Long campaign questions

[Charles22]

That only works if the designer made it that way. I think with the main campaign games, they are meant to have histroic locations, no matter if your great victories or defeats would had likely changed that, afterall, your force is small when compared to an entire front. So maybe Operation Barbarossa had 20 more tanks kills than what was historic by your performance, that wouldn't have changed things in all but a very local area.

I think I have been through the Gerry campaign long enough to see that Sealion isn't possible with the main campaigns (partly because it was a plan only), and also since Olympic was to not take place but for several months after the surrender, I doubt they would include that in the Pacific.

[PanzerBob]

The Alt History vain of Campaigning is possible with the Generated Campaigns.

Bob out

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Originally Posted by PanzerBob

The Alt History vain of Campaigning is possible with the Generated Campaigns.

Bob out

Yeah, but sealion or Olympic can't be propperly played since we cant have beach landings in meeting engagements, i cant remember if para/glider insertion is possible in these battles(if they were to happen,both, Olympic and sealion would have paras holding key roads to prevent the landing forces from counterattacks)

[Imp]

Why does it have to be a meeting? Set to assault & play with battle points till get balance you want.
Of course easier is to make the scenerio in the editor. Make the next one then go to campaign & import & thats your first 2 battles done. Now just keep building more.
Depending on how you set core only need to buy deploy other side unless you want fixed support units.
Read the manuel for more specific info

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Ok,i got it,it's out of the game's scope

[noxiousnic]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

Yeah, but sealion or Olympic can't be propperly played since we cant have beach landings in meeting engagements, i cant remember if para/glider insertion is possible in these battles(if they were to happen,both, Olympic and sealion would have paras holding key roads to prevent the landing forces from counterattacks)

This is not the Operational Art of Warfare
Not even close to being an operational centric game : it's purely tactical, and that is its greatest strength.
Its scope doesn't lend itself to modelling entire operations, but rather to the actions that make up a military operation.
And focused on the boots on the ground element, not modelling naval or air in an appropriate way for operational wargaming : both are only tools for the infantry in SP, not being able to do their own operations if you will.

A campaign, or long campaign even, is not the modelling of a complete WW2 or modern operation, but rather, again, a sequence of actions that form a small part of the much bigger, operational level, goals.

I understand the desire to do everything in the same game/engine, but you risk falling prey to very "gamey" workaround to make it all work, probably in a very clunky, unhistorical way.

Sticking to what SP WW2 and MBT excel at is a surer way to gaming bliss : small scale, tactical warfare.
The command and control restrictions of the game are a sure indicator that's it not meant to model operations like Barbarossa, Olympic, Gulf War, OIF or even D-Day landings in their entirety.
It's meant to take you deep inside the Ops, down to where each pair of boots matter, not your ability to move a corps or army group and its logistics train half across the world

Thus a campaign does NOT model a complete large scale ops, but only the part taken in it by a small element of the whole.
e.g the series of actions taken by a battalion in the course of a bigger campaign.

Not many games attempt to model all scales of military operations, even less including many strategic concerns (economy and diplomacy, for example) with detailed tactical combat. Those that do, often do so so that both micro managers and god view type of players can all have their cake and eat it, but stray away from modelling reality, striving for "fun" gameplay.
Often, this leads to part of the modelling not being really satisfying, etc.

And that's now, when the restrictions imposed by the PC platform have changed completely and allow complex modelling of multi layered simulations : when the Steel Panthers series were designed and originally developed, the restrictions were much more constrictive

Or the game stops being a game and solely becomes a simulation, in that it's not fun any more for most gamers who would otherwise enjoy a near simulation game (or serious game), because it becomes entangled in its complexity and the user's ability to tweak everything

The SP series concentrates on an often badly executed topic : tactical combat. And does a fine job at it
Maximum enjoyment will be had if you leverage its strengths rather than trying to punch through its limitations.
Cheers, have fun

[Imp]

Exelent andy you are a wealth of information.
It sounded insane but I did not realise quiet to what level.
Did the Germans invent LSD?

[Charles22]

Actually, I debate that we would had never used the bomb against the Germans, True, there was the Dresden raizing raids, but I think only Britain, had they the bomb, would had seriously comtempleted that, if only for their taste for bombing populations exclussively, afterall, though they wouldn't had known it then, the bomb drops on Japan were far less damaging in casualties than many fire bomb raids (which I think includes the British fire bomb vareity, not just the B29 raids). Could the bomb do better in Germany? I don't know.

Remember also there was the time factor. Germany had to last about as long to get bombed, because I don't think the bomb, or at least two of them, were ready by 5/45. But the primary reason, was that we weren't as mad at Germany as we were with Japan. What's more, if you go by the "scare the USSR" theory by their use, you wouldn't go using them in Germany too, should you just have to use them in Japan; one nation was enough for a scare. What's more, drop some bombs on Germany, though they didn't know it then necessarily, amounts to exposing USSR occupiers to radiation. Reason for the USSR to declare war on the US? Probably more on the practical side though, how much would dropping these bombs hamper both the allied offensives? You have to remember, part of the charm of the bomb in Japan was that it avoided casualties and speeded the war where there wasn't a foothold already, with fanatical resistance expected otherwise.

No, given how Japan was in it, and the USSR was advancing on Germany too, there's no way you nuke Germany.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Charles22

So maybe Operation Barbarossa had 20 more tanks kills than what was historic by your performance, that wouldn't have changed things in all but a very local area.

Yet, one would think after my battalion has destroyed several thousand British tanks in North Africa, we would be pushing into Cairo in 1943 instead of back to Tunisia, but I understand the global aspect of the game is scripted.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Yet, one would think after my battalion has destroyed several thousand British tanks in North Africa, we would be pushing into Cairo in 1943 instead of back to Tunisia, but I understand the global aspect of the game is scripted.

But supposedly the front is always much larger than your force. Have you forgot about those priceless Italians though? Just the Italians alone dwarf your force. Anyway, you see what good it does, don't you? This is clearly a fantasy front.

You destroy 50 million and they just keep on coming. So while your front doesn't change because of radical Britisher transport to your front, some guy somewhere else should be doing Sealion with ease, but he cannot play this game in a different campaign alongside your own. If you were playing against the BEF in France, or doing a Sealion, you would see the same thing, where those Britisher pigs would always be in full force wherever you go.

Lesson is the incompetent commanders always have the soft front. Your problem is you draw their attention. Try doing the opposite of Rommel. Instead of blowing up dummy tanks to scare the enemy, Hide your forces and even leave a few seemingly crawling, desparate, for water Italins crawling around on the ground for recon to see, and you just might see the other commander get all the British reinforcements for a change.