Why not make fronts instead of campaigns?

Suggestions
1

Lately I have asked myself a question and it is how many campaigns will this game have?
Bearing in mind that each campaign must have 40 levels and obviously its two factions which must be uploaded separately, I get the idea that both for a new player and for a veteran it would be such an exhausting job, that just by seeing it they give incredible laziness which I personally think would put anyone off, I mean, if they plan to do a campaign for every “major” battle of WWII, we’d have between 10 campaigns in the game, which I doubt anyone would be able to complete all the campaigns.

Despite that, many people proposed several ideas to avoid this overwhelming to come, but the one that I have heard the most is the idea of creating sub-campaigns that I don’t see as bad, it can be a good solution.
But my idea would be to divide it by fronts, since I think it would cover more battles and have more content, with this we would reduce the annoying copy and paste.

German offensive on the Soviet Union
This first part would contain the battle for Moscow until the battle of Stalingrad, where it would be closed, from there another front could begin, which would be the Soviet counterattack that would include the battles of Kursk, the Bagration operation, the battle for the hills of Seelow heights and its closing point would be the battle for Berlin, so I think it would reduce the fact of creating so many campaigns and we would reduce the copy and paste.

In the campaign through North Africa we would start with the occupation of the Italian Fort Capuzzo, then the battles in Libya and in some places in Egypt to give it its closing point in the battle of Tunisia.

Personally, I am not sure about doing an Italian campaign since after the Normandy landings it became more of a battle against the Italian fascist guerrillas.

In the landing of Normandy we would start with D-Day, then with the cobra operation, the Market Garden operation, the Dragoon operation, to close with the liberation of Paris.

In the Pacific Front, we would cover all the battles for all the islands under the control of Imperial Japan until its closure, which would be Okinawa.

And to cover the battle of Germany against France we could cover the German invasion of the low countries, the attack on Belgium, the flanking of the Maginot line, thus pushing the French and British army to the Dunkerke beach where they are evacuated.

13 Likes
2

I have already done a similar topic (which I will probably update soon), where I suggested the best option, in my opinion, so that the historicity is preserved and not lower online in campaign.

4 Likes
3

Would make sence. Untill someone spawns a tiger 2 or a Pershing in normandy d day.

Or?

1 Like
4

Look at my topic above.

5

if that would be the problem, like seeing a tiger tank on the battle maps for moscow, the truth would be the inconvenience of my idea.

6

If we do by front we could also get like a south Asia which ties in everything like Burma, Papua New Guinea and Hong Kong.

1 Like
7

I always though that too. Like if each campaign was actually a 2 year period from a specific front to make it historically accurate. For example if you had a tiger 1 it would only be usable from the years they saw service rather than having one in Moscow. But you could use it in Berlin or another battle if they were there. Although they would literally have to overhaul every single aspect of the game to make this work.

8

Necessary pro-Italy clarifications:

Explanation

  1. You probably meant the landings in Sicily and Anzio

  2. You appear to be implying that, after the Allied landings in the south, Axis forces in Italy suddenly capitulated and only kept fighting only as disorganized bands.

In fact, quite the opposite is true.

The short version is that Germany promptly occupied northern Italy to prevent the Allies from crossing the Alps. So, while southern Italy sided with Allied forces, a fascist Italian government remained in the north (albeit as a German sockpuppet) and fought alongside the Axis to stop or at least delay as much as possible the Allies.

Which they did effectively enough; in fact Allies weren’t able to push through the Appennines (Google “Gothic Line”) until 1945, when Axis forces started collapsing on all fronts.

Therefore, an Italian campaign/theatre could properly fit in game. It could offer a different flavor by being set for the most parts on hills and mountainous territory, as well as having some “landing” map too.

Bonus: the transition to “fronts/theatres” system could possibly allow Italy to take part in eastern front battles (current Moscow) too; at least until Stalingrad.

1 Like
9

I completely agree that we need fronts, not campaigns. In this ‘fronts’ system, what is your idea about the progression system?

10

In order to keep some historicity, fronts should still be somewhat restricted to their proper era (so, no MP43 in Stalingrad or such).

Therefore, it could still make sense to have separate grind for the same nation in separate fronts.

Alternatively, fronts could be classified as either “early” or “late” (possibly even a third “mid” class?), and this would affect the availability of equipment in each one of them. If so, being able to save different presets for different fronts would be a necessity though.