Grand Campaign Winning Path

[smashtheaxis]

The one thing I don't like about the grand campaigns is that there is no winning path (not counting the last minute wins possible in the 1945 campaigns).

I would prefer it if it was possible to defeat the British and the Soviets at different points in the war, like in the PC:WH main campaign or in Panzer General.

I imagine the big argument against this is that players would be missing out on a lot of scenarios and campaigns of the later war, so what's the point of winning in 1941 if it just the ends the game early and you can't take your core to the 1942-1945 grand campaigns. Therefore, it would be nice to have some additional DLCs with alternative history campaigns.

One way to it would be: Winning against the USSR should require DV at Moscow AND Stalingrad AND Kursk, so the winning pass would only start in 1944. Alternative history campaigns could include a whole grand campaign dedicated to an Axis invasion of the USA, or a clash between Germany and Japan in India / East Russia. Or just prolonged battles in Europe, for example against the Western Allies with Russia out of the war.

[KeldorKatarn]

I never liked the winning paths much. First of all there's very little to base valid scenarios on. Your suggestion for example: if Moscow had been won, a Kaukasus offensive MIGHT have been done if the soviets hadn't surrendered, since that campaign was largely one for strategic resources... but Kursk? Kursk would never even have happened if Stalingrad had been won. The entire stalingrad desaster led to a front that made Kursk poissible. That just wouldn't make any sense. That's the problem with these theoretical victories... everything that follows is completely made up. basing the game on historical battles, sprinkling it with some fantasy battle here and there was the better way to go I think.

Even in Panzer general I played the winning path once, then never again... it was just too boring and short compared to the cool other ways to play. So I always only let myself win at the Ardennes, the last east offensive or even at defending Germany itself. Everything that causes a major German victory just ends the game too fast.

Let's face it, once the USSR had eben beaten (which after a loss in 1942/3 wasn't possible anymore, so it has to happen that early, even stretching things, summer of 1943 at the latest), the UK would have been in a horrible position. Any offensive against germany would have been completely impossible with the entire wehrmacht defending mainland europa and the entire german air force being pulled back to the west and armor production being slowed down while fighter and submarine production would be trippled.

The western allies would offer a peace so they could concentrate on Japan. If Germany was stupid enough to actually try and help Japan, one MIGHT think of a possible offensive in africa and a push for india, but that's already very very fantasy. it is very likely Germany and the western allies would have made peace. Hitler would have had to do that, otherwise he'd lose public support FAST for dragging on a war that was already won just to support some subhuman asian race in the far east (let's face it, that would have been the attitude inside the NSDAP party and the SS)

So with a victory in the east the war would have been over, any allied landing would have been suicide under those conditions. By 1944 when the allies had opened several new fronts in europa a German total victory was already completely impossible, and just creating fantasy scenarios to somehow make a German victory possible... I think that would be unsatisfying. After all the fun is playing battles that we heard about in history, read books about etc. Not play some fantasy battle that never happened and some designer dreamed up on the toilet seat one afternoon. =)

So while I agree that at first glance it is disapointing that one cannot "win", it also make the grand campaigns more interesting and fun to play.

[smashtheaxis]

All good points. But allow me some counter arguments.

Your suggestion for example: if Moscow had been won, a Kaukasus offensive MIGHT have been done if the soviets hadn't surrendered, since that campaign was largely one for strategic resources... but Kursk? Kursk would never even have happened if Stalingrad had been won. The entire stalingrad desaster led to a front that made Kursk poissible.

An alternative historical campaign could include a withdrawal from Stalingrad to prevent encirclement or a breakout of 6th army from the pocket. This way, german loses would be reduced while the front could still stabilize in a way leading to Kharkov 1943 and Kursk, only with Germany having kept more resources and having dealt more loses to the Soviets. A victory at Kursk would lead to further loses of the Soviets while keeping the german army intact. There might even be a few fictional scenarios driving the Red Army back to the Volga after Kursk.

While I agree that a german total victory against the Soviet Union is unrealistic, i.e. Soviet unconditional surrender, there could be an armistice after those deadly blows at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. This way, also large parts of the german forces would have to stay in the East in case of a soviet surprise attack.

Or there could be continued war at the East but without further operational campaigns from either site after Germany reaches the A-A line and bombs the last factories in the Ural, allowing the Soviets to lead only partisan warfare. Another hypothetical scenario that keeps large parts of the german army engaged in the East, while there's no more threat for Soviet advances to East and Central Europe. This scenario comes pretty close to Hitler's idea of "eternal war".

[KeldorKatarn]

while that certainly would be possible, I think a withdrawl from Stalingrad and especially the kaukasus, would not be a "winning patch" in any way. The Kaukasus and its oil fields were of major importance by this point. Germany was beginning to run out of fuel everywhere and letting the USSR hold on to those resources while failing to grab them for the Axis was one of the major reasons why the entire eastern campaign no longer had any chance for success. So I think in any winning path the kaukasus is either conquered (at which point the soviet union would probably indeed have been at the brink of total collapse) or the war in the east is no longer winnable. Manstein's opinion Kursk could have lead to a negotiated peace was never one I could agree with, since at this time the allies had already pretty much ruled out any such separate peace as long as there was any chance to continue fighting. There might be alternative routes, like a 2nd push towards moscow after a successful 1942 summer campaign in early 1943, maybe also the final conquer of Leningrad even though that city was already ordered to be starved, then destroyed, not conquered anymore by this point. Or even a push for the industrial centers beyond Moscow, Maybe a joining of the Turks once the entire Kaukasus is under German control and a push through Iraq and a liberation of Iran and stuff like that... but that's already in Africa corps... and the push for moscow and even conquering it temporarily is already in GC.. simply having the same map several times with different units wasn't that nice already in Panzer General. So... I think the historical path just leaves more options for interesting stuff here. And if anything I'd rather see something completely different for a winning path. What about a conquering of the african colonies other than what is shown in Africa corps? What about a more expanded campaign about conquering the US? (even tough that entire campaign in laughably unrealistic).

Personally I'm rather looking forward to a GC DLC series for the western allies and then the soviets, and then maybe a game about the pacific theater. More historical stuff, great scenarios to come and lots more exiting than Germany conquering the entire world in my opinion. But again, just my 2 cents

[wargovichr]

Now that I have MY megalomaniac galoshes on and my 20-20 hindsight eyeglasses on the only true war winning strategy for the Axis in WWII was a simultaneous attack by Japan on far eastern Russia/Siberia and an attack by Germany on European Russia. The sleeping giant USA would not have been attacked at Pearl Harbor, Hitler would not have declared war on the USA, the sleeping giant would sleep some more, and Siberian troops would not have transferred to the Moscow front and Russia would have fallen.
Historical WWII was essentially lost by the Axis on June 22, 1941, combined with Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on the USA (instead of Russia) at Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the USA.
However, this grand strategy would not be playable on the size of Panzer Corps as we know it.
What is WORKABLE would be a "Panzer Corps Eastern Front" (1941-194?), utilizing limited stacking (!) to accommodate more units AND a great mix of player options that affect the Russian front, such as:
a) Successful Mediterranean campaign (Japan attacks Australia in 1941 instead of the USA, Germany captures North Africa)
b) Japan attack on eastern Russia/Siberia, no Siberian troops at the battle of Moscow
c) Early May 1, 1941 attack on Russia
d) Player weapons production control
e) Strategic bombers destroy Urals factories
f) Finnish link-up
g) Axis Allied development/upgrade
h) Enhanced German motorization
i) Delayed USSR attack until 1942 after Mediterranean and England surrender
j) Factory capture and conversion
k) Successful submarine campaign/no lend-lease
l) Winter gear
m) Early jet production
n) Turkey enters war for Axis
o) Ukrainian cooperation
Of course, playing the eastern front historical path the German player faces choosing front attack thrusts, General Winter, surrender of North Africa, invasion of Italy, D-Day, bombing of Germany, etc.
It would be great to see such a great-playing, great-looking, FUN, SUCCESSFUL PANZER CORPS BASED SYSTEM applied to a more grander scale--the entire Eastern Front.
OK, the foaming at the mouth is lessening. Maybe too large and challenging a concept.....for now(?).

[BiteNibbleChomp]

My thought on this are:

- DV on Warsaw ('39)
- DV on Dijon ('40)
- DV on Leningrad41 AND Streets of Moscow
or on Zolotonosha AND Strrets of Moscow ('41)
- DV on 2nd Stalingrad Scenario ('42)
= Saves Core for Hypothetical invasion of Britain in 1943 GC.

Also, You should be able to complete '43 Eastern and transfer your core force to '44 West, and vice versa.
As well as this, making '44 E/W interchangeable into '45

This would probably make it more fun: Upon completing '41 to transfer isn't as fun as being able to choose at any year (43-44, 44-45)

- BNC