Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[faos333]

Kursk '43 save new AAR link below

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112876

[McGuba]

Hello, concerning the Tags, could you post 1-2 tags examples, so to see how they are defined?

I do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.

Kursk '43 save new AAR link below

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112876

That"s excellent! It may well be the first AAR of a later war game start. I think an AAR starting with the 1944 Normandy/Bagration save would also be very interesting.



The legendary GeneralWerner has also started to post a new AAR of BE v2.4:
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112948

He was one of the first to write complete AARs for this mod several years ago, when the BE mod was still very much in the making. As such his early feedback helped greatly to make the mod as it is today.

[faos333]

Hello, concerning the Tags, could you post 1-2 tags examples, so to see how they are defined?

I do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.

...

[faos333]

Hello, concerning the Tags, could you post 1-2 tags examples, so to see how they are defined?

I do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.
...

For some reason I can not create or edit a Tag, that is why I want to see a Tag example, to see the content of Tag

[McGuba]

For some reason I can not create or edit a Tag, that is why I want to see a Tag example, to see the content of Tag

OK, so in the editor:

Edit -> Scenario Params... -> Scripts -> Add -> Add tag action

Then just enter whatever random name you want to give to the tag in the "Tag: " box and press OK. Then this newly created tag can be referred to as a condition to be met by certain triggers or by units in order to appear in the map.

Note that when adding a new tag action in the "Action: " box you can choose between Add (default) and Remove. Thus you can remove unnecessary tags as well at some point, if you want to.

[Locarnus]

For some reason I can not create or edit a Tag, that is why I want to see a Tag example, to see the content of Tag

If you have an install with my Addon (2023-07 or 08), the "Kursk2.pzscn" scenario has such a tag example (to run this scenario in-game you can access it from the scenario list, but under the name "Test"):

- 2nd script in the list displays the message "211",
if the condition <tag "211" exists> is fulfilled for the first time,
at the beginning of an axis turn

- 3rd script in the list sets the tag "211" and displays the message "Trigger",
if the condition <axis tank in zone "16"> is fulfilled for the first time,
at the beginning of an axis turn
(zone 16 is marked with an A on the map)

Since the scripts are run from first to last in the list, the 2nd place tag checking script runs before the 3rd place tag setting script each turn:
At the start of axis turn 1, the tag checking script finds no tag "211".
At the start of axis turn 1, the tag setting script finds no axis tank in zone "16".
You then move an axis tank on the "A" marked hex (zone "16") in turn 1.
At the start of axis turn 2, the tag checking script finds no tag "211".
At the start of axis turn 2, the tag setting script finds an axis tank in zone "16" and thus sets tag "211" and displays message "Trigger", completing the setting script.
At the start of axis turn 3, the tag checking script finds the tag "211" and thus displays message "211", completing the checking script.

edit: Make sure to start the Test/Kursk2 scenario in hotseat mode when in game, otherwise there will be chaos.

[faos333]

...................

thanks for your detailed answers, it helped me a lot to understand the mechanics of Tags.
Now, I need to do some testing with them

[Uhu]

I always wanted to make AAR's from my heroic campaigns - but could not gather enough energy to do it. It would be also grammarly not the best.. Maybe later when I get retired?

[Slartibartfast]

Give the Soviet Union more units from the western Allies, based upon the amount of Axis trade warfare in the Atlantic.

Currently the SU gets the historical number of Western (Lend Lease) units, in proportion to the Soviet home produced units. Increasing the number of western units would change this historical ratio to an unhistorical one, making the western units over-represented.

This would give a further incentive to the Axis player to actually wage the "Battle of the Atlantic".
It would also buff the Soviet Union, if the player does not conduct this trade war (which is the default among experienced players at the moment).
Rough implementation does not require more AI zones.

It could be argued that the Western Allies would have sent more help to the Eastern Front, if the supply to the UK itself would not have been contested.

I think your argument is highly speculative: historically only a relatively small portion (about 25%) of the US aid to the Soviet Union was sent via the North Atlantic - Arctic Sea route. And of this only about 7% was lost, 93% arrived safely, despite German efforts to disrupt this flow. The majority of the US aid was sent via the Pacific route (50%) and the Persian corridor (25%). And these two routes could not be disrupted by the Germans.

German efforts, however signficant they were, could only cause partial disruption at best and only for limited time. Had these efforts were more successful, it is probably more likely that the Allies would have tried to send more aid through the other two routes.

Nevertheless, I agree that it may be beneficial to make it somewhat more worthy for the player to use the u-boats (and perhaps the Kriegsmarine) to attack the convoys instead of conserving them for D-day or a late war Sea Lion.

For example each destroyed convoy unit could result in one less Allied unit (Western or Soviet), that would otherwise appear later. This could mean not only one less Lend-Lease Soviet unit in the east, but perhaps rather one less Western air unit appearing in the UK or one less ground unit for D-day.

Also, if there are too many active German U-boats in 1944, perhaps there should be even more Allied destroyers appearing to better protect the D-day invasion and/or Sea Lion (at least in the single player version). The Allies had a fairly good intel on the actual strength of the German U-Boot Waffe, and if it had been any stronger than it was then most likely they would have provided even more escort to the invasion fleet.

How about, each lost convoy unit equals one less mechanised/aerial combat unit 3-6 months later, but also 0.5-1 more destroyer units 6-12 months later? So the Allies lose that material but increase their destroyer production to counter the threat. Which is historically coherent. I'd also add a Soviet conscript division for each Soviet mechanised division lost. Those conscripts aren't getting sent home because some Jeeps didn't show up at Murmansk.

[bondjamesbond]

In addition to Murmansk, there were also deliveries through Iran
https://wwii.space/фото-иран-во-второй-мировой/2/
https://en.topwar.ru/158485-osen-1941-g ... ridor.html

So the seizure of the Caucasus is not only oil, but also the closure of Lend Lease supplies through Iran (It will be possible to arrange bomber raids on Ashgabat and Tehran))
https://stylishbag.ru/19-foto/lend-liz-karta.html

[McGuba]

How about, each lost convoy unit equals one less mechanised/aerial combat unit 3-6 months later, but also 0.5-1 more destroyer units 6-12 months later? So the Allies lose that material but increase their destroyer production to counter the threat. Which is historically coherent. I'd also add a Soviet conscript division for each Soviet mechanised division lost. Those conscripts aren't getting sent home because some Jeeps didn't show up at Murmansk.

My plan is that the sinking of each convoy unit in the North Atlantic would result in one or two less Allied ground or air unit later. This has to be worked out in detail.

In fact, if the player does not sink any of those convoy units, there should be several additional Allied units appearing on top of the current amount. As it is indeed a problem at the moment that it may be more beneficial to conserve the u-boat fleet for Normandy or a late war Sealion instead of using them historically. This should be addressed somehow.

On the other hand, giving the Allied side additonal destroyers for every convoy units sunk, as suggested, would be counterprductive I guess, as in that case many players may again decide to avoid doing so since it would only make their life harder in the long run.

In addition to Murmansk, there were also deliveries through Iran

Yes, that was the so-called "Persian corridor" I mentioned in my post - the route through Persia/Iran. It had about the same importance as the North Atlantic route, both accounting about 25% of the total amount of Lend-lease goods. But the most important route was the Pacific route through Siberia, which was also the safest route of all. Through which 50% of the goods vere delivered. However, only non-military goods could be carried there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route

So the seizure of the Caucasus is not only oil, but also the closure of Lend Lease supplies through Iran (It will be possible to arrange bomber raids on Ashgabat and Tehran))

Yes, and it is already simulated in the mod, the capture of the Caucasus reduces the amount of Western Allied units appearing in the Soviet army.

[goose_2]

the download says it is to big to preview?

[faos333]

the download says it is to big to preview?

sounds logical, there should no problem to download

[goose_2]

yep. it was just big

[tactical22]

Hi McGuba!! Is this the end of your master piece??

[PeteMitchell]

Happy New Year everyone!

[McGuba]

Hi McGuba!! Is this the end of your master piece??

Hopefully not.
While it is true that recently I did not do a lot of modding, it may change. We'll see how it goes.

In my opinon, the mod in general has reached the limits of the game engine, and in certain ways it has even surpassed it. Which created issues of their own.

For now, I have some ideas to make the hardest version even more challenging / historically accurate, mainly aimed at veteran players, but the problem is, it would potentially also make the multiplayer version harder for the Axis side. And I would like to keep the current balance in latter one.

As always, I am still open to suggestions.

[PeteMitchell]

I would still propose a small intro scenario about the Spanish Civil War prior to Poland

[faos333]

I would still propose a small intro scenario about the Spanish Civil War prior to Poland

Indeed

In the mean time, after finishing UHU's Italian campaign and Locarnus add on Afrika Korps, I am thinking later on this year, to try the Normandy/Bagration save, which I think would also be very interesting.

How about you Pete, any game plans for the year 2024?

[Uhu]

...I am thinking later on this year, to try the Normandy/Bagration save, which I think would also be very interesting.

Good choice! Can the Axis turn the tide and recapture lost territories - or even make a visit finally in Moscow?