Slitherine

Let's get some discussion on this excellent campaign!

I personally liked this one a lot although I will admit that unlike in beta I nuked the difficulty on Cape Matapan down to normal and focused on just getting it done ASAP as boat stuff isn't my thing.

The higher tech level (mech transports from the start, better artillery, air that is par or better) is offset by the much smaller force available than in the Soviet campaigns. My biggest disappointment -- and this is probably due to the reality of the campaigns being modeled -- was the lack of multi prong attacking scenarios after Norway. Most of them are fairly straightforward single prong attack or defense.

I was very careful to fight with my Commonwealth or French allies whenever possible to preserve my core RP and on a couple scenarios I got pretty close to emptying out the bank for a few of them. I like this concept of Allied tagalongs allocated for the mission with a set budget.

I think the biggest mistake I made was in the second to last scenario where I was committed to keeping this 6lbr alive even though it was something I bought just for that mission with no XP. I should have let it die and I would have saved a lot of RP if I had. The other big mistake I made was not going harder after enemy artillery with my strat bombers once I knew where it was.

I was shocked by how much harder the Knightsbridge mission was than in the beta. Instead of sending a couple infantry units along the rear edge of the map the Germans sent their whole armored force?! Woof! Luckily there was a great scorched defensive tile with excellent cover, so I was able to delay them with an engineer, a 6lbr portee and a recon car for long enough to get my forces out. The AI attack on the main obj is also way larger and more focused which left me getting hit pretty darn hard since I couldn't just cut them off and wipe them out one prong at a time like previously. Very fun!

Here's hoping the next installment of this campaign is soon!

I had absolutely no problems in this campaign until I hit Tobruk. Until then I had used two Beaufighters for ground attack with the intention of upgrading them to Typhoons later, but that scenario absolutely seems to require all your deployed planes be Spitfires or you simply won't down planes fast enough to save the destroyers. So I had to ditch the Beaufighters.

My first impression of Gazala, which I did not beat and haven't made a second attempt at yet, is that there's a ridiculous number of enemy units and not enough command points to deploy enough of your own units to stop them. If I use unmotorized infantry to hold the line, they can't easily maneuver and get chewed up by armor (and there's not enough CP to hold the whole line anyway). If I put them in bren carriers, or use more tanks, now I can maneuver, but I'm using more CP per unit and have gaps everywhere that enemy tanks (which are better than mine) love to just plow through and cut me off, and AT guns do you no good because they're only useful in static positions, as there's too many enemy infantry to risk putting them right at the frontline.

Until now, I did Norway and France. Didn't like that the player can't buy French units for starters. France campaign should have more scenarios, not only those two, depicting operations toward Dunkirk, are this one about Allies or a simple revival of the utter British defeat in 1940? And what about the Battle of Britain, which was crucial to define de war outcome? Also, the maps are quite simple and some location names are inaccurate or wrongly written. Furthermore, we are now much used to see scenarios depicting a very detailed specification of unit names, experience, and available hardware, not the generic placing as we find in this DLC. I'm confident, though, that the modders will make good use of the new units now at their disposal.

Mascarenhas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:28 amI'm confident, though, that the modders will make good use of the new units now at their disposal.

Of that you may be sure, sir.

I love the British/Commonwealth portee AT/AA units. I had never heard of them until now. Thanks OOB for teaching me a thing or two.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:41 am I had absolutely no problems in this campaign until I hit Tobruk. Until then I had used two Beaufighters for ground attack with the intention of upgrading them to Typhoons later, but that scenario absolutely seems to require all your deployed planes be Spitfires or you simply won't down planes fast enough to save the destroyers. So I had to ditch the Beaufighters.

You should never have used the Beaufighters, they are quite terrible. A mix of Spitfires and Strategic Bombers will get you through the entire campaign without issue.

My first impression of Gazala, which I did not beat and haven't made a second attempt at yet, is that there's a ridiculous number of enemy units and not enough command points to deploy enough of your own units to stop them. If I use unmotorized infantry to hold the line, they can't easily maneuver and get chewed up by armor (and there's not enough CP to hold the whole line anyway).

You need to conduct phased withdraws and a fighting retreat to successfully win this mission. You should also simply accept that a connected line isn't possible until your defense of El Adem. Desert Warfare is about accepting that your flanks will always be open and the key to winning is to move before the enemy can capitalize on it.

Your initial Knightsbridge OP should be a mechanized/motorized force (I recommend an engineer and HW in mech transports ideally backed by the captured Italian gun and a Matilda as this should give you adequate fighting power, a reserve defense unit for the position and a sufficiently mobile force to escape when needed). You should establish a second position within artillery range to provide fire support with the bulk of your foot mobile infantry. Behind that should be your armor. Use your infantry and armor to maintain the link to the OP to your intermediate position and then pull them through your intermediate position so they can establish a defensive line centered on El Adem.

Here's a commentated guide of my max difficulty win where I used roughly this plan to fight and win this battle (I found out there's an option to keep a save for every turn which was exceedingly helpful for making this AAR).

https://imgur.com/a/KzdaUMb

I want to state very clearly that my play in this scenario was by no means optimal. I didn't realize the Germans were coming in force to my rear, and I didn't prioritize my escape. I also didn't take any of the ample opportunities to cut off and destroy the second attacking column of Italian units. I won anyway with all objectives achieved because I had a good plan and good unit placement and it carried me through some real "oh fork" moments.

If I put them in bren carriers, or use more tanks, now I can maneuver, but I'm using more CP per unit

You should only motorize units that need to be motorized. Always be thinking in terms of formations organized around accomplishing a particular task, not the entire force. I also personally never motorize infantry that isn't an Engineer or a HW team.

and have gaps everywhere that enemy tanks (which are better than mine) love to just plow through and cut me off, and AT guns do you no good because they're only useful in static positions, as there's too many enemy infantry to risk putting them right at the frontline.

ATG should never be at the front line. ATGs only rarely should ever attack a tank directly, and them being next to an enemy tank should usually be considered a bit of a failure. ATG are there for reaction fire. Put them next to a unit and they will fire whenever that unit is attacked by armor. They have unlimited reaction fire shots per turn so your ideal position is with two or three units in crescent adjacent to the ATG with the crescent between the ATG and the enemy. I used a 6lbr (no transport, supports the infantry), the captured Italian gun in AT mode (again infantry support) and a 6lbr portee (to back the armor because it can keep up with them) to great effect in this scenario as tools for generating reaction fire that walloped the bejesus out of nominally superior German armor.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:01 am You should never have used the Beaufighters, they are quite terrible. A mix of Spitfires and Strategic Bombers will get you through the entire campaign without issue.

Well, they're the only ground attack planes the British have until they get the Typhoon. And I had no problems with them until Tobruk - they're decent for destroying enemy planes on their runways, and bombing artillery otherwise.

You need to conduct phased withdraws and a fighting retreat to successfully win this mission. You should also simply accept that a connected line isn't possible until your defense of El Adem. Desert Warfare is about accepting that your flanks will always be open and the key to winning is to move before the enemy can capitalize on it.

Your initial Knightsbridge OP should be a mechanized/motorized force (I recommend an engineer and HW in mech transports ideally backed by the captured Italian gun and a Matilda as this should give you adequate fighting power, a reserve defense unit for the position and a sufficiently mobile force to escape when needed). You should establish a second position within artillery range to provide fire support with the bulk of your foot mobile infantry. Behind that should be your armor. Use your infantry and armor to maintain the link to the OP to your intermediate position and then pull them through your intermediate position so they can establish a defensive line centered on El Adem.

Here's a commentated guide of my max difficulty win where I used roughly this plan to fight and win this battle (I found out there's an option to keep a save for every turn which was exceedingly helpful for making this AAR).

https://imgur.com/a/KzdaUMb

I want to state very clearly that my play in this scenario was by no means optimal. I didn't realize the Germans were coming in force to my rear, and I didn't prioritize my escape. I also didn't take any of the ample opportunities to cut off and destroy the second attacking column of Italian units. I won anyway with all objectives achieved because I had a good plan and good unit placement and it carried me through some real "oh fork" moments.

Really the only major difference I can see between what you did and what I did is you retreated faster. That is the only thing I can really think of, since I don't like leaving my flanks open (even you got your units surrounded several times, and with that much enemy armour around I'm not gambling with that) - hold a line around Knightsbridge for 8 turns, then high-tail it back to the chokepoints between the ridges, since I don't have enough units to fight them out in the desert.

You should only motorize units that need to be motorized. Always be thinking in terms of formations organized around accomplishing a particular task, not the entire force. I also personally never motorize infantry that isn't an Engineer or a HW team.

That is almost always true, except in the desert, because foot infantry have their movement halved in sand hexes. I've ditched them altogether because they simply don't move fast enough, since all the German units are motorized.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:41 am I had absolutely no problems in this campaign until I hit Tobruk. Until then I had used two Beaufighters for ground attack with the intention of upgrading them to Typhoons later, but that scenario absolutely seems to require all your deployed planes be Spitfires or you simply won't down planes fast enough to save the destroyers. So I had to ditch the Beaufighters.

My first impression of Gazala, which I did not beat and haven't made a second attempt at yet, is that there's a ridiculous number of enemy units and not enough command points to deploy enough of your own units to stop them. If I use unmotorized infantry to hold the line, they can't easily maneuver and get chewed up by armor (and there's not enough CP to hold the whole line anyway). If I put them in bren carriers, or use more tanks, now I can maneuver, but I'm using more CP per unit and have gaps everywhere that enemy tanks (which are better than mine) love to just plow through and cut me off, and AT guns do you no good because they're only useful in static positions, as there's too many enemy infantry to risk putting them right at the frontline.

Your first mistake ole boy is to assume that OOB units conform to their historical counterparts. Though the Beaufighter excelled in ground attack and naval attack in real life it sucks at both in the game because some dev got it in his head he didn’t want it that way. You were doubly screwed because thought the real Beaufighter was an excellent fighter bomber/night fighter it’s classified as a fighter in the game so you will likely never be able to upgrade it to a Typhoon as the Typhoons will be classified a Tactical Bomber. If you really want to enjoy the game I would suggest you invest some time in learning the layout and structure of the Units.csv file. With that knowledge you can tune the game back into you expect it to be.

kverdon wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 6:07 am Your first mistake ole boy is to assume that OOB units conform to their historical counterparts. Though the Beaufighter excelled in ground attack and naval attack in real life it sucks at both in the game because some dev got it in his head he didn’t want it that way. You were doubly screwed because thought the real Beaufighter was an excellent fighter bomber/night fighter it’s classified as a fighter in the game so you will likely never be able to upgrade it to a Typhoon as the Typhoons will be classified a Tactical Bomber. If you really want to enjoy the game I would suggest you invest some time in learning the layout and structure of the Units.csv file. With that knowledge you can tune the game back into you expect it to be.

Was the Typhoon reclassified? I used them in Burma Road and they were definitely fighters back then.

Beaufighter, Typhoon, Tempest are all fighter class thingies.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:16 am Well, they're the only ground attack planes the British have until they get the Typhoon. And I had no problems with them until Tobruk - they're decent for destroying enemy planes on their runways, and bombing artillery otherwise.

I've compiled a gallery with the stats of the various airplanes discussed here for convenience

https://imgur.com/a/Nxl6MCu

The Wellington I can be initially purchased for about 150 and upgraded to the Wellington III for a mild air defense boost. As you can see it is extremely durable in air defense (and has the additional advantage of being a large aircraft so most light fighters will struggle to hurt it due to their low large aircraft attack) with the same ground attack stats plus an additional 10 damage to efficiency and 2 damage to entrenchment.

It is also available on the second mission of the campaign in Low Country along with Spitfire Mk I. Beaufighter is not available at that time and the first model isn't unlocked until Operation Compass.

Beaufighter Mk VI by contrast is a small target -- meaning enemy light fighters will tear it apart -- with atrocious air defense (8) that lacks the precision strike ability and only barely has good enough weapons to damage a low end strategic bomber. And this is the model available at about the same time as Spitfire Mk V! In the original form it has a mere 6 air attack and 7 air defense at a time when the Spitfire Mk II has 9/10. It does have uniquely good ground defense at 15 when it unlocks, but this is just 1 better than the Wellington Mk II available at the same time for a cheap upgrade.

IMO if the heavy fighters were changed into large targets they might do a bit better against light fighters, but their atrocious air defense and ground attack means they end up being fighter bait.

Tempest and Typhoon are great and do indeed perform extremely well in the ground attack role, but they might not stack up as well outside of Burma.

Well one of the hardest dlc i must say, even harder than winter war because you got out flank and must retreat alot. Some desert scenarioes are flooded by mines, that reminds me old panzer corps and somehow i managed to end this dlc without any engineers.
Talk about some brilliant ideas, you just have a small amout of cp and must rely so much on allies. France has good tanks, american has good bombers but others just like copy-paste of our units pool. Too much commonwealth allies just deeply diversify RP pool and its totally not necessary, tiny icons make me have hard time to recognize which is australians, which is newzealand,....
I expected more than one purely air combat like battle of britian or battle of malta, instead of the unknown battle for tobruk convoy. Or may be we already have had a big mod for it ? We dont spend much time on france, but i really expected the battle of arras should be where we witness how good france tanks are, more than a small event of dunkirk.
About units, spitfires really outshine everything in early war, as i remember in panzer corps, just p51H or meteor can really replace them much later so stick with spitfire is only choice to own the sky. This dlc is the first time i see no use for tactical bomber, the wellington or halifax performs very well without any escorts. For tanks, i hate the maltida because of its speed, i sticked with brits light tank till i unlock m3 (heavier one, cant remember its lee or grant).
Look like not just me have impressive time doing gazala campains, especially the 2nd objectives to hold knightsbridge. Rommel really throws everything to the battle while we dont have decent allies as usual (actually yes, but they are hopeless from start). Got outnumbered by tanks, arty (enemy in previous dlcs rarely have that superior moveable arty, and even more rare is to proctect them by AA) and even the sky. Its all about maneuver so we dont have much chance to create favourable condition for AA trap .There 2 genious flanking pronges that made me restart 2 times, and even so, i just managed to escape in the very last moment with heavy casualty.
May be us army will take a important part in our core next combat because we end this camp right before operation torch.

cutydt02 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 7:14 pm We dont spend much time on france, but i really expected the battle of arras should be where we witness how good france tanks are, more than a small event of dunkirk.

Arras is in the Expeditionary Force scenario. You start the mission with a non core unit garrisoned on it and a Matilda pops out nearby when the Germans do.

For tanks, i hate the maltida because of its speed, i sticked with brits light tank till i unlock m3 (heavier one, cant remember its lee or grant).

I personally found trying to match British doctrine was the ideal method. So I had a foot infantry group with a Matilda, an ATG and a couple long guns as my slow moving heavy hitters and then a fast moving group with a couple of the "light" tanks, a portee gun and a mech transport eng and hw infantry to go for envelopments or rush the objectives.

About units, spitfires really outshine everything in early war, as i remember in panzer corps, just p51H or meteor can really replace them much later so stick with spitfire is only choice to own the sky.

I agree, and I honestly don't love it. It certainly isn't historical! If the Hurricane had just slightly better air defense on its models it'd be a perfectly viable pick.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:24 pm
I agree, and I honestly don't love it. It certainly isn't historical! If the Hurricane had just slightly better air defense on its models it'd be a perfectly viable pick.

The economic/production reasons why the Hurricane initially had to be relied on can't be replicated in a wargame unless they want to start using more 'realistic' but somewhat arbitrary availability dates for equipment (which would mean you couldn't get your first Tiger for Christmas 1942 and you might not get your Me262 at all since the engines kept failing and there was no fuel for it anyway). The Spitfire was always the better plane.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:42 pm

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 8:24 pm
I agree, and I honestly don't love it. It certainly isn't historical! If the Hurricane had just slightly better air defense on its models it'd be a perfectly viable pick.

The economic/production reasons why the Hurricane initially had to be relied on can't be replicated in a wargame unless they want to start using more 'realistic' but somewhat arbitrary availability dates for equipment (which would mean you couldn't get your first Tiger for Christmas 1942 and you might not get your Me262 at all since the engines kept failing and there was no fuel for it anyway). The Spitfire was always the better plane.

Hurricanes were used throughout the war and the question of which plane was superior is still very much up for grabs. I'd like to see them with the same air defense and the attack values as the point of differentiation (Hurricanes better atk against heavy bombers, Spitfires better atk against light fighters). This would adequately capture the difference in usage while allowing a more historical air comp.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:45 pm Hurricanes were used throughout the war and the question of which plane was superior is still very much up for grabs. I'd like to see them with the same air defense and the attack values as the point of differentiation (Hurricanes better atk against heavy bombers, Spitfires better atk against light fighters). This would adequately capture the difference in usage while allowing a more historical air comp.

So was the Panzer IV, but that doesn't mean the Panther wasn't a superior tank. The reason Hurricanes continued to be used until 1945 was the same reason Grant tanks were used until 1945 - theatre priorities. Spitfires went to Britain first, Africa second, and Burma last.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:59 pm

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:45 pm Hurricanes were used throughout the war and the question of which plane was superior is still very much up for grabs. I'd like to see them with the same air defense and the attack values as the point of differentiation (Hurricanes better atk against heavy bombers, Spitfires better atk against light fighters). This would adequately capture the difference in usage while allowing a more historical air comp.

So was the Panzer IV, but that doesn't mean the Panther wasn't a superior tank. The reason Hurricanes continued to be used until 1945 was the same reason Grant tanks were used until 1945 - theatre priorities. Spitfires went to Britain first, Africa second, and Burma last.

Well, the difference here is that capabilities wise they weren’t that far apart.

I’d also question whether Panther was a better tank than the Pz4. It had better armor and a better gun to be sure, but it’s operational readiness and automotive reliability left a lot to be desired. For an army built around maneuver warfare like the Wehrmacht those are key features for an AFV.

And then there’s the question of how wise a decision it was to switch to a new primary AFV mid war. The UK went that route too, but it’s tank program was widely considered an unmitigated disaster for most of the war (see Peter Beale Death by Design or David Fletcher The Great Tank Scandal). By contrast with the British early war disasters like A4 Cruiser or Matilda or Covenantor, Panzer 4 was a fairly flexible and upgradeable design that competed well throughout the war. Considering when it was designed I’d call it an extremely successful AFV. It was inferior to the late war competition, sure, but the Germans had won their greatest victories in 40-41 with inferior tanks. Spending more time improving the ease of production, reliability, ergonomics and crew survival of Pz4 seems like a much smarter decision than going all in on a new model of tank.

Getting back to the planes, everything I can find says that the difference in combat capability between the two planes is pretty minimal, with the sole standout difference between the two being the markedly higher kill count of the Hurricanes. I’m no expert on planes or the wartime performance of these planes, so maybe someone who is can weigh in.

Regardless of the actual combat performance though, this is a game. And the the way the game is set up right now Spitfires are the only viable fighter choice. Everything else is a hunk of junk at best. If Hurricane and Beaufighter were just a wee bit better it’d give a welcome boost to the number of options available for air superiority and ground attack.

An alternative and fairly obvious route is to delay the service entry of the top of the line Spitfires somewhat while making the Hurricane upgrades show up on time or sooner.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:56 pm
I was shocked by how much harder the Knightsbridge mission was than in the beta. Instead of sending a couple infantry units along the rear edge of the map the Germans sent their whole armored force?! Woof! Luckily there was a great scorched defensive tile with excellent cover, so I was able to delay them with an engineer, a 6lbr portee and a recon car for long enough to get my forces out. The AI attack on the main obj is also way larger and more focused which left me getting hit pretty darn hard since I couldn't just cut them off and wipe them out one prong at a time like previously. Very fun!

Here's hoping the next installment of this campaign is soon!

you can put an engineer there at turn 1, lay minefields on the two tiles and problem solved.

TheFilthyCasual wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:41 am I had absolutely no problems in this campaign until I hit Tobruk. Until then I had used two Beaufighters for ground attack with the intention of upgrading them to Typhoons later, but that scenario absolutely seems to require all your deployed planes be Spitfires or you simply won't down planes fast enough to save the destroyers. So I had to ditch the Beaufighters.

My first impression of Gazala, which I did not beat and haven't made a second attempt at yet, is that there's a ridiculous number of enemy units and not enough command points to deploy enough of your own units to stop them. If I use unmotorized infantry to hold the line, they can't easily maneuver and get chewed up by armor (and there's not enough CP to hold the whole line anyway). If I put them in bren carriers, or use more tanks, now I can maneuver, but I'm using more CP per unit and have gaps everywhere that enemy tanks (which are better than mine) love to just plow through and cut me off, and AT guns do you no good because they're only useful in static positions, as there's too many enemy infantry to risk putting them right at the frontline.

3 matildas, 1 engineer, 3 heavy infantry, 1 looted stug 3d, the looted italian antitank, the indian antitank and a 6pdr is enough at hardest difficulty.