Allied Grand campaign discussion thread

[nikivdd]

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?

The team is completely tied up with Armageddon. I cannot comment when work on a USA or UK GC might start, you know, Slitherine makes the announcements. But it is a fact, more campaigns are coming.

[ThvN]

I've been away the past week, so a little late to the party, sorry about that. I like the idea of splitting the UK and USA campaigns, this might prevent a lot of design headaches. The only idea I can come up with to include the 1939 battles would be to have a sort of tutorial set in Poland, but that core would not transfer to the 'main' campaigns. But a tutorial for DLC campaigns is a bit unnecessary I think?

I'm not worried or sad about leaving out the 'minor' Allies, it might create a lot of design problems and can't possibly please everyone. I don't have to see my countries' Free Forces (which numbered about 1500) represented to enjoy a game. Especially when in the equipment file countries like Canada have three types of infantry units and nothing else. It's tough but I think the current equipment file and upgrade system simply don't support it properly. But it would be nice to have auxiliaries in some scenarios. (for example, auxiliary French & Norwegian units in Norway).

One 'problem' I can think of is campaign progression after Dunkirk: not just the scenarios, but how to expand your core? No heavy equipment could be evacuated from Dunkirk, everything had to be rebuilt from scratch. So will a player lose his tanks and artillery? The BEF didn't have much heavy equipment but losing core units is a rather sensitive issue. Will the player start with a prebuilt core in Egypt next?


It was mentioned in the first post only briefly, but I have been thinking about capturable units (and possible 'special hero' units if they are considered?), but personally I'm not a fan of capturing lots of Panzers and adding them to an Allied core, so I am trying to think of an alternative. It is fun to capture units but when I come to rely on them for my core too much it becomes a bit silly, especially for the Allied who didn't use them as much like the Germans did.

It is true that lots of captured equipment was used in the earlier stages of the desert campaign, but that was mostly Italian equipment. This is very suitable for the game because, unlike some German tanks, these are not better than the Allied units. So there are no problems with capturing some Italian tanks (Beda Fomm!), but later on things are a bit more difficult. Maybe instead of capturing all kinds of German Panzers (BTW, have you heard of Cuckoo, the captured Panther tank that was actually used in combat a few times?) , it would be nice to reward the player with some 'capturable' Allied equipment, perhaps stuff that isn't available yet but not too powerful (like AT units or P-40 Kittyhawk) or even some 'minor Allied' units? This idea ties in with another 'problem' when considering the equipment file, I'll try to explain:

The desert war was treated a sideshow, so it was always short on good equipment and the commanders never got what they wanted. Allied Corps started out similar by restricting equipment in the early scenarios, but later on it was completely the opposite with masses of Churchills and Spitfires available. So balancing the desert scenarios might be tricky when the Churchill/Mosquito core comes around.

Maybe a combination of capturable Allied equipment and relatively low prestige can compensate players developing overly 'gamey' cores too quickly? I am a bit paranoid about how player cores will develop after playing AC. I don't mind slowly acquiring the best units but it might be a shame (and boring) if after a set date (9.7.1941 to be precise, way too early...) all players simply trade every tin can they have for a Churchill and than all futher scenarios simply adjust the German opposition to match this.

It might be nice if there was a way to slow this process, but apart from giving things like units from other classes, or even Grant tanks and P-40's as capturables, I can understand that people skip some units altogether. But it could be interesting to give the player more choices when progressing, like in the early GC West. So instead of capturing only Panzers, why not give some Allied units as well?

[Mark50]

No heavy equipment could be evacuated from Dunkirk, everything had to be rebuilt from scratch. So will a player lose his tanks and artillery?

You`re not losing anything that you`re not losing yourself. What you save is the unit, not the people or the hardware necessarily. The game works in terms of 10s, not exact numbers. Whatever is lost (parts of the personnel or all of the hardware) is replaced by whoever is in charge of doing these things in the administrative chain. Something the game does not represent. I don`t think anyone was supposing that the tanks from one mission to the next are the exact same individual pieces in each unit.

That said, I`m guessing it`s possible to make core units in the tank or artillery category to show 0 strength after Dunkirk thus forcing the player to use his prestige to replace the "missing" hardware. The experience and other stats would stay the same because you`ve saved the personnel. If that`s not possible to implement then the whole matter can be skipped with no issues as far as I`m concerned. Just make a note - if you want to be detailed - informing the player that the units have been reorganized between scenarios and they`re again good as new (and experienced ).

[sauvequipeut]

If an earlier start than Norway is desired, there's always the (historically abandoned) British scheme to aid Finland in the Winter War. It could be a way to start developing a smallish core before the historical war campaigns.

[proline]

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

I must disagree completely. I think scripted reinforcements are terrible, especially when off-map.

1) Off-map scripted reinforcements are one of the reasons why recon is so useless in PC. What's the point scouting if an army could appear instantly in places you just checked? This makes foreknowledge of the scenario essential as even an expert can be taken off guard by a massive mechanized force appearing out of knowing and broadsiding them. One of the 42-43 Sicily scenarios has a US army that did this to me Requiring foreknowledge forces you to replay scenarios, which is both good and bad, and it takes away a lot of the fun and excitement of trying a brand new scenario if its just about figuring out where the triggers are and then going back to a save. Think of Persia as an example of a scenario being made non-fun by triggers- lots of enemies, but only a few that are actually programmed to attack. When you know where/when/how big the attacks happen, the scenario is a cake-walk. When you don't, it is maddeningly impossible to get through without spending all your money.

2) Scripted reinforcements require you to play every scenario basically one optimal way. In the original 90s PG scenarios could take on a completely different feel if you advance slowly or quickly, in one direction or another. In PC, you have to divide your forces into one particular number of groups depending on the script, and you are always fighting the same units at the same time.

3) Scripted reinforcements eliminated airfield control from the game. In PG, I used to love to take away my opponent's airfields as fast as I could, often with jumpers. In PC, the enemy gets a wave of fighters every so often which it can deploy even if it doesn't have one single airfield. In fact, with no airfield he can use his air aggressively until they are killed, which actually does more damage than the way the AI normally uses their air so they are pretty much 100% combat effective with no airfields. Airfield control is irrelevant in PC as long as you have one nearby for your own use (rarely an issue).

4) Scripted reinforcements often sit stationary in crappy terrain for the first however many moves. When they do that, they are very hard to kill and so you sometimes have to set up and wait for them to start hitting. Boring. (This one is fixable with good trigger design)

5) Scripted reinforcements are always the same and don't respond to your unit composition. Imagine if the AI were smart enough to really punish you for a bad composition? Weak AA- lots of air. All tank army- tons of tank destroyers. That would be fun.

My two cents.

[sauvequipeut]

With regard to Churchill spamming, one way to mitigate it is to revisit some of the extremely generous ratings.

In reality, the Churchill was a mechanical nightmare. While respected for its thick armour and truly righteous ability in bad terrain, it was no faster than the Matilda and Valentine it replaced, the engine was unreliable and difficult to maintain and the tank itself was an outrageous fuel hog. Published stats give the Churchill barely half the operational range of a Valentine and barely a third of the range of a Matilda.

Yet, the game stats give early Churchills a move of 4 and 60-odd fuel - superior to its predecessors. Knock the speed down to a more realistic 3, and the fuel from 60-odd to 40 odd (or even 30-odd) and that may return the Churchill to its historical role - a superb tank for supporting slowly advancing infantry in assaults, but not the ideal tank for getting anywhere fast.

[nikivdd]

I regard scripted reinforcements, just as the noun says. Units that are waiting behind the frontline for orders. If they are on-map, then at least you know what to expect at some point. Off-map is somehow nastier, but personally mostly used with the purpose to introduce additional aircraft into the mission. I'm just not into favor of AI units appearing out of thin air in the middle of the players' units at some time (with the exception of partisans). I hardly see a purpose of AI spawning with the current possibilities in the game (i wish i could tell the AI what to buy in which order); the AI will go for the ground unit or units which it can afford.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I regard scripted reinforcements, just as the noun says. Units that are waiting behind the frontline for orders. If they are on-map, then at least you know what to expect at some point. Off-map is somehow nastier, but personally mostly used with the purpose to introduce additional aircraft into the mission. I'm just not into favor of AI units appearing out of thin air in the middle of the players' units at some time (with the exception of partisans). I hardly see a purpose of AI spawning with the current possibilities in the game (i wish i could tell the AI what to buy in which order); the AI will go for the ground unit or units which it can afford.

OK, but how much sense does 'waiting behind the frontline' make when you're playing on a world map that seems to have become so popular since I released a mod last year. On the Moon?

- BNC

[Loki1942]

Yes please yes!!! give us an allied Grand Campaign Something along the lines of the German Western DLCs would make me a happy customer. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head would be separate US and Brittish campaign paths, some imaginative and exciting choices for SE units, i am also in favor of large maps with lots of auxilliary units. These aux units could easily be 50% of the units on any given map, with lots of variation much like a core force and made up of preferably those ordinary and underused units this game always tends to be full of. "What if" scenarios is not really my cup of tea, but some unusal scenario design ala "Taranto" is cool in small doses, someone mentioned a Battle of Brittain type air scenario, could be awesome really

[proline]

I regard scripted reinforcements, just as the noun says. Units that are waiting behind the frontline for orders. If they are on-map, then at least you know what to expect at some point.

This isn't exactly true. Finding the scripted reinforcements can be very frustrating. As discussed in length elsewhere, ground recon is pretty much useless in this game as recon units can be one-shot by pretty much anything mech from 1942 onwards. Even people who use it agree that you have to go 4 moves forward 3 moves back (to safety), which means you aren't going to find the scripted reinforcements with any real warning. And if you fly a fighter over them you risk losing a very expensive unit for minimal recon since fighters have very little sight radius. And of course air recon doesn't exist in this game... it certainly isn't realistic that you can get hit by an entire army in good weather without any warning whatsoever, but scripted reinforcements often do this. Again, the effect is to make a scenario very hard the first play through and very easy after that, rather than being a nice challenge every time.

[proline]

With regard to Churchill spamming, one way to mitigate it is to revisit some of the extremely generous ratings.

I bet you'd find that if you nerf the Churchill people will quickly move on to something else. The western allies have so many powerful toys. When I play Allied Corps I don't bother with any tanks after the Americans join- M10s are fast and demolish German armor and allied infantry/artillery can easily handle the rest.

[sauvequipeut]

They may well move onto something else, but it's unlikely to be anything like the game-changing monster that the current Churchill is. The British don't really get any potential uber-armour until the Firefly and the Crocodile turn up in 1944. Part of the problem, perhaps, is that the alternatives tend to be under-rated, leaving the Churchill as 'the only useful tank'. Valentines were, historically, significantly better armoured than cruisers (and the Panzer IIIF) - the game doesn't reflect this and has them roughly equal. Similarly, the hard attack on a Grant could perhaps be increased to reflect the British adaption of captured German 75mm AP to replace the virtually useless US AP shot that the tanks were originally supplied with.

As far as Allied artillery is concerned - it was their ace and the game should reflect that, but the odd little tweak wouldn't go amiss. The mind-boggling ammunition supply on the US 155mm GMC and the British Bishop has, I think, been brought up on the forum before. For that matter, a range of 2 is perhaps a little generous for the Bishop. The vehicle was designed to engage anti-tank guns at relatively short ranges and the turret design severely limited the elevation of the 25pdr. For extra range, Bishop crews in the desert were sometimes reduced to building sand ramps to elevate the whole vehicle. A range of 1, similar to most StuG's, seems more accurate. The vehicle has enough armour to survive the odd attack or two.

The use of M10's as ersatz tanks is an interesting subject. I don't know if the equipment tables I downloaded are outdated or if it's just a typo...but the M10 Wolverine has a rotating turret trait, while the British Achilles, the same vehicle fitted with a 17pdr, is listed as fixed turret. Given the extremely slow turret traverse on the M10, I would personally believe that rating them as fixedt is probably more realistic and helps keep them honest (If IIRC, the old Advanced Squad Leader game applied that nerf to the KV-2 for the same reason).

[Mark50]

This went awfully quiet. Is it still being considered?

[nikivdd]

This went awfully quiet. Is it still being considered?

Yes. I already spent 6 weeks working on an Allied project and i still have tons more to do. At the moment i am taking a break from this, but i could jump back into it as soon as i am able to.

My first official assignment is as good as finished but all PzC projects are backed up because of Warhammer. The main programmer must focus on Warhammer first, then we'll be able to continu with PzC and get fresh content out.

[Mark50]

My first official assignment is as good as finished but all PzC projects are backed up because of Warhammer.

Oh, I thought your first official assignment was the Allied Grand Campaign. Ok, thank you for the update! I`m starting to get anxious about the release of that Warhammer thing. Though not for the same reasons as those of its fans.