Unit Issues 7.1.4

[terminator]

I have added these unit requests to the bug db.

SMG infantry unit.
This is an iconic Soviet sub-machine unit with high fire-power suitable in dense terrain like suburban and dense forests. Slightly lesser stats than regular infantry in open terrain.

M3 Half-track lend-lease. Often assigned to Guards units. Important since the Soviets have no half-track transport.

T90 SPAAG. Self-propelled 90mm anti-air.

76.2mm M1942 AT. The Soviet lacks a proper medium AT unit.

85mm M1939 AT. This is a switched version of the 85mm M1939 AA

Hurricane Mk1 lend-lease air unit.

Edit: Forgot to add a Soviet Mountain infantry unit.

Surely it will have to wait for the Soviet campaign

[bebro]

I have added these unit requests to the bug db.

(...)

There will be additions still, but these are not fully determined yet, and not so quick to produce.

As for specific types, I'm not a fan of the pesky T-90 as it never went into production afaik and there are alternatives that were produced, like truck mounted light AA (GAZ based) But mobile AA is certainly something that Sov lacks currently.

[Igor1941]

I have added these unit requests to the bug db.

(...)

There will be additions still, but these are not fully determined yet, and not so quick to produce.

As for specific types, I'm not a fan of the pesky T-90 as it never went into production afaik and there are alternatives that were produced, like truck mounted light AA (GAZ based) But mobile AA is certainly something that Sov lacks currently.

According to the declassified data of the USSR State Planning Committee, the losses of the Soviet Union in World War II are 41 million 979 thousand, not 27 million, as previously thought. - The total decline in the population of the USSR in 1941-45. - more than 52 million 812 thousand people. Оver 30 million military personnel ... Germans lost 3 million with allies https://polkrf.ru/news/1275/parlamentsk ... tnyiy_polk

[Erik2]

What does this have to do with unit types in OOB...

[GabeKnight]

What does this have to do with unit types in OOB...

Playing Endsieg, I've had the same impression that the endless waves of Soviet conscripts were missing. No more lambs being led to the slaugher. Heavy metal instead.

[terminator]

Playing Endsieg, I've had the same impression that the endless waves of Soviet conscripts were missing. No more lambs being led to the slaugher. Heavy metal instead.

I just finished replaying the mission 002_Rumyantsev, I think there was a lot of Soviet infantry in this scenario.

(the total number of German military dead was estimated at 5.3 million + 3.8 million civilians for a total of 9.128 million , Igor adds civilian and military casualties for Russia)

[Igor1941]

What does this have to do with unit types in OOB...

Playing Endsieg, I've had the same impression that the endless waves of Soviet conscripts were missing. No more lambs being led to the slaugher. Heavy metal instead.

To take into account the realism of the Soviet scenario

[Igor1941]

What does this have to do with unit types in OOB...

Playing Endsieg, I've had the same impression that the endless waves of Soviet conscripts were missing. No more lambs being led to the slaugher. Heavy metal instead.

To take into account the realism of the Soviet scenario

30 million loss of soldiers is missing. With a civilian 42 million. Allies were included in the German losses 5.3 ... and the Japanese 2 million. So the USSR manipulated

[GabeKnight]

I think some of the Brit battleships have a very low naval def. value:
BB Renown: 25
BB Admiral: 27

The other major factions have def. values above 30 usually. Even Italy.
Again, I'm no units expert, just asking if the Royal Navy really produced such weak ships (in comparison)?

[bebro]

They were actually Battlecruisers, and had certainly lower armor = def than comparable Battleships. They were just put into the BB category here as there were only few BCs in WW2, so an extra class for those is kinda overkill.

[GabeKnight]

I see! Thanks, bebro.

[Erik2]

Hood was a Admiral battlecruiser and look what happened to it during the encounter with Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.

[terminator]

The Unit Parameter "defense against artillery" is not logical for the Italian units :

Capture d’écran (14).png (136.72 KiB) Viewed 1734 times

Capture d’écran (13).png (152.51 KiB) Viewed 1734 times

[Mojko]

Greek L3/33 and Hungarian L3/35 are in recon category, but should be tanks instead.

[terminator]

Greek L3/33 and Hungarian L3/35 are in recon category, but should be tanks instead.

This is often the problem with light tanks, after a while when they are outdated they are often used then in reconnaissance missions.

Example T-60 :

T-60(1).JPG (55.53 KiB) Viewed 1601 times

T-60(2).JPG (67.65 KiB) Viewed 1601 times

Commitments in the war :
Committed to the Poltava region in September 1941, the T-60s played a leading role during the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941–1942, where they were engaged in large numbers. In the spring of 1942, sixty were sent to besieged Leningrad, camouflaged in coal barges, and on January 12, 1943, they formed the avant-garde of the 61st Armoured Brigade, which at the head of the 67th Army, broke the encirclement of the city through the frozen Neva River. During the spring of 1942, he took part in the offensive of Kharkov and then in the defence of Sevastopol and Stalingrad. He was later relegated to the escort of convoys and to the reconnaissance missions.

[terminator]

Another example of light tank -> the T-38 :

T38(1).JPG (43.94 KiB) Viewed 1594 times

In PanzerCorps, the T-38 was a Recon Unit :

T38(2).JPG (19.88 KiB) Viewed 1594 times

T38(3).JPG (53.98 KiB) Viewed 1594 times

The T-38 tank is an improvement in the T-37 tank, produced from 1936 until the T-40 tank was introduced in 1940 at 1,482. The chassis was also used as a base for the "Komsomolets" artillery tractor. 1,090 were in service on January 1, 1941. Like his predecessor, he served until 1943 for amphibious operations and reconnaissance.

[GabeKnight]

The Unit Parameter "defense against artillery" is not logical for the Italian units :

I did look over the unit's Bomb/Art/Naval def. values of the Italian faction during the process of my mod-making, and I think they're okay. At least from an "overall-unit-balance" point of view. Many German units have better armour, but that's to be expected. Sure, one can always argue about the stats of one unit or another, but compared with the Jap./US/Brit./Ger. roster and looking at the picture as a whole, all's good.

Even the Sahariana's high values aren't uncommon for camouflaged recon units. I guess it represents the unit's sneakiness, speed, high camouflage and being generally hard to hit with ranged attacks.

(EDIT: Just to be sure: I'm talking about the v715b3 units.csv file, I did not compare with the v714 file. Maybe I should have posted this in the beta forum. Sorry, then.)

[terminator]

The Unit Parameter "defense against artillery" is not logical for the Italian units :

I did look over the unit's Bomb/Art/Naval def. values of the Italian faction during the process of my mod-making, and I think they're okay. At least from an "overall-unit-balance" point of view. Many German units have better armour, but that's to be expected. Sure, one can always argue about the stats of one unit or another, but compared with the Jap./US/Brit./Ger. roster and looking at the picture as a whole, all's good.

Even the Sahariana's high values aren't uncommon for camouflaged recon units. I guess it represents the unit's sneakiness, speed, high camouflage and being generally hard to hit with ranged attacks.

(EDIT: Just to be sure: I'm talking about the v715b3 units.csv file, I did not compare with the v714 file. Maybe I should have posted this in the beta forum. Sorry, then.)

Do you find logical that the Marder III which offers only a small protection to its crew against artillery bombardment has a better defense against artillery value that the Semovente 105/25 (14 vs 10)
If you compare Air Defense value, Semovente has better Air Defense than Marder III (12 VS 11)

MarderIII.JPG (50.3 KiB) Viewed 1527 times

Compare the values Ground Defense in Panzercorps Marder III vs Semovente M43 105/25 (11 vs 15) :

MarderIII(1).JPG (43.64 KiB) Viewed 1527 times

Semoventeda105-25.JPG (53.88 KiB) Viewed 1527 times

PS: Panzer Corps Wiki https://panzercorps.gamepedia.com/Panzer_Corps_Wiki

[GabeKnight]

Do you find logical that the Marder III which offers only a small protection to its crew against artillery bombardment has a better defense against artillery value that the Semovente 105/25 (14 vs 10)
If you compare Air Defense value, Semovente has better Air Defense than Marder III (12 VS 11)

I've said that one could always argue over one unit or another. Those closed-off tank types should offer better protection against shrapnel than the "topless" types, for sure. Not much you can do besides going into cover and waiting it out.

In this case you could be right. Some of the Semovente types seem to share the same chassis as the Carro Armato M-series tanks.
Still, the Marder looks quite well-protected in your pic, if the crew can find cover behind the armoured parts.

But yeah, stats are difficult. Did the Italian mechanized units had the same amount of armour on those vehicles as the Germans? Are arty-class types generally easier to hit because they are stationary? Should speedier units get higher def. values even with poor armour?

In the end, the combination of all stats defines the "whole" unit and its combat behaviour.

Compare the values Ground Defense in Panzercorps Marder III vs Semovente M43 105/25 (11 vs 15) :

As I've said before, I never played PanzerCorps, so it's hard for me to compare these games, but from looking at the screenshots it seems to me as there was only one value for "ground defense" in PC instead of OoB's split "vehicle defense" and "bomb defense" (and naval defense) values. If that's true, then comparing the stats of these games is NOT fair.

[terminator]

The Finnish Landsverk II (AA and AT) has too clear texture compared to other Finnish tanks :

LandsverkII(1).png (744.16 KiB) Viewed 1456 times

LandsverkII(2).png (620.04 KiB) Viewed 1456 times