Slitherine

I like the new strat bombers, got me two of the "Halifax" for my core.

And now I get how the US faction's gonna fit into this trilogy. Keeping my Brit faction's unit-count low (50-60CP) to allow for a real army with the next DLCs... Nice!

Great DLC BTW! Played beautifully. Nice scens! Thanks.

Hmm, I´m glad many people enjoyed this DLC, but I have to say that I was dissapointed.

It was too short, both in mission number and turns, too linear and frankly not very exciting. Also very disasapointing not to have integrated the core navy element now that the chance was there.

I also found it a bit too unchallenging even on the hardest diffculty.

Hopefully it picks up later on, but right now it feels a bit "rushed" for such a big part of the early war.

WarHomer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:11 pm It was too short, both in mission number and turns, too linear and frankly not very exciting.

At least for me those are not weak point of a OoB campaign. Personally I was happy not to have to spend more than 1-2 hours per scen. Played fast and good and it was fun.

Some of the "larger" custom scens, like many inside the Free-France campaign for example, take like 8 or more hours to play. One scen! If you have the time and energy, sure, it's fun. But mostly I enjoy smaller and faster "snacks"...

WarHomer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:11 pm I also found it a bit too unchallenging even on the hardest diffculty.

Okaaay... let me ask you this: Which one of the other stock/vanilla campaigns were really challenging (besides maybe Endsieg without core import)?

It’s really hard, even harder than the hardest (winter war, as i always play on 3rd difficulty) because i dont need to retreat so far in ww. Allies defiant isnt the most interesting campaigns but im sure that its not that bad.
Some extremely long campaigns make me really.... sleepy, like us or jap one. I really feel comfortable with 20-30 turn scenarios. The longest ground scens usually rely on treachery terrain not their contents.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:57 am

WarHomer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:11 pm It was too short, both in mission number and turns, too linear and frankly not very exciting.

At least for me those are not weak point of a OoB campaign. Personally I was happy not to have to spend more than 1-2 hours per scen. Played fast and good and it was fun.

Some of the "larger" custom scens, like many inside the Free-France campaign for example, take like 8 or more hours to play. One scen! If you have the time and energy, sure, it's fun. But mostly I enjoy smaller and faster "snacks"...

WarHomer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:11 pm I also found it a bit too unchallenging even on the hardest diffculty.

Okaaay... let me ask you this: Which one of the other stock/vanilla campaigns were really challenging (besides maybe Endsieg without core import)?

I should clarify, I don´t like long scenarios/missions, 15-30 turns are the sweetspot for me, but I found most short, small and too straightforward. The straightforwardness was the worst.

I haven´t played much for the last year or so, so I can´t name specifics, but on the hardest difficulty I usually have to figure out the map/mission to achieve a good playthrough, but in this (for the most part) I just read the missionbriefing, looked at the map, bought units and completed the mission in take one.

I dont remember the name of the mission, but the one where you only have airunits and have to protect your destroyers I even exited my aux air (so I couldn´t redeply) but I still succeded in the first try.

WarHomer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:16 pm [...] but I found most short, small and too straightforward. The straightforwardness was the worst.

Okay, you're right there.

But then again - I guess it depends on the player and one's mood - that was rather positive about the DLC in my point of view. I don't mind grinding through some larger, complicated and more intricate scen designs, but sometimes I also don't want too complicated.... and really don't mind shorter times spent with briefings and troop deployment...

I just finished the Resupply Tobruk scenario, and you have to admit that this campaign demonstrates British/Commonwealth tenacity! They took a lickin' and kept on tickin'. Time afer time, on their own, without the U.S.

w_michael wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:56 am I just finished the Resupply Tobruk scenario, and you have to admit that this campaign demonstrates British/Commonwealth tenacity! They took a lickin' and kept on tickin'. Time afer time, on their own, without the U.S.

It is very likely that British/Commonweatlh forces would have won the war in Africa without US troops (but with US equipment )
The landing in Algeria and Morocco was rather aimed at accelerating the end of the African campaign, creating a logistic base for an attack on the soft underbelly of Europe, neutralizing Vichy forces and (in my opinion the most important) training ground for the US Army, where it was to acquire the necessary experience before fighting in Europe

In addition, it's well-known that Hitler always treated North Africa as a secondary theater of operations. He was never able to send enough troops (EDIT. troops and supplies ) there to ensure the Axis strategic success in 1941/42 and even less he couldn't have sent enough divisions to save Tunisia in 1943, even considering the lack of US Army forces on that continent
He lost too much at Stalingrad, he needed too many units for the planned decisive battle in summer 43 on the eastern front, and he was too weak in the Mediterranean to organize such a large troop transport operation to Tunisia in early 1943.

First full playthrough and I thoroughly enjoyed it, as detailed elsewhere. I've only played the Winter War previously so I'm not a veteran of the series and made lots of mistakes early on.

A few suggestions though, possibly overcrital ones...

Tobruk escort was a bit naff. Was hoping it would segue into the importance of the Inshore Squadron and naval fires in subsequent battles though HMAS Vampire, Waterhen etc weren't even named. Which was odd after HMS Ladybird made an appearance earlier on. Didn't go down the Spitfire route as I prefer to play at least semi historically and without spoilers it's more of a tactical puzzle which seems to be somewhat RNG dependant at first until you apply some lateral thinking. This was the first scenario I repeatedly failed at, mainly with Beaufighters. Can see that well vetted Spits might do it too easily, though as previously mentioned you shouldn't have Spits in North Africa in this time period.

Gazala I didn't enjoy. The whole commit your forces here in order to get outflanked there routine was starting to look a bit predictable at that point. So I saw it coming and was still amazed by the weight of force committed against me. Particularly in the air and the pincer.... Get three shiny new bombers and have a couple of turns grace at actually bombing something rather than holding on for dear life.... And then the entire German airforce turns up and wrecks everything in short order. Odds must be something like 5:1 in that battle? Almost PTSD inducing...

More generally several battles with 'get your artillery, a tank and anything motorised you have out' might not be historically wrong but does lead to endless resuscitation of dead units rather than building your core force. Engineers in particular must be feeling like red shirted security guards in Star Trek from my campaign... "You're sending me to the most distant hex from the obvious undeploy ones again Sir? Rightyho."

Air wise it's very one dimensional... either powergame with lots of Spitfires, as everything else is crap, or spend most of your CP rebuilding your airforce after every scenario. Spitfires were reserved for home defence in this time period so..... On my second run through I've bought a strat and I can see how powerful they are, though there are zero TAC bomber options. No Hampden, Whitley and the Blenheim was not a strat bomber... Add a ventral gun pack and they became heavy fighters, kind of, there was also a ground attack version. Which might be an interesting addition.... Switch roles anyone?

Amazed to see the Battle still being offered a year after it had been withdrawn from service. And the Skua was a dive bomber / fighter, though in game it's a basically a much worse JU87 only almost twice as expensive? Hurricane MkIIC would be a good option as a TAC bomber, I did try them as fighter bombers and results were very underwhelming. Allowing the Hurricanes and Blenheims to switch roles might be an interesting mechanic... Tac bomber category certainly needs something. Lysander was the army cooperation aircraft during the BoF, and withdrawn immediately after.

Clearly fighters are important though there's no flavour really. Fulmar for instance was a remarkable aircraft for bringing it's pilot's back intact and it's range. Hurricanes could be fixed with a bit of gaffer tape and some blue string. Hence one of the reasons Spitfires weren't used... You can't really send them back to the Midlands to be unpranged.

So with some lessons learned I'm having another crack though I'm not sure the replayability is really there. Bring strats and more artillery basically. Though tank choices are pretty limited too. Start with the MkIV and Matilda and you might as well finish with them too as there isn't anything obviously worth the cost to replace them with. Crusader Mk3 should be a go to. Faster, better armoured and with a 6 pdr. You wouldn't think so from the game stats and cost... Matilda holds up well right the way through, though think the Australians used them throughout the entire war so not wrong. Similar with AA / AT. Buy an Oerlikon Portee and job jobbed for the entire campaign.

Artillery is an odd one... British Army in WW2 without 25pdrs? Well the 4.5" is the powergaming option of choice for it's range, or the WW1 vintage 6". British Army packed an awful lot of artillery into it's divisions, 72 25 Pdrs compared to between 24 and 36, sometimes only 12 for other Army's infantry divisions. Yet they're a sub optimal choice from an economic perspective? They were often pressed into an antitank role in the desert, this being formalised later with the introduction of muzzle breaks and supercharge powder bags as they were effective. Specialisation maybe? The Germans seem to have Flak37s and Stugs which can switch. British seem very one dimensional on the one hand and limited by the 'you'll only save 6 units from this scenario ( sorry Engineers) on the other'.

Which brings up an odd flavour point about British and German tanks. British were designed to be proof against artillery, the specs literally called for mobility and protection in the 'shelled zone' Particularly the infantry tanks, Churchill, Matilda and Valentine but reflected in other models too. Course no-one told the top brass who assumed that only direct hits with artillery would destroy a tank, partly because our tank designers had made them proof... And the often woeful British Armoured divisions therefore packed artillery purely for dealing with enemy AT guns. And infantry to protect them at night... But that's another story.

However when Normandy came about they conducted a survey to assess tank vulnerability ( especially to brewing up as it was quite a morale issue). The 25 pdr batteries would range onto German tanks with HE, which they assumed would do little, and then fire smoke once ranged to mark them for the rocket firing Typhoons. Survey found that only about 5% of the tanks had been taken out by the Typhoons with direct hits. The rest.... By either the artillery or near misses from the rockets. Reason being that the very thin armour above the road wheels of the PzIV especially had the fuel tanks and ammo directly behind it, hence 70% of them brewed up. Which resulted in the armour skirts, and likely the interlocking road wheels of the Panther.

Russians of course knew this intrinsically( they were very sniffy about American armour), took the Gumps till the late 70s to figure it out.

Anyway, didn't mean it to be a novel.... Great game, well well worth the money.

Good point about artillery vs tanks, I had once upon a time a PDF of a study about that. Heavy artillery's shrapnel or sheer explosive power could wreck the most lightly armored parts of a tank and disable it. And air power's direct attack were much, much less decisive than everyone thought, with "reported kills" far outweighting the actual enemy losses.

StuccoFresco wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 8:25 pm Good point about artillery vs tanks, I had once upon a time a PDF of a study about that. Heavy artillery's shrapnel or sheer explosive power could wreck the most lightly armored parts of a tank and disable it. And air power's direct attack were much, much less decisive than everyone thought, with "reported kills" far outweighting the actual enemy losses.

Took until the 70s for the West to realise this. Then another study in the 80s resulted in vulnerability to artillery being codified in STANAGs. Much of the grognard world is 80 years behind the facts.

During the battle of the Bulge Allied CAS claimed almost 1 tank destroyed per sortie, and hundreds of claims overall. Only 1 of these ( though it was a King Tiger) was ever confirmed.