DLC 1941 East Front ideation

[Vorskl]

Fellow players,
Inspired by the 'DLC 1940 Prediction Game' post, kondi754 and I compiled the list of DLC 1941 East ideas: battles, nemeses, and objectives. We'd like to start a discussion on what are the most interesting and least dull battles? What new objectives could spice up the gameplay experience? The goal is to exchange opinions, improve our knowledge of that period's history, generate ideas, and hopefully see some of them realized in the code . Please note this is an unofficial discussion, with no commitment by Slitherine.
Below ideas are focused solely on the Soviet theater in 1941 (no Africa, Atlantic, and such)

ARCTIC and KARELIA
Murmansk (29 June – 10 October 1941) Germans and Finnish troops are trying to capture Murmansk and cut-off USSR from receiving lend-lease shipments.
Arctic Convoys (August 1941+) – using airforce and auxiliary naval forces, a player should disrupt lend-lease shipments to USSR; could involve bombing/ diversions in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk ports.

NORTH – locations north of Belarus and south of Karelia
Battle of Alitus (22 June 1941) – A player uses auxiliary troops of Brandenburg-800 saboteurs to occupy bridges across the Neman river to help advance its tank troops fast. Soviets soon counter-attack with tanks
Manstein’s corps raid on Daugavpils ( 22-28 June 1941) – a player should race and occupy in turn several bridges en route to Daugavpils. Retreating Soviet troops will be attacking the player from the flanks. Auxilary Brandenburg 800 troops should assist in capturing the bridges.
Battle of Raseiniai (23–27 June 1941); The first tank vs tank battle on the Eastern Front. Nemesis KV-1 Smirnov V.A. introduced.
Baltic Fleet escape (27-31 August 1941). A player using German aviation + schnellboats + some Finnish navy auxiliary should prevent the Soviet Baltic fleet from relocating from Tallin to Leningrad. A scenario can be expanded by adding group forces with an objective to pervert evacuation of group troops from Tallin.
Near Leningrad: Luga Defense Line (10 July – 26 August 1941). Nemesis KV-1 Zinoviy Kolobanov introduced. Soviets conduct a counter-strike at Soltsy. Germans storm Velikie Lugi city-fortress
Near Leningrad: Staraya Russa Soviet counter-offense (12 – 15 August 1941). A player should stop the Soviet offense. The chance to capture BM-13 Katyusha for the first time (real fact)
Leningrad: attack on the Baltic Fleet in Kroonstad (23 September 1941) – Air-only scenario. A player should sink ‘Marat’, ‘Minsk’, smaller vessels. A hard objective is to sink ‘Kirov’. Rudel should be introduced if not already in the player’s roster.
Leningrad: 1st, 2nd Sinyavino Offenses (September-October 1941) – Soviets try to de-block Leningrad by striking along Ladoga lake. A player has to defend its positions. A scenario could be expanded to disrupt the Road of Life functioning.
Moonsund (Operation Beowulf) (6 September – 22 October 1941) We can twist history a bit and start the scenario in late August; the Soviet will be flying strategic bombers to bomb Berlin and a player has to prevent it. Then he will use combined air/sea landing ( +auxiliary Finnish forces) to occupy the islands.
Several North scenarios could be combined: i.e. Baltic Fleet Escape + Moonsund

CENTER – Belarus, Central Russia
Bialystok-Minsk battle (22 June – 8 July 1941) – the first big Soviet pocket of WWII. 2 and 3 Tank Groups should encircle massive numbers of Soviet troops east of Minsk.
Vitebsk Battle / Lepel-Senno counter-offense (4-9 July 1941) – one of the largest tank battles of WWII. A player should defend its position in a swampy area while hordes of Soviet tanks (3-4 times more than players) will be storming his positions.
Rogachev-Zhlobin Soviet counter-offensive (13 July – 30 July 1941) – A player should defend its positions at the Dnepr river and stop Soviet counter-offense towards Bobruisk.
Battle of Smolensk (10 July – 5 August 1941) – Soviet counter-attack to German offense on Moscow. Lev Dovator cavalry nemesis could be introduced.
Battle of Moscow - German offense – Taifun operation (30 September – 5 December 1941). A player should be given an opportunity not to take all objectives at some sizeable prestige loss. Various nemesis could be introduced here: Pavel Belov and Issa Pliyev cavalry; Katukov tank; Lavrinenko tank; Burda tank.
Battle of Moscow – Soviet offense (5 December 1941 – January 1942) a player needs to withdraw its troops and stabilize the front at Lama and Istra rivers. If a player decided to push and capture all objectives in the previous scenario, he should get a 90% prestige penalty here. A player could destroy Istra hydro dam to slow down the Soviet offense.
Center scenarios appear to be large maps used heavily in the previous games. Instead, we can focus on some smaller, less known elements, such as the Rogachev-Zhlobin operation.

SOUTH – Ukraine and South Russia, Caucasus
Constanza raid (26 June 1941) Soviet Black Sea fleet will attack the port of Constanza (Romania). A player has to defend the port and then retaliate, sinking Soviet ships. We can extend the scenario by adding a task to defend the port from Soviet air raids.
Dubno-Brody tank battle (25-29 June 1941) – The largest tank battle. Soviets should have 5 times more tanks than German, but no aviation / arty or infantry. Soviet T-35 monsters appear here for the first and the last time. By fast occupation of Dubno, a player will get B-4 203mm arty (REAL)
Storming the Stalin’s Line (July 1941) – German 11 TH PZDIV storms ground forts of soviet’s Majino line on its way to Kiev. Novohrad-Volynskyi battle could be used as an example. It's victory allows to storm Kiev from the north. A player should use pioneers and Flaks to destroy the forts. The weather should be terrible – rains and mud (like it was in July 1941)
Battle of Lypovec (22 July 1941) – the first Slovak Army battle with RKKA. Could be considered if we want to bring in a Slovaks-heavy scenario.
Uman pocket (15 July – 8 August 1941; 1 Tank Group encircles Soviet 6 and 12 Armies). A player should encircle a large Soviet group and sustain a massive Soviet tank counter-strike. It should also shoot Soviet transport planes and prevent a group of high-ranking commanders from fleeing. Including the participation of the SS-LAH motorized division
Battle of Kiev (August 23 – September 26, 1941) – to spice it up (the scenario is beaten to death) we can offer either South (Kleist) or North (Guderian) part. For Kiev North, one of the objectives is to capture and defend a bridge north of Kiev (at Okuninovo village, now flooded by KievGES construction); after its capture, the Soviet will deploy IL-2 and riverboats to destroy the bridge. For Kiev South, a player needs to remove Soviet recon and secretly build a bridge near Kremenchuk and also defend its bridgehead at Dnepropetrovsk. There will be a Soviet ‘panzerzug’ operating near Kanev.
Battle of Petrikovka (27-30 September 1941) – the first significant battle of Italian CSIR forces with RKKA. A player using auxiliary Italian troops should defend a bridgehead across the Dnepr river to allow the main player’s forces to cross the river. Soviets will actively counter-attack the bridgehead.
1st Kharkov battle (October 1941) – if a player captures Kharkov fast, it should be awarded a large stack of T-34 (in reality the Plant 183 was evacuated 2 weeks before Germans entered the city) and Su-2 bombers that were produced in a city.
Siege of Odessa (8 August – 16 October 1941) – A player will be using mainly Romanian auxiliary troops trying to capture Odessa in time and prevent the evacuation of the Soviet Coastal Army to Sevastopol. Soviets will use the Black Sea fleet and a few surprising airborne landing parties. If a player is fast, he’ll capture a rich cachet of military equipment. Nemesis of a Partisan Infantry operating from the city’s catacombs could be introduced.
Battle of Zaporozhie (18 August – 3 October 1941). A player should prevent retreating Soviet troops from destroying a railroad bridge and DneproGES hydro dam (if not successful, there should be a massive penalty). A player should occupy the Khortitsa island and prevent Soviets from re-taking it. All the time Soviets will be evacuating non-military equipment, so if a player is fast, he should get a prestige bonus.
Battle of the Sea of Azov/ Melitopol pocket (26 September – 11 October 1941). Destruction of South Front; opens the road to Rostov. The weather should be mostly rain; a player should rely heavily on auxiliary Romanian troops. One of the objectives should kill fleeing Soviet high-ranking commanders.
Battle of Rostov (17 November – 2 December 1941) – Germans attack Rostov, but the Soviets launch a successful counter-attack. A player should capture Rostov but then withdraw its troops in order. Soviets will use only T-26 tanks but plenty of B-4 203mm arty.
1st Sevastopol assault (30 October – 11 November 1941) - While Coastal Army is trying to retreat to Sevastopol, Mannstein tries to conduct an assault. Bonus objective: to sink Chervona Ukraina cruiser
2nd Sevastopol assault (17 – 30 December 1941) – Mannstein keeps trying to storm the city
Kerch-Feodosia Soviet Landing Operation (26 December 1941 – 2 January 1942) – A player needs to defend its positions and repel Soviet landing operations in East Crimea.
All Crimean scenarios could be combined into one; other closely located battles could also be grouped: Uman + Italians; Zaporozhie + Azov or Azov + Rostov

[Retributarr]

Mesmerizing Shock from quick look-over!:

You definitely seem to know your 'East-Front-History'... so have 'Kerensky' apprise it for you to see if he can use some of these ideas... many of them are new and unknown to me... I am not familiar with them... but!... they look very interesting!.

[kondi754]

I think this is primarily the work of @Vorskl
I only tabled a few amendments (literally a few)

I believe that he should be thanked and appreciated for the work he has done to create this

[Schneides42]

While this has some great ideas for the War in the East (and North), what about the Germans in North Africa and the invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia?

[kondi754]

While this has some great ideas for the War in the East (and North), what about the Germans in North Africa and the invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia?

The purpose of this post was also to provoke discussion about the AO 1941 IMHO

[Schneides42]

Sorry, it was not meant to be a critique as I think there are some great suggestions given and I appreciate the work that has gone into the list. I just wanted to remind people of other theatres of operations they could choose from. I am no expert on this period of the war but have really enjoyed exploring them in the previous versions of the game, before we head off to the slog of the War in the East!

[DarkBlueInk]

If you want a naval scenario, the Bismarck was caught and sunk in 1941. That battle included the sinking of HMS Hood. Swordfish are already overpowered in PC2 and they could complete their dominance by sinking the Bismarck (again). Maybe this is an optional scenario since it would not involve your core forces.

We could have city bombing objectives. With minor modifications, city hexes could have hit points similar to bunkers and strongpoints (but with different image). Bombers having to cross from one side of the map to another dodging your AA and fighters to knock the city health/defenses down to zero. This could be a scenario where the rewards depend on how many city hexes are destroyed or how much they are collectively damaged.

The invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece are a nice diversion from Russia and Africa.

Convoys and airplanes supplied to Malta could be another diversion. Or a non-historical invasion

I predict this will become a very long thread. I could stay up all night searching for ideas. I'm all for literally any battles in North Africa.

[Vorskl]

While this has some great ideas for the War in the East (and North), what about the Germans in North Africa and the invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia?

We focused on the classical East campaign definition (with Panzer Corps 1 DLCs as guidance). While Greece and Yugo technically could be combined with the East, Africa is for sure a separate topic.

[adiekmann]

An interesting list of possibilities. Many of them I am not familiar with or only in general terms. (It's been a very long time since I read a detailed history of the Eastern Front.)

As far as N. Africa, Yugoslavia/Greece, and other operations/theaters of war during 1941, I am of the strong opinion that the DLCs should be concentrated on a particular theater of operations, and not spread out. Therefore, Africa gets its own DLC, or perhaps even campaign, entirely. And, perhaps, the Balkans begins as a separate campaign/DLC and ends with scenarios where your Mountain troops are fighting in the artic on the Finish-Russian frontier.

Point is , there are lots of ways to design, group, or cover these operations. Vorskl's post already highlights one of the most obvious ideas: that of separating the Eastern Front campaign not just by year as it was in the GC, but by sector (North, Central, and South).

But the basic premise is the same. Tighter focus and in greater depth which of course results in many more DLCs when all is said and done.

[Tassadar]

If you want a naval scenario, the Bismarck was caught and sunk in 1941. That battle included the sinking of HMS Hood. Swordfish are already overpowered in PC2 and they could complete their dominance by sinking the Bismarck (again). Maybe this is an optional scenario since it would not involve your core forces.

We could have city bombing objectives. With minor modifications, city hexes could have hit points similar to bunkers and strongpoints (but with different image). Bombers having to cross from one side of the map to another dodging your AA and fighters to knock the city health/defenses down to zero. This could be a scenario where the rewards depend on how many city hexes are destroyed or how much they are collectively damaged.

The invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece are a nice diversion from Russia and Africa.

Convoys and airplanes supplied to Malta could be another diversion. Or a non-historical invasion

I predict this will become a very long thread. I could stay up all night searching for ideas. I'm all for literally any battles in North Africa.

Interesting extra scenarios for a Western path, that would certainly spice things up!

[kondi754]

An interesting list of possibilities. Many of them I am not familiar with or only in general terms. (It's been a very long time since I read a detailed history of the Eastern Front.)

As far as N. Africa, Yugoslavia/Greece, and other operations/theaters of war during 1941, I am of the strong opinion that the DLCs should be concentrated on a particular theater of operations, and not spread out. Therefore, Africa gets its own DLC, or perhaps even campaign, entirely. And, perhaps, the Balkans begins as a separate campaign/DLC and ends with scenarios where your Mountain troops are fighting in the artic on the Finish-Russian frontier.

Point is , there are lots of ways to design, group, or cover these operations. Vorskl's post already highlights one of the most obvious ideas: that of separating the Eastern Front campaign not just by year as it was in the GC, but by sector (North, Central, and South).

But the basic premise is the same. Tighter focus and in greater depth which of course results in many more DLCs when all is said and done.

There is another option - talking to Vorskl we came to the conclusion that the central operational direction (Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow) was almost totally used in many previous games.
Perhaps the solution for creator is to choose the north or south direction + ending near Moscow in winter 1941 or give 2 alternative paths to be chosen by the player.
I wouldn't exclude a few scenarios from the Balkans earlier, so AO 1941 will probably be a more extensive part than the previous ones.

EDIT. Although the Eastern Front is the most important in 1941, this is where epic battles will take place

[Scrapulous]

What a detailed post. Thanks for writing it up!

I don't know enough to comment on the conflicts listed, but it looks to me like there's easily enough material for a German AO Eastern Front '41 Autumn DLC and a German AO Eastern Front '41 Winter DLC. Why should we be forced into one year per DLC, after all? I know Kerensky is concerned about keeping the number of DLC low, but I would prefer more, honestly.

[Retributarr]

What a detailed post. Thanks for writing it up!

I don't know enough to comment on the conflicts listed, but it looks to me like there's easily enough material for a German AO Eastern Front '41 Autumn DLC and a German AO Eastern Front '41 Winter DLC. Why should we be forced into one year per DLC, after all? I know Kerensky is concerned about keeping the number of DLC low, but I would prefer more, honestly.

I concur!... "Scrapulous"… the request for expanding the "DLC's" beyond the 'one year per DLC' confinement handicap... is something that only 'passively-vaguely' crossed my mind, but never-ever seemed to coalesce into a serious consideration. I'm glad that you brought this particular matter to our attention!... and I do 'very-much' vigorously agree... that it should be seriously considered... in order... to break this 'restriction-limitation' barrier.

[adiekmann]

An interesting list of possibilities. Many of them I am not familiar with or only in general terms. (It's been a very long time since I read a detailed history of the Eastern Front.)

As far as N. Africa, Yugoslavia/Greece, and other operations/theaters of war during 1941, I am of the strong opinion that the DLCs should be concentrated on a particular theater of operations, and not spread out. Therefore, Africa gets its own DLC, or perhaps even campaign, entirely. And, perhaps, the Balkans begins as a separate campaign/DLC and ends with scenarios where your Mountain troops are fighting in the artic on the Finish-Russian frontier.

Point is , there are lots of ways to design, group, or cover these operations. Vorskl's post already highlights one of the most obvious ideas: that of separating the Eastern Front campaign not just by year as it was in the GC, but by sector (North, Central, and South).

But the basic premise is the same. Tighter focus and in greater depth which of course results in many more DLCs when all is said and done.

There is another option - talking to Vorskl we came to the conclusion that the central operational direction (Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow) was almost totally used in many previous games.
Perhaps the solution for creator is to choose the north or south direction + ending near Moscow in winter 1941 or give 2 alternative paths to be chosen by the player.
I wouldn't exclude a few scenarios from the Balkans earlier, so AO 1941 will probably be a more extensive part than the previous ones.

EDIT. Although the Eastern Front is the most important in 1941, this is where epic battles will take place

I started a thread some weeks/months ago regarding alternative paths, or forks, in the DLC asking forum users their opinion on it. I for one generally don't like it. The reason why is because I want to play as many scenarios as possible in a given campaign. So if the designers create 16 maps for a DLC, for example, I would like to play all 16 of them linearly. If on the other hand, they have a fork in the campaign path where you play say three different scenarios if you take Path A, and three other scenarios if you choose Path B, well then that means your entire DLC "X" campaign is really 13 scenarios long, not 16.

I know there are some, possibly the majority, of players who would disagree with me. At least that's what I expected and the reason why I started that post some time ago to find out for sure. I understand some players desire to have choice and/or replayability, but for me I would rather have those additional scenarios to garner more experience for my core for one. It's like two shorter games versus one longer game.

For me, replayability is starting a new DLC/campaign that is in a different theater of operations, hence one that covers the same timeframe but may cover the Balkans and continue elsewhere, like a different area of the Eastern Front.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I expect that most will disagree with me and I understand the reasons why.

[Retributarr]

"Fastest Fork Wins!":"???":

"Kondi" was discussing for example... 2-paths-directions-choices as to how to proceed with the war in 'Russia'. I see either of these paths as being single-line-solitaire efforts to complete the task of removing Russia from being a threat for or to the Germans in the war.

Either of these choices would be complete campaigns in themselves... not included with many splintering vectors of approach to continually side-line the main task... which are not relevant to the original task at hand... for instance... such as part-way... dashing off to 'North-Africa'... while not completing the Barbarossa-Mission... itself in its entirety.

Where sideline missions... are 'Relevant' to the 'Original' or 'Main-Mission' of the 'Campaign'... such as perhaps... the Germans making an effort to secure 'Gibraltar' in 'Spain'... well!... this in itself would or should not disrupt the primary 'Barbarossa-Effort'... but could definitely influence it perhaps... by restricting or reducing the amount of 'Lend-Lease' consignments coming from 'Britain' [As now they would have more pressing matters to be concerned with]... which were shipped to 'Russia'.

So!... at this point... I'm failing to understand... "Where the Issue or Problem is???". There doesn't have to be a problem here!. What am I missing?.

[Retributarr]

List of Axis operational codenames in the European Theatre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... an_Theatre
Spain during World War II
Operation Felix
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Operation Felix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix
See also: Military history of Gibraltar during World War II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ld_War_II


Before Franco and Hitler's October 1940 meeting in Hendaye, there had been Spanish-German planning for an attack, from Spain, upon the British territory of Gibraltar which was, and is, a British dependency and military base. At the time, Gibraltar was important for control of the western exit from the Mediterranean and the sea routes to the Suez Canal and Middle East, as well as Atlantic patrols.

The Germans also appreciated the strategic importance of north-west Africa for bases and as a route for any future American involvement. Therefore, the plans included the occupation of the region by substantial German forces, to forestall any future Allied invasion attempt.

After the war, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel said: "Instead of attacking Russia, we should have strangled the British Empire by closing the Mediterranean. The first step in the operation would have been the conquest of Gibraltar. That was another great opportunity we missed."[15] If that had succeeded, Hermann Göring proposed that Germany would "... offer Britain the right to resume peaceful traffic through the Mediterranean if she came to terms with Germany and joined us in a war against Russia".[14]

As the war progressed and the tide turned against the Axis, the Germans planned for the event of an Allied attack through Spain. There were three successive plans, progressively less aggressive as German capability waned:

Operation Isabella
This was planned in April 1941 as a reaction to a proposed British landing on the Iberian peninsula near Gibraltar. German troops would advance into Spain to support Franco and expel the British wherever they landed.

Operation Ilona or Gisella
Ilona was a scaled down version of Isabella, subsequently renamed Gisella. Devised in May 1942, to be invoked whether or not Spain stayed neutral. Ten German divisions would advance to Barcelona and, if necessary, towards Salamanca to support the Spanish army in fighting another proposed Allied landing either from the Mediterranean or Atlantic coasts.

Operation Nurnberg
Devised in June 1943, Nurnberg was purely a defensive operation in the Pyrenees along both sides of the Spanish-French border in the event of Allied landings in the Iberian peninsula, which were to repel an Allied advance from Spain into France.

[adiekmann]

"Fastest Fork Wins!":"???":

"Kondi" was discussing for example... 2-paths-directions-choices as to how to proceed with the war in 'Russia'. I see either of these paths as being single-line-solitaire efforts to complete the task of removing Russia from being a threat for or to the Germans in the war.

Either of these choices would be complete campaigns in themselves... not included with many splintering vectors of approach to continually side-line the main task... which are not relevant to the original task at hand... for instance... such as part-way... dashing off to 'North-Africa'... while not completing the Barbarossa-Mission... itself in its entirety.

Where sideline missions... are 'Relevant' to the 'Original' or 'Main-Mission' of the 'Campaign'... such as perhaps... the Germans making an effort to secure 'Gibraltar' in 'Spain'... well!... this in itself would or should not disrupt the primary 'Barbarossa-Effort'... but could definitely influence it perhaps... by restricting or reducing the amount of 'Lend-Lease' consignments coming from 'Britain' [As now they would have more pressing matters to be concerned with]... which were shipped to 'Russia'.

So!... at this point... I'm failing to understand... "Where the Issue or Problem is???". There doesn't have to be a problem here!. What am I missing?.

I am not opposed to a single "optional" scenario or the like. I just don't want to have to replay the entire DLC, or be forced to miss some of the maps because I had to make a decision. I am not a big fan of the AO39 map where you trick the Blue and Red French armies to fight each other in the center of the map. I appreciate the creativeness, but that's a bit silly. However, more importantly, whether you choose to play it or not, you are not affecting the number of heroes you earn, nor denying your core of any additional experience because neither is possible either way. But still, wouldn't you rather have had the effort that had gone into making that scenario spent on an additional Poland map, for instance? Or expanded the fight in Finland? Something that was more meaningful in both the narrative, history, and gameplay purposes?

That's all I am saying. Not the one off. If you really wanted a spinoff where you invade Spain and Gibraltar, for instance, wouldn't you rather have that be given a proper treatment like the Saar Offensive was? Not just a one-off scenario? That to me is more distraction than adding flavor.

[kondi754]

"Fastest Fork Wins!":"???":

"Kondi" was discussing for example... 2-paths-directions-choices as to how to proceed with the war in 'Russia'. I see either of these paths as being single-line-solitaire efforts to complete the task of removing Russia from being a threat for or to the Germans in the war.

Either of these choices would be complete campaigns in themselves... not included with many splintering vectors of approach to continually side-line the main task... which are not relevant to the original task at hand... for instance... such as part-way... dashing off to 'North-Africa'... while not completing the Barbarossa-Mission... itself in its entirety.

Where sideline missions... are 'Relevant' to the 'Original' or 'Main-Mission' of the 'Campaign'... such as perhaps... the Germans making an effort to secure 'Gibraltar' in 'Spain'... well!... this in itself would or should not disrupt the primary 'Barbarossa-Effort'... but could definitely influence it perhaps... by restricting or reducing the amount of 'Lend-Lease' consignments coming from 'Britain' [As now they would have more pressing matters to be concerned with]... which were shipped to 'Russia'.

So!... at this point... I'm failing to understand... "Where the Issue or Problem is???". There doesn't have to be a problem here!. What am I missing?.

I am not opposed to a single "optional" scenario or the like. I just don't want to have to replay the entire DLC, or be forced to miss some of the maps because I had to make a decision. I am not a big fan of the AO39 map where you trick the Blue and Red French armies to fight each other in the center of the map. I appreciate the creativeness, but that's a bit silly. However, more importantly, whether you choose to play it or not, you are not affecting the number of heroes you earn, nor denying your core of any additional experience because neither is possible either way. But still, wouldn't you rather have had the effort that had gone into making that scenario spent on an additional Poland map, for instance? Or expanded the fight in Finland? Something that was more meaningful in both the narrative, history, and gameplay purposes?

That's all I am saying. Not the one off. If you really wanted a spinoff where you invade Spain and Gibraltar, for instance, wouldn't you rather have that be given a proper treatment like the Saar Offensive was? Not just a one-off scenario? That to me is more distraction than adding flavor.

You really wouldn't want 3 game options: North, Central, South?
However, it seems to me that creators will propose only 1 path - 1 general who gets different assignments (HQ treats him rather as a "fireman" so far ), and if he has to fight near Leningrad, he will miss the battle of Kiev for example

[adiekmann]

"Fastest Fork Wins!":"???":

"Kondi" was discussing for example... 2-paths-directions-choices as to how to proceed with the war in 'Russia'. I see either of these paths as being single-line-solitaire efforts to complete the task of removing Russia from being a threat for or to the Germans in the war.

Either of these choices would be complete campaigns in themselves... not included with many splintering vectors of approach to continually side-line the main task... which are not relevant to the original task at hand... for instance... such as part-way... dashing off to 'North-Africa'... while not completing the Barbarossa-Mission... itself in its entirety.

Where sideline missions... are 'Relevant' to the 'Original' or 'Main-Mission' of the 'Campaign'... such as perhaps... the Germans making an effort to secure 'Gibraltar' in 'Spain'... well!... this in itself would or should not disrupt the primary 'Barbarossa-Effort'... but could definitely influence it perhaps... by restricting or reducing the amount of 'Lend-Lease' consignments coming from 'Britain' [As now they would have more pressing matters to be concerned with]... which were shipped to 'Russia'.

So!... at this point... I'm failing to understand... "Where the Issue or Problem is???". There doesn't have to be a problem here!. What am I missing?.

I am not opposed to a single "optional" scenario or the like. I just don't want to have to replay the entire DLC, or be forced to miss some of the maps because I had to make a decision. I am not a big fan of the AO39 map where you trick the Blue and Red French armies to fight each other in the center of the map. I appreciate the creativeness, but that's a bit silly. However, more importantly, whether you choose to play it or not, you are not affecting the number of heroes you earn, nor denying your core of any additional experience because neither is possible either way. But still, wouldn't you rather have had the effort that had gone into making that scenario spent on an additional Poland map, for instance? Or expanded the fight in Finland? Something that was more meaningful in both the narrative, history, and gameplay purposes?

That's all I am saying. Not the one off. If you really wanted a spinoff where you invade Spain and Gibraltar, for instance, wouldn't you rather have that be given a proper treatment like the Saar Offensive was? Not just a one-off scenario? That to me is more distraction than adding flavor.

You really wouldn't want 3 game options: North, Central, South?
However, it seems to me that creators will propose only 1 path - 1 general who gets different assignments (HQ treats him rather as a "fireman" so far ), and if he has to fight near Leningrad, he will miss the battle of Kiev for example

Sure, I won't mind three options - if they each were 12-16 scenarios long. However, we all know they are not going to make a 36-48 scenario long DLC. It would have to be three separate DLCs, (one for each path) which is exactly what I have proposed at the beginning. Greater depth each, more DLCs in total. So instead of one AO41, make three for each of the paths.

However, I highly doubt they would do that. For one, I think many players would want to move on to another time, theater, or not play with the same models of tanks and so forth if they made the next three DLCs all on the Eastern Front and occurring in 1941. I mean you already have some on this forum who have voiced the wish to take a break from the German DLCs and switch over to an Allied one. I think that's just as unlikely to happen. Besides, even if they did make three AO41 DLCs all on the EF and charged US $50 for this mega-DLC, now imagine how long it would take to develop and test it? I also don't think they'd want the consumer to have to wait that long.

So with all of those "realities" in mind, that brings me back to my original point. I want as long a DLC as possible, but with all of those scenarios being played linearly. And to keep it somewhat fresh, go ahead and include as many unique battles as possible. Certain battles are must-haves at the same time, like the drive on Moscow, that are too pivotal to exclude. It is like a buffet. Lot's of good choices, but you can't eat them all. Hard decisions need to be made. I just want to make sure I still get a full plate. (Funny; I actually hate buffets.)

[BaronVonWalrus]

I'm all for actually being able to prioritise the capture the power station at Volkhov and then fighting my way to the (rather beautiful and slightly Roman) central square in Leningrad / St Petersburg and taking a tour around the Hermitage.

If you haven't yet been to St Petersburg, go.

If anyone can recommend an efficient, reasonably inexpensive way to do Volgograd from the UK, please let me know!