Battle of the bulge add on or separate campaign?

Suggestions
1

Exactly as the title says when it does get added should it be a add on or a entirely separate campaign?

3 Likes
2

Separate Campaign. Makes sense to me

4 Likes
3

Add on. I was against the player split for the Stalingrad for essentially the same gear and am against it for Battle of the Bulge as well. What does it add? New maps? We have everything else as is

3 Likes
4

I think yes and no it’s gonna be weird to have pumas and m5s running around either limit it to a certain campaign level typ of thing but then at that point it might as well be a new campaign

1 Like
5

I mean sure but its weird to see Jumbos and M2s in Normandy. Its 1 year from Normandy (maybe less). The equipment is pretty much identical for both sides. The maps would be different and the uniforms but for the majority of things its the same

1 Like
6

Yes that bothers me too but I dunno I’m at a loss either one would be fine I guess

7

I guess my question is why? What do we see that is new? I cant think of much personally that I would re grind either faction for. Play both sides and dont see much purpose. Id prefer the pacific or France to add a new faction

8

they should at least have it from the end of normandy to the koln

9

Yeah my point exactly but then look at Stalingrad same damn thing as Moscow but I dunno

1 Like
10

You are correct which is why I wasnt for Stalingrad and still havent played it. Ive seen it all. Time for a new theater

1 Like
11

Pacific would spice things up perfectly. But they could add it in and you just get to choose what era so to speak to play in like if that makes sense

2 Likes
12

I feel like the entire “campaign” idea needs a re vamp. We could easily have just “fronts” instead and allow pretty much everything which I would prefer

1 Like
13

Yeah that’s what I was think of would work great for misc campaign stuff

1 Like
14

as long as it comes to the game

15

I’m assuming it should would be bizarre if it doesn’t

1 Like
16

I would personally love a Pacific campaign. The only problem is, they would need to forgo a bit of historical accuracy in order to balance it. For example, the US has the M1 Garand Semi-Auto Rifle. AFAIK, the Japanese never had a Semi-Auto rifle. The US and it’s British allies had a considerable verity of SMGs ranging from the Thompson to the Sten. The Japanese only ever had the Type-100 SMG in 2 variants. But I suppose the Japanese could use captured M1 Rifles and Thompsons/Stens like how the Germans get the PPSH-41 in the Stalingrad Campgain.

On the other hand, for tanks it especially gets interesting. While there are some decent medium tanks like the Chi-nu and the Chi-to, none of these tanks have a coax MG unlike American or British tanks. So they would be at a disadvantage for anti-infantry use.

But I digress. If the Devs can find workarounds to these issues, I’d certainly go for the pacific campaign.

1 Like
17

Once it does get added it will probably be my favorite campaign yet

18

Yknow what i don’t care if its a copy paste of normandy allies and axis gear. its the map terrain and it has to be good, im sick of normandy far cry 3 terrain editor

1 Like
19

Deaths to the campaign, we want the theatre

3 Likes
20

Add on.
Litarally all the unique equipment to it has already been added to Normandy except for 76mm Jumbo and pershing.

1 Like