(Sorry for my English.)

Unlike other ideas, originating yet from the CoH1, this one is relatively fresh. It was inspired by attempts to reproduce with the "All Units" mod famous historical battles from such campaigns as "D-Day", "Market Garden", "Ardennes" and some from the Soviet Front.

What was impossible to reproduce? The "early-game" battles with special forces like paratroopers, rangers, partisans, and so on.

Why can the Airborne be airdropped only after the main HQ and the main army are developed enough?
What about the Ranger motto? — "Rangers lead the way!"
Why do the U.S. Rear Echelon Troops appear in the field first, being in the "rear" at the same time? While they must appear at least in the second order. The first order is for assault engineers.

Same for Soviets and partisans.

But CoH2 campaign scenarios still comply with "history" ("comply with history" not by itself, but only in contrast with its own game modes).

-------------

From the other point of view.

The first sentence of the "All Units" mod description is: - "All commander and campaign specific units, upgrades and abilities are now available!"

Is it possible to bring in the skirmish/multi-player game not only "campaign specific" units, but also "campaign specific" scenarios of battles?

-------------

First of all, again, the balance. And here is the same as with almost all other ideas. Definitely, it is possible to implement the balance step-by-step without loss of playability in each stage. Some good mods yet from the CoH1 were unbalanced against A.I., and they said, what it was because A.I. had not been able to learn new features. While at least on first stages it was enough only to make a good balance against A.I., not to teach it.

-------------

The idea by itself.

Let all the units are still available in the later stages of a game. This is without changes. But let doctrines receive greater influence in the earlier stages.

Let (this is an independent suggestion) certain types of units (squads, vehicles) are considered to be not merely "doctrinal", but in general as sub-factions (airborne, commando, rangers, partisans, Luftwaffe, etc). Let each sub-faction has its own HQ, commander and retreat point (the last may be implemented with retreat sub-menu in squad's menu, and this is not a fresh idea).

And let the game begins without the main HQ at all. As in some campaign scenarios. But which HQ, the game begins with, let it is determined by doctrines.

If, at the beginning of a game, a human player chooses a special "doctrinal" HQ, then let this special HQ "economically" (but not directly) locks the main HQ in the early stages. And in such case let the general army HQ can be constructed (unlocked) only after receiving a certain number of resources, i.e., after the later stages. Or else let the main HQ will be built and the game will continue as usual, with ability to build special HQs later at the corresponding cost of resources.

For some "early-game" doctrines (airborne, "glideral", partisan) let that special HQ may be constructed in any territorial sector, not necessarily being linked with other captured territory, but with restriction to be single per a doctrine.

Let that special HQ generates (or does not) some few income, but let its main feature is to exchange the manpower for the munition an the fuel, by one way or another, (say, for the airborne doctrine, by airdropping of resources at the cost of the manpower). So in the early game the corresponding sub-faction will be to balance between exchanging the manpower for resources and calling other "doctrinal" units, until the main HQ will become available for building.

Let all "early-game" doctrines may freely co-exist each with other in the later stages of the game, and are restricted to co-existence only "economically" in the early stages.

All described must have an effect only on the early (and maybe middle) game, but the later game should stay as usual. With the exception of the independent suggestion to better mark off the sub-factions (their own HQs, commanders and retreat points).

-------------

For example, the US faction and its sub-factions. Same for other factions (with some uniqueness).

(By the way, the US vanilla circular HQ is a bad design and balance solution. The perfect circle is unnatural. But it is yet not the worst, with or without perfect circle it is not very bad to have some pre-built fortifications around the main HQ. The worst is not to have an ability to choose places for other HQs and quantity of unit building queues. And some other mods are already abandoning this. Is not it the time to do the same?)

Let from the beginning the US faction has no any HQ (only some flag or other sign in place of main HQ).

For non-commando "early-game" doctrines let the engineers will be called and the main HQ will be built at its usual place.

Or else, let one wants to reproduce the Market Garden scenario. So a human player have to choose the Airborne Doctrine, and in this case, after choosing, let cost of building the general army HQ becomes very big for the early stage of the game. Because this is the Market Garden! There are neither engineers in the place of landing, nor even more Rear Echelon Troops, beсause there is no any "rear" yet! And the natural legend for the big cost of building the main army HQ - is the cost of preparations for the landing operation, and also the absence of regular army engineers in the place of landing.

But instead of main HQ, let the player is able to airdrop pathfinders, straight without any command points. As in the scenario of the second CoH1 mission "Vierville".

Let pathfinders, in their turn, may construct the airborne HQ beacon (or radar). Let they can build it in any map sector (the Market Garden scenario!), but only in one sector. Let they (as all airborne squads) also are able to capture territory sectors, but, by the "early-game" airborne doctrine, without the main HQ let the captured territorial sectors will not be linked and will not generate income of munition and fuel, with the exception of the sector of the Airborne HQ.

After being built, let the Airborne HQ may (or may not) generate some few income, but let its main feature is to exchange (say, by airdropping) the manpower for the munition an the fuel.

So, by the Market Garden scenario, let the paratroopers, with only available for them weapons and armor, are to hold the bridgehead, balancing between the calling new squads and the exchanging the manpower for resources. Until the resources will not be enough to build the main HQ (or yet another doctrinal HQ), and yet by calling some squad which can build that HQ. But this may not be enough, if the Airborne HQ sector is far away from the main HQ, the rest of army must break through to the Airborne HQ, or else paratroopers have to retreat to the main HQ (if they will be still alive).

--------------

The same example (with some uniqueness) may be for rangers, the Pointe-du-Hoc "early-game" scenario, and for the "early-game" Infantry Doctrine at all. With the exception that though ranger should have their own HQ, they could not build their HQ in an unlinked territorial sector.

--------------

The same (with some unique features, of course) for the partisans and other commando.