For future grand campaign add-ons

[alex0809]

Hello everyone,
I have really enjoyed (well, I AM really enjoying) the Eastern Grand Campaigns.
However, it got a bit boring always playing with the same perfect core setup so my personal opinion is that it would be a lot more fun, I am thinking especially about the (hopefully planned) future Grand Campaigns in the West here, if your core force is only let's say a dozen units or so and the rest is given to you by the scenario. This would make it a lot more diverse to play the scenarios and while you could still have your super-elite heavy tank core - which still makes all the difference on the battlefield, you would also have to use the assets provided to you in every scenario.
What do you think? 100 % core like it is right now (more or less) or with some more auxiliaries?

[robman]

More auxiliaries, would be my vote. I especially like scenarios where I am stuck with suboptimal units (other nationalities, conscripts, Volksturm, etc.) and I have to figure out how best to use them.

[ivanov]

I've always thought that there should be more auxiliaries in the DLC's. Even in the PG times, I used to say - "smaller core, bigger fun"

[Uhu]

I think, the ideal percentage of aux units in a normal scenario is about 30% (that means that many times a lower percentage is also enough). This don't give the player too many cannon-fodders, but helps to use core units more carefully. Another point is to make the scn so challenging, that the player HAVE TO take care also of the aux units, because without them, he cannot make a victory.

[mcore]

it's a very motivating factor for me to see the core units crews develop (getting special skills, medals and so on) - especially in grand campaign.

But i agree, having to use more inferior or exotic equipment is an interesting aspect too. But then it would be nice to assign the core crews to the material given.

PS: for DLC'45: hope to get some V2 or else i fear this war cannot be won striktensack!

[ivanov]

I've always prefered more historical approach, so for me the "perfect" proportion, would be 20%-30% core and the rest - auxiliary. If the core comprises the majority of the friendlies on the map, the less optimal units never got a chance to participate in the game. I have an impression, that for example the early war DLC's were more popular among the players ( a lot of people still often talk about the 40 DLC ), than the late war ones. One of the reasons has to be the fact, that so early in the war, the players are still not able to purchase the top tier units and are forced to play, with what is available to them. Which IMO is the real challenge and fun. I always try to build my core around the less optimal units ( a lot of infanty, average tanks and small air force ) but there is always some line that can't be crossed, because otherwise the further progress in the campaign would be impossible. If more, less ideal, auxiliary units were present in the DLCs', then the super-elite core, wouldn't be able to "spoil" the playability of the successive scenarios and campaigns. Also the AI forces could be toned down in qualitative and quantitative terms. Having more auxiliray units, would also make the tactical aspects of each new scenario more challenging and interesting. Right now, each successive scenario becomes increasingly simmilar to the previous one. Playing all the time with the same units, automatically forces the player to repeat the same tactics and the victory at the end of the scenario, comes as a result of having the ideal core structure and due to the repetition of the same proven "tactics", which are optimized for the ideal core units. More auxiliary units in the scenarios, could actually force the players to use their creativeness and skill on the battlefield.

I think that's something worth considering for the future PC projects.

[alex0809]

Ivanov, you perfectly summarized my thoughts. It was just absurd where in many scenarios (when you took good care of your tanks, upgraded them, had good heroes..) the danger of the enemy tanks is not that they might win against you in the tank battles, no but just that one tank gets through and shoots your precious artillery or exposed infantry or something - because in a direct tank vs tank fight they would always horribly lose anyway.

[deducter]

I disagree that having 70% auxiliary units is good, in fact, I agree with Uhu that a better ratio is 30%.

The problem is that with your setup, there is no reason not to treat your aux units like cannon fodder and use them aggressively, even sacrificially. If I were commanding a Soviet Tank Army, sure, that's a reasonable strategy, but any German commander who lost 70% of his troops in a battle would be immediately relieved of command or worse. Also, the maps become more of a "puzzle" and players who enjoy customizing their core however they want would not be happy with so many pre-placed units.

I don't like the early war scenarios as much, for me personally the game only becomes interesting from 1942 on.

[ivanov]

I was tihinking mostly of the future non German campaigns. I've been battletestig the first scenarios the the Nikivdd "Red Fury" campaign. In some of the scenarios the auxilliary units comprise roughly 40-50% of the Soviet forces on the map and it seems to work very well.

Also, the main idea behind using more aux units in the scenarios was to give a chance to the less optimal types of equipment - not only the best types available.

[Tima]

Would everyone agree that a percentage scale dial at the beginning of each scenario where you can choose from 0% to 50% core forces would be offered? IF you have more forces than slots available at the beginning of the scenario you would place your preferred forces on the field and then at the first turn all unused core forces would be frozen so that you can't add them in after sacrificing non core forces, or some of your core forces are destroyed. This would force the player to use non core forces with care. The one thing I would add would be the option to replace one or two of your core forces with a non core force piece of equipment at the end of each scenario. This would allow the player to take along a foreign tank or plane or infantry piece and upgrade the foreign piece based on the development of that countries equipment as the war progresses.

[robman]

Would everyone agree that a percentage scale dial at the beginning of each scenario where you can choose from 0% to 50% core forces would be offered? IF you have more forces than slots available at the beginning of the scenario you would place your preferred forces on the field and then at the first turn all unused core forces would be frozen so that you can't add them in after sacrificing non core forces, or some of your core forces are destroyed. This would force the player to use non core forces with care. The one thing I would add would be the option to replace one or two of your core forces with a non core force piece of equipment at the end of each scenario. This would allow the player to take along a foreign tank or plane or infantry piece and upgrade the foreign piece based on the development of that countries equipment as the war progresses.

This sounds very difficult to operationalize in practice, from the scenario designer's perspective. But even if the "variable dial" idea wouldn't work, I do like the idea of being able to incorporate other nations' units into the core. I recall having a Free French unit in my core in Allied General, and I nursed it along with great tenderness, even after it was outclassed by other available units.