Slitherine

I finished Sedan Decisive Victory.
I can't find anything about the DLC 40 campaign path, the Library hasn't been updated.

Which path should I take?
How many scenarios do run in parallel (how many do I miss if I decide for one path)?

Which is more difficult, rewarding or interesting in terms of gameplay (and the possibility to capture units)?

Both paths have the same amount of missions (3), but they have different ones.
Once you finish the mini-campaign paths, both branches lead back to the same campaign progression.

The general consensus is that the French path is harder, you have the counterattack at Stonne, then the Wassigny ordeal, while the main obstacle on the British Path is the counterattack at Arras.

Which is more interesting, well that's entirely up to our players. If you are really curious to experience both, I suggest creating a save point before the decision so you can load and try the alternate path if you so choose, or you can replay the campaign for the full effect!

Kerensky wrote:The general consensus is that the French path is harder, you have the counterattack at Stonne, then the Wassigny ordeal, while the main obstacle on the British Path is the counterattack at Arras.

Funny. I got 200 more prestige at the end of the FR path than at the end of the UK path. However did choose to continue the campaign with the "UK" core because of better leaders. The "FR" core had too many spotters.

It's tricky.

I played the UK path in the Beta and the French after release.


Both are excellent and Wassigny is a very special scenario. I wonder how hard Arras would have been with my proper 1939 core army.
In general I somehow like the British path more. But if you really want something special, you should take the French path for Wassigny.

And maybe really create a savegame before, play through both paths and then take the army of the path you liked more to complete the campaign.

Having played both now, I think the french part is easier, I lost 3 core units on the british path and almost all my prestige I've saved in order to have a Decisive Victory at Arras.

Interesting! Final verdict, which path or which battles did you like the most?

Except for the rather special quality of Wassigny... something about Arras which seems more conventional is also brilliant: It's defense - offense - defense and it is quite a challenge, I experienced the same.

I really like Arras aswell, very dynamic scenario. I do hate the Mathilda's though.

The first time I played Wassigny I got my ass severly kicked but once the novelty of that has worn off it's no so hard to achieve a DV there (but it took me about 10 minutes before I realised to where I should escort that damn frog)

Longasc wrote:Interesting! Final verdict, which path or which battles did you like the most?

Except for the rather special quality of Wassigny... something about Arras which seems more conventional is also brilliant: It's defense - offense - defense and it is quite a challenge, I experienced the same.

You are perfectly right, Arras offers a lot of variety.
Enforcing a decisive victory on FM was expensive for me.
A more relaxed approach would increase the fun-factor, I guess.
In the last move, the AI was building 4 or 5 tanks, fortunatly not in the victory hax that I had to occupy in this move. What I want to say is that destroying 5 tanks (Mathildas...) in 1 turn is impossible with my coreforce.

The long corridor-like nature of the map + the streets in the north vanishing east and west into the unknown outside the map + the support troops stationed there made me uneasy: I fully expected a counter-attack from the west or east in the north as soon as I would have progressed so far into the south that I couldn't immediately take back my initial positions.

So I kept around a third of my forces in the north and captured all the objectives with the remaining troops; it was unexpectedly quick but, otoh, also costly in prestige, since I didn't have the reserves present to hit every unit in waves.

My question: I was through at turn 18, so did I pre-empt a very late counter-attack (as expected at the start of the scenario) or did the forces kept in the north inhibit the trigger for such an event or does it not happen anyway?

If not, I'd certainly change that if there is ever an update of the DLCs. Yeah, I know, I was "too clever" for my own good there and made it more difficult than it needed to be .. but the map is too easy without such an attack, especially if I played it again and needn't to worry about any problems from the north.

Regin wrote:The long corridor-like nature of the map + the streets in the north vanishing east and west into the unknown outside the map + the support troops stationed there made me uneasy: I fully expected a counter-attack from the west or east in the north as soon as I would have progressed so far into the south that I couldn't immediately take back my initial positions.

I just played Stonne for the second time. I half-expected the same thing too, the first time I played it...although once I ran the Panzerjaeger down the left side of the map and didn't find anything, I stopped worrying about it, and marched everything right down the center. I had a full line of tanks, with 5 Sturmpanzers backing up every tank. The AI's counterattacks got destroyed and mopped up with amazing speed.

They got me back on Wassigny, though. Badly.

MojoFilter99 wrote: I just played Stonne for the second time. I half-expected the same thing too, the first time I played it...although once I ran the Panzerjaeger down the left side of the map and didn't find anything, I stopped worrying about it, and marched everything right down the center.

I thought troops would come in from outside the map, so finding nothing didn't stop me worrying. And from my pov, I'd like to see more action in the rear in general, so that you have to take into consideration how to protect your back and whether you want to secure crucial objectives with troops or rather not weaken your main force by leaving units behind.

And in this context, I'd prefer it if you lost the prestige gained by capturing objectives as soon as they are retaken by the domestic forces - then it would hurt, even if the objectives are not among the main ones.

So, you could neither ignore light units, like cavalry stuck deep in the woods, nor the possibility that units from outside the map might appear, which adds a new level of planning to any situation.

MojoFilter99 wrote: I had a full line of tanks, with 5 Sturmpanzers backing up every tank. The AI's counterattacks got destroyed and mopped up with amazing speed.

I replayed the map to see how things went with the full force on attack .. and between turn 11 and 15, everything that could possibly go wrong, did so indeed: artillery firing holes in the air one after the other, the two 88s equally impotent against the French air support, a 12 strength unit of pioneers and a 12 IVD cut down to one/two by single attacks from bombers, my Stukas on refuel in sunshine, back on time for the rain and so on ..

I've never had such a string of bad luck before; all in all, I was two turns quicker but it had cost even more prestige than before. Oh, well ..

Regin wrote: And in this context, I'd prefer it if you lost the prestige gained by capturing objectives as soon as they are retaken by the domestic forces - then it would hurt, even if the objectives are not among the main ones.

So, you could neither ignore light units, like cavalry stuck deep in the woods, nor the possibility that units from outside the map might appear, which adds a new level of planning to any situation.

I like this idea in theory, but in the very next scenario, Wassigny, this theory put into practice would cost you dearly. I'll say no more in an attempt not to spoil it for those who haven't played it yet.

I replayed the map to see how things went with the full force on attack .. and between turn 11 and 15, everything that could possibly go wrong, did so indeed: artillery firing holes in the air one after the other, the two 88s equally impotent against the French air support, a 12 strength unit of pioneers and a 12 IVD cut down to one/two by single attacks from bombers, my Stukas on refuel in sunshine, back on time for the rain and so on ..

I've never had such a string of bad luck before; all in all, I was two turns quicker but it had cost even more prestige than before. Oh, well ..

Ouch! Out of curiosity, what's your core force looking like: how many infantry (and type), tanks, Recon units, etc...?

MojoFilter99 wrote: Ouch! Out of curiosity, what's your core force looking like: how many infantry (and type), tanks, Recon units, etc...?

Like you, I rely on suppression fire a lot, unlike you, I only use two Sturmpanzer. Yes, they are more versatile than the 20.15-cm (had three at Stonne), but the added ammo and the longer range when towed help me to cut down on turns needed to enclose my last objective - and I have started to hover around there more often for the remaining turns when I can set up a kill zone for the newly appearing units: more experience with little danger to my units = worthwhile pastime (though I'd like it more on Rommel, if any turn saved added some prestige - guess I should try Guderian next, might be a better fit for my style).

With suppression fire, I still like infantry more than tanks: usually, I add three Gebirgsjaeger (they are far better in the field than they should be and two are SE) and two or three pioneers.

I have two IIIF (one a lucky SE, couldn't have afforded it otherwise), two IVD and the captured Somua, but frankly, I always hesitate to use them to their full advantage because Rommel doesn't give you much leeway when it comes to replacements.

Two or three Stukas are usually in the air and an added Messerschmidt 110D at Stonne helped (next to three fighters) to neutralize the first attack of the French air support and proved to be incredibly useful all around (I expected the unit to pay itself off by keeping my casualties lower, and I think it worked pretty well in this respect, at least in my first try).

A cornerstone of my tactics is my 8.8 that has a +1 movement hero: this is so helpful against air support, forts and heavy tanks that I tend to call the unit overpowered (if the 8.8 can also get a +1 range, the combination would be as deadly as out of balance).

I only used one SdKfz 222 at Stonne because the tactical situation meant that I needn't to worry about finding opposing forces, they'd come to me.

From my pov, it was crucial to gain air superiority from the start - I simply can't afford to replace the losses through bombers, so I was happy to see an 8.8 as a support unit. Three fighters worked well at Stonne and the compactness of the map helped enormously to place them in a way that they could attack opposing units while protecting my ground units from bombers at the same time.

In my first attempt, the French bombers did almost no damage at all, they were far more lucky the second time around, however.

Added:

This , of course, was also the result of the larger force I took to the south in the second attempt: there was no way I could protect them all as perfectly as the more compact one. Conclusio: Whenever I have to deal with serious air support, I'll adapt the size of my ground forces to the protective umbrella of the air force - unless the map suggests that the opposing threat from the skies can't reach me everywhere or has no reason to try.

Interesting...the +1 Movement 88 is a nifty little piece. I can see where that would come in handy.

One of the reasons that I'm so big on the Sturmpanzer I's, and why I'm using them exclusively, is how much they change the way that the AI will counterattack. Having 5 Sturmpanzers in my core means that I can wheel them into a trouble spot, and instantly guard the 3-4 hexes in front of them. Having 5 of them means that you can pretty much make the AI think twice about attacking any part of your line. It's a way of keeping the initiative in your battles, even when you're on the defense. I just take pains to never fully outrun the movement range of the Sturmpanzers, which can slow advances somewhat...but when you do advance, it's effect can steamroller the AI.

I've seen quite a few AI attacks not even get to the actual attacking phase as a result: once a 13-strength Sturmpanzer fires on them, which always happens before the actual battle, I've often seen infantry attacks simply stop.

This all adds up to less losses, less tanks and infantry having to be pulled off the front line to get replacements, and by extension: less prestige spent.

Given the fact that you're playing on Rommel, where prestige is an issue, you might want to give those sort of tactics a shot. They might save you some significant prestige in the long run, and your ability to buy and upgrade units at will changes the whole flow of the game.


I also have relatively few Tactical Bombers; my Air Corp is 3 Bf109 Fighters, only one Bf 110E Tactical Bomber which is used as a fighter as long as there are any AI planes in the air, and 2 Ju88's.

I chose that disposition of force for it's flexibility; my Bf110 actually had quite a few more fighter "kills" than any of my fighters, because I use it to "mop up" the damage that the fighters do, and knock off crippled units. The real gems are the Ju88's, though. The suppression that they do to really powerful units (like a 13-strength Char Bis) is amazing, and I find it makes it much, much easier to kill those units in one turn...and their effect during Naval scenarios can't be understated.

MojoFilter99 wrote: One of the reasons that I'm so big on the Sturmpanzer I's, and why I'm using them exclusively, is how much they change the way that the AI will counterattack. Having 5 Sturmpanzers in my core means that I can wheel them into a trouble spot, and instantly guard the 3-4 hexes in front of them.

(..)

I've seen quite a few AI attacks not even get to the actual attacking phase as a result: once a 13-strength Sturmpanzer fires on them, which always happens before the actual battle, I've often seen infantry attacks simply stop.

Absolutely. The deterrent effect of the Sturmpanzer is of great value in many situations. And I use their greater "readiness" over and over in three situations:

- When my frontmost units step sooner as expected in the visual range of the opposing forces; at least one of the Sturmpanzer is usually in their vicinity and it either gets visible too and helps to deter any attack at all or disrupts it or is a nasty surprise. At Stonne, two Sturmpanzer were sufficient to do the job; this was helped by some nice chokepoints on the map that hampered the other side's movements.

-When I need another suppression dealer coming from further behind to help me get yet another objective that might have been costly otherwise (the Sturmpanzer were vital to take and clear the area around the airfield in my first attack turn).

- When I want to add suppression fire to a small, quickly moving force that deals with some minor objectives that are not too far apart from one another; and "when" in this case pretty much means "all the time".

And though it's a bit dangerous, they are perfect bait (when I don't have support troops around to do that, an alternative I much prefer, of course).

So if they are so useful, why didn't I use more of them at Stonne?

Since the opposing troops attack, there was time to choose the points where I wanted them to meet me - towed artillery does well in such circumstances; and whenever two or maybe even three units might strike within the instant reaction umbrella of my arty, more ammo means that I can usually do: defensive fire, (defensive fire), offensive fire, move forward one step, ready for defensive fire and offensive fire.

Sturmpanzer can't keep up that kind of pressure.

Btw, tactical bombers play a vital role in those tactics insofar as they help me to "choose" what ground units attack mine when.

Take Beaumont-en-Argonne as an example at Stonne: An attack with 13 strength Stukas on the Hotchkiss and the Somua will incapacitate at least one, so that the AI will repair it instead of sending it forth (likely, both are out for the turn). When my multi-artillery supported front-line only deals with infantry, the probability for no losses is highly on my side. If you want to control the choices of the AI more, Stukas can play a large role.

And Sturmpanzer + Stuka do miracles against AA defended airfields: the first adds the suppression, the second either gets rid of the often difficult to reach target or at least incapacitates it so that other air craft can act within its reach.

MojoFilter99 wrote: I also have relatively few Tactical Bombers; my Air Corp is 3 Bf109 Fighters, only one Bf 110E Tactical Bomber which is used as a fighter as long as there are any AI planes in the air, and 2 Ju88's.

I chose that disposition of force for it's flexibility; my Bf110 actually had quite a few more fighter "kills" than any of my fighters, because I use it to "mop up" the damage that the fighters do, and knock off crippled units. The real gems are the Ju88's, though. The suppression that they do to really powerful units (like a 13-strength Char Bis) is amazing, and I find it makes it much, much easier to kill those units in one turn...and their effect during Naval scenarios can't be understated.

The effectiveness of the Ju88s against naval targets is plain to me but I never had much success in other circumstances. Hm, maybe I should use them more .. interesting.

Btw, since we have talked about deterrence: an 8.8 has that effect on tanks. Near the final major objective on the map, four tanks are waiting south of Buzancy. The Char B1 don't mind attacking even with artillery present but they hesitate when an 8.8 is in the frontmost position.

With Stukas to incapacitate them for a turn and the 8.8 to finish them, the heavy machinery was a cakewalk at every point on the map.

One word about the newly added BF 110: I severely underestimated the versatility of that kind of bomber - a look at the stats just doesn't reflect its usefulness properly; and it also has a slight deterrent effect. All in all, it's one of the units that help to control the AI and mop up afterwards. Nice.