Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

[deducter]

Thanks again for the sage advice. I beat Kiev '43 just before the recent beta test started, I had to settle for Marginal Victories on all of the Kursk scenarios but got a few decisive victories over the course of 1943. I took your advice and purchased a Hornisse and used it to pretty good effect. It's low cost makes it a solid addition to the core. The air war got even tougher but some of my FW-190s got up to four stars, making them finally superior to my 109 veterans. I think the interplay of the various units works very well and I actually kind of miss it when I am playing with the stock equipment file. The medium Panzers and varying anti-tank units and advanced AFVs/anti-tank units all seem to have their own niche and set of tactical affordances. I am looking forward to 1944 once the beta test ends.

Sounds good! Keep in mind that you'll have to keep doing everything you've done in 1943 but even more so in 1944. The Red Army is tougher, the costs are higher, and while you get access to super weapons, they are extremely expensive. Fortunately, many of the scenarios are defensive in nature, and if you take advantage of terrain and choke points, you can come out of most of them in good shape.

The hardest part about 1944 is that you no longer will command a core full of 4-5 star units. It is simply unaffordable. You will have to make some very hard choices about what you want to spend your prestige on. While your veterans will still destroy the Russians, you'll find that there are simply no replacements for your elite units. This really gives you the sense of Götterdämmerung...

Don't forget to use the reform units cheat. I guarantee you will lose units in 1944. Your fighters, for instance, are no longer invincible; the Red Air Force will shoot some of them down.

I personally think getting a MV in 1944 is harder than getting a DV in the stock equipment file, so you should feel very proud to get MV.

[deducter]

I know most players are busy with beta testing, but after that's finished, I'd be interested to hear some feedback for GC43East. I'm satisfied with the big picture. The interaction of infantry, tanks, artillery, AT, fighters, bombers, and the new game rules all feel right. I'm more curious about specific units, for instance:

Are Marders still worthwhile to keep around? They have higher INI and lower costs, but poor defenses.
Is the Hornisse appropriately useful? While this unit has very low defenses, its high HA and INI allows it to destroy Russian tanks in the clear with ease, but it needs to be protected by SPAAG or fighters.
Is the Il-2 suitably hard to shoot down? Does it feel like the Fw 190A is better at shooting down a Il-2 than the Bf 109G?
Is the 88 gun still being used as a AT weapon?
Is the Fw 190F a suitably useful fighter-bomber?

Basically I'm wondering what units people have been using, and how well those are working out.

[Kamerer]

I did finish GC '43 east, on Rommel. I got sucked into the beta testing and also wanting some AK action (I love that game for some reason).

I can't recall all my thoughts at the time now but I have these experiences:

1) I did not get a hornisse. I have used them in the past with great effect, particularly at Prokhorovka were a pair of them really were standouts (I had hung on to some moderately experienced Panzerjagers idle in the core for a suitable upgrade, so they came in 12strength). This was stock core. But I learned they rapidly were too fragile to use in '44 so I did not get any this time.

2) I found the Il-2 way too hard to shoot down - even four fighters on one came away bruised and inflicting marginal damage usually. I was sorely tempted to tune it down a little. (Useless trivia: they flew the only (I think) air-worthy one in the world locally last week=end, and unfortunately I had the date wrong and missed it - bummer. But I'll go see it at the museum in a few weeks; it is now here permanently).

I can't recall all my thoughts since I started on some other things since then - but when I get back to the '44 campaign (I think I was up to Jassy-Kishinev - 2nd or 3rd scenario?), they will come back to me and I'll post more useful things.

[deducter]

2) I found the Il-2 way too hard to shoot down - even four fighters on one came away bruised and inflicting marginal damage usually. I was sorely tempted to tune it down a little. (Useless trivia: they flew the only (I think) air-worthy one in the world locally last week=end, and unfortunately I had the date wrong and missed it - bummer. But I'll go see it at the museum in a few weeks; it is now here permanently).

The idea is that you are supposed to use AA in conjunction with Fw 190 to shoot them down. In my personal experience, AA works fine on the Il-2, knocking off 2-3 str points without issue, then the Fw 190A, even one with 2 stars can knock off 2-3 strength points, and then you can use the Bf 109G if you want. Furthermore, killing them is not necessarily the highest priority; merely damaging them can send them back to air fields. I understand that they are tough, perhaps a bit too tough, but try changing your tactics first.

[4kEY]

"You are not meant to play without overstrength, it's just that which units to overstrength should be an interesting choice now, as opposed to just overstrengthing all units for all scenarios."

Just downloaded your mod, deducter. I'll post feedback when I come up with some.

[4kEY]

I started '39 on General, as I don't want any artificial handicaps on myself or the computer when getting to know this new system. So far I like the feel of it, and expect a hell of fight from the Russians at Warsaw.

I've taken the time to read your pdf manula over the last few days, and flipped through the eqp file. I have to say I am very impressed. I have not molested the eqp file, except for adding dual mode for the flak units, and 10.5 arty. I'm used to having a movement of two for units I used to think deserve it, like the towed flaks, 3.7 - 7.5 paks, 7.5 - 15cm arty, 15cm nebel, ....what do you think of that? Obviously the heavier of those should not have Mov 2. You can go crazy if you are not careful. That is why I respect how you've been able to come up with a balanced system, though I think I might not know the half of it until I reach Russia.

I'd like to implement the 24cm K3 for Russia. How would you do this? Would it require changing any existing units for balance?

One last thing. Railguns. Lately I've been using them as a sort of one shot super unit, but highly expensive. When I've acquired the prestige I go in and buy a Gustav, which has a ROF of 9 in my custome eqp file. K5s cost 2000, and have a ROF of 12. I thouhgt this might be too high. Gustav ammo 3, K5 ammo 4. I had one Gustav and two K5 units in the last campaign I played, and one of each in the one before that.

[deducter]

I started '39 on General, as I don't want any artificial handicaps on myself or the computer when getting to know this new system. So far I like the feel of it, and expect a hell of fight from the Russians at Warsaw.

Sounds good. Don't worry if 1939-1942 seems easy, just wait until 1943-1945, even on General you should be in for a very tough fight.

I've taken the time to read your pdf manula over the last few days, and flipped through the eqp file. I have to say I am very impressed. I have not molested the eqp file, except for adding dual mode for the flak units, and 10.5 arty. I'm used to having a movement of two for units I used to think deserve it, like the towed flaks, 3.7 - 7.5 paks, 7.5 - 15cm arty, 15cm nebel, ....what do you think of that? Obviously the heavier of those should not have Mov 2. You can go crazy if you are not careful. That is why I respect how you've been able to come up with a balanced system, though I think I might not know the half of it until I reach Russia.

The 88 gun (a towed FlaK) certainly does not need another movement point. It is already extremely good as is. I use two myself starting in 1942, since those will destroy Russian tanks even in 1943-1945. I admit the other towed FlaK are pretty useless for the core, and there's not much that can be done short of adding the switching to ground fire mode, but at this time I don't want to introduce new units. I might do so once all the historical DLCs have been released; the first western one is in testing now. Try getting some SPAAG however, those can be very useful, especially starting in 1943. Keep in mind all FlaK with AA = 13 has ROF = 13, making them potentially very good.

The 3.7 cm Pak 36 is quite useful in GC39, but I admit it does become rather weak later on. I've thought about giving it an additional movement point, as this weapon was historically something easy to move compared with later AT guns like the 7.5 cm PaK 40. The main advantage of AT guns is their low cost. However, I think you'll find that the AT guns, starting with the 7.5 cm one, are good if you use them appropriately. The 8.8 cm PaK 43/41 is extremely good and one of the best units in the game, especially considering its very low cost compared to the other units that have HA = 24. So I don't really want to adjust these units, because I've used them fine and I don't feel like they need a buff.

I don't think any of the towed artillery need an additional movement point. Artillery is very good as is. Towed artillery have the advantage of higher ammo and lower price than the various self-propelled artillery. Also, generally the higher caliber artillery have better attack but lower ROF. The lower caliber rocket artillery have additional ROF, and the highest caliber one has insane soft attack. I think the current balance is fine.

I'd like to implement the 24cm K3 for Russia. How would you do this? Would it require changing any existing units for balance?

One last thing. Railguns. Lately I've been using them as a sort of one shot super unit, but highly expensive. When I've acquired the prestige I go in and buy a Gustav, which has a ROF of 9 in my custome eqp file. K5s cost 2000, and have a ROF of 12. I thouhgt this might be too high. Gustav ammo 3, K5 ammo 4. I had one Gustav and two K5 units in the last campaign I played, and one of each in the one before that.

To implement new units you need the unit editor, which I believe is available for download somewhere in the scenario design section. Basically you'll need graphics, animation, and sound, and the editor will add an entry in the eqp file for your unit, and you can set the stats as you see fit. You are welcome to add whatever units you like, but I can't guarantee a balanced or historical experience if you do so. The equipment files are designed as a complete package, with one component linked to another.

As for railguns, I personally find them out of place in a Panzer Corps, which is what you're supposed to be commanding. For special scenarios like Maginol Line, Sevastopol, and Warsaw44 you get AUX Karl mortars/Gustav rail guns anyway. And historically, wasn't there only ever 1 Gustav ever made, and less than 10 K5s? I don't like to implement units that are that rare.

Btw, the costs in the late war are very, very high. A King Tiger costs 1980 prestige, because if you want the best, you'll have to be a successful commander. Even having one Tiger II is impressive in 1944.

[4kEY]

"The 88 gun (a towed FlaK) certainly does not need another movement point. It is already extremely good as is."

Certainly not, which is to say, certainly so - is good as is. When do you level the 88 with the Tiger HA?

"I use two myself starting in 1942, since those will destroy Russian tanks even in 1943-1945."

You don't use 88s in France? You only use two when you do?

"I admit the other towed FlaK are pretty useless for the core, and there's not much that can be done short of adding the switching to ground fire mode,"

I found that raising ROF helped alot. 2cm x4s had a ROF 14, one more than your 13. I gave everything else ROF 12, and even the Sdkfz 10/4 came in handy DLC'43, green. However, it started getting weird when 4star Sdkfz 7/2 starts taking off 6-8 strength each shot. Might as well be an experienced 12.8 flak unit. Regarding movement, I was referring more to the 2cm and 3.7 cm towed units.

"the first western one is in testing now."

Good to know. I look forward to this DLC very much.

"The 3.7 cm Pak 36 is quite useful in GC39, but I admit it does become rather weak later on. I've thought about giving it an additional movement point, as this weapon was historically something easy to move compared with later AT guns like the 7.5 cm PaK 40."

From the start, or a couple years in? Also, I was thinking of the 8.8 cm PaK 43/41. It could be mounted on a four wheeled carriage which enabled the gun to rotate 360 degrees. Would this warrant taking away the -3 AT to tank intiative penalty, or even raising CD? And the Nashorn - I remember reading you were not going to penalize the Nashorn's INI, for balance reasons?

"To implement new units you need the unit editor"

Yes, I know. Lately I've been using notepad. I acquired a very nice graphic from chris10, and already have the K3 unit in my custom eqp. It is basically an upgun of the 17cm K18 with longer range. I see you gave the 17cm one less ROF than the 21cm...for balance reasons I assume because it has +1 range over the 21cm, while not being much less powerul. Would you do something similar for the K3? My original questions were aiming at 'IF you were to implement such a unit, what might you do...'

"As for railguns, I personally find them out of place in a Panzer Corps, which is what you're supposed to be commanding. For special scenarios like Maginol Line, Sevastopol, and Warsaw44 you get AUX Karl mortars/Gustav rail guns anyway. And historically, wasn't there only ever 1 Gustav ever made, and less than 10 K5s? I don't like to implement units that are that rare."

I actually agree. See, there is a part of me that feels Germany should have destroyed Russia with railguns without ever having to cross the Polish border (airspace, maybe ). It is this part that loves to see the head of a Soviet armored spearhead chopped off by Gustav & Friends. But, like I said, I agree.

"Btw, the costs in the late war are very, very high. A King Tiger costs 1980 prestige, because if you want the best, you'll have to be a successful commander. Even having one Tiger II is impressive in 1944."

I hesitantly agree. I was hoping for two. and two Tiger 1s

Lately I've been utilizing bridge engineers. I never really have until now, unless it was absolutely necessary, or obvious. Now I look for any situation in which they can be used that I didn't before, like Lodz.

[deducter]

I definitely have a 88 gun for France; you need it to kill the heavy tanks. I add a second 88 gun in 1942 because it's still very useful. It gets an automatic +2 HA in 1942 for HA = 19 to help combat all the Soviet armor, and this is the same as the Tiger I. Without my two 88 guns I have no idea how I would've won at Tatsinskaya.

Raising ROF on FlaK even more is unnecessary. In GC43 for instance, an experienced, overstrength Sd.Kfz. 7/1 or Sd.Kfz. 7/2 can regularly shooting down 2-4 points on a Russian plane. The trick is to use them against the Il-2, which are tough for Bf 109s to deal with. The Fw 190A does much, much better against the Il-2.

I think the towed AT guns are fine as is. I've used them with great success as is and I don't think further buffs are necessary. They are especially valuable when playing on Rommel or settings with even less prestige (I play on -75% for GC39-42, trying to do that now for GC43) due to their very low cost.

There's already a unit that is the Pak 43/41 mounted on a lightly-armored mobile platform: the Hornisse/Nashorn. It is a cheap and potent weapon available in time for Kursk to devastate Russian armor. There's no need to add an additional mounted Pak 43/41, because of 1)redundancy and 2)the Pak 43/41 is already really, really good.

GC44 and some of the late war weapons have not had too much testing. I'm thinking I might have to tone down GC44 a bit, lower the elite reinforcement costs slightly and also lower the cost of the German super weapons slightly, perhaps both by 5-10%.

[deducter]

Yes, I know. Lately I've been using notepad. I acquired a very nice graphic from chris10, and already have the K3 unit in my custom eqp. It is basically an upgun of the 17cm K18 with longer range. I see you gave the 17cm one less ROF than the 21cm...for balance reasons I assume because it has +1 range over the 21cm, while not being much less powerul. Would you do something similar for the K3? My original questions were aiming at 'IF you were to implement such a unit, what might you do...'

Yes, this is exactly right. The 17 cm artillery was a corps-level artillery with very long range. I had to lower the ROF because otherwise this unit is way too good, since it has a base range = 4. Right now, it can be very worthwhile to get one for your corps and get it overstrength (expensive too) to use it against units that are far away. I find it to be particularly useful for suppressing the AI's artillery while staying safely out of range.

As for the K3, ugh, I'd add a nopurchase flag, but if I had to give it stats, I'd probably give it a very, very high cost (800-100), a range of 5 but very low ROF, like 4, along with better attack.

[deducter]

Some thoughts on things to change:

1. Slightly lower the defense of the Il-2? I don't really think this is necessary. The basic Il-2 isn't that tough. Still, I can lower it if most players agree.
2. Slightly lower the defenses of the Il-2M3. Now this I think is necessary. The Il-2M3 is pretty ridiculous atm.
3. Lower the ROF of the Soviet 85 mm gun in AA mode to 7, like the German 88 gun. It'll still have ROF = 10 in AT mode. This is to reduce the damage from Soviet AA, given that the AI is very fond of switching now.
4. Lower the cost of some units in GC44.

[4kEY]

Piatek was really a lot of fun this time. A regular infantry was destroyed by the general at the end. He was pretty tough on the attack.

I could pay more attention to avoid letting my soft targets, unsupported, get Picard maneuvered into mass-attacks

[deducter]

List of changes for v1.84, I want to upload another version this weekend.

Il-2: AD 21 to 20.

Il-2M3: AD 23 to 21.

Il-10: AD 24 to 22.

Soviet 85mm AA mode: ROF 10 to 7.

Yak-3: AA 19 to 18.

Yak-9U: AA 21 to 20.

La-7: AA 20 to 19.

1943 Panther D: cost 1076 to 978.

1943 Panther A: cost 1181 to 1074.

Tiger II: cost 1980 to 1782.

Tiger I: cost 1353 to 1230.

Ferdinand: cost 1452 to 1320.

JagdPanther: cost 1214 to 1093.

JagdPz IV/70(V): cost 566 to 509.

Me 262A: cost 1462 to 1243.

1944-1945 elite reinforcement cost 100 to 90.

These changes should make 1944-1945 less brutal. Medium tanks should still be prestige-saving, while it should be more viable to elite reinforce some heavies (but not necessarily all of them).

Hopefully I haven't made 1944-1945 too easy.

[4kEY]

I like the decrease in ammo for the Stuka. Now it's possible to run out of bombs before fuel.

I had been playing under the assumption that enemy structures had spotting 4. I'm unsure what Polish structure spotting was before, but 3 seems more realistic.

Sdkfz222: I like the spotting and armor, and the low ammo to compensate. I also like the switch to soft target for recons in general.

edit: artillery and Pak are fine how they are. The 7.5cm is effective/efficient provided with a little extra planning.

[4kEY]

At Warsaw South, and witnessed the Poles attack with a strongpoint FIRST when it could have used artillery to supress. Is there no decrease in AI intelligence between FM and General?

[monkspider]

Now that testing is winding down, it is back to the Ostfront!

Are Marders still worthwhile to keep around? They have higher INI and lower costs, but poor defenses.
I have one in more core still and find it useful. They could possibly stand a slight buff to make them a bit more competetive with the other options (maybe a cost reduction in 44/45?).

Is the Hornisse appropriately useful? While this unit has very low defenses, its high HA and INI allows it to destroy Russian tanks in the clear with ease, but it needs to be protected by SPAAG or fighters.
I actually have been surprised with how useful I have found my Hornisse. I got lucky and my first hero was a +2 defense, but I think it is a perfectly solid addition to the core.

Is the Il-2 suitably hard to shoot down? Does it feel like the Fw 190A is better at shooting down a Il-2 than the Bf 109G?
I haven't had issues with the Il-2, it does take a lot to bring them down, but they haven't bothered me. I do have a lot of AA in my core though. I think your proposed very slight nerf should be perfect.

Is the 88 gun still being used as a AT weapon?
Yep, my 15 strength 88 seems to be just as powerful as ever.

Is the Fw 190F a suitably useful fighter-bomber?
I have one in my core and have been somewhat disappointed with it. That said, it is only 1 star and I haven't put as much effort into training it up as other units. I could change my mind with a bit more use with it.

A couple points I would like to propose. I am in the fourth scenario of the '44 campaign and all of my earlier battles have been decisive victories. The prestige situation is very tough but manageable. Sort of like a swimming pool that feels cold at first but is comfortable after you get used to it.

That said, your proposed changes should be fine and put players in a bit more comfortable of a position. One broader point I would like to suggest though, is that there should be a difference difficulty-wise between '44 and '45. Right now they both have the exact same level of elite replacement penalties. German armaments production actually peaked in '44, as I am sure you know. For various reasons (mostly the Western Allies strategic bombing campaigns, and the loss of key resource deposits to the Red Army), armaments production totally collapsed in early '45. I would recommend reflecting this in some way, maybe reducing the costs of elite replacements in '44 as you suggest but maintaining their current level in '45 or at least making them slightly higher than '44 in any event.

One other idea that occured to me is to implement some kind of very slight experience penalty for in-family upgrades. Certainly nowhere near as severe as out of family upgrades, but something that would introduce another strategic dynamic, questions like whether the player should upgrade that Panzer IV to the next model which only offers a slight upgrade but would come at the cost of a certain amount of experience. It could be something would typically translate to like half or 1/3 a star or perhaps even less.

One last thing I wanted to bring up is that I am surprised that you take such a dim view of AA units other than the 88 and 12.8. I have a 2cm FLAKvierling, 3.7 FLAK and mobile FLAK Sdkfz and find them to be quite useful, much more useful in your mod than in the stock game actually. They are very cheap to reinforce and allow me to damage enemy air units at no risk, making them similar to artillery in the sense that they soften up the enemy for your main attack. They are also another level of defense to defend your ground units from Soviet bombers. I think they are major prestige savers considering how potent the Red Airforce is and how costly reinforcements for your fighters or artillery/panzers that are damaged by Red Airforce units.

[deducter]

At Warsaw South, and witnessed the Poles attack with a strongpoint FIRST when it could have used artillery to supress. Is there no decrease in AI intelligence between FM and General?

FM and General have the exact same AI. The AI's artillery routine is a bit curious. Basically, any artillery set to active will fire first if a player's unit is in range AND the artillery has a good chance of suppressing/killing some strength points. It'll almost always target a unit with the lowest GD. The AI can also fire its artillery after movement, which comes after most of its other units move.

In short, I think the AI's use of artillery has been improved, but it's still nowhere near as good as a human player. I think that's fine. You'll notice in the late war, especially 1943 and onward, that the AI can be quite clever about switching its units in and out of artillery mode and inflicting good damage on the player's units and protecting its own.

[deducter]

Now that testing is winding down, it is back to the Ostfront!

Are Marders still worthwhile to keep around? They have higher INI and lower costs, but poor defenses.
I have one in more core still and find it useful. They could possibly stand a slight buff to make them a bit more competetive with the other options (maybe a cost reduction in 44/45?).

Is the Hornisse appropriately useful? While this unit has very low defenses, its high HA and INI allows it to destroy Russian tanks in the clear with ease, but it needs to be protected by SPAAG or fighters.
I actually have been surprised with how useful I have found my Hornisse. I got lucky and my first hero was a +2 defense, but I think it is a perfectly solid addition to the core.

Is the Il-2 suitably hard to shoot down? Does it feel like the Fw 190A is better at shooting down a Il-2 than the Bf 109G?
I haven't had issues with the Il-2, it does take a lot to bring them down, but they haven't bothered me. I do have a lot of AA in my core though. I think your proposed very slight nerf should be perfect.

Is the 88 gun still being used as a AT weapon?
Yep, my 15 strength 88 seems to be just as powerful as ever.

Is the Fw 190F a suitably useful fighter-bomber?
I have one in my core and have been somewhat disappointed with it. That said, it is only 1 star and I haven't put as much effort into training it up as other units. I could change my mind with a bit more use with it.

A couple points I would like to propose. I am in the fourth scenario of the '44 campaign and all of my earlier battles have been decisive victories. The prestige situation is very tough but manageable. Sort of like a swimming pool that feels cold at first but is comfortable after you get used to it.

That said, your proposed changes should be fine and put players in a bit more comfortable of a position. One broader point I would like to suggest though, is that there should be a difference difficulty-wise between '44 and '45. Right now they both have the exact same level of elite replacement penalties. German armaments production actually peaked in '44, as I am sure you know. For various reasons (mostly the Western Allies strategic bombing campaigns, and the loss of key resource deposits to the Red Army), armaments production totally collapsed in early '45. I would recommend reflecting this in some way, maybe reducing the costs of elite replacements in '44 as you suggest but maintaining their current level in '45 or at least making them slightly higher than '44 in any event.

One other idea that occured to me is to implement some kind of very slight experience penalty for in-family upgrades. Certainly nowhere near as severe as out of family upgrades, but something that would introduce another strategic dynamic, questions like whether the player should upgrade that Panzer IV to the next model which only offers a slight upgrade but would come at the cost of a certain amount of experience. It could be something would typically translate to like half or 1/3 a star or perhaps even less.

One last thing I wanted to bring up is that I am surprised that you take such a dim view of AA units other than the 88 and 12.8. I have a 2cm FLAKvierling, 3.7 FLAK and mobile FLAK Sdkfz and find them to be quite useful, much more useful in your mod than in the stock game actually. They are very cheap to reinforce and allow me to damage enemy air units at no risk, making them similar to artillery in the sense that they soften up the enemy for your main attack. They are also another level of defense to defend your ground units from Soviet bombers. I think they are major prestige savers considering how potent the Red Airforce is and how costly reinforcements for your fighters or artillery/panzers that are damaged by Red Airforce units.

Hmm, what's your issue with the Fw 190F? Too expensive? Does it not do enough damage to ground units? To air units? Is it not survivable enough? I personally find it to be quite useful. It's not quite as potent as a Hs 129B-2 or a Ju 87G, but it seems to inflict a good amount of damage and can be used to finish off weakened Russian air units. I want to try to make sure the Fw 190 ground attack models are worth getting, because historically they were employed in great numbers. Perhaps the problem is that the Hs 129B-2 and the Ju 87G (even 10-strength ones wreck Russian tanks quite easily now) might be too good.

I'm glad you find the towed AA to be useful. It's just that the 88 gun can switch to AT mode, and I value tactical flexibility greatly. I also think the SPAAG are fine as is. I personally use 4 AA guns (2 SPAAG, 2 88s) in 1944.

The elite reinforcement component is meant more to simulate the shortage of experienced troops rather than a shortage of equipment (which is taken care of with the basic prestige cost). It also makes overstrength very expensive (a Tiger I will cost 240 to overstrength 1 point in 1944, a Tiger II a whooping 360). Now that I think about it, I don't need to reduce elite reinforcement costs for 1944, because just reducing the cost of the heavy tanks should be sufficient help. And the reason why 1945 and 1944 have the same equipment and reinforcement costs is that GC45 is already incredibly brutal, and increasing the costs further was unnecessary for a challenging experience. However, if you think 1945 is too easy, I'd be very happy to make things harder.

Unfortunately there is no way in the current game files to implement an experience penalty to in-family upgardes. Otherwise, I would've already done as you asked and implemented a small penalty, around 50 experience. Hopefully there will be more modding options in future patches.

I'll also be reducing recon costs so elite reinforcing them isn't as punishing, and I'll remove the strategic bomber cost increase in 1943 due to the increase in cost of elite reinforcements. The main issue with STR bombers is the 14-strength ones, which should now be very expensive to get anyway. And the Red Air Force can shoot through fighter cover.

The real test of 1944 begins at the Bagration scenarios and Budapest44. Now, if you think those are still too easy, then I clearly need to buff some more Soviet units.

[monkspider]

Hmm, what's your issue with the Fw 190F? Too expensive? Does it not do enough damage to ground units? To air units? Is it not survivable enough? I personally find it to be quite useful. It's not quite as potent as a Hs 129B-2 or a Ju 87G, but it seems to inflict a good amount of damage and can be used to finish off weakened Russian air units. I want to try to make sure the Fw 190 ground attack models are worth getting, because historically they were employed in great numbers. Perhaps the problem is that the Hs 129B-2 and the Ju 87G (even 10-strength ones wreck Russian tanks quite easily now) might be too good.

It is possibly a combination of the two but more likely my use of the unit has been flawed. But the problem I have had with the FW-190F is that it seems to get shot to hell too easily by Russian fighters. I will usually try to give my fighter-bombers fighter escorts still, but on the rare time that I don't, it seems like it gets immediately wrecked. I guess I am used to fighter-bombers not always needing escorts on the default campaign, but with the more potent Red Airforce they probably do.

The elite reinforcement component is meant more to simulate the shortage of experienced troops rather than a shortage of equipment (which is taken care of with the basic prestige cost). It also makes overstrength very expensive (a Tiger I will cost 240 to overstrength 1 point in 1944, a Tiger II a whooping 360). Now that I think about it, I don't need to reduce elite reinforcement costs for 1944, because just reducing the cost of the heavy tanks should be sufficient help. And the reason why 1945 and 1944 have the same equipment and reinforcement costs is that GC45 is already incredibly brutal, and increasing the costs further was unnecessary for a challenging experience. However, if you think 1945 is too easy, I'd be very happy to make things harder.

Unfortunately there is no way in the current game files to implement an experience penalty to in-family upgardes. Otherwise, I would've already done as you asked and implemented a small penalty, around 50 experience. Hopefully there will be more modding options in future patches.

I'll also be reducing recon costs so elite reinforcing them isn't as punishing, and I'll remove the strategic bomber cost increase in 1943 due to the increase in cost of elite reinforcements. The main issue with STR bombers is the 14-strength ones, which should now be very expensive to get anyway. And the Red Air Force can shoot through fighter cover.

The real test of 1944 begins at the Bagration scenarios and Budapest44. Now, if you think those are still too easy, then I clearly need to buff some more Soviet units.

Oh believe me, things are plenty hard. I beat the second Narva scenario last night and it was quite brutal. I am in the first scenario of Bagrationr right now. Your point about gameplay balance is very valid, so your hands are probably tied. Still, it just bothers me for some reason that 1944 and 45 have the exact same penalties. Perhaps there is some token reduction of the 1944 penalties that can be done just to reflect that things weren't quite *so* bad as they are in '45.

[4kEY]

decucter, can you explain the situation with Strat bomber naval attack? Was carpet bombing the ocean not too effectve?

I like how the SE infantry are less expensive than core infantry, but SE tanks are the same price as their core counterparts. This seems to encourage the player to overstrength these SE infantry, as if they were supposed to.