AO1942 and Beyond

[makoto14]

Just got done with AO1941 for the first time. Went down the Army Group Center tree so going to have to play it again to see what the north scenarios are like. That being said I just realized that at the end of AO1941, my panzers have invaded both Russia and UK and been pushed back, probably unable to force a surrender of both countries. Does this mean that AO1942 and beyond will be a slow defensive grind to AO1945 on both of the fronts? No chance for a non historical route in AO? Should I buy more 88mm guns to shoot down the coming IS-2 monsters? I know nobody has the answer and I don't think the devs will tell us so just curious if people have ideas on how AO plays out.

[BaronVonKrieg]

Just got done with AO1941 for the first time. Went down the Army Group Center tree so going to have to play it again to see what the north scenarios are like. That being said I just realized that at the end of AO1941, my panzers have invaded both Russia and UK and been pushed back, probably unable to force a surrender of both countries. Does this mean that AO1942 and beyond will be a slow defensive grind to AO1945 on both of the fronts? No chance for a non historical route in AO? Should I buy more 88mm guns to shoot down the coming IS-2 monsters? I know nobody has the answer and I don't think the devs will tell us so just curious if people have ideas on how AO plays out.

yeah it will probably be the historical route all the way no matter your victories same as it was in grand campaign on panzer corps 1, at least i see it that way

[Tassadar]

I would be a fan of keeping the fully fictional route for an entirely separate AO, maybe branching off at one point in 1943 or 1944. This would make it independent of already rich historical branching and also increase the potential to add futuristic awards. That said a few fictional scenarios here and there won't hurt as optional missions.

[Xenos]

Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.

[Scrapulous]

Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.

I get what you're saying, but I differ with your claim of what's realistic. After Germany opened up the eastern front, the outcome (in terms of "win" or "loss" for Germany) was no longer a matter of dispute, it just became a matter of when. It's easier to see that now than it was at the time, of course, but certainly after Stalingrad, generals on all sides were basically fighting for time and lives saved, not to change whether Germany wins or not. There are definitely some "hinge factor" battles that have outsized consequences, but once the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, the outcome was certain. The best that German generals could hope for at that point was to stall for time or make things so expensive for their enemies that Germany could negotiate a peace that wasn't crippling. It's also arguable that German success on the battlefield created an environment where a negotiated peace was impossible; in other words, the success of German generals resulted in worse fortunes for Germany.

[Xenos]

Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.

I get what you're saying, but I differ with your claim of what's realistic. After Germany opened up the eastern front, the outcome (in terms of "win" or "loss" for Germany) was no longer a matter of dispute, it just became a matter of when. It's easier to see that now than it was at the time, of course, but certainly after Stalingrad, generals on all sides were basically fighting for time and lives saved, not to change whether Germany wins or not. There are definitely some "hinge factor" battles that have outsized consequences, but once the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, the outcome was certain. The best that German generals could hope for at that point was to stall for time or make things so expensive for their enemies that Germany could negotiate a peace that wasn't crippling. It's also arguable that German success on the battlefield created an environment where a negotiated peace was impossible; in other words, the success of German generals resulted in worse fortunes for Germany.

Very few things are certain in history... sure, if you mathematically compare all the factors, production, terrain, manpower... then the situation looks fairly grim for Germany. But a political collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't out of the picture. Let's just say you manage to take Moscow swiftly and capture the whole Politburo, the republics declare independence and rise up before German atrocities pushes them away. Or let's say that the kind of colossal victories you achieve in this game, even larger in magnitude than reality, convince the Japanese to purse a northern strategy instead of a southern one... there are possibilities.

[GUNDOBALDO08]

I dont like fictional scenarios. Hope that devs keep historical path till 1945, maybe they could add same addictional dlc entirely for fictional path but without sacrifice the historical one

[o_t_d_x]

Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.

I get what you're saying, but I differ with your claim of what's realistic. After Germany opened up the eastern front, the outcome (in terms of "win" or "loss" for Germany) was no longer a matter of dispute, it just became a matter of when. It's easier to see that now than it was at the time, of course, but certainly after Stalingrad, generals on all sides were basically fighting for time and lives saved, not to change whether Germany wins or not. There are definitely some "hinge factor" battles that have outsized consequences, but once the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, the outcome was certain. The best that German generals could hope for at that point was to stall for time or make things so expensive for their enemies that Germany could negotiate a peace that wasn't crippling. It's also arguable that German success on the battlefield created an environment where a negotiated peace was impossible; in other words, the success of German generals resulted in worse fortunes for Germany.

Very few things are certain in history... sure, if you mathematically compare all the factors, production, terrain, manpower... then the situation looks fairly grim for Germany. But a political collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't out of the picture. Let's just say you manage to take Moscow swiftly and capture the whole Politburo, the republics declare independence and rise up before German atrocities pushes them away. Or let's say that the kind of colossal victories you achieve in this game, even larger in magnitude than reality, convince the Japanese to purse a northern strategy instead of a southern one... there are possibilities.

One word: oil.

The big strenght of the germans was the combined fighting of air force and fast moving tank spearheads, that opened holes in the enemy lines to encircle them and force them to surrender. They never had enough oil in the german russian war, after the first few month in 41. Every german general knew, that if they dont win 41, its over. (and the german logistic experts said before barbarossa started: 300km, then our supply line is dangerously stretched - and they didnt imagine 1 million partisans attacking their supply lines all the time which happened later on) Hitler expected russia to be much weaker, because of his incompetent secret service. (its leader was executed 45 for that) They told him that russia is a giant on weak feet, that will easily fall. And it looked like that, when the russians blamed themselfes in finland. (combined with the nazi hubris, that was created through their chain of victorys and their natural arrogance all this created a picture that let the russians look weak in hitlers eyes) But we all know, that russia was much stronger then all germans expected. Its a different story if you fight against total annihilation of your people. Hitler was a fool, he united stalin and his people, he united capitalists and communists. He was no good politican. His major skill was talking in front of many people.

Even the first big victorys only happened, because the red army had lost many experienced commanders through stalins "cleanings" and other self made problems of the udssr. It was the perfect moment for barbarossa, but without the necessary strategic reserves and ressources, it was a useless effort that killed millions for nothing. Maybe russia would have fallen, if japan would have been a part of barbarossa, but in the end you have the oil problem again.

If the japanese would have won a decisive victory at midway (sink all us carriers and loose few themselves) and invade the us full scale, maybe there would have been possibilities. (but i doubt, that they would have had the necessary ressources for such an invasion)

If PC2 would be realistic, you would have absolutly no air support, after a few days in stalingrad or kursk. Without air cover your ground troops are easy kills, even the superior german tigers. If your enemy has 90% of worlds oil (usa), then you loose. I think the sea wars (atlantic, pacific) have been more decisive, then anything else. If you control the oceans, you control world trade and the war critical ressources.

The allies had it all: Big navy, strategic bomber fleet, massproduction of everything, even without russia, germany would have had no chance. It would have lasted longer and the allies would have used nukes ag. germany. Good that we lost soon enough.

And if you think that the russian oil could have been the solution: its one thing to conquer oil fields. The other thing is to make them productive and to transport the oil where its needed. There was a reason, why no german general wanted the attack on russia.

I see only one way for german victory: no hitler. A leader that is really a good alternative to communism and the capitalists. A leader which a much more intelligent plan, a plan that puts communists ag. capitalists. (shouldnt be so hard, they are natural enemys) A leader that threats people in russia with respect for example. Then people might join willingly and everything could have been different. Their crazy hate for jews and other races, combined with their arrogance, made it impossible to win. You cant take and hold the world with lightning warfare, even if you have enough oil.

PC2 is a great game, but dont take it too seriously. Its good that its not realistic, reality is just no fun.

[Kerensky]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1072040/ ... 314338788/

The short answer is:

Yes, but it's still too early to go 'off the rails'


Players are already changing potentially changing history by even going to Britain to steal secret documents, or raiding the Kremlin for government files.

I think the content needs to cover more proper history before it's allowed to indulge in outrageous history changing events.

I mean, Panzer Corps 2 as a whole only just got it's first pieces of Balkans content in the 1941 DLC. There is a lot of serious history to cover, 1942 and 1943 are incredibly critical years of the war.

Cannot have detailed multi-scenario Kursk if you've secured the Soviet surrender in 1941.

If we change history too much too fast, we get the Panzer Corps 1 problem. Sealion 40, done with Britain, Moscow 41 done with Russia, and suddenly you are warped into USA 1945.

The idea of a set of historical and ahistorical paths has come up a few times already, but we'll just have to see what happens when we get deeper in the war.

So I guess all I can say is.. as part of a being a huge campaign adventure kinda by default means going on a really long journey.

If you really think about it, you could just stop your playthrough at 1941, say to yourself 'I won Moscow surrendered' and then wait for a future thread to (probably) explore that path. But we're still at a point where the DLC has a lot of really important historical content to flesh out and explore, and not ready to wipe Britain and the USSR off the map and prepare to invade the USA. lol

It's not about stringing out the content, it's about exploring really interesting details at a pace that allows the game to grow alongside the content. So many new units and new unit models, new mechanics, and features have been made and improved in parallel. If we just wanted to pad the game, it would be very easy to make every mission 'Capture all Victory Hexes' and not have new mechanics or new historical tidbits like the situation around Belgrade being extra special.

[Kerensky]

Some people want the DLC to be MORE historical.
Some people see more historical content as 'been there done that', and they want more fictional stuff.
There are many players who are definitely waiting in the wings for non-Axis campaigns to arrive.

In an ideal world, I think there would be a lot more DLC, and then players have more freedom of choice of 'ohh I want to buy and play X' and also say 'oh, I don't like that content, I'm not gonna buy it'. Which by the way, is a totally acceptable attitude to have.

But the more players who are vocal in request for more ahistorical paths, the more we are trying to shift future designs. We have been injecting more and more 'minor' history changes already as a direct result (ability to at least participate in Sea Lion instead of no chance at all, and potential to carry off some loot from it that is having a ripple effect of little events in following campaigns).

But it's just not quite ready to fully go 'off the rails'.

[Vorskl]

Like how you managed SeaLion - let players try it but also made it clear Germany had no chance to win. The same goes for USSR victory in 1941 - those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead. May I suggest a special objective for 1942 - a player must keep 1942 Soviet commanders alive as they did more harm for USSR than for Germany. Especially all the idiots pf the southern fronts - from Mekhles and Petrov to the Horseman Bu
denniy.

[Xenos]

I get what you're saying, but I differ with your claim of what's realistic. After Germany opened up the eastern front, the outcome (in terms of "win" or "loss" for Germany) was no longer a matter of dispute, it just became a matter of when. It's easier to see that now than it was at the time, of course, but certainly after Stalingrad, generals on all sides were basically fighting for time and lives saved, not to change whether Germany wins or not. There are definitely some "hinge factor" battles that have outsized consequences, but once the Soviet Union was fighting against Germany, the outcome was certain. The best that German generals could hope for at that point was to stall for time or make things so expensive for their enemies that Germany could negotiate a peace that wasn't crippling. It's also arguable that German success on the battlefield created an environment where a negotiated peace was impossible; in other words, the success of German generals resulted in worse fortunes for Germany.

Very few things are certain in history... sure, if you mathematically compare all the factors, production, terrain, manpower... then the situation looks fairly grim for Germany. But a political collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't out of the picture. Let's just say you manage to take Moscow swiftly and capture the whole Politburo, the republics declare independence and rise up before German atrocities pushes them away. Or let's say that the kind of colossal victories you achieve in this game, even larger in magnitude than reality, convince the Japanese to purse a northern strategy instead of a southern one... there are possibilities.

One word: oil.

The big strenght of the germans was the combined fighting of air force and fast moving tank spearheads, that opened holes in the enemy lines to encircle them and force them to surrender. They never had enough oil in the german russian war, after the first few month in 41. Every german general knew, that if they dont win 41, its over. (and the german logistic experts said before barbarossa started: 300km, then our supply line is dangerously stretched - and they didnt imagine 1 million partisans attacking their supply lines all the time which happened later on) Hitler expected russia to be much weaker, because of his incompetent secret service. (its leader was executed 45 for that) They told him that russia is a giant on weak feet, that will easily fall. And it looked like that, when the russians blamed themselfes in finland. (combined with the nazi hubris, that was created through their chain of victorys and their natural arrogance all this created a picture that let the russians look weak in hitlers eyes) But we all know, that russia was much stronger then all germans expected. Its a different story if you fight against total annihilation of your people. Hitler was a fool, he united stalin and his people, he united capitalists and communists. He was no good politican. His major skill was talking in front of many people.

Even the first big victorys only happened, because the red army had lost many experienced commanders through stalins "cleanings" and other self made problems of the udssr. It was the perfect moment for barbarossa, but without the necessary strategic reserves and ressources, it was a useless effort that killed millions for nothing. Maybe russia would have fallen, if japan would have been a part of barbarossa, but in the end you have the oil problem again.

If the japanese would have won a decisive victory at midway (sink all us carriers and loose few themselves) and invade the us full scale, maybe there would have been possibilities. (but i doubt, that they would have had the necessary ressources for such an invasion)

If PC2 would be realistic, you would have absolutly no air support, after a few days in stalingrad or kursk. Without air cover your ground troops are easy kills, even the superior german tigers. If your enemy has 90% of worlds oil (usa), then you loose. I think the sea wars (atlantic, pacific) have been more decisive, then anything else. If you control the oceans, you control world trade and the war critical ressources.

The allies had it all: Big navy, strategic bomber fleet, massproduction of everything, even without russia, germany would have had no chance. It would have lasted longer and the allies would have used nukes ag. germany. Good that we lost soon enough.

And if you think that the russian oil could have been the solution: its one thing to conquer oil fields. The other thing is to make them productive and to transport the oil where its needed. There was a reason, why no german general wanted the attack on russia.

I see only one way for german victory: no hitler. A leader that is really a good alternative to communism and the capitalists. A leader which a much more intelligent plan, a plan that puts communists ag. capitalists. (shouldnt be so hard, they are natural enemys) A leader that threats people in russia with respect for example. Then people might join willingly and everything could have been different. Their crazy hate for jews and other races, combined with their arrogance, made it impossible to win. You cant take and hold the world with lightning warfare, even if you have enough oil.

PC2 is a great game, but dont take it too seriously. Its good that its not realistic, reality is just no fun.

Indeed, I didn't say they could win a battle of attrition with the USSR. I said there were possibilities to force a surrender. Destroying the communist leadership, stirring the nationalist sentiments without alienating the population, enticing Japan into attacking Siberia and thus tying all the eastern troops... surely Germany could not win by using the exact same strategy they used in history, but that's obvious - same strategy, same results. But you, as a commander, can obtain some extraordinary victories than open up more possibilities, or even spend your prestige to change the attitude of the nation. In Panzer Corps 1 you could spend prestige to get the Italian Fleet help you in Sealion, here you could maybe spend prestige, a lot of it, to convince Japan to join.

[Xenos]

Like how you managed SeaLion - let players try it but also made it clear Germany had no chance to win. The same goes for USSR victory in 1941 - those who think Wehrmacht was one step away from the victory are grossly mislead. May I suggest a special objective for 1942 - a player must keep 1942 Soviet commanders alive as they did more harm for USSR than for Germany. Especially all the idiots pf the southern fronts - from Mekhles and Petrov to the Horseman Bu
denniy.

Honestly, attempting and then failing Sealion in 1940 makes even less sense than attempting and winning. If by some act of God the Germans were to transport and supply a whole panzer corps to England and reach London, which is what happen in game, there was no way the English could have resisted. They had very little heavy equipment after Dunkirk and, differently from the Russians, they weren't fighting a war of annihilation. Churchill would have been ousted and the Germans would have proposed relatively lenient peace terms. In the game you cross the channel, land, destroy a million tanks the English should not have, then lose the whole Kriegsmarine and somehow manage to retreat back to France sneaking past the Royal Navy. Doesn't really make any sense, it's like trying to cover a very implausible what-if with a totally absurd what-if.

[Kerensky]

Honestly, attempting and then failing Sealion in 1940 makes even less sense than attempting and winning. If by some act of God the Germans were to transport and supply a whole panzer corps to England and reach London, which is what happen in game, there was no way the English could have resisted. They had very little heavy equipment after Dunkirk and, differently from the Russians, they weren't fighting a war of annihilation. Churchill would have been ousted and the Germans would have proposed relatively lenient peace terms. In the game you cross the channel, land, destroy a million tanks the English should not have, then lose the whole Kriegsmarine and somehow manage to retreat back to France sneaking past the Royal Navy. Doesn't really make any sense, it's like trying to cover a very implausible what-if with a totally absurd what-if.

I dunno, I tend to put a bit more stock into the post war war-games that were held specifically to play out this situation.

Even had the Germans managed to get some forces across the Channel, it would not have been a permanently open supply line for them. Nevermind what Royal Navy ships were just in the immediate vicinity of Britain, there were so many more British Warships out there that could and would make life hell for any German movement within the English Channel.

Assuming a first wave would make it across, keeping those forces in any supply, or reinforcing them with additional waves, would become much harder after the invasion was launched, not easier. Assuming total German air superiority, all that accomplishes is a Stalingrad-esque situation of the only supply line being available being an airborne one.

I would argue the idea that the first wave could get the job done all by themselves is... highly unlikely.

It's why pushing the D-Day landings back as soon as they landed was so important to Rommel. The Germans had zero control over the English Channel. And once an Allied foothold on the continent was established, no interdiction would be possible. The battle would HAVE to be fought and won(historically we know it was a German loss of course) in France. Even if Hitler thought it would be possible through jet speed flying bombers.

Where-as Sea Lion for Germany faced the opposite problem. Their adversaries on the island itself might not be terribly formidable, but the efforts to expand their beachheads would be constantly suffering from naval interdiction that, at the time, they were pretty darn powerless to do anything about.

[Scrapulous]

May I suggest a special objective for 1942 - a player must keep 1942 Soviet commanders alive as they did more harm for USSR than for Germany. Especially all the idiots pf the southern fronts - from Mekhles and Petrov to the Horseman Bu
denniy.

This made me laugh. I see that when you called Voroshilov "the dumbest Soviet general" in another thread, he had some stiff competition

Also, I agree with Vorskl: I liked how Sealion was done, too. A risky, desperate operation that was lucky not to have failed worse.

[Retributarr]

DETERMINED-STRATEGIC-DECISION:

I fully understand and sympathize with the frustrations that are expounded here in this discussion. I too... very-much 'Dislike'... being forcefully regulated into a predetermined final out-come in a Game... it is very unsettling and dissatisfying.

However... the 'Real-World' determines that we will have "WWII-PzC2"... to be as close to a 'Re-creation' of that Historical-Event.

Later-on?... if there is enough interest and support for a un-regulated - Un-Scripted or Pre-Determined course of events and... or its final outcome for campaigns... a 'Hypothetical A-Historical' solution would be a way to circumvent the guaranteed success or failure of such endeavors... and would now at-last... leave it up to the 'Players-Efforts' and his particular abilities alone "to determine his own destiny!"... his own failure... or his own success!.

For the most part... the events and conflicts could remain more or less the same in the overall scheme of things... with some previous decision-making or plans that were never carried out... now added as alternate viable possibilities or offshoots and variations for the 'Player' to select and redirect the pathway of the 'Game' to some extent. Of course... these would not be the fantastical absurdities of unrealistic-fantasy... but instead be based on real life planned-possibilities that were seriously contemplated... but never acted upon or implemented or carried out.

Victories or Defeats that were previously before, but are not in the now... would then change the historical course of events as they had actually taken place into a new direction in this altered universe. These efforts of your own doing... would now redirect the actual WW2 campaign into a new...as-yet... 'undetermined direction'... where you will be at-last... the determiner of what will... and what will not take place or be... as well as to how it will finally end.

No-More!... will the 'Player'... be forced into the failure of defeat because 'History' says "It Must Be So"... when clearly... you have been the 'Viktor' in a campaign situation.

[George_Parr]

Don't think I would play historical DLC from now on. Already did that with the first Panzer Corps East and honestly I don't enjoy the idea that my efforts on the battlefield change nothing. It may be historical in a literal way, but it isn't realistic at all and makes little sense to me. It's not necessarily about going all the way to Washington, but this is an operational-level game and you're are in charge of whole invasions, realistically what you do must have some impact on the overall balance of the war.

I think it is actually very realistic. You are only operating on a very small part of the front. Succeeding in one place doesn't mean there is success everywhere else as well. Look at the scale of the Soviet counter offensive in late 1941, it covered almost the entire front. Lets say you are busy attacking Moscow, and succeed in reaching the city. How does that prevent your flanks from breaking?
It's not like the line in front of Moscow collapsed. Instead it was mostly pinned down, while the flanks were either threatened or wide open.

Same thing with Stalingrad. The Germans weren't losing in Stalingrad itself, they were cut off at the flanks. Similarly, the Italians actually held quite well in the 1942 counter offensive, but had to pull back because the neighbouring armies were losing ground.

The best German units were often rushed to hotspots to squash an enemy offensive, and they often succeeded as well, either by devastating the enemy, or at least grinding it to a halt. Didn't prevent them from being constantly pushed back along the entire front. So no matter how good they were at hurting the enemy, they still were losing ground.

There is one obvious issue, and that's the player participating in operations he couldn't possibly participate in at the same time. E.g. you get Norway, Netherlands and the push through the Ardennes, even though they were all done by different units historically, often at the exact same time. But that's the norm for a WW2 game, because most people expect to get the most famous battles. So you get all those, just like you get all the big battles in the east instead of just parts of them. In the end, you are just one small part of a bigger machine though, and no matter how much success you have, it is not going to be enough when you are just one Corps. You don't operate on an Army level, much less Army Group, you are just an elite formation. If your Corps succeeds with a breakthrough at Kursk, it still won't change that the Allies will land in Italy, that the other pincer may have been halted, or that there are counter attacks elsewhere.

[makoto14]

Some people want the DLC to be MORE historical.
Some people see more historical content as 'been there done that', and they want more fictional stuff.
There are many players who are definitely waiting in the wings for non-Axis campaigns to arrive.

In an ideal world, I think there would be a lot more DLC, and then players have more freedom of choice of 'ohh I want to buy and play X' and also say 'oh, I don't like that content, I'm not gonna buy it'. Which by the way, is a totally acceptable attitude to have.

But the more players who are vocal in request for more ahistorical paths, the more we are trying to shift future designs. We have been injecting more and more 'minor' history changes already as a direct result (ability to at least participate in Sea Lion instead of no chance at all, and potential to carry off some loot from it that is having a ripple effect of little events in following campaigns).

But it's just not quite ready to fully go 'off the rails'.

Thanks for cross posting the steam link, need to go to the steam boards more as well. I am looking forward to my wunderwaffe in AO1942, stating with a armada of Me262 from the Metor I gave old man Messerschmitt. Also maybe a civil war/coup from the Kremlin papers after a decisive win at Kursk. I will wait patiently for the day it goes off the rails. Long live the blitzkrieg

[Snake97644]

But the more players who are vocal in request for more ahistorical paths, the more we are trying to shift future designs. We have been injecting more and more 'minor' history changes already as a direct result (ability to at least participate in Sea Lion instead of no chance at all, and potential to carry off some loot from it that is having a ripple effect of little events in following campaigns).

But it's just not quite ready to fully go 'off the rails'.

In that case here is me being vocal for ahistorical dlc. As mentioned by many people before, ultimately I would welcome both a historical line and a ahistorical "victory" line. Also I think AO is a good venue to brake with some of the old Panzer General canon is you will. A German "victory" need not end in Washington. Likewise the historical path need not end in Moscow, you could end the war in Prague or Vienna, just for a change of pace.

[Wolfenguard]

i think it will goes into the direction of non historyial campaign
maybe we visit Afrika and meet Rommel Again or go to the pacific to help Japan on their attack on pearl Harbour or Attack china/Russian from the other Side