Brest Fortress

[Beruldsen]

The Brest Fortress is a Bonus Objective ... but what is the bonus for taking it? The Bonus Objectives for Moscow and Stalingrad alter the Campaign but I see no mention of the Brest Fortress..

[MickMannock]

The Brest Fortress is a Bonus Objective ... but what is the bonus for taking it? The Bonus Objectives for Moscow and Stalingrad alter the Campaign but I see no mention of the Brest Fortress..

This has been asked before and the answer has been prestige points. That's what you get.

[Hexaboo]

Yep, it's 100 prestige plus any bonuses you might have. I wish there was something interesting that you'd get for taking it (it actually kind of looks like a scenario idea that has never been fleshed out). In any case, it's just a trap now, to fool you into buying the Karl Gerät, or devoting troops to its destruction.

[nexusno2000]

Yep, it's 100 prestige plus any bonuses you might have. I wish there was something interesting that you'd get for taking it (it actually kind of looks like a scenario idea that has never been fleshed out). In any case, it's just a trap now, to fool you into buying the Karl Gerät, or devoting troops to its destruction.

Karl is awesome though...

[Nalikill]

Yep, it's 100 prestige plus any bonuses you might have. I wish there was something interesting that you'd get for taking it (it actually kind of looks like a scenario idea that has never been fleshed out). In any case, it's just a trap now, to fool you into buying the Karl Gerät, or devoting troops to its destruction.

I suspect the Brest Fortress bonus objective, capturing Tobruk "early" in the North Africa campaign, and the objective to destroy the ships in the Dunkirk scenario were alternate history paths that were cut in development, or were cut off for lack of time, possibly to be sold as DLC later:

• Killing the ships at Dunkirk could have been intended to lead to a Sealion '41 scenario.
• Capturing Tobruk early could have been either an "early" or "alternate" unlock (or a second requirement) for the Egypt alt-history scenario.
• Brest Fortress could lead to maybe skipping Kiev for going straight to Operation Typhoon? dunno.

If not, I wouldn't mind seeing additional scenarios in that vein.

[Hexaboo]

Killing the Brest Fortress could have given you a free prototype (*cough*Karl Gerät*cough*), or led you to a bonus mission — which is something one of the Grand Campaign DLC's (1942 East) had in PzC1.

nexusno2000: it is indeed pretty glorious, I just found it a little too expensive at that point in the game, and it by far isn't necessary.

[MickMannock]

• Killing the ships at Dunkirk could have been intended to lead to a Sealion '41 scenario.

Why would destroying British ships at Dunkirk help the Germans commence operation Seelöwe? The important parts of the Royal navy were still intact and the Germans still wouldn't have had any landing craft to conduct an amphibious assault at any rate.

[Nalikill]

Why would destroying British ships at Dunkirk help the Germans commence operation Seelöwe? The important parts of the Royal navy were still intact and the Germans still wouldn't have had any landing craft to conduct an amphibious assault at any rate.

It doesn't change the naval bar but it does mean there are significantly less land forces available, making a pure air campaign (marignally) more viable albeit still pretty much insane.

A sealion 41 scenario would basically be paratroopers only for the first scenario: you have to fight off the RAF instead of the Royal Navy and capture the coastal UK ports. Once you had control of the coastal guns at Dover and Calais you could hypothetically clear a narrow inlet for supply ships to pass between the two.

Still highly improbable but arguably not entirely impossible.

Clearing out the ships at Dunkirk means virtually nobody escapes from Dunkirk, meaning they're left only with the Home Guard, which is what would make this not 100% impossible.

[MickMannock]

Why would destroying British ships at Dunkirk help the Germans commence operation Seelöwe? The important parts of the Royal navy were still intact and the Germans still wouldn't have had any landing craft to conduct an amphibious assault at any rate.

It doesn't change the naval bar but it does mean there are significantly less land forces available, making a pure air campaign (marignally) more viable albeit still pretty much insane.

A sealion 41 scenario would basically be paratroopers only for the first scenario: you have to fight off the RAF instead of the Royal Navy and capture the coastal UK ports. Once you had control of the coastal guns at Dover and Calais you could hypothetically clear a narrow inlet for supply ships to pass between the two.

Still highly improbable but arguably not entirely impossible.

Clearing out the ships at Dunkirk means virtually nobody escapes from Dunkirk, meaning they're left only with the Home Guard, which is what would make this not 100% impossible.

What supply ships? Protected by what? Germany didn't have the navy to do it, and most importantly, the British had a navy big enough to stop any attempt. I'm sorry, but scenario you are painting is pure fantasy.

[Nalikill]

What supply ships? Protected by what? Germany didn't have the navy to do it, and most importantly, the British had a navy big enough to stop any attempt. I'm sorry, but scenario you are painting is pure fantasy.

So is a cross-atlantic amphibious assault on the United States.

Any ship big enough could hypothetically be used to carry supplies

Coastal guns at Calais and Dover and the Luftwaffe could make it too dangerous for the Royal Navy to risk sending capital ships to interdict the shipment of supplies, if the RAF was / could be destroyed.

I know it's ludicrously improbable, but if you remove the amphibious component, presume the destruction of forces at Dunkirk, and presume the destruction of the RAF, then Sealion '41 is at least no less implausible than the Sealion '43 during Husky the game presents as a possible scenario.

[MickMannock]

What supply ships? Protected by what? Germany didn't have the navy to do it, and most importantly, the British had a navy big enough to stop any attempt. I'm sorry, but scenario you are painting is pure fantasy.

So is a cross-atlantic amphibious assault on the United States.

Any ship big enough could hypothetically be used to carry supplies

Coastal guns at Calais and Dover and the Luftwaffe could make it too dangerous for the Royal Navy to risk sending capital ships to interdict the shipment of supplies, if the RAF was / could be destroyed.

I know it's ludicrously improbable, but if you remove the amphibious component, presume the destruction of forces at Dunkirk, and presume the destruction of the RAF, then Sealion '41 is at least no less implausible than the Sealion '43 during Husky the game presents as a possible scenario.

I'm not claiming the assault on the British isles any more probable in 1943, and not the assault on the US either (regardless of year).

Germany had no ships for amphibious landings at all. When Seelöwe was drawn up, they had to scrounge every port in France and Holland for river barges (!) to have any means of ferrying troops across the channel. I repeat; river barges. The assaulting forces would have been shot to pieces.

However, the complete annihalation of the troops at Dunkirk could have led to a cease fire from the British side, but that would have been a political decision.

[Nalikill]

I'm not claiming the assault on the British isles any more probable in 1943, and not the assault on the US either (regardless of year).

Germany had no ships for amphibious landings at all. When Seelöwe was drawn up, they had to scrounge every port in France and Holland for river barges (!) to have any means of ferrying troops across the channel. I repeat; river barges. The assaulting forces would have been shot to pieces.

However, the complete annihalation of the troops at Dunkirk could have led to a cease fire from the British side, but that would have been a political decision.

I'm agreeing with you: You'd have to do the initial landing / invasion entirely via paratroopers, and the amphibious element would be 100% impossible. Paratroopers would need to secure Dover, and then the port would need to be used to bring over troops on troop transports - i.e., on a non-amphibious basis.

But I think we can agree: the scenario is ridiculous, and there's a good reason Germany never attempted it.