Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

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

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

McGuba
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by McGuba »

P210 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:31 am Uhu, I'm really interested about your oil crisis concept, but I also really, really dislike the -4 fuel/per turn script
For example, in Normandy save in the winter in close terrain you can't do anything except to try to refuel every single motorized unit on every turn and still end up first with immobilized and then quickly annihilated army.
Then maybe motorized units should not stay in close terrain during the winter after the critical oil situation. In fact, historically several German motorized units were (HINT) "downgraded" in 1944/45 thereby losing many of their trucks and tractors only to be replaced with horses and mules. Horses might be slower, but they do not need fuel. And it looks like at least half of the German tanks and the majority of the heavy tanks and tank destroyers were destroyed or abandoned by their own crews due to mechanical breakdowns and the lack of fuel from mid 1944, instead of being destroyed by the enemy. So this concept might feel harsh, but it is quite accurate, given the limited possibilities of the game engine.

McGuba and Uhu, Therefore I suggest using the same system for land units as for the capital ships - A fixed fuel cap for all units in the class. For example, most armored units have fuel capacity around 40 or so. That could be nicely capped to 20 for all. There are some exceptions like the Tiger I unit, but that is likely the highest priority unit in the whole army and therefore likely has the highest priority for fuel.
Yes, someone else already suggested this, but unfortunately it is not possible to do it like that due to the afformentioned game engine limitations. I could only do it like this with the naval units because naval units cannot be upgraded to something else. So I could be sure that for example the Tirpitz will remain the Tirpitz at any time in the scenario. Then I just had to replace this unit with another downgraded Tirpitz with less maximum fuel by adding a script which does so. But when it comes to tanks, the situation is not so simple. It is impossible to tell what would happen to a unit which starts the scenario as a Pz.II or Pz.38 in 1941. Will it be upgraded to a Pz.IVH or maybe a Panther by the player? So then what should I replace it with in 1944? And the equipment file cannot be modified during the scenario, the game saves it in the savegame file so it remains the same throughout the whole scenario. Therefore the only thing I could do to is to add a script which reduces the fuel of all ground units by a small amount in each turn. Some units are more affected by this, obvioulsy those with lower fuel. But those units which do not normally use fuel, like infantry or horse transport are not affected at all. Which in the end tends to create a more infantry based and less mechanized army, exaclty as it happened in 1944/45 with the Wehrmacht. And those mechanized units which are nevertheless forced to start offensive operations are doomed to fail and lose the bulk of their tanks destroyed by their own crews. See Ardennes offensive and Spring Awakening.


Intenso82 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:15 pm Perhaps there is a correlation between the number of AI zones and the time of the AI turn, but this is only an assumption.
It surely affects AI thinking time, but I am also (almost) sure that it could be increased. The problem is, PzC was not desinged to be used with such massive scenarios and the designers never intended to make and release such DLCs so they never really had to change this limitation. For the small scale scenarios of the official campaigns 32 AI zones are more than enough. When making my other mod (RHA: Turan Campaign), which is a more conventional one, I always had enough AI zones for each scenario and felt this limitation.

Still, I would not complain as when I started making this mod, I could not believe that in the end it will be able to do so much without crashing the game. So the PzC game engine is extremely flexible.


The share of Baku oil was about 2/3 of all oil produced.

This may mean that the seizure of southern oil fields would not bring additional fuel to the Germans,
since the entire infrastructure would have been destroyed. And its full restoration would take several years.
But it would also deprive the Soviet side of this oil.
This would be more of a negative option for the Soviets than a positive one for Germany.
It is somewhat debated by historians how useful the capture of Baku could have been for Germany, but since it did not happen, we will never know. What we know is that Japan did capture a number of oil fields from the Dutch and the Brits in the Far East, and although those oil fields were also destroyed, the Japanese managed to get many of them back to work after a few months or one year the latest, even if not at full capacity. Their main problem was how to take the fuel back to Japan as the US submarines sank most of their tankers. I think something similar would have happened to Germany as well. They had enough experts and resources to repair and reach at least a partial capacity after some time. And they did not even need to reach half capacity as their needs were significantly lower:
"Even though Germany’s 1938 oil consumption of little more than 44 million barrels was considerably less than Great Britain’s 76 million barrels, Russia’s 183 million barrels, and the one billion barrels used by the United States, in wartime Germany’s needs for an adequate supply of liquid fuel would be absolutely essential for successful military operations on the ground and, even more so, in the air.

At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

The smallest of the Russian oil fields at Maikop was captured in August 1942, and it was expected that the two remaining fields and refineries in Grozny and Baku also would fall into German hands. Had the German forces been able to capture these fields and hold them, Germany’s petroleum worries would have been over. Prior to the Russian campaign, Maikop produced 19 million barrels annually, Grozny 32 million barrels, and Baku 170 million barrels.

Grozny and Baku, however, were never captured, and only Maikop yielded to German exploitation. As was the case in all areas of Russian production, the retreating forces had done a thorough job of destroying or dismantling the usable installations; consequently, the Germans had to start from scratch. In view of past experience with this type of Russian policy, such destruction was expected, and Field Marshal Hermann Göring’s staff had begun making the necessary preparations in advance. But a shortage of transport that was competing with military requirements, a shortage of drill equipment as well as drillers, and the absence of refining capacity at Maikop created such difficulties that when the German forces were compelled to withdraw from Maikop in January 1943 in order to avoid being cut off after the fall of Stalingrad, Germany had failed to obtain a single drop of Caucasian oil. Nevertheless, the Germans were able to extract about 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, a quantity that they would have received anyway under the provisions of the friendship treaty of 1939."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EsW ... 1.&f=false


So they did not need the whole production capacity of the Baku region, they just needed to increase their own home + Romanian production by 25% to satisfy their needs, which was significantly smaller than that of the Soveit Union or Great Britain. It is true though, that they would not have been able to start oil production immediately, as it is currently depicted in the mod. So I am thinking to change this in the next version by adding a skip turn parameter before the player would get the additional prestige after capturing the oil fields. I think it should take at least 6 months to get some capacity and maybe another 6 months to get some more. Or maybe on realistic level it could be one year minimum.

Intenso82 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:15 pm Also in addition to Baku in the Caucasus were the Groznensky oil area and Maikop (but more small).
Therefore, it is probably better to leave oil hex in the area of ​​Grozny instead of Tbilisi.
Yes, sure I wanted to write Grozny, just made a mistake. I am only thinking now if it is possible to increase the number of oil fields in the mod to better reflect their importance compared to each other.

Intenso82 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:15 pm Probably the system of strategic bombing of Germany in a single version is not subject to such a feature.
But in the case of the multiplayer version, when the Allies seize the cities of Germany available for strategic bombardment
is it possible to bomb them further and get a penalty on the prestige for the Axis?
Currently in both single and multiplayer mode from 1944 the Axis player can still lose prestige due to bombardment even if the Allies capture one or more German cities. But the Allies need to position more and more planes for bombing to get this effect and once the Allies capture at least 3 German objective cities the Axis player no longer gets the prestige penalty for the bombing of the cities from. For example the if the Allied player can capture one German objective city in 1944, he needs to position at least two bomber units over German objective cities to make the penalty - for instance one over the captured city and another one over another city which is still owned by Axis player.

But for the Allied player it is still better to capture at least one German objective city with the "+" as soon as possible as in that case the Germans cannot get more free replacement units for the time being.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969
Intenso82
Most Successful Mod 2017
Most Successful Mod 2017
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Intenso82 »

McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:32 am Nevertheless, the Germans were able to extract about 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, a quantity that they would have received anyway under the provisions of the friendship treaty of 1939.
If I correctly counted the barrels, then 4.7 million barrels is about 0.7 mt of oil.
Somewhere I read that in Western Ukraine there was a small oilfield, maybe Germany seized it without much damage and restored it.
McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:32 am It surely affects AI thinking time, but I am also (almost) sure that it could be increased.
Still, I would not complain as when I started making this mod, I could not believe that in the end it will be able to do so much without crashing the game. So the PzC game engine is extremely flexible.
Yes, the simple mechanics of PZC + deep detailing made it possible to create such unique content.
It is interesting that games of a global level of such content and such detailing can not be found anywhere else.
None of the global strategy known to me on the WW2 offers such mix.
Developers can't spend hundreds of hours researching and making a large number of unique units in just one or more instances.
Even HOI4 is very weak in this.

Although the game engine is not designed for global strategies, quite a lot has been done.
What would have happened if there was a special engine? :D

Сould add a few dozen new traits.
And add a few new parameters for the units.
Because if add many modifications of vehicles it will be difficult to make different stats.
And also completely redesign the system switching modes of the unit.

But of course can still improve hundreds of different parameters.
Especially for the opposite side.
Since usually the creators focus on the player's side and for the other side there is an imbalance.
But the multiplayer version can help with this :)
[MOD] RUSSIA AT WAR:1941 - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=75743
Uhu
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Uhu »

Intenso82 wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:39 pm What would have happened if there was a special engine?
I would be so glad to be a co-gamedesigner of such a game!
I would also build a much complex supply and reinforcement system (which would be not more complex for the player to manage, but for the engine - for example: calculating a supply chain beyond Poti harbor, which was captured by see - therefore sea supply - but limited, if hostile sea forces are still in the vicinity - plus calculating geography, plus distance from the Poti harbor, etc.).
The question is, who would make the engine, AI programming?
Image
Image
Uhu
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Uhu »

McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:32 am Yes, someone else already suggested this, but unfortunately it is not possible to do it like that due to the afformentioned game engine limitations.
Plus it would require an extreme amount of time/work to do! Because every affiliated unit had to copied with the edited max fuel level in the eqp and efx file. Than every unit had to be inserted to the script - twice, one time at changing for the lower-fuel level unit and another time back to full l fuel level unit. You can make calculations, how much unit is affected... :)
On the other hand, what McGuba writes, that at the upgrade procedure, we cannot see the situation, what fuel state is (oil crisis on/off), that means, even for plains cannot be this done. :( On the other hand, for planes, it is not an option to have the -4 fuel/turn, because the system could not calculate this, how far a given plane can fly, so eventually many plane would perish because they could not fly home for refuel...
McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:32 amThe share of Baku oil was about 2/3 of all oil produced.[...]
Therefore was my suggestion, making a rough calculation, that if the Axis captured Both Grozny and Baku fields, but they were mostly destroyed, but already 10% of it would be enough the close the oil crisis. So, 10% could be repaired and the transport could be also built in one year (also partly the south region would use that oil, so no need to transport everything to west) and therefore the oil crisis would end in one year.
On the other hand, I would suggest, that the oil crisis should start to end, if the player captures 3 fields (+ Romanian). That would mean, that capturing Middle East oil fields would also solve the problem. Sure, that is only a rough calculation, but I would calculate in this, that Britain is than so much weakened, that maybe they would sue for peace, etc.
McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:32 amBut for the Allied player it is still better to capture at least one German objective city with the "+" as soon as possible as in that case the Germans cannot get more free replacement units for the time being.
Is it true, that if major German cities are captured, than the player do not get the bonus prestige amounts from Speer?
Image
Image
Uhu
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Uhu »

A question: did somebody try in the operation to capture Moscow in 1941to avoid/bypass the fortified Smolensk-Mozhaysk road and advance ONLY from Kaluga as main and from Rzhev as secondary thrust? Was it easier as "eating through" the mentioned path?
Image
Image
Uhu
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Uhu »

OK, I made a test about how quickly can the Baku- (and Grozny-) oil field be captured. It can be taken in turn 25. That's the best time result, what can be made IMHO. I also got luck, because the Soviet submarine at Poti could be eliminated quickly, as every attack against it was successful (no crash-diving).
The interesting detail is, that the player even do not need to organize strong forces for it! I used:
- 3x Gebirgsjäger, 1x Alpini, 1x Romanian Mnt, 1x Romanian Inf, 2x German inf, 1x Fallschirmjäger (dropped in turn 11 with the last good weather east of Poti), 1x Brandenburgers (dropped in the spring of 1942). (I also brought 2x veteran PzGrenadiers for later use in the Middle East)
- 1x Italian Mnt Arty, 1x Romanian 75mm Arty, 1x German 105mm tracked Arty
- 2x hero-PzIVF1's (probably PzIII's would also do the trick, but I calculated already with that, that the armor goes later further south for the Middle East oil fields)
- Plus I needed initial air help to clear the sea region at Poti and destroy the Battleship and later also a few assistance to soften Grozny and clear the armor west of Baku
Important is, that every turn, some unit has to go to sea transport from Constanza and Varna.
So, I think, even the early Moscow capture is possible - I could almost do it, while I did not plan this, and therefore there was not enough force to do this right. On the other hand, it is not useful to build a siege ring around Leningrad, because there will be not enough heavy force to maintain it and therefore high losses will be sustained and even the siege ring can be broken. Also invading Britain has to be pushed to the winter of 42/43.

The only question remains, what surprises will McGuba made for us beyond v1.9? :roll: :D

Image
Image
Image
Maths
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:37 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Maths »

Hi, McGuba
I'm playing the Barbarossa scenario. As are stating Panzer Corps's rules, air operations are forbidden on a snowy weather. This works well in the case of small scale scenarios (basic scenarios in the base game which reprensent relatively small scenario). However in the Battlefield Europe mod, the scale is litteraly huge but a snowy weather still forbidding air ops. As a result, from late Novemeber to late Febuary (winter period in the mod), there are absolutely nothing in the air. That lead to allow the Allied bombers to stay over a Victory City in Germany and bomb indefinetely till the winter's end. That lead too to allow uncontestable air drops by the Soviets behind the lines...
In a nutshell is it possible to let air ops to take place during snowy weather with big penalties implement ?
P210
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by P210 »

McGuba,

I do understand the -4 per turn thing. I'm just still suffering from PTSD from the first time it hit during *44/*45 winter. :shock: :D
On second try I was wiser and acted accordingly. :)
I also had ignorant presumption that a script can be used for capping max fuel on all units in certain category..

So, when we will have the opportunity to try the new naval warfare concept? :wink:
McGuba
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by McGuba »

Uhu wrote: Is it true, that if major German cities are captured, than the player do not get the bonus prestige amounts from Speer?
It only affects the last 100 prestige, which the player only gets if he is on the losing path after turn 77 (no Sea Lion and USSR has not been knocked out).
The only question remains, what surprises will McGuba made for us beyond v1.9?
There will be several changes, the one that affects the Black Sea operations will be that the Soviet fleet will be stronger as the OOBs will better reflect the historical ratios of 1941:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea ... 2%80%9344)

The Soviets will have motor torpedo boats, and also a few other small ships and the Romanians will only have two destroyer units in 1941 (one destroyer unit in the mod represents 8 actual destroyers/other escort ships). But the Romanians will get some more German and Italian reinforcements later in 42/43. With these and the weakening of the SU fleet it might still be possible to cross the Black Sea, but I think it will be harder. And there will be (magnetic) bottom mines and shallow and deep sea hexes. Overall, naval warfare will be more varied, especially in multiplayer.

Also, I think there will be more, but less valuable oil field hexes so Baku will be more valuable (with four oil fields), but better defended then before. And oil fields will not give prestige immediately as first they will need to get repaired after being destroyed by the retreating enemy. So again, it will be a compromise.

Maths wrote:In a nutshell is it possible to let air ops to take place during snowy weather with big penalties implement ?
Historically in WW2 there were no air operations in bad weather. Aircraft were mostly grounded in snowing or fog or heavy rain. Even overcast cloud cover heavily limited the effectiveness of bombing. They did have a radio electric equipment to find their targets through a cloud cover or at night (Oboe) but it had limited range and was later subject to jamming. They did have, however, ground scanning radar for longer range missions. Anyway, I think it is good that there are no air ops in bad weaher in the game.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969
Maths
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:37 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Maths »

Hi,
P210 wrote: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:44 am Anyway, I think it is good that there are no air ops in bad weaher in the game.
Yeah, since the air ops (and units as well) represented in the mod are large scale, after reflection I agree with what you said. If air ops (and units) simulated were smaller it would have been good to allow air ops in bad weather (isolated flights) so OK

Actually during the first winter of the game I was frustrated from being unautorized to send anything in the air but with the winter'42 I figured out that it is better as it is now.
McGuba
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by McGuba »

Hi all,

There is a thing in my mind now (what I believe I can do technically): to possibly restrict the upgrade and purchase of ground units only to the victory objective cities in Germany and to a few other selected cities. Now I am thinking of Rome, Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria. Budapest and Bucharest would be candidates as well, but these are too close to the Eastern front (closer than the German cities) so most likely players would end up using these to upgrade German units as well which would not make much sense. But then it would also mean that Romanian and Hungarian (and possibly Finnish) units could only be upgraded in Germany. However, that would not be a big problem as these nations' meaningful upgrades are mostly German tanks anyway, and historically their tank crews were usually trained in Germany when they received German equipment.

So the main thing is that the Axis player would need to move its units back for upgrades and would not be able to purchase brand new ground units in far away or isolated occupied territories like England or the Middle East or a cut-off Caucasus even if there are empty core slots. I guess in most cases it would take like 5-6 turns to upgrade a unit instead of the actual 2-3 turns. Then players would need to consider even more if it is worth taking a unit off the frontline for a while or continue using it despite being increasingly obsolete thereby adding another nice layer of strategic thinking. Also, it would make the defense of Sicily harder as it would not be possible to spawn new units there when the Allies start to invade it. And of course new units could not be purchased right at the frontline wherever they needed. Instead, they could only be purchased in Germany (and in those few selected cities) and then transfered to the frontline by train.

It would be much more realistic than as it is, but it would also make the mod harder, especially for those not too skilled players who does not realize the importance of timely unit upgrades. Some players just do not seem to upgrade ground units even now, when it is possible anywhere. If it was restricted mostly to Germany these players would have no chance for winning at all as most likely they would not bother moving their units back from the frontline. So maybe it could only be like this in the "realistic" version of the mod and the lower difficulty versions could stay the same.

Another side effect would be that it would make the railway lines more busy as the Axis player would need to move units by train more often and not only for unit transfers, but also for upgrades. Which would further increase the importance of the defense of railroads from partisans.

I would be interested to know the opinion of the players of this mod on this idea.

Regards,
McGuba
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969
guille1434
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by guille1434 »

I just want to say that it is an excellent idea! (I always read anything new here in this sub-forum, but I seldom comment when I have not something positive to add). Specially if you make it an "optional" feature! I congratulate you for your outstanding work on this mod and the "stretching" you achieved with this game engine. As a "just average" player, never dared to try your mod, because I think I will be quickly toasted by the AI in such a game... :-( But, having read all of it here, I am sure it would be a nice experience!!!

Besides, may be this idea can be "imported" to another scenarios or campaigns, adding an interesting strategic layer to the game mechanics (as you have said) and giving capital importance to some places to defend from enemy action (cities, ports) if you want to keep the ability and logistics support to be able to upgrade unit in your army.

Keep it up, man!
Uhu
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:16 pm
Location: Hungary

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by Uhu »

Great idea! I thought already this, but did not know, it can be implemented in the game!
How about to implement my oil crisis version too in the harder version(s)? :)
McGuba wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:43 pm Hi all,

There is a thing in my mind now (what I believe I can do technically): to possibly restrict the upgrade and purchase of ground units only to the victory objective cities in Germany and to a few other selected cities. Now I am thinking of Rome, Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria. Budapest and Bucharest would be candidates as well, but these are too close to the Eastern front (closer than the German cities) so most likely players would end up using these to upgrade German units as well which would not make much sense. But then it would also mean that Romanian and Hungarian (and possibly Finnish) units could only be upgraded in Germany. However, that would not be a big problem as these nations' meaningful upgrades are mostly German tanks anyway, and historically their tank crews were usually trained in Germany when they received German equipment.

So the main thing is that the Axis player would need to move its units back for upgrades and would not be able to purchase brand new ground units in far away or isolated occupied territories like England or the Middle East or a cut-off Caucasus even if there are empty core slots. I guess in most cases it would take like 5-6 turns to upgrade a unit instead of the actual 2-3 turns. Then players would need to consider even more if it is worth taking a unit off the frontline for a while or continue using it despite being increasingly obsolete thereby adding another nice layer of strategic thinking. Also, it would make the defense of Sicily harder as it would not be possible to spawn new units there when the Allies start to invade it. And of course new units could not be purchased right at the frontline wherever they needed. Instead, they could only be purchased in Germany (and in those few selected cities) and then transfered to the frontline by train.

It would be much more realistic than as it is, but it would also make the mod harder, especially for those not too skilled players who does not realize the importance of timely unit upgrades. Some players just do not seem to upgrade ground units even now, when it is possible anywhere. If it was restricted mostly to Germany these players would have no chance for winning at all as most likely they would not bother moving their units back from the frontline. So maybe it could only be like this in the "realistic" version of the mod and the lower difficulty versions could stay the same.

Another side effect would be that it would make the railway lines more busy as the Axis player would need to move units by train more often and not only for unit transfers, but also for upgrades. Which would further increase the importance of the defense of railroads from partisans.

I would be interested to know the opinion of the players of this mod on this idea.

Regards,
McGuba
Image
Image
DandyDust
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by DandyDust »

Hi there all,
I´ve been looking for the DOWNLOAD-LINK!???
Please be so nice and give me a hind!
Dandy
PeteMitchell
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2443
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:18 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by PeteMitchell »

Hi Dandy, in the very first post of this thread...
DandyDust wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:52 pm Hi there all,
I´ve been looking for the DOWNLOAD-LINK!???
Please be so nice and give me a hind!
Dandy
Comprehensive Battlefield Europe AAR:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=145&t=86481
jeff00t
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by jeff00t »

McGuba , your idea is great but as an option :)

and as optional , could you make your fantastic mod playable with no limit of turns? just the war, no rush stress... i just would like to know how many turns( or years) i can stand...
my custom single player mini-campaign in order of battle : normandie-niemen: Image
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=374&t=79333&p=676302#p676302
McGuba
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by McGuba »

guille1434 wrote: Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:49 pm As a "just average" player, never dared to try your mod, because I think I will be quickly toasted by the AI in such a game... But, having read all of it here, I am sure it would be a nice experience!!!
This is exactly why I made two easier versions for v1.9: a "medium" and an "easy" version in which 1/3rd and 2/3rds of the Allied unit reinforcements are removed. The "easy" is really there for players who are seeking a more frustration free experience or just want test how different game mechanics work in this mod. It can be still challenging though, as the game rules and the historical events are the same, but the force ratio is much less favourable to the Allied side. I think most players should be able to handle it.
Uhu wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:10 am Great idea! I thought already this, but did not know, it can be implemented in the game!
I ran a quick test and it looks like it is possible. First I tried to add two new terrain types for that, but then strange things started to happen and I just did not want to spend too much time with bug fixing and figuring out what the problem was. So in the end I will just modify two less used terrain types (jungle and rouogh desert) for this purpose (city and port with no ground unit supply) and will see how it works.
Uhu wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:10 am How about to implement my oil crisis version too in the harder version(s)?
Probably I will add a "softcore" version for now: two times more (8) Allied oil fields with half of them at Baku, but of course Baku better defended and harder to cross the Black Sea, 6 months for repairing the oil fields before the player would get any prestige for them (however capturing two or more oil fields will immediately reduce new Allied reinforcements), and unless at least two oil fields are taken and repaired German air units slowly start to lose experience due to less fuel available for flight training from 1943 (1 exp point per turn) then moderately in 1944 (3 exp points per turn) and finally significantly in 1945 (5 per turn). I have not decided about the Axis cruisers yet. The Italian cruisers and destroyers were fairly active in 42-43, escorting Axis convoys to North Africa and intercepting Allied convoys heading to Malta while suffering heavy losses in the process so I am not sure if their fuel should be limited in the same way as it is with the battleships now. There will be many other changes and I do not want to go crazy about changes to avoid ruining the fragile balance of the mod. Maybe I already ventured too far that's why I think it will be more like an experimental version. I think in the lower difficulty versions the waiting time for the repair of the oil fields could be shortened or omitted.
jeff00t wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:11 pm McGuba , your idea is great but as an option
Yes, I think I will only add it to the "realistic" version of the scenario, if at all.

jeff00t wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:11 pm and as optional , could you make your fantastic mod playable with no limit of turns? just the war, no rush stress... i just would like to know how many turns( or years) i can stand...

It is not possible to make scenarios with unlimited turns. But it is possible to make one with high enough turn number. But bear in mind that in this mod the Allies would not get more reinforcements after turn 95 or so. And there might be other unwanted side-effects for example the Axis not getting more prestige after turn 99 and stuff like that. So I am not sure that it would work at all. But it is possible to try it and you can do it for yourself quite easily. All you need to do is to install the mod correctly and then run the editor and load the kursk.pzdat file which should be in your \Panzer Corps\Data\ folder. This is the '"realistic" version of the main scenario. The "medium" and "easy" versions are the kursk2.pzdat and kursk3.pzdat, respectively. Then you should go to Edit - Scenario Params and then add the high enough number of turns for example 999 instead of the original 99 and then ok and save. Then if you start the campaign it should show the new max number.

Even though in the game it will only show the last two digits of the actual turn and max turns due to a limitation of the UI. If all else fails you can try to download and use this modified version of BE v1.9 with 999 max turns:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dak8wv5u3yhuc ... s.zip?dl=0

but again, several things would not work right with it after turn 99.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969
P210
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by P210 »

Hello McGuba,

I definitely support the idea of restricting unit purchases to few selected cities.

But the upgrade restriction is more tricky. Can imagine some cases when it could be little bit too harsh requirement.
For example going for early to late PzKw IV G is important, but does not really require a trip to Germany. Up armored late models just gradually replaced early models lost in battle. I also believe that shurtzen were often installed in field (late PzKw III models).

Then again going from PzKw III to Panther would be a perfect case that requires retraining in Germany. Same applies when upgrading from towed AT to SP AT.

Also minor Axis infantry upgrade to '44 standard might be a mess (would guess that this is rare, but at least I have done it to some units).
Hungary and Romania had their own plane manufacturing capability, therefore it would be strange to ship air units to Germany for upgrade.
Minor Axis tank upgrades to German tanks in Germany would be totally understandable.

Just my 2 cents..
McGuba
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by McGuba »

P210 wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:11 pm I definitely support the idea of restricting unit purchases to few selected cities.

But the upgrade restriction is more tricky. Can imagine some cases when it could be little bit too harsh requirement.
For example going for early to late PzKw IV G is important, but does not really require a trip to Germany. Up armored late models just gradually replaced early models lost in battle. I also believe that shurtzen were often installed in field (late PzKw III models).
Unfortunately ground unit purchases and upgrades are inseparable in the game from a modding perspective. These two come in a "package" with the gndsup trait in the terrain.pzdat file. So its either both or none of them. Therefore it has to be a compromise. The question is, if its worth it. That's why I made this public inquiry to get a better understanding of the different opinions. And that's why I think it might only be optional. But then there will be maybe too many variations of the same scenario which will make it more confusing.

I understand that this upgrade restriction might not always be ideal. On the other hand, as it has been suggested by some players, to some extent it could be compensated by the addition of a few more units in the beginning as during the war some units would always be in transit for the upgrades. So like 1-2 tanks, 2-3 AT guns maybe 2-3 AA as extra in the beginning. I think infantry not so much as there is quite a lot of them and infantry upgrades are fairly rare. And there might be a few additional infantry units added in 1943 to illustrate the fact that the Wehrmacht reached its peak strength around that time.

From a role playing perspective, the curious case of the Pz.IVG early to late version upgrade can be explained as a yearly rest and recreation trip to home. Historically German units were often rotated, they hardly ever spent years continuosly in the frontline. Time after time they were sent to a less dangerous place like France or Italy or Norway, while they were quiet. Or just back to Germany to replace losses, reorganize the unit and train the new recruits.
Then again going from PzKw III to Panther would be a perfect case that requires retraining in Germany. Same applies when upgrading from towed AT to SP AT.
Again, it cannot be separated like that in the game. Upgrade is an ugprade wheter it is a "small" or a significant one.
Also minor Axis infantry upgrade to '44 standard might be a mess (would guess that this is rare, but at least I have done it to some units).
I do not really see why it would be. It is easy to imagine that these units require a retraining in Germany for the new infantry tactics and the use of the hand held anti-tank weapons, as it indeed happened sometimes.
Hungary and Romania had their own plane manufacturing capability, therefore it would be strange to ship air units to Germany for upgrade.
This change would not affect air units. These could still be upgraded or purchased at any airfield.
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969
P210
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:26 am

Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.9

Post by P210 »

Hello McGuba,
McGuba wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:44 am Unfortunately ground unit purchases and upgrades are inseparable in the game from a modding perspective. These two come in a "package" with the gndsup trait in the terrain.pzdat file. So its either both or none of them. Therefore it has to be a compromise. The question is, if its worth it. That's why I made this public inquiry to get a better understanding of the different opinions. And that's why I think it might only be optional. But then there will be maybe too many variations of the same scenario which will make it more confusing.

I understand that this upgrade restriction might not always be ideal. On the other hand, as it has been suggested by some players, to some extent it could be compensated by the addition of a few more units in the beginning as during the war some units would always be in transit for the upgrades. So like 1-2 tanks, 2-3 AT guns maybe 2-3 AA as extra in the beginning. I think infantry not so much as there is quite a lot of them and infantry upgrades are fairly rare. And there might be a few additional infantry units added in 1943 to illustrate the fact that the Wehrmacht reached its peak strength around that time.

From a role playing perspective, the curious case of the Pz.IVG early to late version upgrade can be explained as a yearly rest and recreation trip to home. Historically German units were often rotated, they hardly ever spent years continuosly in the frontline. Time after time they were sent to a less dangerous place like France or Italy or Norway, while they were quiet. Or just back to Germany to replace losses, reorganize the unit and train the new recruits.
Excellent point (underlined)! It absolutely makes sense on huge strategic 4 year campaign. Panzer Corps does not model supply issues that well and this change would bring more realism into the game. As you mentioned, some more tank, AT and AA might help to retain the excellent game balance by more easily allowing unit rotation.

If Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria will be upgrade cities in NA (Tank upgrades are vital and shipping tanks back and forth between NA and Europe would break the desert war balance. At least for me.) then I vote YES :)
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Scenario Design”