Allied Grand campaign discussion thread

[GSlapshot]

I would suggest two GCs. Battle for France 1940 & Battle for France 1944. In 1940 you could have two starting points, historical and the other with the Allies deployed differently asked upon what they should have learned from Poland. The historical would follow the actual deployment and strategy while the what if would look to blunt or stop the German blitz and conclude with a border stalemate or capture of the Ruhr. In 1944 you would focus on the battles up to the Bulge as either UK or USA. In the original Pz Korp, there was a race to Moscow scenario but here the campaign would revolve around a Race To The Rhine to avoid the Bulge and enter Germany in 1944. A what if campaign could be Montgomery's single axis approach.

[caca]

Niki, ask Alexander to do so are not used in the scenario of the nation do not display in the core in the placement of units. This will solve many problems ...

[ruggs215]

I like the idea of incorporating Polish, Free French etc. forces into your core. I think this is a great idea. Would love to play a game starting as Poland in 39 and work my way through to 45.

The one thing I would not want is to be able to mix U.S. or British forces. I think there should be two distinct campaigns. One for the UK in which it starts in 39 with Poland and goes from there with the mixture of forces. And the other a U.S. only campaign that starts off with Operation Torch.

My reasoning is because you aren't going to want to use U.S. units because of experience factors. If your core units are with you for 3 years already and have 3+ stars experience, it would be harder to incorporate new green units into the mix like it was in AC. I think most people might even skip trying to incorporate them. I don't think that being able to switch British/Polish/French etc. units over to U.S. would make any sense either. Maybe a solution would be that U.S. units gain experience faster, or replacements cost only half of what they normally would, this would also resemble the massive industry and population the U.S. had that allowed us to replace lost units quite easily.

[timek28]

Well US forces didn't have that many losses in WW2 as other nation. Their main losses where in Pacific theater as far as I know. Sure they where in less theaters but still...

I don't think it is reasonable to base unit experience just on their combat experience. Also military training, hardness, morale, leadership, equipment etc is important. And US where pretty good in that department (apart from few battles early on in Tunisia). So I don't think they should start with 0 experience from the get go since game mechanics are such that say infantry with 0 stars stands no chance against one with 3 stars. It has to pick up 1-2 SP units and finish them off. Otherwise they are screwed. And US soldiers where not as bad as Soviet conscripts that's for sure.

[ruggs215]

Well US forces didn't have that many losses in WW2 as other nation. Their main losses where in Pacific theater as far as I know. Sure they where in less theaters but still...

I don't think it is reasonable to base unit experience just on their combat experience. Also military training, hardness, morale, leadership, equipment etc is important. And US where pretty good in that department (apart from few battles early on in Tunisia). So I don't think they should start with 0 experience from the get go since game mechanics are such that say infantry with 0 stars stands no chance against one with 3 stars. It has to pick up 1-2 SP units and finish them off. Otherwise they are screwed. And US soldiers where not as bad as Soviet conscripts that's for sure.

US forces actually had the 5 most military personnel killed by nation in WW2. Behind the USSR, Germany, China and Japan. About 25,000 more than the UK.

The US had the best percent of military personal killed out of those serving with only 2.5%. The next lowest out of the main 6 countries (US, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, USSR) was the UK with 5.2%

This is all according to Wikipedia, which isn't the best of all sources. Especially since some of the charts on the page contradict each other.

But I looked at another report which is supposed to be the official report, which had the U.S. deaths much lower and much more detailed. It seemed to suggest that the US had about 3x as many deaths in the Atlantic theatre than the Pacific.

[captainjack]

I think that Poland and France are the most appealing choices because (as already mentioned) they have distinctive equipment and, if things had been a bit different, could have fought much longer. In addition, Free Polish and Free French units fought in Africa (and in the Battle of Britain and SOE operations) and later in Europe, so it allows a full path through from start to finish without getting too unhistorical. There could be some good challenges - eg a defensive/evacuation scenario where how well you defend affects how many core units you can pull out for use later (eg Loss you choose any two units, MV choose three, DV choose 5) or maybe a DV converts one or more survivors into an SE unit.

I don't know a lot about the Yugoslavian actions, apart from a very small bit about the very late period when they fielded a substantial army that very nearly took control of much of what is now Austria, and had the confidence and strength to face off (successfully) with the Soviet Union. The path from small raiding force to imposing army has a lot of appeal.

[timek28]

US forces actually had the 5 most military personnel killed by nation in WW2. Behind the USSR, Germany, China and Japan. About 25,000 more than the UK.

The US had the best percent of military personal killed out of those serving with only 2.5%. The next lowest out of the main 6 countries (US, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy, USSR) was the UK with 5.2%

This is all according to Wikipedia, which isn't the best of all sources. Especially since some of the charts on the page contradict each other.

But I looked at another report which is supposed to be the official report, which had the U.S. deaths much lower and much more detailed. It seemed to suggest that the US had about 3x as many deaths in the Atlantic theatre than the Pacific.

Interesting read. Anyways that doesn't say much about the difference in terms of combat effectiveness of particular armies (USSR excluded they where real cannon fodder unfortunately). The bottom line is there should be some comparative advantage of why one would use US troops from 42 and on. Make SOME unit more experienced then 0 stars from the start. Although logically maybe this doesn't make sense as no one in US army had real combat experience before.

Also I hate the fact that most of the campaigns (PC, AC, AK, DLCs) give the SAME experience to ALL AI units . It is completely unrealistic to have enemy that has ALL units of SAME experience while you have to buy green ones. As if enemy never looses veterans till the end of war. That is BS. I only noticed 1 scenario in LoV that doesn't do this (Gettysburg). If there where SOME green enemy units then player could also field his green units on enemies green units and hope for some better results.

[nikivdd]

Interesting read. Anyways that doesn't say much about the difference in terms of combat effectiveness of particular armies (USSR excluded they where real cannon fodder unfortunately). The bottom line is there should be some comparative advantage of why one would use US troops from 42 and on. Make SOME unit more experienced then 0 stars from the start. Although logically maybe this doesn't make sense as no one in US army had real combat experience before.

Also I hate the fact that most of the campaigns (PC, AC, AK, DLCs) give the SAME experience to ALL AI units . It is completely unrealistic to have enemy that has ALL units of SAME experience while you have to buy green ones. As if enemy never looses veterans till the end of war. That is BS. I only noticed 1 scenario in LoV that doesn't do this (Gettysburg). If there where SOME green enemy units then player could also field his green units on enemies green units and hope for some better results.

The retreating Afrika Korps were certainly not green, and what about the German reinforcements sent to Tunesia?

The fact, also out of experience, to give the AI generally the same amount of XP, is that i consider it more as a global average of experience the army (= all fielded units in a scenario) possesses.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Cool examples BNC How come so many of you are found of Polish troops btw.?

The Bzura. They nearly smashed the German offensive completely! (Same for some battle near Poznan).

And no, I'm not from Poland, so it isn't patriotic bias either.

- BNC

[timek28]

The retreating Afrika Korps were certainly not green, and what about the German reinforcements sent to Tunesia?

The fact, also out of experience, to give the AI generally the same amount of XP, is that i consider it more as a global average of experience the army (= all fielded units in a scenario) possesses.

I'm talking about new units. When AI buys new units, creates spawns or whatever you call it they all have the same experience. When player buys new unit (which is more or less equivalent of an AI spawn) it's expirience is always 0. That is what I'm talking about.

And yes i was also thinking about same experience as global average, but if it was global average then any new AI spawn that gets 3 stars should reduce stars on other AI units at least 1 bit. This of course would simulate new AI green units that reduced global experience.

But I understand why AI has to have such discounts. It cannot compete with good player otherwise. Also scenario design would probably take too much with experience tweaks and whatnot.

[nikivdd]

I'm talking about new units. When AI buys new units, creates spawns or whatever you call it they all have the same experience. When player buys new unit (which is more or less equivalent of an AI spawn) it's expirience is always 0. That is what I'm talking about.

And yes i was also thinking about same experience as global average, but if it was global average then any new AI spawn that gets 3 stars should reduce stars on other AI units at least 1 bit. This of course would simulate new AI green units that reduced global experience.

But I understand why AI has to have such discounts. It cannot compete with good player otherwise. Also scenario design would probably take too much with experience tweaks and whatnot.

AI spawning can be an utter nuissance or major frustration, especially when you only have one objective to capture. It can be reduced significantly or even reduced to zero. I'm actually more in favor of scripted reinforcements on-map and off-map, which enables individual XP settings, if that would be really necessary of course. I have always been in favor of an option in the editor that you can tell the AI, whenever it can purchase new units, to "order" it from which classes it can buy.

When i'm talking shop, LoV mod that is, i made that spawning mistake as well but will be rectified in the final update.

[ruggs215]

Interesting read. Anyways that doesn't say much about the difference in terms of combat effectiveness of particular armies (USSR excluded they where real cannon fodder unfortunately). The bottom line is there should be some comparative advantage of why one would use US troops from 42 and on. Make SOME unit more experienced then 0 stars from the start. Although logically maybe this doesn't make sense as no one in US army had real combat experience before.

Also I hate the fact that most of the campaigns (PC, AC, AK, DLCs) give the SAME experience to ALL AI units . It is completely unrealistic to have enemy that has ALL units of SAME experience while you have to buy green ones. As if enemy never looses veterans till the end of war. That is BS. I only noticed 1 scenario in LoV that doesn't do this (Gettysburg). If there where SOME green enemy units then player could also field his green units on enemies green units and hope for some better results.

Completely agree, there should be some type of advantage to picking up US troops in 42 and onwards. That is why I thought maybe they should be able to gain experience quicker than other troops. Or maybe even give them better stats then UK forces, such as +2 for hard and soft attacks. Or even elite replacements are free between scenarios, and green replacements are free during scenarios.

Or just have separate campaigns completely. The DLC had east and west campaign. I see no reason why their couldn't be US and UK campaigns instead. One starting in 1939 and the other starting in 42. Or even maybe have a split at 1942 like the DLC. One campaign you could keep all your UK units and continue with only the ability to purchase other UK units, and the other will be something like "The US is now entering the war and are in need of trained units to assist in their objectives in Operation Torch. The rest of your units and prestige will stay with the Royal Command." And then you choose say 5 units (can't choose any SE), to go with a new "imported" core of US units. Sort of like how you can only take 9 units to the western front in the current DLC. Maybe only have them last the first 4 or 5 missions as the US forces get caught up to speed.

[nikivdd]

Gentlemen, i am really pleased with the lively discussion. I have read some really good stuff here for which i thank all of you. By all means, continue

[captainjack]

My understanding is that in Europe the need for rapid advance and the pace of it resulted in a relatively small proportion of the US troops doing most of the fighting as they were closest and the most experienced. If the active units were relatively inexperienced early on, they would have rapidly become battle hardened veterans with constant combat duty. It also suggests that the percentage casualties was a lot higher in front line troops.

AC is generous with prestige after the first few scenarios which allows you to use elite replacements between times without running low, and if you're not too indiscriminate you can elite reinforce in game most of the time if you need to. This means you can upgrade as the opportunity arises (to reflect the quantity of equipment) and you can usually maintain experienced when reinforcing, so you have a reasonable chance of getting to 3 or 4*. Playing Field Marshal with US units is probably unhistorical in this light.

As for better combat stats, US HW infantry and Rangers (and I think paras) already have slightly better attacks than other nations - probably reflecting the 0.5" Browning's range and ability to damage hard targets and generous ammo supplies, and almost all armoured units have passive AA right from the start. They also had some very effective artillery tactics supported by standard charts and calibrated tapes that made for fast accurate supporting fire. I use a mod that allows HW infantry to switch to artillery to represent supporting mortar fire and suppression fire from machine guns. Historic use of the Brownings would easily justify this for the US units. Upping the ROF or increasing artillery attack could be justified, though it might unbalance the game a bit much.

As for other nations, the suggestions for Polish scenarios and the ability to transfer planes and pilots to France and then Britain (and then to Africa) and then back to Europe would be reasonably historically accurate as well as allowing some of the interesting challenges of holding a position to allow some core units to escape. The French line could be along the lines of defending well enough to pull troops and equipment into Britain via Dunkirk and Normandy and directly across the Mediterranean which would allow use of French equipment in Africa. Both not too far fetched, adding colour and variety.

[sauvequipeut]

Hi An Allied GC is something I've been looking forward to, so it's nice to see it's being talked about. Just some random thoughts:

I'd agree that 'Free' contingents need to be in there somewhere. One of the great things about AC was that some SE units were unique nopurchase units, rather than being normal units with a fancy paintjob and some bonuses. This could be a way, not only to to get some historical allied contingents in, but make sure they're used. So, for example, the player could get a SE Polish mountain unit ( The Carpathia Brigade), Free French Sahara troops/ Foreign Legion ( switchable troops like LRDG, but please with at least a spotting bonus over normal infantry this time), together with more standard units like a Czech SE Spitfire squadron etc. For that matter, some SE Ghurkhas would be nice...

On capturable equipment, there's no doubt the British did use foreign equipment, but it needs to be kept real - the Western allies were thin on German tanks, with just the odd trophy here and there (except for the Poles in Eqypt with their MkIII's...but they never went into action with them, historically). Perhaps each Campaign could have one bonus scenario, accessible only by a DV in the proceeding scenario, with one capturable item. In France, some BEF units were given a bunch of French 25mm AT guns to make some use of (somehow...), captured Italian tanks were used in early 1941 both by British armoured units and Australian divisional recce units, the Tobruk garrison used captured Italian AT, AA and artillery, after Alamein 8th Army had a unit of captured 88mm guns as part of its 'siege train' ( they being mightily impressed by the effect its airbursts had on dug-in infantry rather than using them for AA or AT). In particular, any Recce vehicles or halftracks were swooped on by those units not gifted with them by their TOE.

I'd agree with the posts above that a joint British-US Grand campaign would be a bit disappointing and lead to the 'cherry-picked' cores seen in AC, with Churchill's backed up by US motorised 155's etc. Best keep them separate in my honest opinion. The campaigns could go something as follows (with suitable pruning), assuming one at least one fictional and/or bonus scenario per campaign.

UK & Commonwealth:
1940 - Norway, Belgium, France to Arras. Bonus scenario following DV at Arras? Campaign branch - Operation Dynamo (battles around Dunkirk) or Operation Ariel (battles in south of France. Fictional scenario - Sealion (what else?) - To desert for Operation Compass/ Bardia.

1941 - Tobruk/Beda Fomm. East Africa/Keren. Campaign branch - Not-so-soft Underbelly (Greece and Crete) or Enter Rommel (Border battles/Tobruk/ Brevity). Battleaxe. Bonus scenario - Syria? Fictional scenario - defence of Gibraltar against Spanish? Crusader - Bir el Gubi, Sidi Rezegh, Totensonntag, Breakout from Tobruk.

1942 - Rommels counterattack. Bonus scenario - Madagascar? Gazala - Bir Hacheim, 150 Box, the cauldron, Knightsbridge, 50 Division breakout. Fictional Scenario - Malta? Possible campaign branch: 'Everywhere Dispersion' - Mersa Matruh, defence and breakout, or July Nonsenses' - First Alamein - 'The Hotbox', 'Ruin Ridge', Op Bacon. Alem-el-Halfa Ridge. Second Alamein - Lightfoot, Thompsons Post, Supercharge, Snipe, Ariete's last stand. Fictional scenario - Fuka?

1943 - Agedabia, Tripoli. Campaign Branch - 'First Army' - Medjez-el-Bab, Steamroller Farm, Fondouk Pass, Longstop Hill, Operation Vulcan. 'Eighth Army' - Medenine, Mareth Line, Supercharge II, Gabes Gap, Enfidaville. Sicily - Primosole Bridge, Catania Plain, Race for Messina. Italy - Campaign Branch 2 - Historical (Drive for Salerno or Monty's Plan (8th Army lands at Salerno alongside 5th Army). Bonus scenario - Operation Slapstick? Taranto/Foggia - Sangria River.

1944 - Monte Cassino. Bonus scenario - 10th Army 'kessel'? Normandy - D-Day, Villers Bocage, Hill 112, Caen, Goodwood, Totalise. Bonus scenario: Falaise Pocket? Campaign Branch - 'Second Army' - Seine crossing, Antwerp Port/Brussels, Arnhem or 'Maple Leaf' - Le Havre, Albert Canal, Scheldt estuary. Fictional scenario - 'On to Rotterdam!' Walcheren.

1945 - Veritable - Reichswald, 'Blockbuster', Hochwald. Rhine Crossing, Advance into Holland and Germany ( Campaign Branch). Bonus / Fictional Scenario's - 'On to Berlin? 'No Entry' (against Russians trying to enter Denmark).

US - I won't presume to suggest to Americans which of their battles should be represented, but a broad outline:

1942/1943 - Tunisia/Sicily/Italy

1944 Overlord: Normandy, France (Possible campaign branch between Huertgenwald and Metz?)

1944 Wacht am Rhein: Just the Ardennes...there's enough fascinating actions to justify a campaign of its own.

1945 Rhineland, Remagen, Ruhr Pocket, Drive to the Elbe (and other places).

One further point - to avoid the Allied campaigns being too easy (as can happen in AC) , the availability of allied equipment really needs to be modified to ensure they are only available when they were in widespread use, rather than just sitting somewhere. Churchill's were not deployed in significant numbers until March 1943 in Tunisia. They certainly weren't swanning round the desert in Op Crusader, watching the Typhoons fly over. Nor was Monte Cassino over-run by masses of Sherman Fireflies and Crocodiles.
Oh...and a fair number of the maps need to be large enough so that anyone who relies on Mv-3 Matilda II's and nothing else for their armour is in for an unpleasant shock :p

Just some thoughts as I said. Thank you to anyone who takes the trouble to unscramble them.

[piotrekxg]

I like most of the ideas suggested by sauvequipeut in the previous post. I would like to see Allied campaigns start as early as possible and I would like to have separate UK and USA campaigns (like for Germans there were separate East and West campaigns from 41 onward) with one exception. I would really like to start UK campaign in 1939 instead of 1940. For one reason WWII started by Germany attacking Poland on September 1st 1939 and UK and France declaring war on Germany on Sept 3rd (so it would be like creating Pacific Corps and not mentioning Pearl Harbor . From a narration point of view (I assume story would be told from British officer perspective) you could say something like this: "It's Sept 3rd, Britain just entered the war. Poland is fighting but loosing. Poles are very close to decrypting Enigma codes which is vital for our intelligence. Make sure that Polish mathematicians, together with some of the Polish units (these would be SE Polish units infantry + armor, that go through to another scenarios) are rescued through the Romanian border". So what I'm really asking for is one (max. two) additional scenarios. As a result we would get 2 or 3 SE units that go to the CORE that are battle experienced.

[nikivdd]

I read really good ideas for a long campaign (1939-1945) with several nations included, a UK campaign (1939-1945) and a USA campaign (1942-1945).
From a scenario/map creator point of view, the long campaign and the UK campaign (with the suggested SE PL units) is not possible at this time, the game would require a patch and an e-file enlargement. But that doesn't mean that the discussion has to stop because of the current restrictions.
With what is currently at our disposal in the base game, a UK campaign (1940-1945) and a USA campaign (1942-1945) are most doable.
Let us also keep in mind, that a UK campaign will be at some point, a re-chew of several scenarios that were already covered in Allied Corps (also DLC West and Afrika Korps from an Axis point of view).

[Mark50]

a UK campaign (1940-1945)

Does that at least mean Norway or is it directly into Belgium?

[nikivdd]

a UK campaign (1940-1945)

Does that at least mean Norway or is it directly into Belgium?

Possibly both. There has to be about 15 scenarios in a DLC.

[Mark50]

I`m really hoping for at least one Norway scenario. Once the Grand Campaign is out I suppose we could make a mod to add allied units to the core and maybe even a small batch of scenarios grouped into a Polish campaign as a prequel to the official content. Are you able to comment at this point on when work on the AGC might start?