doing my first playthrough of the DLC campaigns (on Rommel difficulty) and have decisive victories on everything so far that I recall. I'm currently in "Leningrad 41" and am wondering if I will get more battles if I throw this one on purpose. Like failing Moscow 41 in Panzer General in order to go through the later Russian battles and win at Moscow 43.

So does anyone know which battles I should avoid decisive victories on and if Leningrad is one of them?

As an aside, things are pretty easy so far. Seems like you have to deliberately choose sub optimal units and force composition or you tend to roll over the enemy.

[Vaughn]

If you are able to get decisive victories go ahead. Your actions in the DLC will not change the course of history.

[Kerensky]

The only way to access 'more' scenarios is to get decisive victories. While the base campaign might cause you to skip scenarios, the DLC campaigns will only award extra ones for decisive victories.

The really tough battles of DLC 1941 are ahead of you though. Vyazma has given a few people problems, and if you manage to get a decisive victory there, you have the bonus scenario Streets of Moscow to look forward to. If you've played DLC 1939 and remember Warsaw, Streets of Moscow is a lot bigger and MUCH tougher!

And if all else fails, you can always increase the difficulty of the campaign too. Colonel is built for first time gamers, Field Marshal is pretty suitable for veterans, and elite players are best challenged by the expanded difficulty settings that have to be unlocked.

[Mark50]

Your actions in the DLC will not change the course of history.

I`m currently in my `41 campaign at Minsk so haven`t experience the course of the war in the east. But if the DLC goes according to history what is the justification for losing when you`re wining? What happens if you take Moscow and Stalingrad for example? You then get to play Kursk 1943? And if I win all the battles in the east will I then have to fight for Berlin in 1945?!

[kjeld111]

Basically, if I understood correctly (still stumped at Vyazma, hehe) you take Moscow just before the arrival of the (historical) fresh Far East and Siberian reinforcements, and are forced (offscreen) to pull back as they arrive.
I believe the developpers have already said alternate history (like in the base campaign) DLCs are a possibility once they finish the historical grand campaign. Their campaign structure/core export allow branching to ulterior content.

[Mark50]

Basically, if I understood correctly (still stumped at Vyazma, hehe) you take Moscow just before the arrival of the (historical) fresh Far East and Siberian reinforcements, and are forced (offscreen) to pull back as they arrive.

That`s the explanation I would have thought of myself in the case of Moscow 1941, but still, wining(decisively) all the way back to Berlin? Is that gonna happen?

[CrimsonStorm]

The easiest way to look at it personally is that you are 1 cog in a much larger machine. Whilst you may be crushing everything in front of you the rest of the German army gets its butt kicked and so yes in the current DLC path you will end up losing the war even if you kill EVERY enemy unit you meet.

However if they make other DLC's after they finish 42-45 then maybe things will change

[Mark50]

The easiest way to look at it personally is that you are 1 cog in a much larger machine.

By comparison to history, given the large objectives I`m securing by myself I`d say the forces commanded are a reasonably big chunk of the overall army.

Whilst you may be crushing everything in front of you the rest of the German army gets its butt kicked

Well, then the DLCs don`t follow the history after all. I mean I`m doing such an awesome job(be it on medium difficulty ) in the critical points of the front that the rest of the army ought to - proportionally - be having a really uncharacteristically nightmare for my winnings to not make any impression overall.

and so yes in the current DLC path you will end up losing the war even if you kill EVERY enemy unit you meet.

So what will the last message of the game be then? Awesome job on losing the war for us? Still, might be interesting to play successfully down the hill with the setbacks always being someone else`s responsibility.

However if they make other DLC's after they finish 42-45 then maybe things will change

I very much doubt I`ll start a new series of 70-100 scenarios just to play a few different ones. But I`ll have to wait and see how this is implemented in the end.

[CrimsonStorm]

Why a new series of 70-100 scenarios? Don't forget your core is stored at the end of each DLC

Therefore in the future you could potentially take your 40 core and invade the UK or Africa etc.

[Mark50]

Well, Africa is not really a what if. It actually happened and it could indeed keep you there for the rest of the war if it too follows history. That would be a nice development. But in the case of England I`d imagine you need to have the job done quickly in 1940 which would then send you back to the Balkans and Russia for the rest of the war thus replying part of the campaign. Or alternatively you just stop after it.

[Kerensky]

CrimsonStorm has the right idea. It's a situation of winning battles, but losing the war.

Besides, the default campaign explores alternate history quite a bit, to the annoyance of many I might add. So the DLC are much truer to history, but because of the way they are set up, it will be possible to branch your DLC core into fictional campaigns. Whether these will be made officially or exist only as user mods we can't say at this point.

[AgentTBC]

Thanks for the answers! I'm glad I don't have to worry about getting fewer battles by winning too early as in the main campaign! I'll just play to win every time and hope for the best. Actually I'll have to rethink some of my core forces if I'm going to be fighting the defensive battles of the later war even if I win all the time. Anti tank units might actually be useful.

FWIW I'm playing on Rommel difficulty. It was definitely harder right at the start because you have to husband your resources better at first but once you get 5-6 overstrength artillery and 5-6 overstrength fighters it's off to the races. Manstein difficulty scares me, though. Maybe I'll try that next.

[dragos]

The really tough battles of DLC 1941 are ahead of you though. Vyazma has given a few people problems, and if you manage to get a decisive victory there, you have the bonus scenario Streets of Moscow to look forward to.

Vyazma is anticlimactic. Once you destroy the pocket around Vyazma, all the road to Moscow is free. I expected the Soviets to put up a fierce resistance as you approach Moscow, but Mozhaysk was defended only by two inf and one artillery and was quickly overrun, and Moscow garrison was a feeble anti-tank gun and was blocked with a panzer before it could buy new units. At least Mozhaysk should be a very strong prepared position.

[brettz123]

The really tough battles of DLC 1941 are ahead of you though. Vyazma has given a few people problems, and if you manage to get a decisive victory there, you have the bonus scenario Streets of Moscow to look forward to.

Vyazma is anticlimactic. Once you destroy the pocket around Vyazma, all the road to Moscow is free. I expected the Soviets to put up a fierce resistance as you approach Moscow, but Mozhaysk was defended only by two inf and one artillery and was quickly overrun, and Moscow garrison was a feeble anti-tank gun and was blocked with a panzer before it could buy new units. At least Mozhaysk should be a very strong prepared position.

The hard part of Vyazma is the weather and the initial counter attack.

[4kEY]

I believe the developpers have already said alternate history (like in the base campaign) DLCs are a possibility once they finish the historical grand campaign. Their campaign structure/core export allow branching to ulterior content.

I would really like to see an expanded USA Invasion series with the same kind of scaled-down detail we have with Russia DLC.

[4kEY]

Vyazma is anticlimactic. Once you destroy the pocket around Vyazma, all the road to Moscow is free. I expected the Soviets to put up a fierce resistance as you approach Moscow, but Mozhaysk was defended only by two inf and one artillery and was quickly overrun, and Moscow garrison was a feeble anti-tank gun and was blocked with a panzer before it could buy new units. At least Mozhaysk should be a very strong prepared position.

The hard part of Vyazma is the weather and the initial counter attack.

Agreed, oodles of anti-climaticness.

Also agreed. The weather system screwed me, and when my Dad played it was blue skies. Same thing with one of the Stalingrad maps.

Leningrad 41...the city puts up good resistance, though you have to disobey orders.

Why are the makers reluctant to let first-timers be utterly destroyed?

[brettz123]

My guess is that they don't want the game to be too hard. It is probably the hardest part of making a game. There is a huge range in skill and desire in any player base. If you make the game too hard or players get too discouraged you are going to lose out on a lot of sales.

[soldier]

H'mm, I'm having a pretty hard time at Vyazma on field marshall and i tried to keep my distance from Leningrad city districts but i do play with a custom set to make it tougher to gain exp.
I guess I'm not so great after all if people are finding all these battles easy.

[brettz123]

H'mm, I'm having a pretty hard time at Vyazma on field marshall and i tried to keep my distance from Leningrad city districts but i do play with a custom set to make it tougher to gain exp.
I guess I'm not so great after all if people are finding all these battles easy.

Really depends what you change I guess. I didn't find Vyazma difficult on Field Marshall though. For me the biggest problem was the mud and rain (which always annoys me). Now the best I have ever done is finish with three turns left. To be honest through if you throw a couple of fallschirmjaegers against the far objectives it would probably be a very easy scenario.

[dragos]

H'mm, I'm having a pretty hard time at Vyazma on field marshall and i tried to keep my distance from Leningrad city districts but i do play with a custom set to make it tougher to gain exp.
I guess I'm not so great after all if people are finding all these battles easy.

Really depends what you change I guess. I didn't find Vyazma difficult on Field Marshall though. For me the biggest problem was the mud and rain (which always annoys me). Now the best I have ever done is finish with three turns left. To be honest through if you throw a couple of fallschirmjaegers against the far objectives it would probably be a very easy scenario.

I have just replayed Vyazma on Rommel and won DV again by the last turn. I have occupied all cities on the map except two Moscow flags and one airfield. The weather is milder than it should be: I had several turns of rain and mud, but most of the turns the ground was dry and there was plenty of clear weather. IMO the weather setting should cause rain and mud most of the time, and even snow.