If they finally decide to add those campaigns that started grinding from Mosin Nagan lv1 one by one. I am indeed a little disappointed. 
But if they make a cross-campaign teaming and automatic matching system, the Allied Powers vs the Axis Powers, then I think dozens of campaigns are acceptable. 
Not to be rude, pick up a history book.
KV1 and KV2 were available already in 1940, they participated in Moscow, the same as stalingrad
There were no Tigers in Stalingrad.
There have already been many suggestions to add a theatre/ campaign based system
I hope they do as it would mean mostly not having to regrind thesame gear and not having to re-equp the same squads
yes, but i don’t know how much people would love to use a marder just because of those two are presents.
no wonder why KV1 or KV2 are not a thing alongside the t34.
because germany does not have something capable of penning them.
F1s and Js wouldn’t even pen frontally it’s turret. that’s why it’s a bad game decision to just throw the tanks that has no real counter.
on your end, if you pick a history book you will find that all the others tanks that had at least a 75 mm weren’t even a thing up until 1943.
( if we exclude a few that are mainly open top )
so you are claming that operation Winter storm never happened?
use your words more carefully young man.
In Stalingrad. In the town not the break out group that was trying to rescue them.
As another guy said just dont add these giants and just add the maps
Tigers not was in Stalingrad.But we know devs…
how ironic.
guess what they did, they added both the maps and the giant tank.
you know why?
the foxman himself stated that:
( excusing the jumbo and m24 )
" we will include equipment if it’s in the same period of time "
thus that’s why T50 ( and even BA-11s ) is a thing despite never saw combat in moscow
thus that’s why Jumbos and M24s are a thing despite never saw combat in normandy
thus that’s why the germans get an MKHB with scope over moscow despite never saw it in the first place )
and you expect DF to not include tigers in stalingrad that are in the same year? 
I just suggest changing the name of Moscow to the eastern front 1941-1943 and making three periods there.
If you have at least one weapon (tank / plane) from Stalingrad, then you will not get to Moscow.
Well, something like that can be done with Berlin, and with Tunisia, and with Normandy.
Or just throw out kursk and have stalingrad and moscow, but just dont add something like the long 75mm PZ4 so it doesnt show up in moscow.
1.Moscow renamed as Easternt front 1941 - 1943.
And making three periods.
1)Moscow(Want play near Moscow?Use only weapon from first period.)
2)Stalingrad(Want play near Stalingrad?Use any weapon without weapon from third period.)
3)Kursk(Want play at Kursk?Use any weapon)
2.Berlin renamed as Eastern Front 1944 -1945
And make this periods:
1)Operation Bagration
2)Konigsberg\Poland\Hungary\Romania and etc.
3)Berlin and all near him.
3.Normandy renamed as western front 1943 - 1945
And make this periods:
1)SIcily and Italy
2)Normandy
3)France
4)Market garden and western Germany.
4.Tunis renamed as Africa 1941-1943
And make this periods:
1.Tobruk,Al Alamein and etc.
2.Tunis
So maybe it need other topic.
I think Stalingrad would be already too boring to implement at this point, unless there is something completely new regarding gameplay,map design for example large tank battles, 4x bigger battle area etc, armed personal carriers. For urban battles we have Berlin, Moscow - more open battles. What new and interesting there could be in Stalingrad or any other WW2 campaign in Europe? Probably grinding the same weapons again and same gritty atmosphere. We need completely something different at this point - Pacific theater, Finnish winter war or at least new weapons, bigger battle area ,more vehicles for transport during battle. I really hope to see Japan vs USA campaign the most.
Thats what i think. Not a new campaign, just maps for moscow
The matchmaker couldnt handle it probably. And it would be too hard to find a match, spliting a campaign 6 ways.
The first levels will can play any period.
Only the last levels will can play only last period.
Its more better than dozenc campaigns.
I agree that every campaign needs new maps. Just give more maps to Moscow, more to Tunisia, More to Berlin - battles that happened in the same area historically, Sealow heights fits completely. But about Moscow and Stalingrad in the same campaign i rather disagree, too far (in timeline and in distance), difference with weapons etc…
There is a lot of battles they could do, i suggested one that could be pretty unique: Campaign for future: Battle of Turda
Also Battle of France, but Pacific is next step they will take imo. And you are right, Stalingrad woudnt bring much of new things, guns would be almost same as Moscow, but with only few new tanks, not much that it would be worth to play it imo.
Thats my point kind of. If just add maps we would have it, but wouldnt have to grind the same stuff, they could add like 3 invasions and thats it.
Devs do want to add stalingrad, it was in the files.
In my opinion adding the maps is a better option than a new campaign.
Just imagine fighting in those ruins, grain elevator, pavlovs house, around the centre fountain, in the factories, in the sewers. It would be quite different to berlin.
I think just having maps would be great
to much time period difference,
would leave campaigns as is, with future adding new ones.
for me i love western front, i’d rather have seperate Normandy, Market garden, battle of the buldge and germany campaigns separate then mashing them up together. i love playing with weps and tanks and divisions that actually fought there (although there are some inaccuracies that hopefully they can fix)
It’s something the devs MUST do eventually (rename campaigns to instead include a larger area/time period) will allow them to justify weird additions such as jumbo/mkb42h and most importantly, plenty of new maps possibilities.
Your suggestion is how I would have done it as well.