The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:44 am

terminator wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:41 am
New Farmland Texture :
Wow. Actually that soil color looks pretty amazing. I want that, too! :shock: :D

For me, it seems too bothersome to adjust all the other terrain tiles (farm, swamp, forest...) to the open/"grass" terrain modification. I don't know, I'm not that artistically inclined. But Terminator's tests seem promising. Really good work IMO. Maybe he could contribute something in that regard? Anyways. I'm looking forward to it!

Some of Terminator's designs could be used inside the KoreanMod as "high grass", don't you think so too, Erik?
Horst wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:09 am
@Gabe
Nav vs Inf: the ships already do shock. Do you want to increase it even further? With so many ships usually around, the shock values are really already high enough.
Yeah, I know, but the units have to be good for something besides naval battles, otherwise they may become useless in coastal engagements. And I don't want that. I don't mind shock damage and resting my units that much. Using planes to strafe enemy units to prevent efficiency restoration is a common tactic. Come on, it's a game. There has to be some compromise to make units useful.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3678
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by kondi754 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:21 pm

Gabe, is it possible to add US mountain units to your Mod :?:
The US 10th Mountain Division fought on the Italian Front towards the end of the war

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 7801
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Erik2 » Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:40 pm

I'm a bit confused about which high grass terrain will be available in the Korean (and other?) mod.
It is of course perfectly fine if other modders add to the Korea mod. GabeKnight is the gate-keeper of that mod.

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:08 am

kondi754 wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:21 pm
Gabe, is it possible to add US mountain units to your Mod :?:
Basically yes, the only problem is how to choose some appropriate models (figurines) for them, because there are none. I would have to re-use existing ones to form a completly new unit, and I don't like to do that in my mod. But I'll look into it, maybe there's some solution.

Erik2 wrote:
Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:40 pm
I'm a bit confused about which high grass terrain will be available in the Korean (and other?) mod.
It is of course perfectly fine if other modders add to the Korea mod. GabeKnight is the gate-keeper of that mod.
You can have have whatever terrain you like best. Terminator's textures look far better than whatever I may have produced, in my opinion.
(because I didn't think of swapping the whole thing for something new... :roll: )
I also think that every contibution that makes the mod better is welcome - whoever provides it. I'll ask Mr.T if he's willing to share some of his creations.

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4252
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by terminator » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:21 am

37mm M1

Why the 37mm M1 has better movement point and better infantry attack in AA version than in AT version ?

This unit is very usefull in the US Pacific campaign.

Already reported in the bug section posted here to discuss about the stats...

Screenshot from the official units.csv but it is the same in your mod.

37mmM1.jpg
37mmM1.jpg (217.84 KiB) Viewed 446 times

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

OT-34s

Post by Horst » Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:21 pm

I’ve modified the unit-picture of the OT-34 (falsely available like ’42 but look of ’43) and added a flame at its bow-mg position where the flamethrower is.
OT-34.png
OT-34.png (13.98 KiB) Viewed 392 times
Then I created for two additional OT variants: a real OT-34_42 (T-34_42 copy) and an OT-34-85. They also got their unit picture with the same turret-symbol like the vanilla one.
I use the OT-34’s vanilla-model now for my new OT-34_43 unit.
OT-34_42.png
OT-34_42.png (13.68 KiB) Viewed 392 times
OT-34_85.png
OT-34_85.png (14.7 KiB) Viewed 392 times
Animation-problem of the vanilla OT-34 (’43) unit/model is that it only fires a flamethrower.
This can be luckily fixed by a new effect alone:
[Flamethrower_AT_76.2mm_43]
0.0 AT_Shell 1
0.0 AT_76.2mm_01 1
0.7 BarrelSmoke 1
0.8 Flamethrower 0
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 0
2.0 hit

I also created effects for the OT-34 (’42 now) and the OT-34-85:
[Flamethrower_AT_76.2mm]
0.0 AT_Shell 0
0.0 AT_76.2mm_01 0
0.7 BarrelSmoke 0
0.8 Flamethrower 1
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 1
2.0 hit

[Flamethrower_AT_90mm]
0.0 AT_Shell 0
0.0 AT_90mm_01 0
0.7 BarrelSmoke 0
0.8 Flamethrower 1
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 1
2.0 hit

Unfortunately, the T-34_42 and T-34-85 models don’t fire the flamethrower in place of the mg to the right direction, as it looks. That still needs to be fixed on the models themselves. I don’t get it why the firing-direction isn’t the same for all weapon types, or what’s the issue there? Simply replacing something at node 0 or 1 doesn’t do the trick if both nodes are supported.
If’s not too much work, copying the turret-symbol to the new OTs texture would be great too so they match their unit picture.

Otherwise, these two additional units should be a useful addition to the vanilla game. Historically, these have been possibly the best flame-tanks as they were visually undistinguishable from the standard T-34s and highly mobile with flamethrower ranges of 90-130m.
Who doesn’t like flamethrower tanks anyway? :D

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4252
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: OT-34s

Post by terminator » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:01 pm

Horst wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:21 pm
Animation-problem of the vanilla OT-34 (’43) unit/model is that it only fires a flamethrower.
This can be luckily fixed by a new effect alone:
[Flamethrower_AT_76.2mm_43]
0.0 AT_Shell 1
0.0 AT_76.2mm_01 1
0.7 BarrelSmoke 1
0.8 Flamethrower 0
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 0
2.0 hit

I also created effects for the OT-34 (’42 now) and the OT-34-85:
[Flamethrower_AT_76.2mm]
0.0 AT_Shell 0
0.0 AT_76.2mm_01 0
0.7 BarrelSmoke 0
0.8 Flamethrower 1
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 1
2.0 hit

[Flamethrower_AT_90mm]
0.0 AT_Shell 0
0.0 AT_90mm_01 0
0.7 BarrelSmoke 0
0.8 Flamethrower 1
2.0 damage
2.6 BarrelFlame 1
2.0 hit

Unfortunately, the T-34_42 and T-34-85 models don’t fire the flamethrower in place of the mg to the right direction, as it looks. That still needs to be fixed on the models themselves. I don’t get it why the firing-direction isn’t the same for all weapon types, or what’s the issue there? Simply replacing something at node 0 or 1 doesn’t do the trick if both nodes are supported.
If’s not too much work, copying the turret-symbol to the new OTs texture would be great too so they match their unit picture.

Otherwise, these two additional units should be a useful addition to the vanilla game. Historically, these have been possibly the best flame-tanks as they were visually undistinguishable from the standard T-34s and highly mobile with flamethrower ranges of 90-130m.
Who doesn’t like flamethrower tanks anyway? :D
The OT-34 could use the cannon and the flame thrower at the same time? From the point of view of animation, that’s not too much? Maybe we could make a switching OT-34?

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: OT-34s

Post by Horst » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:37 pm

terminator wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:01 pm
The OT-34 could use the cannon and the flame thrower at the same time? From the point of view of animation, that’s not too much? Maybe we could make a switching OT-34?
I've copied & modified the animation-effect of the Churchill Crocodile which also fires its main gun before the flamethrower. Burn, baby, burn! :twisted:

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm

Playing Red Star, I felt the poor Finnish Armoured Train badly needed a tank-mode to defend itself. I was already going to copy at least your self-made unit picture for the extra-mode then I noticed that the game already has all files. Model, texture, effect, unit-picture - everything is there!
I guess that's the reason why there is an "Armoured_Train_ART" unit as the "Armoured_Train" unit with direct-fire was taken out someday during development.
(Picture) Name: Armoured_Train
model1: Armoured_Train
weaponEffect: ArmouredTrain_AT
No idea why they have taken this mode out, but I'm glad for every lost treasure found in the dusted archives. :o

Eh, there were more unused unit-pictures. I only remember now:
Hungarian_heavyinfantry_40
Alpini_42
Alpini_43

About 1557 usable unit-pictures and only 1530 used units. I think I need to take inventory and compare everything. The TD-18 was already a funny find.

Shame on me for not reading your changelog properly: Corrected the OT-34 attack anim to include the main gun :oops:
Anyway, maybe you can find time someday to add the other two OTanks.

PS: something else that just came into my weird mind: how about removing the spotter class-trait from the game, so units more plausibly fall for mine-traps. It's somehow too sheepish easy to spot mines most of the time that are basically still a mile away in the neighboring hex. Camouflaged units would also get even stealthier than before that you could remove the "arty" ranged-fire of snipers back to 0 again. The AI is already dumb enough to remember such sniper-attacks on its own towed guns, but then it would also work on every other unit type. Maybe it's getting a bit too unfair then with these and commandos.
It's a pity that you can't add the spotter trait to single units, like only the engineer.

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: OT-34s

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Oct 20, 2020 4:25 pm

terminator wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:21 am
Why the 37mm M1 has better movement point and better infantry attack in AA version than in AT version ?
First of all, I always make the same mistake of assuming that there's some (maybe "hidden") logic behind the stat choices that were made by the devs in the stock units file. I mean, the US campaign ist really, *really* old and I refuse to believe that none of the poeple involved in producing the game failed to notice that discepancy in movement points themselves. Following that logic: it has to be wanted like that and working as intended.

Myself, I've implemented a rather "gamey" solution/logic:
My reasoning to not equalize the MPs was to "tone down" the AT-switch ability a bit, because dual units are powerful as such and this unit (specifically) has a cheap price additionally. The (small air attack) AAs need 2-hex movement, but the "extra" AT-option shouldn't be that good anymore. If you want 2-hex-movement AT pieces, you should buy the dedicated ones.
But to be honest, I'm not sure if I followed that logic through all AA/AT units in my mod... I'll have to check.

I see the other point of view, of course: same chassis should mean same movement range, whatever direction the barrel's pointing...

"My" logic made me stick with many vanilla stats in my mod that I myself found to be "strange". Maybe I should reconsider doing this. :?: :!:

And yeah, completely agree on the inf.attack stats. Didn't notice myself :oops:
Thanks, will change!
terminator wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:01 pm
The OT-34 could use the cannon and the flame thrower at the same time? From the point of view of animation, that’s not too much?
You can have much longer effect sequences. Tried it, no problem.
Horst wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:21 pm
I’ve modified the unit-picture of the OT-34 (falsely available like ’42 but look of ’43) and added a flame at its bow-mg position where the flamethrower is.
Then I created for two additional OT variants: a real OT-34_42 (T-34_42 copy) and an OT-34-85. They also got their unit picture with the same turret-symbol like the vanilla one.
I use the OT-34’s vanilla-model now for my new OT-34_43 unit.
Yeah, the OT-34 anim should be already fixed in the current version of my mod.
Thanks for the variant suggestions; I didn't notice that the OT-34 availibility was limited (have to play RedStorm yet). Agree, an OT-34-85 seems warranted and will be added. :)

And thanks for the updated unit pics, I'll use them.

Horst wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:21 pm
Unfortunately, the T-34_42 and T-34-85 models don’t fire the flamethrower in place of the mg to the right direction, as it looks. That still needs to be fixed on the models themselves. I don’t get it why the firing-direction isn’t the same for all weapon types, or what’s the issue there? Simply replacing something at node 0 or 1 doesn’t do the trick if both nodes are supported.
If’s not too much work, copying the turret-symbol to the new OTs texture would be great too so they match their unit picture.
Yeah, that's one of the most recurring errors I've encountered with my own model-imports, too. It always gets messed up and has to be corrected...barrels firing sideways and similar "funny" things... :roll: :lol:

MG-fire, flametrowers, tank- and arty-barrels have all different pivot orientations if I remember correctly.
Horst wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:37 pm
I've copied & modified the animation-effect of the Churchill Crocodile which also fires its main gun before the flamethrower. Burn, baby, burn! :twisted:
Modified like what? The vanilla effect looks decent to me.

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:09 pm

If it comes to game development these years, what looks like logic is only a silly bug! :lol:
I actually also recently made my towed AT-modes more offensive now always allowing an attack on the move, although I still hesitate to remove the staticFire for artillery-mode on anything with movement 1. It's very unfortunate that you can't see this detail as trait-text.

I would be glad if node-directions would be sideways. That would give at least a good show, but downwards is boring. :evil:
The Japanese SS engineer-vehicle actually had two flamethrowers rather sideways, also the Flammpanzer 2 as little turnable turrets in a front-side arc.

I only exchanged the 75mm to 76.2mm sound/effect-entry. I can't remember if these two gun types have actually a different sound as I don't pay attention to such cosmetic details. I rather only notice differences in "boom" or "BOOOOM". :P

About my silly remove-spotter idea: I did some tests with first-strike units like my sniper and commandos. Nah, that doesn't work well with these. It looks like that the first-strike trait allows ambushes with no return-fire, so in the end you can't bring them down with a single unit as you always have to run into them, getting ambushed without chance to return fire and then follow-up with another allied unit to finally do some damage on these units. Too bad the mines don't have their own stealth trait.
Last edited by Horst on Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:11 pm

Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm
... then I noticed that the game already has all files. Model, texture, effect, unit-picture - everything is there!
The Armoured Train's AT unit pic and anim were always there. I'm pretty sure that I've even used them for my mod.

But wow, the AT model is new. Must have arrived somewhere between v7 and v8, I guess. Good find.

As I've needed separate models for different faction's textures, I had to create them myself and since then I didn't check the vanilla models anymore. :oops:

But now I've noticed something else: The shading of imported models compared to stock models has been fixed/improved, if my eyesight does not betray me.
(I have to report this to the Admiral!)

Screenshot 239.jpg
left stock, right modded
Screenshot 239.jpg (955.33 KiB) Viewed 280 times
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm
I think I need to take inventory and compare everything. The TD-18 was already a funny find.
Please! And don't forget to report back. :wink:
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm
Eh, there were more unused unit-pictures. I only remember now:
Hungarian_heavyinfantry_40
Alpini_42
Alpini_43
Yeah, but many are only copy-paste. Probably planned to add those units at some point, then discarded.
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm
PS: something else that just came into my weird mind: how about removing the spotter class-trait from the game, so units more plausibly fall for mine-traps. It's somehow too sheepish easy to spot mines most of the time that are basically still a mile away in the neighboring hex. Camouflaged units would also get even stealthier than before that you could remove the "arty" ranged-fire of snipers back to 0 again. The AI is already dumb enough to remember such sniper-attacks on its own towed guns, but then it would also work on every other unit type. Maybe it's getting a bit too unfair then with these and commandos.
Could work for mines. But as you said, no unit in the game would be able to spot commando-type units, the saharianna-esque recon and subs anymore. How's that supposed to work? Destoying such units would require "sacrificial" ambush-type attacks into them...noooooooo!
Or am I missing something?
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:58 pm
It's a pity that you can't add the spotter trait to single units, like only the engineer.
Creating a new unit class for the engineers is not that much trouble, though!

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:20 pm

I posted my pitiful test about remove-spotter in my last post above. T'was no good idea!

At least the unit pictures ripped from the archives are still darker than the original, but I still blame my tool for that. I still didn't bother to manually lighten them up a bit.

About these unused unit-pictures: I already changed all of my added unit-names to make them better distinguishable, like adding a proper date with affix. This has screwed up old savegames and my unit ban-list for Sandstorm but I've already have updated it. It's welcome by me if there is already an original unit picture dusting in the archives, so I don't need to add a darker copy again. You tend to lose overview by reusing same unit names that you always have to check their availability dates in the sheet.

You know we already had this topic about creating new classes: the AI behavior and trigger settings take only the vanilla ones for granted, so you could end up with AI/trigger-ignored units. Also no good idea although it would be the easiest method to do. This could only work in mod-only scenario designs.

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:39 pm

Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:09 pm
although I still hesitate to remove the staticFire for artillery-mode on anything with movement 1. It's very unfortunate that you can't see this detail as trait-text.
Actually I made the opposite and removed the "staticFire" trait from some light 2-CP mountain-type arty pieces. Super useful now.
Maybe even too much, but the only possibility to make them viable in the game IMO. Never bought them before.
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:09 pm
I would be glad if node-directions would be sideways. That would give at least a good show, but downwards is boring. :evil:
The Japanese SS engineer-vehicle actually had two flamethrowers rather sideways, also the Flammpanzer 2 as little turnable turrets in a front-side arc.
I can not make the flamethrowers turn or anything, but making them fire sideways (in any angle) is relatively easy. But I think it would look REALLY weird in the game.

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:51 pm

Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:20 pm
About these unused unit-pictures: I already changed all of my added unit-names to make them better distinguishable, like adding a proper date with affix. This has screwed up old savegames and my unit ban-list for Sandstorm but I've already have updated it. It's welcome by me if there is already an original unit picture dusting in the archives, so I don't need to add a darker copy again. You tend to lose overview by reusing same unit names that you always have to check their availability dates in the sheet.
Understandable, and actually I would have liked to also add the year to new units, but that would only mean an additional copy of the unit pic that has to be added to the grphics folder and would blow up the download size of the mod unnecessarily.
Horst wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:20 pm
You know we already had this topic about creating new classes: the AI behavior and trigger settings take only the vanilla ones for granted, so you could end up with AI/trigger-ignored units.
Basically you're right, but most scens I've been looking though with the editor have simple "move to" or "seek&destroy" orders (we're still talking about LAND units only) with no class/unit selected.

But okay, when I have more time I have to test this, as I've got some new unit classes in my mod already. Better sure than sorry. :)

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Tue Oct 20, 2020 6:04 pm

Arty: yes, arty with attack-on-move is already in my mod too for some time, but I restrict it to only 2+ movement:
My movement-rule:
- Light 1-780 kg: 4
- Medium: 781-1425 kg: 3
- Heavy: 1426-1955 kg: 2
- Immobile: 1956+ kg: 1
I got my own chassis rules, so no idea if this could work with the vanilla settings, like 4 only works on paved roads while on non-wet/snow open-terrain with only 2 at max. Anything with movement 1-3 has only move 1 on open and other terrain.
The heavier the artillery piece, the more time in normally takes to prepare it for firing, but the possibility of direct-fire for the 88 gun always comes into my mind as it could be fired unprepared from its wheeled carriage. No idea if other nation's allowed such quick-fire procedure too, but doesn't matter as I simply allow it generally for all such towed guns in AT-mode now.
As all towed guns should require a transport, like in my mod, I think allowing indirect firing on the move is still okay for the lighter/weaker guns as quick-preperation/transport-unload and support-firing too.
Mountain guns are meant to be mobile and should always allow quick-firing.

Yeah, sideways flaming would look much better if the flametank actually drives into the enemy hex, but we don't have this in the game. :twisted:

My 302 additional unit pictures so far only take up 3.59 MB, and that could still be compressed well to 2.21 MB. That's really not reason NOT to use a copy.

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:46 pm

Unused Models/Unit-Pictures
========================
105mm_leFH18_Romania (model & texture missing, but the picture looks identical to Hungarian, so that model can be used instead)
155mm_mle1917 (wooden wheels in brown color like US, UK or Greece maybe, as France uses 155mm_mle1917_m36; not that useful)
75mm_mle1897_m38_AT (French)
90mm_M1A1_AT
AB_40_Rail (didn't exist. Normally, the AB_41 can't be changed to railway-mode either that easily, as there was actually a specific railway-variant called "Ferroviaria" with 20 produced compared to 557 of the regular AB 41)
AB_43_Rail (AB 43 did not enter service anymore, and most likely wasn't switchable to railway-mode either like the AB 41. There is also a German variant of the AB_43 but this would lack railway-mode then; better ignore it)
Alpini_42
Alpini_43
Armoured_Train (the AT/tank-mode. I advice only tank-mode as it's restricted to railway tracks and could hardly serve in settlements or other difficult surrounding terrain as defensive unit)
Belgian_Engineers_40 (rather pointless as ’40 isn’t available yet during the invasion and models/textures maybe missing but the Polish ones could be used for a ’39 variant)
Bersaglieri_42
Bersaglieri_43
Boulton_Paul_Defiant (Battle Britain mod unit's name and model was renamed to Defiant_MkI, so can be ignored)
Churchill_USSR (identical to Churchill_MkIV_USSR)
CV_Yorktown_44
CV_Yorktown_45 (these Yorktown variants look identical. I'd be too lazy as well to create just another variant of a carrier, but I could look up all the real upgrade changes if I wanted to)
French_Engineers_40 (see Belgian above)
Fw190_F8_U2 (prototype torpedo bomber, that would hardly be carrier-born due general too high landing-speed of a Fw 190)
FW190_T (there is zero info about a planned carrier-variant with possible reason mentioned above)
G4M1_Hamaki_USA (just another captured jap-bomber that the US don't need at all)
Hungarian_heavyinfantry_40 (that picture was most likely intended as _41 as Hungarian_Infantry_41 exists too)
Japanese_Commandos_45 (only picture. The '44 existing variant uses a Jap_Marine_Type100-44_44 model which is rather shown in the '45 picture. Jap_Marine_Type100-40_42 should rather be used for the '44 picture, but heck, who cares?)
L3_33_Japan
La_7 (La-7 with different look but only as unit-picture. The Soviets often didn't bother with version numbering: there is an early variant with 2 ShVAK cannons and a late one with 3 Berezin B-20 cannons, so this unit could be made as La-7B20 upgrade)
Laffly_S15 (they named the unit (picture) to "French_Truck" but it still uses the Laffly_S15 model; can be ignored)
M4A2_Germany (identical to M4A2_Sherman_Germany)
M4A2_China (identical to M4A2_Sherman_China)
M4A3_Sherman_W76_China (the typo-variant of M4A3_Sherman_76W_China)
M4A3E8_Sherman_W76_China (the typo-variant of M4A3E8_Sherman_76W_China)
Sherman_Crab (better wait for the upcoming Western Allies campaigns)
sov_LL_truck (identical to us_truck_USSR)
Sub_I202_Submerged (only submerged pic exists which differs only marginally to the I201, so can be ignored)
Sub_Type_VII_C_42
Sub_Type_VII_C_42_Submerged (VIIC/42 were never completed, but could become a modernized VIIC variant with better AA, but I’d still stick to early IX for playing)
Sub_TypeVII_C
Sub_TypeVII_C_Submerged (this version looks smaller than the used Sub_Type_VII_C, so can be ignored)
TD-18


Of interest to me has been so far with the highlights:
105mm_leFH18_Romania (Romania had not many tanks but plenty artillery)
75mm_mle1897_m38_AT
90mm_M1A1_AT
Alpini_42
Alpini_43
Armoured_Train
Bersaglieri_42
Bersaglieri_43 (unexplainable why they didn’t include these important upgrades. I had immediately added these before starting with Sandstorm years ago)
Hungarian_heavyinfantry_40 (I’ve added all Hungarian missing inf-upgrades from 41 to 45, same for Romanian although only up to 44 when they switched sides. Maybe get useful for whatever custom stuff)
Japanese_Commandos_45
La_7 (as La-7B20, using the old La-7 model though)
TD-18

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3206
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by GabeKnight » Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:00 pm

Thanks for the arty info; looks like my assumptions were quite okay, good to know.

Horst wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:46 pm
Unused Models/Unit-Pictures
========================
Nice. Thanks for that, too.

But I won't add units for factions that the player can not buy or use (like Belgium, Poland, etc.).
Besides that, I've already got all the Armoured Train variants that I always wanted :mrgreen: , the Alpini/Bers. updates are already in my mod too, as are the Sherman-Crab, TD18, Jap. (annual) commandos and the Hungarian mortarinf.
Horst wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:46 pm
75mm_mle1897_m38_AT (French)
90mm_M1A1_AT
(CV_Yorktown_44, CV_Yorktown_45)
Fw190_F8_U2 (prototype torpedo bomber, that would hardly be carrier-born due general too high landing-speed of a Fw 190)
FW190_T (there is zero info about a planned carrier-variant with possible reason mentioned above)
G4M1_Hamaki_USA (just another captured jap-bomber that the US don't need at all)
L3_33_Japan
La_7 (La-7 with different look but only as unit-picture...)
Those are my "highlights" from that list, although I have to check them first.
More switch modes and upgrades are always useful and I don't mind prototype models as there are enough in the game already, but I really don't like re-using the same model with only a different picture and name...

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Wed Oct 21, 2020 6:13 pm

Can't say at moment if your highlights actually have a working model with texture in the game.
At least the 75mm and 90mm AT-modes work fine, like the Armoured Train. These AT-modes are truly useful additions.
The Sub VIIC/42 also has a working model/texture, but I decided not to include it. I'd die of old age if I include yearly upgrades of every naval unit in the game.

PS: I've rather only compared unit-pictures with the used vanilla units. It's possible that are still different named models/textures in the archives that I haven't noticed yet. I don't fully trust this tool to let me see all data.

Horst
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1719
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

Post by Horst » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:52 pm

After adding mine-laying and -sweeping to historically supported ships, I’ve noticed that the added Bombard ability to naval units only fires on enemy occupied hexes; hidden or not. Other available but unoccupied hexes won’t trigger the bombardment. It still works correctly for land-artillery incl. HvyInf or structures if you add it there.
I can’t remember that it was cheating that way when I added it years ago, but I hadn’t really used it that often either afair. Crap, I have to remove it then from ships. :evil:
Oh well, more room for my mine-laying then. On DD with torpedo and sonar, there is only room for mine-laying anyway, so I can forget about additional mine-sweeping. It’s okay - more right to exist for the Support Ship then.

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design”