INTRODUCTION
This is a Generated Campaign format (using Enhanced DVRN) based on the feedback provided in the ‘Survey Regarding Campaign Forces’ thread. The comments I read most often were that single-player campaigns were generally not very challenging after 22 or so battles. This campaign format is intended to keep the campaign challenging right up to the very end of the campaign. This campaign format was developed using Enhanced DVRN, but is fully compatible with Enhanced DV as well.
Why a Generated Campaign and not a Long Campaign? The most important reason is to lengthen the time between battles. The more time between battles, then the more challenging the campaign. Why? Mainly because your equipment will become obsolete faster. This campaign is set up for 4 battles per year, which puts serious pressure on you since this means that you will be fighting more battles with old equipment. Another reason is that a Generated Campaign can vary terrain and opponent from battle to battle. This makes the Generated Campaign more interesting and more challenging.
Objective 1: Limit experience gains between battles.
This is accomplished in two ways.
Way #1. The number of the battles in the campaign is reduced to approximately 4 per year. This means that the total maximum possible experience gain is reduced. It also means that core units will become obsolete more often, which will then require upgrades which further reduce experience.
Way #2. The core is initially composed of many units in need of upgrading. It defeats the purpose of this campaign if many/most units in the core never need to be upgraded. Thus, having many initial core units in need of upgrading means that immediate pressure is put on the player to start the upgrade process immediately, thereby lowering unit experience.
Objective 2: Limit build points between battles.
This is accomplished in three ways.
Way #1. By selecting settings that only give advantages to the computer, which should increase losses against the human player, thereby requiring more build points to repair units between battles.
Way #2. Units going obsolete faster means that more upgrades will be needed, thereby requiring the player to spend build points that he might otherwise have accumulated.
Way #3. By reducing the total number of battles in the campaign, the total number of build points is also reduced.
22 Battles, Sept 1939 -- Apr 1945
In the ‘Survey Regarding Campaign Forces’ thread, it was established that any campaign longer than 22 battles became substantially easier because the core became too highly experienced. Therefore, 22 battles. All battles should be played using AI Advantage ON and Hard Battle (x2).
NATION
Germany. Why Germany? First, only the Germans are consistently attacking from 1939-1945. Second, the Allies get stronger and the Germans get weaker over the course of the campaign. Allied airpower and artillery is capable of completely wiping out your battlegroup late in the campaign. This makes the campaign more challenging. Use only Germans (core and support) throughout this campaign.
TERRAIN
Sept 1939 – Jun 1940 [1d6: 1-4 = Plains, 5-6 = Forest]
Sept 1940 – Jun 1941 [Desert]
Sept 1941 – Apr 1945 [1d6: 1-4 = Plains, 5-6 = Forest]
OPPONENT
Sept 1939 (1 battle), Poland
Dec 1939 – Jun 1940 (3 battles), France
Sep 1940 – Jun 1941 (4 battles), U.K.
Sep 1941 – Apr 1945 (14 battles), U.S.S.R.
BATTLE TYPES
Play only Assault and Advance and Meeting Engagements against the computer. Do not play Defend and Delay missions against the computer. Re-load until an Assault or Advance or Meeting Engagement is generated. Why? Because the computer is incompetent when advancing/assaulting, and only offers a better challenge when defending. 22 battles should generate, on average, 7 Assaults, 7 Advances, 7 Meeting Engagements, and 1 ‘left over’. Since this campaign format is extremely difficult, I repeat extremely difficult, I recommend using the ‘left over’ battle as a Meeting Engagement or Advance (not an Assault) in Battle #1 against Poland. I cannot stress enough how difficult this campaign format is. Don’t feel like you are getting an advantage by fighting an Advance or Meeting Engagement, and not an Assault, in Battle #1. You aren’t, I assure you.
THE CORE
The following core is recommended and has been battle tested (Enhanced DVRN, Country Training ON). It is fully motorized and self-contained (composed of a realistic mix of all arms, including small AT and AA and mortar elements), and the tank strengths are historically proportional (based on German historical operational tank strengths on 1 September 1939). I recommend that you try a campaign with this core first before trying a different core in a subsequent campaign.
1x A0 (141 pts)
1x LBM Ammo Halftrack section (92 pts)
1x Halftrack section, for the A0 and the forward observers (38 pts)
3x Forward Observers (45 pts)
3x 37mm AT sections (108 pts)
3x Opel Blitz sections (54 pts)
3x 20mm AA sections (66 pts)
3x Opel Blitz sections (54 pts)
1x PzG Motorized Infantry company [Opel Blitz; SdKfz 6; 37mm AT, 20mm AA, 150mm IG] (605 pts)
1x Engineer company (301 pts)
14x Opel Blitz, for the Engineers [2x Opel sections + 2x Opel platoons] (126 pts)
2x Motorized Weapons platoons, 1 each for the infantry/engineer companies [Opel Blitz] (110 pts each x2 = 220 pts)
3x Light Recon platoons [SdKfz 221; 3xMotorrad Grp; SdKfz 231 8 Rad] (161 pts each x3 = 483 pts)
1x Pz-IB company (396 pts)
1x Pz-IIC company (660 pts)
1x Pz-IVC platoon (176 pts)
1x Pz-IIIE reduced platoon (3 tanks, 138 pts)
Total of 201 units in 52 formations (3.86 units per formation), 3703 pts
Note1: 3703 pts divided by 201 units = 18.42 pts per unit average (and since 233 pts are tied up in the A0 and the ammo section, which is why the LBM ammo section was chosen to make the core actually weaker, the actual fighting average per unit is even weaker than 18.42 pts per unit).
Note2: By purchasing the Pz-IIIE platoon last, only 3 tanks are purchased (due to the limit of 201 units in the core). This is for the initial historical armor proportions (I know that your armor strengths and proportions will change after the first battle, but at least you will start the campaign with historical proportions).
Note3: This core is weak and is badly in need of upgrade (for instance, you have only two 81mm mortars in your core). That is one reason that this core is recommended. It has been purposefully designed (after much testing and deliberation) to be realistic and historical as well as challenging. Every unit has been carefully chosen with that in mind. How you decide to turn this core into an effective battlegroup (for instance, how will you deal with masses of enemy bombers in 1944-45?) is one of the biggest challenges awaiting you.
ARTILLERY
On-map artillery (core and support) may never exceed 81mm
Meeting Engagement:
No pre-registered target hexes
No pre-game bombardment
Off-map artillery may not exceed 105mm
Advance:
Pre-registered target hexes allowed
Pre-game bombardment allowed
Off-map artillery may not exceed 105mm
Assault:
Pre-registered target hexes allowed
Pre-game bombardment allowed
Off-map artillery may not exceed 150mm
STACKING
Recommended. I try to limit stacking to 2-3 units per hex in the combat zone, in the rear I might go up to double that. And under no circumstances do I voluntarily stack more than 6 units per hex (except only when I unload troops from vehicles in a hex, and even then I subsequently unstack that hex as fast as I can). Use common sense.
POST-BATTLE ‘FIX ALL’
The very first action taken following the completion of a battle is to immediately ‘Fix All’. This must be done before anything else. This serves not only to limit Build Points (BPs), but also acts as an indirect way of rewarding players for not suffering high casualties in battle. This mandatory ‘Fix All’ is not an option and is required. It is essential to the way the Campaign Scoring System works as described below.
CAMPAIGN SCORING SYSTEM
This is the heart and soul, the bedrock foundation, of the campaign. There’s no point in playing this campaign format unless you use this scoring system. The scoring system rewards players for not spending Build Points (BPs) between battles, and rewards players for not spending Support Points (SPs) during battles. The concept is that BPs and SPs represent resources vital to the overall war economy. If you don’t use those resources, then those resources can be used for other things (like submarines, aircraft, ships, etc.). However, and here is the rub, if you conserve resources and fail on the battlefield, then you haven’t helped the war effort either. So, there is a fine balance between success on the battlefield and conserving war resources. If you spend lots of BPs and SPs, then you better win big on the battlefield. But if you can win on the battlefield and NOT spend lots of BPs and SPs, then you will score very well in this campaign. Otherwise, you will score not so well. And that is what makes this campaign so challenging.
There’s no point in playing this campaign format unless you use this scoring system. It’s the whole idea behind the campaign.
Base Score = the standard score you get at the end of any campaign
Build Points = the number of BPs you have at the end of Battle #21 (you never know how many BPs you have at the end of Battle #22, since the campaign ends, so you have to use the BPs at the end of Battle #21)
Support Points = the total number of SPs you used during the campaign (you will have to write down and maintain a running total on paper)
Campaign Score = Base Score * BPs / (SPs/3)
Example: I finish the 22 battles with 7 Decisive Victories, 7 Marginal Victories, 7 Draws, and 1 Marginal Defeat, which yields a Base Score of 27 (7*3 + 7*1 + 7*0 – 1 = 27). I have 20,000 BPs unspent after Battle #21. I used 30,000 SPs in the 22 battles. My Campaign Score is 27*20000 / (30000/3) = 540000 / 10000 = 54. 54 is a terrible score indicative of a very poor performance. Why is this such a poor score? Because I used way too many SPs and did not save enough BPs during the course of the campaign. In other words, I diverted vital resources (in the form of BPs and SPs) from the overall war economy and did not achieve great success on the battlefield even with all those resources.
Scoring Handicaps. I place a lot of handicaps on myself to make the battles more challenging. As a result, the scoring system above is very simple since I already handicap myself a lot. However, it is possible that you might be unwilling or unable to use all the handicaps I use. So here is what you can do: just add a certain percentage to a multiplier to be applied to the SPs at the end of the campaign for every advantage that you give yourself compared to the handicaps I use (based on the list of the handicaps I’ve provided). For example, I play with C&C ON. This makes the game much more challenging. But many players are unwilling/unable to use C&C ON. In that case, use a 15%-20% multiplier to SPs at the end of the game (I recommend 20%). Some people like to use Reduced Squads ON and Reduced Ammo ON, even though that hurts the computer more than the human. In that case use a 2%-5% multiplier for each (I recommend 3%). Simply add up all the advantages you give yourself (as percentages), and use that as a multiplier to SPs at the end of the campaign. Example: Let’s say you decide to use C&C OFF and Reduced Squads ON and Reduced Ammo ON. That would be a 26% (20%+3%+3%) multiplier to SPs at the end of the campaign. In the campaign scoring example above, 27*20000 / (1.26*30000/3) = 540000 / 12600 = 42.8. You might have to be creative in the percentages you give yourself for making your campaign easier. For example, I restrict myself to 81mm on-map artillery. If you decide to use no artillery restrictions on-map, then I have no idea how huge an advantage you are giving yourself (although, for me, that would be at least a 25%-50% advantage, and probably more). So, you will have to come up with your own percentage estimates when giving yourself advantages in many cases. But here is the bottom line. It is the scoring system itself that matters. There’s no point in playing this campaign format unless you use the scoring system. The percentage modifiers for advantages are insignificant compared to the scoring system itself. The important thing is the scoring system and the concept behind it.
THE SETTINGS
See the screenshot below.
Notes to the settings:
1. Message Delay and Live Delay set to XXX. This creates a definite ‘Fog of War’ for the human player and makes the game harder.
2. Controlled Op-Fire turned OFF (set to 0). This makes the game harder.
3. AI Advantage ON (also set to Hard Battle (x2) in your battle purchase screen). This makes the game harder.
4. True Troop ON and Rarity OFF. This does not make the game harder. However, due to the way the scoring system penalizes players for spending Build Points and Support Points, then Rarity OFF is rendered not very important.
5. Auto Rally OFF. This makes the game harder.
6. AI Level set to 200. This makes the game harder.
7. C&C ON, Limited Ammo ON, and Reduced Squads OFF. I realize that these settings I use are unpopular choices. If you decide to play with C&C OFF, Reduced Ammo ON, and/or Reduced Squads ON, then adjust your handicap percentages (to reflect the advantage(s) you are giving yourself) when calculating your campaign score.
8. Spotting and Hitting and Rout/Rally and Tank Toughness and Inf Toughness are set to 110% for the computer. This makes the game harder.
1942 SPECIAL: At the end of 1941 (in between your 10th and 11th battles), set the Spotting and Hitting and Rout/Rally and Tank Toughness and Inf Toughness to 120% for the computer. This makes the game harder. Write this down (on the same paper you are recording your support point expenditures) so you don’t forget.
RESTRICTIONS
I am not allowed to conduct Airstrikes.
I am not allowed to conduct Airdrops.
I am not allowed to conduct commando Special Operations.
I am not allowed to use any Reinforcements.
I am not allowed to have my engineers lay any mines.
CAMPAIGN FORMAT SUMMARY
1. Use a Generated Campaign and do not use a Long Campaign, because with a generated campaign you can control the time between battles, the terrain, and the opponent. I recommend 3 months between battles (4 battles per year). More than 4 battles per year makes the campaign easier and fewer than 4 battles per year makes the campaign harder. Limit your total number of battles to 22 or less. More than 22 battles make the campaign easier and fewer than 22 battles makes the campaign harder.
2. Campaign Scoring System. This entire campaign format is designed around the campaign scoring system described above (based on rewarding players for not spending Build Points between battles and not spending Support Points during battles). No point in playing this campaign format if you don’t use this campaign scoring system.
3. A large, weak, core to start the campaign. You can have a maximum core size of 201 units. The larger your starting core, the more difficult the campaign will be. No matter what sized core you choose, the average points per unit should be 18.5 or less (the recommended core provided above is 3703 points and 201 units for an average of 18.42 points per unit). An average points per unit greater than 18.5 makes the campaign easier and an average less than 18.5 points per unit makes the campaign harder. The number of formations in your core should average around 4 units per formation (the recommended core provided above has 201 units and 52 formations for an average of 3.86 units per formation). An average of less than 4 units per formation makes the campaign easier, and an average of greater than 4 units per formation makes the campaign harder.
4. Choose an Axis nation for your core and only use that nation (core and support) throughout the campaign. Playing an Allied nation is easier than playing an Axis nation because the Allies get stronger and the Axis gets weaker as the campaign goes on (especially in terms of airpower). Playing the Germans in this campaign format is very difficult, although it is still possible to score well. But playing one of the other Axis nations is probably nearly impossible to score well. The ultimate nightmare challenge, therefore, would be to try this campaign format as one of the other Axis nations. I freely admit that I probably cannot successfully complete this campaign format playing one of the other Axis nations. I don’t think I have enough skill as a player. But I wish you good luck if you choose to try.
5. Play only Advance, Assault, and Meeting Engagement missions against the computer. This campaign format becomes far too easy if Delay and Defend missions are allowed, far too easy. In addition, if you try to play Delay and Defend missions against the computer, then late in the campaign the computer might not be able to spend enough points (it could try to exceed 20,000 points) to conduct Advance and Assault missions against you, and this will cause the battle to abort, thus ruining the campaign. I repeat, play only Advance, Assault, and Meeting Engagement missions against the computer.
To conclude, I’ve put a lot of time and effort and thought into this campaign format. If played as designed, it is demanding and challenging. I think that this new campaign scoring system is a relatively simple yet fun way to improve on the old scoring system. It gives the campaign a whole new flavor, and it makes every build point and every support point count. If you decide to give this campaign format a try, then please post the results of your experience. I’d very much like to read about your campaign adventure.
