Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

A forum to discuss custom scenarios, campaigns and modding in general.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Design, Panzer Corps Moderators

ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by ThvN » Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:57 pm

Hello deductor, I've been looking into that Brummbär (Bear), you mentioned earlier that you didn't want too many units with similar abilities; if you want to make the Bear a short range assault gun, give it the fortkiller and minekiller trait or something? The specialized ammunition for demolition purposes was short ranged, so it's still the same gun, just with different effect. This would also give you the freedom to tweak the HA/SA values a bit without causing inconsistencies, as they don't have to be the exactly the same as the others anymore.

I read that you have differently tweaked eqp files for each year, great idea BTW. For the Bear, the 1943 models were overweight and did not have a machine gun in the superstructure yet. They were made using refurbished chassis from different types of PzIV. From december 1943 on it mounted the newer, slightly lighter, version of the main gun, the L/12 that flakfernrohr mentioned earlier. Later in 1944 the machine gun in the hull was added, and the last specimens (1945?) had a new cupola with an optional AA machine gun.

I see that Chris10 already answered the question about which units were towed by de large SdKfz 7 halftrack (which, in 1.10 is the only transport for the 88mm FlaK yet only becomes available on 1.3.1940 :?) I thought that the medium pieces were supposed to be towed by the SdKfz 11, which was the unarmored version of the SdKfz 251 transport. The even smaller Sdkfz 10 was supposed to be towing light AAA etc. These transport units are not in the game, so you could use trucks/250/251 instead. Anything bigger than the 10.5cm arty or 37mm could get the Sdkfz 7.

I also noticed there is a new trait, 'reconmove', could be interesting for the motorcycle unit, with spotting 2. You can also use it to remove existing recon type movement.

Your mod (and especially the manual) is excellent, but maybe a bit too 'hardcore' for me, so I am thinking of modding the eqp myself, I hope you don't mind if I 'borrow' some ideas? Don't worry, I got plenty of my own. If you want me to go through your eqp files with a comb and razor and give some feedback, let me know. Your system is very good, and I don't know how much deviation from realism you allow yourself to help the balance. Since I'm a huge perfectionist, I don't know if I can give good suggestions, I don't want to be nitpicking your fine work?

scypion
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by scypion » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:19 pm

deducter wrote:I thought the Grille and the Sturmpanzer I/sIG33 had the same gun, so why would they have different range?

I'm thinking of making the Brummbar a special heavy assault gun. This weapon was supposed to have great firepower even though it was armed with a derivative of the sIG 33. I think ammo = 4 range = 1 SA = 15 HA = 10 ROF = 9 in 1943, in 1944 ammo = 5. Cost will be higher than the StuH 42.

The idea is to make this unit a specialized fire support weapon used on the frontlines. It will be suitable for cracking tough defensive positions and heavily entrenched units.
Brummbar at last :D

Brummbar has 3 times more ammo than Grille and was hevilly armored 100 mm / 40 grade frontal armor, sides 50mm, gun 150mm L/12 always have couple hollow charge rounds that can destroy any enemy tank if hit, like you say special heavy assault gun, should have range of 2 but for ballance reason I think that range of 1 should be ok, but should have more ammo than Grille

BTW Deducter when you plan release new version of your great mod?? I can't play Panzer Corps with 1.10 patch without your mod

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:34 am

ThvN wrote: I read that you have differently tweaked eqp files for each year, great idea BTW. For the Bear, the 1943 models were overweight and did not have a machine gun in the superstructure yet. They were made using refurbished chassis from different types of PzIV. From december 1943 on it mounted the newer, slightly lighter, version of the main gun, the L/12 that flakfernrohr mentioned earlier. Later in 1944 the machine gun in the hull was added, and the last specimens (1945?) had a new cupola with an optional AA machine gun.
No way to model machine guns in close support artillery like this. Note that no other German unit will have such high attack values that I'm proposing. I guess I can also up the HA slightly. But if the Brummbar too unit that it makes no sense to get anything else (like the StuH 42), then that's unacceptable. I fear with these inflated attack values it's already too good.
I see that Chris10 already answered the question about which units were towed by de large SdKfz 7 halftrack (which, in 1.10 is the only transport for the 88mm FlaK yet only becomes available on 1.3.1940 :?) I thought that the medium pieces were supposed to be towed by the SdKfz 11, which was the unarmored version of the SdKfz 251 transport. The even smaller Sdkfz 10 was supposed to be towing light AAA etc. These transport units are not in the game, so you could use trucks/250/251 instead. Anything bigger than the 10.5cm arty or 37mm could get the Sdkfz 7.
I don't want to introduce new units. If I allow the smaller artillery to be towed by the Sdkfz 250 or 251, those have attack values. I'd prefer to avoid that particular inconsistency, that some artillery can have an APC with attack values and some can only have transports without attack values.
I also noticed there is a new trait, 'reconmove', could be interesting for the motorcycle unit, with spotting 2. You can also use it to remove existing recon type movement.
I thought about this, but I think giving recon move to motorcycles would be too powerful. The tactical advantage of such a feature in the hands of a skilled player makes all other infantry significantly inferior.
Your mod (and especially the manual) is excellent, but maybe a bit too 'hardcore' for me, so I am thinking of modding the eqp myself, I hope you don't mind if I 'borrow' some ideas? Don't worry, I got plenty of my own. If you want me to go through your eqp files with a comb and razor and give some feedback, let me know. Your system is very good, and I don't know how much deviation from realism you allow yourself to help the balance. Since I'm a huge perfectionist, I don't know if I can give good suggestions, I don't want to be nitpicking your fine work?
If by hardcore you mean this mod is meant to be hard, then yes. I think a significant part of the difficulty actually comes from the exp penalty rule in the gamerules.pzdat. The difficulty of this mod is perhaps too high, however, I think with the reform units cheat it should be less frustrating. Furthermore, this mod is actually designed to be play on "General" difficulty, it should be hard even on that for most players in 1943 and beyond. But I don't see how can you make an "easy" historical mod, because by 1943 the war was most certainly going poorly for the Germans, and allowing them easy DVs as with the stock eqp file is incompatible with a historical experience.

I generally put gameplay balance slightly ahead of historical considerations. Hence, you'll see that the Red Air Force is arguably overbuffed to present the player with a suitable challenge. Similarly Soviet Guards are probably too good, but I wanted the Soviets to have a very, very dangerous infantry. All the German super units (Tiger, King Tiger, Me 262 etc.) remain super but are extremely expensive, so they should no longer save prestige. Another example is that I use ammo/fuel to model mechanical reliability, and honestly a lot of the ammo/fuel balance are not historical but are in there for balance reasons or to maintain a historical feel for certain units.

You are free to make your own mod, but I would prefer to have one community standard for a "historical" set of eqp file for the DLCs. This is one major reason why I introduced this mod. I thought carefully about every rule and change, and there are reasons why I set certain values the way I do (for instance, the attack value for certain units depend on the experience rules). I don't see why you would want to spend 100+ hours (actually it's probably more like 300 hours at this point) yourself replicating this work. Wouldn't it be better to give some useful feedback so I can make appropriate changes? The discussion on the Brummbar for instance is very good.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:45 am

scypion wrote: Brummbar at last :D

Brummbar has 3 times more ammo than Grille and was hevilly armored 100 mm / 40 grade frontal armor, sides 50mm, gun 150mm L/12 always have couple hollow charge rounds that can destroy any enemy tank if hit, like you say special heavy assault gun, should have range of 2 but for ballance reason I think that range of 1 should be ok, but should have more ammo than Grille

BTW Deducter when you plan release new version of your great mod?? I can't play Panzer Corps with 1.10 patch without your mod
I can't give the Brummbar more ammo than the Grille, I fear that would be too good. The range 1 mobile artillery, when used correctly, are extremely potent, and giving them too much ammo would make other SP artillery much less desirable.

Due to the reorganization of the eqp file in v1.10 I have to update the equipment files by manual copy and pasting a lot, and there are 5 eqp files to go over, and I have to check for errors, so it's taking me significant time to update this.

You can still use the current eqp file to play in v1.10, you just won't get the new units.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:58 am

Unfortunately I can't figure out how to make the Panzer II Flamm fit my original concept without moving it to the infantry unit class. It is pretty cool when I tested it out as a "hard" close combat unit. Everything about the unit works, it's just the class is wrong. Are people okay with this incorrect class assignment?

I think I might go back to what the Panzer II Flamm was in the stock eqp file, which was a unit with super high ROF (ROF = 14).

ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by ThvN » Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:56 am

deducter wrote:I would prefer to have one community standard for a "historical" set of eqp file for the DLCs. This is one major reason why I introduced this mod. I thought carefully about every rule and change, and there are reasons why I set certain values the way I do (for instance, the attack value for certain units depend on the experience rules). I don't see why you would want to spend 100+ hours (actually it's probably more like 300 hours at this point) yourself replicating this work. Wouldn't it be better to give some useful feedback so I can make appropriate changes? The discussion on the Brummbar for instance is very good.
Thank you for your explanation and your patience, deducter. I hope didn't give the wrong impression, I don't want to 'compete' with your mod or ruin your balanced system. I just want to make a personal eqp file for myself to have fun with. I'm not very good at this game (or modding it...), being a very casual player, but I noticed some inconsistencies in the stock eqp file and I can't leave 'good enough' alone. Your mod is very well thought out, but it might be too hard for me to play with, I'm simply not that good. To each their own. I'm happy to post information or feedback for you so you can use it to balance the new 1.10 units. I don't know exactly what factors you use in balancing and feel stupid for asking too many questions about how you arrive at certain values (your PaK 40 guns, for example :wink: ) without knowing your research. I'm happy to just post everything I know so you can make an informed decision, which you seem perfectly capable of doing.

Some of the new units seem dificult to model indeed. It depends on what niche you want to put them in, I guess. I think you're on the right track with the Brummbär, your attack values might indeed be a bit high, but with this sort of gun the type of shell can make a big difference in effect, the sIG could fire short ranged demolition/HEAT shells which packed a big punch. You compensate the high SA/HA with range 1 and limited ROF and ammunition (4 looks OK considering it would carry it's own ammo supply like a tank would). It could work fine in it's own niche, otherwise it would just be a heavily armoured Grille. Do you keep the fortkiller trait, BTW?

Your idea to put the Flammpanzer in the infantry class is OK with me. It's really just an administrative issue. But when you say you might go back to the stock file, do you just mean the high ROF you mentioned or the other stats as well? Will you have it ignoring entrenchment like in the stock file?

About the motorcycle infantry, I don't really know what to do with those. The motorcycles where used more as organic transport for whole batallions, not as actual fighting platforms. So they had to dismount and set up their weapons. If they are to be an infantry unit stat-wise than the reconmove will probably unbalance it, I agree.

As for the transports, if you don't want to add all kinds of different ones, I think your initial suggestion is probably the best. You can keep it simple and just have (most or all) units with the 'towed' movement type use the unarmed halftrack to respresent the various halftrack tractors, to better emphasize their support role. It is a nice compromise between the truck and the current 251/250 halftracks, which are overkill in my eyes. Though this might eventually drive you to re-balance the cost of the towed artillery and/or the 250/251 again(?), giving you more work.

Have you thought about that Hs 129, BTW? Looking at the introduction date and the graphics, they have gone for the B3 model with that ridiculous BK 75mm gun (hence my earlier wink at your PaK 40 stats), of which only a handful was ever deployed, but it doesn't make much sense to me as it is modeled now, especially compared to the Ju 87 G. The 'base' model with a more modest and common weapon outfit would make more sense, but I've got no idea wether you already have plans for it?

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:23 pm

There are issues with making the flamethrower tank an infantry, namely entrenchment values would make little sense. I'm going to have the make the tank a high ROF unit instead, but I'll lower its cost somewhat.

Hs 129 (I'll base it off the B-2 model, the B-3 model was extremely rare, too bad graphics will be inconsistent) will have the same attack values as the Ju 87G but with much higher defenses (22 AD 19 GD) and higher cost. It will also have 1 less ammo.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:46 pm

After more consideration, I've decided to do this for the Hs 129:

date available to 2.6.1942 (start of Simferopol, GC42)
1942 Hs 129: cost = 680 ammo = 3 fuel = 40 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 17
1943 HS 129: cost = 544 ammo = 4 fuel = 60 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 18

for comparison
Ju 87G: cost = 516 ammo = 4 fuel = 51 move = 11 SA = 5 HA = 13 GD = 19 AD = 13

Thus the Hs 129 will be a slightly weaker version of the Ju 87G with better survivability and slightly faster movement. Its cost is similar to that of the Ju 87G in 1944. This is also the only TAC available in 1942 that has good HA values.

Both these units receive HA +1 in 1944.

Radoye
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by Radoye » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:17 pm

deducter wrote:After more consideration, I've decided to do this for the Hs 129:

date available to 2.6.1942 (start of Simferopol, GC42)
1942 Hs 129: cost = 680 ammo = 3 fuel = 40 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 17
1943 HS 129: cost = 544 ammo = 4 fuel = 60 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 18

for comparison
Ju 87G: cost = 516 ammo = 4 fuel = 51 move = 11 SA = 5 HA = 13 GD = 19 AD = 13

Thus the Hs 129 will be a slightly weaker version of the Ju 87G with better survivability and slightly faster movement. Its cost is similar to that of the Ju 87G in 1944. This is also the only TAC available in 1942 that has good HA values.

Both these units receive HA +1 in 1944.
What you need for Hs 129 is:

first an early version, say B-1, available from spring 1942 - summer 1943, with good defense stats doe to being heavily armored, and mediocre attack stats - 200 kg ordnance and only 2x machine guns and 2x 20mm's without the big underbelly gun. This should go nowhere near Ju 87G's HA capabilities, in fact it's HA should not be better than "ordinary" Stuka's (B and D), with maybe an extra ammo point or two.

second a version with a light belly gun - you can choose between the B-2/Wa with 37mm BK (same as those on Ju 87G, however this was not in wide use) or the more historical 30mm MK101 armed B-2/R2 available summer 1943 - end of 1944. This should keep the good defense stats of the early Hs 129 but have a marked improvement in attack capability - it should be somewhere between D-stuka and G-stuka, with same ammo as the G-stuka.

finally the late version with the heavy 75mm BK, the true tank killer B-3/Wa available in 1945 until the end, thus should have superior attack stats (about 50% more HA compared to G-stuka) but significantly less ammo and a defense penalty due to loss of some manouverability with that heavy gun hanging from its belly, being underpowered for all that excess weight and drag.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:19 pm

I don't plan on introducing new units completely, so I can only have the B-1 available in 1942 and the B-2 available in 1943, and the upgrade is automatic.

As a counterargument to Radoye, from the perspective of balance of balance if I introduce the Hs 129B-1 in 1942 with HA only slighty better than the Ju 87D, then why would anyone buy a Hs 129? Especially since a new Hs 129B-1 would have much less exp than an experienced Ju 87D. Similarly, why would I buy a Hs 129B-2 in 1943 when the Ju 87G has better attack? As a counterargument to this counterargument, the Hs 129 would be worth it because it has much better defenses.

I'm not adverse to giving the Hs 129 HA = 8 in 1942 with more ammo and a price reduction to 544, along with HA = 11 in 1943. I like this suggestion quite a bit, unless someone strongly disagrees.

I don't plan on introducing any Hs 129B-3, weren't only about 20 of those planes made?

Radoye
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by Radoye » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:29 am

deducter wrote:As a counterargument to Radoye, from the perspective of balance of balance if I introduce the Hs 129B-1 in 1942 with HA only slighty better than the Ju 87D, then why would anyone buy a Hs 129? Especially since a new Hs 129B-1 would have much less exp than an experienced Ju 87D. Similarly, why would I buy a Hs 129B-2 in 1943 when the Ju 87G has better attack? As a counterargument to this counterargument, the Hs 129 would be worth it because it has much better defenses.
Well you pretty much answered yourself, it was about the defenses.

The HS 129 came about after Germans captured and examined the Il-2, they were on one hand appalled at the poor workmanship standards of the Russian plane but on the other painfully aware of its deadly capabilities and how hard was it to shoot it out of the sky due to all important components being heavily armored.

They decided to make something similar themselves, a heavily armored ground attack plane seemingly impervious to enemy fire. Due to more potent German-produced engines being in shortage and great demand for their fighter programme, they decided to use the French Gnome-Rhone, from captured stocks as well as new production from manufacturing lines in occupied France and other places (the engine was license-produced before the war in several other nations, Poland, Romania etc).

Hs 129 never really managed to replace the venerable Stuka in the attack role, due to somewhat underpowered engine for all that weight it had indifferent performance and the offensive capabilities with the originally installed armament (twin machineguns, twin 20mm and 200kg bombs) was insufficient. Most of these early machines ended up handed down to one of the minor Axis nations, less than 100 being produced.

The first upgrade to improve the offensive punch of Hs 129 involved the addition of an underbelly gun firing armor piercing ammo, in this guise turning it into a flying tank hunter, much like the Il-2 which inspired it.

Several types of weapon were tested, all single installation, among others 30mm MK101 (most often installed), MK103 and the 37mm BK3,7 the same of which a pair was carried by the G-stuka.

This fact is the reason why G-Stuka should have stronger attack, because it has twice the firepower, but Hs 129 should have an advantage in survivability due to heavy armor.

About 750 of these were produced.

(A digression - the G-Stuka was not really an upgrade for the B- and D-Stukas, both earlier models were classic dive-bombers and there were several unrelated projects to develop a next generation replacement for it; the G-stuka was intended as a tank hunter, very much like the Hs 129, and some other projects like Ju 88P for instance. These should IMO be grouped together, and separated from the dive-bombing Stukas because they served in different types of units and fulfilled different roles.)

However, soon even this has proven unsatisfactory and even larger weapon with an even heavier punch was considered. After several configurations were tested, they settled for the 75mm BK7,5 gun. This version went in the production too late to change anything in the war that was by then long lost. Finally, it was capable defeating even the heaviest of contemporary tanks but for the price of even further degrading its flying performance, its handling could be best described as marginal.
deducter wrote:I don't plan on introducing any Hs 129B-3, weren't only about 20 of those planes made?
That is correct, but had the war went differently there would certainly be more of these produced. After all, there were only two Maus tanks ever and Germans never invaded the USA yet that did not prevent both of these being included in the game. In such a scenario the mass produced 75mm cannon armed Hs 129 is not so far fetched.

Historically, the Hs 129 never really replaced or even came close to replace the Stuka and other German ground attack planes like the Fw 190 fighter-bomber versions, there was only about 850 produced (compared to 6500+ Stukas. The main reason was the indifferent performance and limited attack capabilities, but the survivability offered by its design was deemed important enough to keep it in production and continue developing it until a suitable role was found. Finally it was turned into a tank killer, complementing other types in service but never truly replace any of them.

In the game context i don't see Hs 129 in its early variants as a viable replacement for either Stuka or Fw 190F/G, but later variants might become interesting as an alternative for the Ju 87G with less punch but better survivability. IMO you should aim for that when modeling the statistics.

Chris10
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:06 am
Location: Spain

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by Chris10 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:11 am

Radoye wrote: The HS 129 came about after Germans captured and examined the Il-2, they were on one hand appalled at the poor workmanship standards of the Russian plane but on the other painfully aware of its deadly capabilities and how hard was it to shoot it out of the sky due to all important components being heavily armored.

They decided to make something similar themselves, a heavily armored ground attack plane seemingly impervious to enemy fire. Due to more potent German-produced engines being in shortage and great demand for their fighter programme, they decided to use the French Gnome-Rhone, from captured stocks as well as new production from manufacturing lines in occupied France and other places (the engine was license-produced before the war in several other nations, Poland, Romania etc).
Iam curious from which obscure sources you guys always pull these weirdy stories :roll:
I know english speaking sources are terrible but this is way beyond terrible. :P
#The HS 129 was the result of a deliberate call for proposals from the Technical Department of the Ministry of Aviation (RLM = Reichsluftfahrtministerium) in 1937.
Postulated characteristics were: 2 engined CAS plane with at least 2x20mm cannons and heavily armored cockpit for crew security with 75mm bulletproof glass and 12mm steel armor
Henschel, Blohm & Voss, Focke-Wulf and Gotha were elected to develope a prototype.
Maiden flight of the Prototyp Hs 129 V1 was Mai 25th, 1939...4 months before the war even started, 5 months before the Il-2s maiden flight and years before any german had examined an Il-2
The first 20 pre-series planes Hs 129 A-0 were delivered to the Luftwaffe for field test in late summer 1940 and after 6 months send back to factory.
The judgement was devastating and...well..long story..blablabla...and two models later the Hs-129 B1 convinced the Luftwaffe and serial production started in December 1941...#

The developement of the Hs-129 had just as little to do with the Il-2 as a fish has to do with bicycling :mrgreen:

Sources:
#Wehrmacht records
#Heinz J. Novarra: Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933–1945. Band 3: Flugzeugtypen Henschel - Messerschmitt. , ISBN 3-7637-5467-9

The four volumes of Novarra are one of THE references about german air power 1933-1945. a 1000 pages of pure facts
Image
Last edited by Chris10 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:43 am, edited 7 times in total.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:15 am

Radoye wrote:
(A digression - the G-Stuka was not really an upgrade for the B- and D-Stukas, both earlier models were classic dive-bombers and there were several unrelated projects to develop a next generation replacement for it; the G-stuka was intended as a tank hunter, very much like the Hs 129, and some other projects like Ju 88P for instance. These should IMO be grouped together, and separated from the dive-bombing Stukas because they served in different types of units and fulfilled different roles.)
For the purposes of balancing, upgrades isn't as simple as just adding families to all units with a similar type of role. I'm fine with all the Stukas sharing a family for balance reasons. There is a component in my mod which reduces the exp of a unit when upgrading out of family, and I feel it would be too punishing to have an upgrade from a Ju 87D -> Ju 87G cost 250 experience in 1943. Generally the upgrades in this mod follows the logic of the vanilla file (upgrading along a series of improvements to a model, like the Bf 109 or the Panzer IV) rather than upgrading by "purpose of unit." The problem is that the latter logic becomes extremely messy when you think about it. Both the Panzer IV and the Panther were medium tanks for instance, but I would not allow those units to be upgraded in the same family. I already answered a similar question in a previous post, and the gist of it was that since there's no way to simulate the rest-and-refit process, upgrades in this game will mostly be for balance reasons.
That is correct, but had the war went differently there would certainly be more of these produced. After all, there were only two Maus tanks ever and Germans never invaded the USA yet that did not prevent both of these being included in the game. In such a scenario the mass produced 75mm cannon armed Hs 129 is not so far fetched.
This mod is meant for the GCs only and not the stock campaign or for the upcoming Afrika expansion. The GCs follow history fairly closely. The Maus cannot be purchased in this mod. There are also rules for buying extremely rare units like the JagdTiger and Ferdinand/Elefant. Furthermore, due to the way my particular mod works and to ensure backwards compatibility, there's no way to add a Hs 129B-3 alongside a Hs 129B-2 in 1945. I also don't see the point from a balance standpoint of giving the Germans a flying tank killer with something like 20 HA when an experienced Ju 87G is already devastating to all Soviet armor.
In the game context i don't see Hs 129 in its early variants as a viable replacement for either Stuka or Fw 190F/G, but later variants might become interesting as an alternative for the Ju 87G with less punch but better survivability. IMO you should aim for that when modeling the statistics.
Yes, my intention thus far is to improve the survivability of the Hs 129. For instance, I think the Fw 190F/G are both modeled very well in my mod and deserve to be used frequently, as opposed to being near useless in the vanilla eqp file.

Radoye
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by Radoye » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:53 pm

deducter wrote: This mod is meant for the GCs only and not the stock campaign or for the upcoming Afrika expansion.
Yeah you're right, i keep forgetting myself. Sorry.
chris10 wrote:Iam curious from which obscure sources you guys always pull these weirdy stories :roll:
I know english speaking sources are terrible but this is way beyond terrible. :P
You're right the Hs 129 project existed before the war but by mid-1941 it was dead in the water, deemed unnecessary by the German top brass (together with many other interesting and important projects like German heavy tank and strategic bomber programmes). This was partially because of the poor performance with the Argus engine (same thing that killed the armored Fw 189) but also due to political and bureaucratic reasons.

After the Germans met Il-2 in battle this proved that the concept of the armored ground attack machine is viable and could be put to good use. There was even a consideration to produce a copy of the Russian machine (to the horror of the test pilots examining it, because they were very much aware of all the shortcomings of the Russian design - and also in parallel with the development of the Panther tank and its relation to the T-34) but it was deemed easier to revive one of the existing projects using stronger engines to cure most of the handling issues.

The first Hs 129B was delivered to operational units in the early months of 1942, however these too proved unsuitable due to lack of firepower, but at least they could fly unlike the A-version.

scypion
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by scypion » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:31 pm

deducter wrote:After more consideration, I've decided to do this for the Hs 129:

date available to 2.6.1942 (start of Simferopol, GC42)
1942 Hs 129: cost = 680 ammo = 3 fuel = 40 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 17
1943 HS 129: cost = 544 ammo = 4 fuel = 60 move = 12 SA = 4 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 18

for comparison
Ju 87G: cost = 516 ammo = 4 fuel = 51 move = 11 SA = 5 HA = 13 GD = 19 AD = 13

Thus the Hs 129 will be a slightly weaker version of the Ju 87G with better survivability and slightly faster movement. Its cost is similar to that of the Ju 87G in 1944. This is also the only TAC available in 1942 that has good HA values.

Both these units receive HA +1 in 1944.
very good stats I think, I remaind everyone that HS 129 have mount only 1 x 37mm gun (12 rounds only) vs 2 x 37 mm gun of Ju87 G (12 rounds each)

Chris10
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:06 am
Location: Spain

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by Chris10 » Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:33 pm

Radoye wrote: You're right the Hs 129 project existed before the war but by mid-1941 it was dead in the water, deemed unnecessary by the German top brass (together with many other interesting and important projects like German heavy tank and strategic bomber programmes). This was partially because of the poor performance with the Argus engine (same thing that killed the armored Fw 189) but also due to political and bureaucratic reasons.

After the Germans met Il-2 in battle this proved that the concept of the armored ground attack machine is viable and could be put to good use. There was even a consideration to produce a copy of the Russian machine (to the horror of the test pilots examining it, because they were very much aware of all the shortcomings of the Russian design - and also in parallel with the development of the Panther tank and its relation to the T-34) but it was deemed easier to revive one of the existing projects using stronger engines to cure most of the handling issues.

The first Hs 129B was delivered to operational units in the early months of 1942, however these too proved unsuitable due to lack of firepower, but at least they could fly unlike the A-version.
I wonder from where you draw all these conclusions...can you provide any source which seems halfway reliable to support these claims ?
Or are these personal assumptions ?Image

In fact 2 HS-129 from the pre-series A-0 were transferred back to Henschel-Schönefeld...these 2 units were converted to accept Gnome-Rhone 14M 4/5 radial engines by mid 1941...before Barbarossa. It was with this powerplant that 10 Hs 129B-0 development aircraft were delivered from December 1941 for field testing and eventuall accepted by the Luftwaffe which lead to serial production of the Hs-129/B-1 serial plane...
The production Hs 192B-1 series went into service first with 4./SchG 1 at Lippstadt in April 1942.

The developement of the Hs-129 had absolutely nothing to do with encountering Il-2 or not. neither was the project dead or abandoned not had it to be revived. It simply underwent some technical changes to meet the asked specifications within an acceptable performance parameter which resulted in a later serial production...just like other projetcs too

And the B-1 did not proove unsuitable at all...its was only the growing appearance of better armored soviet tanks which made it necessary to further develope the plane just like any other weapons system during the war was upgraded.

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by deducter » Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:07 pm

The historical discussion on the Hs 129 is fascinating, but I don't want to get too sidetracked. I think I have enough information on the Hs 129 to design good stats.

The new version will be out in 1-2 days, perhaps even later tonight. I will also include a "softcore" gamerules.pzdat to eliminate the upgrade experience penalty and the increased cost of elite reinforcements after 1941. However, just don't complain that "softcore" is too easy, because I think by 1943 the my settings are plenty tough.

orlinos
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:29 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update GC45East!

Post by orlinos » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:20 pm

A little off-topic, Deducter, how do you find vanilla Afrika Corps? I finished the first three scenarios and I am grateful for the training the DLC's with your e-file gave me. I am playing Rommel straight from the beginning, so prestige is scarce, but I get by with a Pak and a ball of string. Even a little Panzer IIC got a big, scary Matilda to surrender. :wink:

I generally get ambushes and surrenders like crazy, the AI can't see a damned thing in these sand storms (nor can I). Can't wait to get blown away by difficulty when you make an Africa e-file, if you will.

The motorcycle infantry seems to play an important role in the desert and behave OK here. Since there is rarely a close terrain hex, they do not benefit from their CD of 2.

It will definitely be too effective a unit in vanilla DLC’s. It would probably make normal infantry in ’41 and ’42 useless. Kradschützen is faster and still cheap, Gebirgsjäger - even with trucks – behave better on terrain with many hills and have the same cost as plain Wehrmacht etc.

I do not know what to think of the Italian tank units units. At the moment I just like the graphics.
:)
Piotr 'Orlinos' Kozlowski

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1139
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:45 pm

v1.8 out

Major changes:
1. New elite reinforcement costs increases after 1941. This cost increases progressively for 3 years, making it very difficult by 1944 to afford elite reinforcements for all units. Choose wisely which forces to maintain as elites. To compensate in part for this, the out-of-family upgrade experience penalty has been slightly reduced, and experience growth rates for units with 200 exp or greater has been increased by about 20-30%.
2. Revision of all new units included with patch v1.10. Consult the manual for more information.
3. Many minor adjustments, for example, 10.5cm K 29(p) FK family added to allow this unit to be upgraded to other towed artillery without exp penalties.
There are also many small stat tweaks.

Edit: Note change 1 also has the effect of making overstrength incredibly expensive by 1944, another good way of modelling the German manpower shortages.
Last edited by deducter on Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

alex0809
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by alex0809 » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:53 pm

Awesome, thanks for the fast update to 1.10! Time to start another GC playthrough.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Scenario Design”