Slitherine

Andy2012 wrote:

NightPhoenix wrote:I always thought the counterattacks make it more interesting. As you say, if i know they are not going to counterattack and just sit there, even with a short time limit it might become boring, just a mopping up operation. I understand for some people it might be strange, but having a rearguard and actually maintaining a pocket with troops at strategic locations to make sure the Allies cannot just simply escape or mount an effective counterattack is just common sense. It's like putting a sign there: Hey guys i know we just got you 300.000 guys surrounded and all, but for conveniences sake I'm going to leave this 50km wide area open without troops and leave the rear undefended, so if you want you can just go there and flee or attack us in the rear. I wouldn't think its fair though because that's not how it works.

Now as to what you say are bugs, this would be a real problem, and i would advise you to make a post about this probably in the tech support section, preferably with a safe file while on that particular map. Because that would be a serious problem that needs to be looked at.

I still like Blitzkrieg and Dunkirk was fun, but now that you mention it, counterattacking towards the Wehrmacht's deployment area does not make that much sense. I mean, they were surrounded - attacking deep into enemy territory (Germany) is not prudent in that situation. You stretch out your troops and weaken your lines near your escape port Dunkirk. If anything, they should push towards France into safety. And as was mentioned earlier here, your core is too small to do a double pincer towards Dunkirk (which I understand most people around here did or attempted) and hold the rear deployment area at the same time. AI Garrison units would fix that; somewhat like those AI cruisers in Coral Sea in the US campaign. Mostly passive, but present. But lets see what the devs dream up.

Another proposal aimed at facilitating the game rather than enhance it.
The whole strength of this game lies in the fact that you get a knife and you have to go through the jungle.
Of course I think about the game at a higher level of difficulty. (minimum 3rd - Major level and higher)

Aaah, the subtle art of game snobbery. Always my favorite.
"shut up, noob, we are way to l33t for ya." I think that was the message, right?

Joking aside, I think the strength of the game is not going through the jungle with a knife, but using a machete intelligently so it wont get blunted.
But I think we have reached that point of the discussion where it just becomes a circlejerk. (No offense.)

When I read the posts here it seems to me that people don't want a machete, only M16 and Kevlar vest.

Oh yes, because chasing down the last french recon car adds so much challenge and excitement to the game. A true enhancement indeed!

To those who like the scenario as is, great have fun, but be aware that for whatever reasons the developers decided to make it into a fantasy battle. As TDefender notes the scenario should "be a rush where you have an overwhelming army but few (little) time to destroy as many enemy units you can". That's how the scenario should play out, since that's how it was in reality. The argument isn't about how you deploy troops or what tactics you use, as some seem to think, it's about the scenario not actually depicting the Battle of Dunkirk. The main objective should be to get to Dunkirk in a limited amount of time so that the surrounded Allied troops are forced to surrender. I can't even fathom why the developers decided to give the Allied troops a 3/4 to 1 advantage in units (it was actually 2 to 1 German) and make the main objective killing all allied troops. This has no factual basis and results in a deeply flawed scenario.

hrafnkolbrandr wrote:Oh yes, because chasing down the last french recon car adds so much challenge and excitement to the game. A true enhancement indeed!

If you think a little is no need to chase the enemy's scout car but I'm not talking about such a situation. I'm talking about the posts, which complains about the number and location of enemy units and their attacks (and cut offs from supplies) in unexpected places on the map.

Well as for me, i just don't want the game to be slandered or changed unnecessarily. Besides the bugs that might be here or there, i think its a very great game as it is and enjoy playing it a lot, including the Dunkirk scenario. In my particular case, the French were counterattacking towards my southern group both times, and if you leave the north/east undefended, they could counterattack there too. Now as for the counterattack towards the south, you could easily say they might try to break out to other forces in France. Going for Dunkirk wasn't the greatest because the rescue operation was slow. If it wasn't for the German halt, a lot of troops would be captured there. I'd think a breakout is really sensible since i think you'd have a higher chance of surviving and fighting another day, or at least delaying the enemy. Apparently the English in reality did just such a think near Dunkirk. Do a limited counterattack to delay the Germans from reaching Dunkirk.
That the scenario doesn't depict reality, i think hardly any of the scenarios do. And i don't think the developers tried to make the game as close to reality as possible. Thinking this way, i would say the entire game is deeply flawed and you can start wondering why you still play it if you have such bad feelings about it. A few examples: the overwhelming enemy airforce in each scenario, unit power against others, ability to have endless amounts of a certain type of unit, the ahistorical scenarios of the Japanese conquering Australia etc. etc.

As for the bugs people seem to have, that should obviously be reported and fixed. But it would be odd to change the scenario and script, which would take a lot of work, based on incomplete information about what happened with some people during a scenario, which may or may not be dependent on the player or the game. Thats why people should provide more of the information i described, so if there is an actual problem, something might be done about it. The game has in general many many things not based on factual basis so saying it should be changed based on that would be rather odd, since then the entire game needs to be rebuilt.

bjarmson wrote:To those who like the scenario as is, great have fun, but be aware that for whatever reasons the developers decided to make it into a fantasy battle. As TDefender notes the scenario should "be a rush where you have an overwhelming army but few (little) time to destroy as many enemy units you can". That's how the scenario should play out, since that's how it was in reality. The argument isn't about how you deploy troops or what tactics you use, as some seem to think, it's about the scenario not actually depicting the Battle of Dunkirk. The main objective should be to get to Dunkirk in a limited amount of time so that the surrounded Allied troops are forced to surrender. I can't even fathom why the developers decided to give the Allied troops a 3/4 to 1 advantage in units (it was actually 2 to 1 German) and make the main objective killing all allied troops. This has no factual basis and results in a deeply flawed scenario.

I'm thinking that if the developers kept the historical reality here, scn would be too easy.
I think in general it is difficult to show Dunkirk in such game. When I played for the first time, I wondered why the developers decided on such a scenario after Sedan and missed a much more important and interesting German panzer rally towards the sea and the Battle of Arras.

kondi754, I agree the developers should have given us a scenario of the German Panzer breakout from the Ardennes and subsequent race toward the English Channel. That is the first and most significant Blitzkrieg action ever, introducing the world to the concept of Blitzkrieg. The Battle of Arras where the Brits throw their tanks at the exposed German right flank, exploiting the limitations of the weakly armed Panzers and forcing Rommel to improvise an 88mm firing line to stop the tanks, would make a great scenario. Why the developers neglected to make scenarios of these two battles, instead giving us the dreadful Dunkirk scenario is anybody's guess.

I've just finished Dunkirk scn and I really don't know why you complain.
I played at the 4th level of difficulty (Generalmajor), all meshed very nicely . French counterattack slowed me but 2 Ju-87 did their job over the English Channel.
All objectives done.

Do the French and English bunkers count as units to be destroyed for the victory conditions?

AFAIR the bunkers also counted as units. I remember all but one bunker self-destructed when taking some cities here and there, possibly those with the secondary-objective marker. I only managed to kill one transport ship, but it looks like that off-map retreats also count as units gone for this scenario. At least there were still enough units left to complete the scenario.

Thanks, that explain why I lost the scenario with 1 missing unit that I couldn't find, victory conditions don't mention bunkers at all.

My experience with this one fits with the described issues: one unit with 1 CP left sneaked thru, became "invisible" and ended up touring three or four cities before I could track it down, effectively cutting my lines of support. Had the same issue with (finally) capturing Dunkirk, but lost, needing 1 unit but unable to find any more (that is starting to sound suspicious...). If you view this battle as a non-historical sand box, then it is conceivably fun, but if you provoke the AI into a counter attack, they will overwhelm you quickly.
I just assumed that sunk transports counted. Is that not the case?
One final point: they are called "cheat codes", but they are a useful way to tweak the simulation: I added some "warbonds" to my starting account, and that made the sim much more playable as I could repair quickly. A larger number of CP's to start might also be useful, but who wants to play a sim when all you do is bombard folks getting out of Dodge?
In sum, as a "sandbox" scenario, this is sort of fun, but does detract from your "understanding" of the war.

I don’t know if you really need to destroy a single transport ship.
When you move troops near Dunkirk and captured silver/secondary towns, the AI tends to leave its defensive position and goes north and north-east, so be prepared to have some defenders there, especially on the towns with silver/secondary flags. There will only be few AI defenders left sitting idle around in the south-middle which you have to hunt down there.
I was just glad I could beat Dunkirk on the first attempt and move quickly on to the next scenario.

If you got trouble finding a concealed unit then you can always cheat by shift+c #orbitalcommand to check out the map before things get too frustrating. No need to ruin the fun of the game by some annoying kill-all objectives.

I'm glad I found this thread as I'm been stuck on this scenario. It's the most un-fun scenario I've played out of all the OOB maps. The axis has too few core units, at least on the highest level, to deal with the large number of french/british units and Belgian units. It would be a more realistic/fun objective to take Dunkirk and maybe a Belgian city rather than the tedium of killing all units. If the French units are cut off they would be ineffective and surrounded. Maybe the French units should loss strength each turn if they are cutoff from French support.

.

I just finished Dunkirk on middle difficulty. It was not easy, but a win is certainly achievable. After knocking Belgium out, I sealed off the coastal towns so that the Allies could not escape. Mopping up ensued. The kill count for victory I took not as wiping out all enemy units, although that may be what it actually is, but a certain level of destruction of Allied forces needed to make Dunkirk a victory for the Germans. Otherwise, the simulated result would have been that "they got away." This scenario is fine (version 3.4.2).