Although with the current “campaigns” and “factions” system none of this matters. We don’t have neither the player numbers nor matchmaker or “play anything with people” button.
With that said, here are some iconic WW2 things I’d love to see:
I am a big fan of your ideas! I don’t get how people say the Japanese VS Soviets would be anymore imbalanced than the USA vs Japan. I think if they emphasized light attack vehicles and APC’s, Manchuria would be awesome! Think about the unique campaign Chinese mainland maps and I like grinding the late war tech for soviets so
Bro you literally selected the only sentence that helps that argument . The next sentence after that I emphasize light attack vehicles as the primary unlocks for the potential campaign . I agree , no IS model would be appropriate
Wahts the point of fast vehicles if they
a) can drive 40kmh at best on small maps
b) still get rekt by an IS and T34s.
I already took the APC copium pill to simp for Erika but pls no APC at the moment.
And whats the point of adding a campaign where we need to take out historical stuff to make it balanced? Usually its the exact oppositte case.
@87933280
How about the Mongolian Border Conflict in 1939?
It was like 4 or 5 months long, both sides have similiar (bad) tanks, tankettes and armored cars and BA meta.
I think it would take some asymmetrical balancing to pull off , but Manchuria could definitely be done with 40 levels. Why not substitute a Soviet heavy armor squad for another vehicle or hell even rider squad? It could still be a vehicle that was historically used, just not as OP. It was a campaign of big geographic maneuvers , so it makes sense ! Or nah lol
Question is how much experiment and homeland stuff we need there to fill the levels. Mongolia is at least balanced if we really need USSr vs. Japan (which we dont need if you ask me).
Problem with Asymmetrical balance is that Japan needs something else of equal value, like Tiger to Thunderbolt. Japan won’t have anything that can match the IS 2 in the air or on land, so…
Yeah, it’s something we don’t need, but even with the homeland stuff and Soviet prototypes, neither side has enough development into weapons in 1939 to fill more than 25 levels from what I can see.
So, basically it answers why I prefer early war over late war - Germany can get away with this, they had the tools (in too limited numbers, but had them nonetheless) to resist the allies.
Japan on the other hand (Italy to some extent as well) had prototypes at best, little - if any - made off their home island. Making them part of arsenal means going in fairly deeply into alt-history territory (either Manhattan project - nuclear weaponry - failed and operation Downfall (Invasion of Japan) had to proceed; or Japan somehow manages to send the prototypes over to the other islands).
There is some charm in the early war machinery and somewhat simplistic way of fighting. Wheras late war is basically a boring competition of who can empty one’s SMG/AR magazine faster into the enemy…
I honestly think ~20 levels is the optimal lenght for most campaigns, given DF’s concept of “higher unlock = either better or filler”, most stuff after level 20-25 is cancer (Normandy M2, Moscow MKb and T-34, etc).
Obviously with the current campaigns system more campaigns literally means less players, but if we were to ever get new campaigns, I’d much rather prefer them to have shorter power creep between level 1 and max than isanity like Pz II vs T-34.
Was just reflecting on this post. Dude a late war campaign that could include Vienna and Budapest maps with Romanians and Hungarian squads along side the Germans and Red army. Totally epic and original campaign with awesome friggan maps!
Overall thanks for the post, it is a fun read with lots of good ideas.
) (within Berlin campaign, idc)
