So far I have never had any particular problem with branching campaign trees , because the fork in the road I wind up taking nearly always proves to be a faithful reflection of my tastes and biases anyway.
For example ; Russia versus North Afrika. -- I'm going to pick North Afrika anyway. I would be very disappointed if I had to go to Russia. I guess it's pretty weird or nutty , but I have read a lot of books on the war in Russia , and the whole thing is so dismal and depressing , it makes " Apocalypse Now " look like a sunny , uplifting , childrens story to me .
Russia depresses me. Russia gives me bad vibes. As if I had been there myself , even though I wasn't.
I'm happy in North Afrika , I'm not happy in Russia. Go figure.
Russia versus North Afrika is though , I think , a special case. So more about that in a moment .
Norway north versus Norway south. -- I picked Norway south back in the day because I was new to the game and so didn't play very well . Norway North is mountain warfare with a capital ' M ' , and brute , direct , force doesn't work very well in mountain warfare.
Today , though , I would invariably pick Norway North because I prefer mountain warfare. And wouldn't regret or begrudge the choice. Why begrudge or regret my own preference ?
Poland North versus Poland South -- as much as I like mountain warfare --- and siege warfare / urban fighting is similar in some respects to mountain warfare --- occasionally I like wide open spaces , plenty of room for my cavalry , recons , and tanks to stretch their legs .
So I invariably pick Poland South anyway.
Dunkirk / Belgium versus Sedan -- once again personal feelings and eccentricities are key.
Sedan is a source of bad memories , and I'll take any opportunity to take another swipe at the British and the Americans behind them.
So guess which branch I'm going to choose every time ?
Bilbao versus Malaga -- I have never gotten around to playing the Malaga branch , so I have no idea how the two branches may differ , or may not differ.
But my guess is I would go with Bilbao anyway. I like the Basque country and Catalonia for one thing. I don't much care for the south . And I am of the opinion that once the attempted coup blows up in to a full scale civil war , nailing down the north is key to winning the whole country anyway.
So I would have went to Bilboa anyway. End of story .
you had had the choice of going to the Saar , or going strait to Poland , in hindsight I would have wound up going to / preferring the Saar detour.
Because I like French tanks.
Now back to Russia versus North Afrika.
For simplicities sake I'm going to go ahead and make an unqualified , blanket , dogmatic statement ;
I would like to see Russia and North Afrika as two separate DLC , or , better yet , as two separate SERIES
For example , it seems to me that North Afrika and the Levant , and then Iraq , Persia , and the Caucuses , could easily constitute two separate phases of an Afrika Korps campaign. Throw in , perhaps , an alternate history assault on Gibraltar and / or Malta ,
and right there you have a single , big , Afrika Korps DLC , or two smaller Afrika Korps DLC's.
Russia seems , at least out of the starting gate , even more obvious and direct .
I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that Russia north , Russia center , and Russia south , is a dear and precious choice.
Ugh , these three initial choices alone , it seems to me , could constitute stand alone DLC's by themselves.
And the Russian campaign as a whole is so sweeping and monumental that I think it merits more than one DLC in any case.
The trouble with all of this , of course , is that ultimately it amounts to at least a hundred dollars worth of DLC , and an Axis campaign that will be years in the making , and in delivery.
In another thread someone mentioned Paradox Interactive's Crusader Kings 2 .
Well , yes , that is pretty much what I'm outlining here.
This isn't Paradox Interactive , and it isn't Crusader Kings 2 ...
I would point out , though , that 12 years ( ? ) after Crusader Kings 2 debuted , it STILL has an active and devoted fan base , and I'm guessing they have sold a lot of DLC , the grumbling not withstanding. If any of that counts for , or means , anything.... ?
In any case , I think this is perhaps a good time for a thread like this.
It seems to me that Spanish Civil War - thru - Poland was pretty strait - forward and simple , but things are about to get unavoidably pretty complicated ;
Norway ? The Low Countries and France ? The Balkans ? Russia ? The Afrika Korps ? Sea Lion ?
I don't know , maybe SCW and AO 1939 were too much of a good thing , too successful ?
Maybe I'm imagining things , but it seems like SCW alone equaled the entire original campaign ? It certainly seems so when paired with AO 1939.
After playing Seville thru to the Battle of Warsaw I thought to myself , " Now I feel like a WW I veteran or something ! " --- And I like the feeling.
I didn't get the same feeling with the original campaign.
But maybe that's a bad thing ?