Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[McGuba]

Thus I propose moving the markers a bit off center:

Thanks, that indeed may be a good idea, I will have a look.

As a side note, these marker positions are of course the same as in the vanilla game, I did not touch them. So this issue might as well apply to the vanilla DLCs: I guess some vanilla scenarios use them as well and then they have the same problems i.e. being covered by units standing on them, but oh well...

[Locarnus]

To overcome these problems, you can also give each hexagon a colored perimeter.

I like the stronger colors from your markers.
But would prefer my offset to the perimeter, to make them readable even with a tank on top.
The offset makes them a bit harder to spot than when they were in the center of the hex (especially on city hexes), your stronger colors would help with that. Maybe something in between.

Thanks, that indeed may be a good idea, I will have a look.

As a side note, these marker positions are of course the same as in the vanilla game, I did not touch them. So this issue might as well apply to the vanilla DLCs: I guess some vanilla scenarios use them as well and then they have the same problems i.e. being covered by units standing on them, but oh well...

Yep, they bothered me in the normal game as well, particularly that the white movement indicator circles were on top of them. I guess the normal game used them not so much to push me to deal with them. Or I simply haven't played the normal game so often in the last few years, since you provided a much more interesting scenario

[Locarnus]

New Version, the slightly increased contrast makes the A, B, C, $ markers better visible on city hexes and similar tiles.

LayerMarkers.png (18.27 KiB) Viewed 1651 times

While looking around in that tiles folder, I also finally got around to fixing the rails selection.
In unmodded Panzer Corps, at least 2 rail tiles had the wrong graphics.
a) 3rd row, last column - should be bottom left to top, top right and bottom right edge, but NOT bottom edge
b) 5th row, 6th column - should be bottom right to top and top left edge, but NOT bottom edge
Thus those two connection configurations had no graphical representation at all in the unmodded game.

And the 3rd row, last column tile connections from the original file make a bit more sense for 4th row, last column (same adjacent tile connections rails, just more tracks within the tile).

With those fixes, the visual rail tiles now match what the Tools/"Generate Tiles" option in the editor produces, based on the rail terrain features.

edit: From the BE 2.4 youtube multiplayer game between Duedman and HerzogSieg, I saw that two of those previously missing tiles would fit north of London and south of Linz.

LayerRails.png (350.56 KiB) Viewed 1651 times

LayerRailsFrozen.png (477.97 KiB) Viewed 1651 times

[McGuba]

New Version, the slightly increased contrast makes the A, B, C, $ markers better visible on city hexes and similar tiles.

Thanks, but I think I prefer the first version. In my opinion too much contrast and brightness tends to draw the attention of the eye which can be annoying over time. Like a bright light draws insects. There are many things to focus on in a crowded battlefield and I need all my attention on the tactical situation of the units with no unnecessary distractions. And also there are only a few city hexes covered with these markers in the mod so I do not think it is really necessary. The first one seems to work just fine, or at least much better than it was.

While looking around in that tiles folder, I also finally got around to fixing the rails selection.
In unmodded Panzer Corps, at least 2 rail tiles had the wrong graphics.

Ah, yeah those damned railroads! Some of the designers must have had one too many drinks when making these.

But over time I just learned to live with these imperfections and used these dead-end railway line sections when I had to. Nevertheless, it is indeed good to have the corrected versions after all these years. Problem is, I am almost sure that there are several more of these scattered over the map so I think I can only fix them one by one if noticed in order to avoid potentially making them even worse if I change all the graphics like that. So I think I will rather add these as extra tiles to some of the empty slots and just change them where needed and when noticed. More so that the next version will bring a major revise of the railways in the mod with several new lines and other changes.

[PeteMitchell]

When will be the next version?

[McGuba]

When will be the next version?

As soon as it will be ready!

[Locarnus]

But over time I just learned to live with these imperfections and used these dead-end railway line sections when I had to. Nevertheless, it is indeed good to have the corrected versions after all these years. Problem is, I am almost sure that there are several more of these scattered over the map so I think I can only fix them one by one if noticed in order to avoid potentially making them even worse if I change all the graphics like that. So I think I will rather add these as extra tiles to some of the empty slots and just change them where needed and when noticed. More so that the next version will bring a major revise of the railways in the mod with several new lines and other changes.

Originally I also wanted to add the corrections to the end of the file. Since I also want to have compatibility with some of the unmodded campaigns, without correcting each scenario.
But after checking many scenarios, the replacement version I settled on worked much better.

I now also checked the BE 2.4 multiplayer scenario manually.
I did not find any 3rd row, last column or 4th row, last column rail tiles at all.
And no more 5th row, 6th column rail tiles except the two mentioned ones (Linz & London).
Those two resolve to the correct graphic automatically when the fixed LayerRails.png are used.
The non-multiplayer main scenario only has the Linz rail tile, since the airport north of London is shifted a bit and the rail goes a different route.
So BE 2.4 main maps would not need any changes in the editor at all.
You would only have to check the rail additions you made since BE 2.4.


Unfortunately I found a potential issue with the new marker positions, which are offset to the bottom right.
In the youtube match between HerzogSieg and Duedman, the Allied player often complained about having to recheck (and refuel/resupply) many Soviet units.
Since the transparent red fuel can tile marker from the port tile layer is in the same position as the solid red fuel can that shows up when a unit is out of fuel. So the player can only see the tile marker showing the player that refueling in this turn is pointless, when the tank on top of that tile has just been refueled by the player.
I guess the next best position for that "refueling is useless" tile marker would be the one where I shifted the general A, B, C, $ tile markers.
Not sure how to solve that, the top corners can be obstructed by aircraft or big tanks or arty.
On the left side, there can be flags in the way.

[McGuba]

In the youtube match between HerzogSieg and Duedman, the Allied player often complained about having to recheck (and refuel/resupply) many Soviet units.
Since the transparent red fuel can tile marker from the port tile layer is in the same position as the solid red fuel can that shows up when a unit is out of fuel. So the player can only see the tile marker showing the player that refueling in this turn is pointless, when the tank on top of that tile has just been refueled by the player.

I don not really understand the issue here. There is no need to manually refuel (resupply) units in each turn one by one because if a unit does not do anything in a turn then it automatically gets resupplied at the end of the turn anyways. Perhaps it is not obvious to everyone? It is a task of Sisyphus to resupply them manually all the time. I guess it is much better and easier to just leave them on their own and only deal with them when they get activated. From previous feedback by Duedman I did try to improve the latter aspect of the mod and there will be more notices and messages given when some of these are activated.

I also understand that having lots of units with no fuel for extended time is not ideal as it is, however, it is necessary because otherwise the Allied player would easily wash away the Axis forces using his numerical superiority. It is also meant to simulate the early mistakes of the Allied High Command which allowed the Axis to achieve great successes in the first half of the war despite being heavily outnumbered in just about every front.

So I don't know, perhaps I should add yet another message advising the Allied player to not to worry too much about those out of fuel units until they get activated? But this is kind of basic game mechanic, nothing to do with the mod workings.

[Locarnus]

I don not really understand the issue here. There is no need to manually refuel (resupply) units in each turn one by one because if a unit does not do anything in a turn then it automatically gets resupplied at the end of the turn anyways. Perhaps it is not obvious to everyone? It is a task of Sisyphus to resupply them manually all the time. I guess it is much better and easier to just leave them on their own and only deal with them when they get activated. From previous feedback by Duedman I did try to improve the latter aspect of the mod and there will be more notices and messages given when some of these are activated.

I also understand that having lots of units with no fuel for extended time is not ideal as it is, however, it is necessary because otherwise the Allied player would easily wash away the Axis forces using his numerical superiority. It is also meant to simulate the early mistakes of the Allied High Command which allowed the Axis to achieve great successes in the first half of the war despite being heavily outnumbered in just about every front.

So I don't know, perhaps I should add yet another message advising the Allied player to not to worry too much about those out of fuel units until they get activated? But this is kind of basic game mechanic, nothing to do with the mod workings.

I think most players I saw on youtube in the last few years manually refuel.
Which can make the first BE turns rather frustrating.
But I do not know where to draw the line with regards to PzC game engine explanations.
The library will not be looked up, an overhauled tutorial will not be started anyway, and my too long and frequent text messages will not be fully read anyway.

I guess I'm looking for a way to just visually indicate to the player, that specific units can now move that could not move before.
Unfortunately I can not just switch them from aux to core units. Script interaction with units seems to be rather limited in that regard.

But maybe I'm overthinking those UI improvements.
The railway fixes are a good point to stop now, as they were much more annyoing for me than for any player anyway.

[McGuba]

PzC1 was clearly not designed for such huge maps and scenarios. The mainstream tendency seems to go the opposite way: it looks like PzC2 has even smaller maps, games are getting shorter, everyone is looking for quick success. Whatever... maybe we are just getting old and will soon find ourselves in some kind of a museum next to the dinosaurs.

The library will not be looked up, an overhauled tutorial will not be started anyway, and my too long and frequent text messages will not be fully read anyway.

I guess I'm looking for a way to just visually indicate to the player, that specific units can now move that could not move before.
Unfortunately I can not just switch them from aux to core units. Script interaction with units seems to be rather limited in that regard.

In my opinion in-game messages work best, but here the problem is there is too much information to pass due to the complexity of this mod. That's probably the reason why I am reluctant to add even more options, features and choices, even though it might be technically possible, at least in theory. Players tend to forget or simply overlook or misunderstand some of the important details. And there are already a lot of details to keep in mind at all times.

My problem with visual clues is that they are always there, littering the screen with various symbols which makes it harder to read the tactical map and somewhat ruin the overall nice and clean aesthetics of the vanilla game look. There is no good solution here, I guess.

[Duedman]

PzC1 was clearly not designed for such huge maps and scenarios. The mainstream tendency seems to go the opposite way: it looks like PzC2 has even smaller maps, games are getting shorter, everyone is looking for quick success. Whatever... maybe we are just getting old and will soon find ourselves in some kind of a museum next to the dinosaurs.

This was the biggest disappointment for me the moment I saw PC2.
It was pretty clear that the would be nothing like BE possible with that. Although I very much like the mechanics especially surrounding with slow auto suppressing.

On the manual refueling.... I indeed repeatedly complained about the overlapping "no fuel / no refuel" symbols.
But yeah - I was not aware anymore, that units auto refuel when left alone.
Also in the first match I did not use the "next unit" button to run through every unit with actions left each turn. So I was constantly going over the map trying to find something the Allies might be able to move already. Might have made me a bit grumpy but obviously entirely my fault

[Locarnus]

PzC1 was clearly not designed for such huge maps and scenarios. The mainstream tendency seems to go the opposite way: it looks like PzC2 has even smaller maps, games are getting shorter, everyone is looking for quick success. Whatever... maybe we are just getting old and will soon find ourselves in some kind of a museum next to the dinosaurs.

This was the biggest disappointment for me the moment I saw PC2.
It was pretty clear that the would be nothing like BE possible with that. Although I very much like the mechanics especially surrounding with slow auto suppressing.

On the manual refueling.... I indeed repeatedly complained about the overlapping "no fuel / no refuel" symbols.
But yeah - I was not aware anymore, that units auto refuel when left alone.
Also in the first match I did not use the "next unit" button to run through every unit with actions left each turn. So I was constantly going over the map trying to find something the Allies might be able to move already. Might have made me a bit grumpy but obviously entirely my fault

Yes, PzC 2 had some great improvement, but also some things that imho went in a direction I personally did not want to go.

From my anecdotal observations, a majority of people use manual resupply when first coming to BE from "normal" PzC (me included). Just a habit I guess, when going through the own forces in the normal scenarios, where that gives a visual feedback that the unit is "taken care of".


@McGuba
Small bug report: Italian_Inf_Cav.png does not have a line in the efx.pzdat file in BE 2.4.

[McGuba]

On the manual refueling.... I indeed repeatedly complained about the overlapping "no fuel / no refuel" symbols.
But yeah - I was not aware anymore, that units auto refuel when left alone.

From my anecdotal observations, a majority of people use manual resupply when first coming to BE from "normal" PzC (me included). Just a habit I guess, when going through the own forces in the normal scenarios, where that gives a visual feedback that the unit is "taken care of".

OK, so whatever, I have already added yet another message reminding the Allied player that it is not necessary to do manual resupply each turn because idle units do it on their own automatically. For me it was somewhat obvious given that it is of course ages old vanilla game mechanic dating back to Panzer General in 1994.

@McGuba
Small bug report: Italian_Inf_Cav.png does not have a line in the efx.pzdat file in BE 2.4.

Thanks!

[Duedman]

I just noticed that Arty can not enter swamp tiles "on foot" but can do so on swamp tiles with a river. I think this might not be intended

https://youtu.be/3jb3bmzcrys?si=GTRPWsEKq6dBj08N&t=986 (starts at a timestamp where this can be seen)

[McGuba]

I just noticed that Arty can not enter swamp tiles "on foot" but can do so on swamp tiles with a river. I think this might not be intended

https://youtu.be/3jb3bmzcrys?si=GTRPWsEKq6dBj08N&t=986 (starts at a timestamp where this can be seen)

Yes, but again, it is the same in vanilla Panzer Corps, and not a change by this mod.

The idea might be that heavy guns cannot be towed (= manhandled) in swamp terrain as it would sink or would be just too hard to move by the hand.

But then of course comes the question how is it possible to move such a gun through a river by the hand?

Perhaps the bottom of the river is covered with pebbles, as it is in most cases, and as such the gun do not sink? Dunno.

But then again, the river itself is in swamp terrain so one cannot even push the gun to it.

Problem is, river is a terrain feature and not a terrain type in Panzer Corps and thus somehow overrides the characteristics of the terrain under it. The same applies to river on forest terrain which is not a close terrain and does not provide any extra protection, unlike one would expect it. And the same goes for river on fortification hex.

This is all the more confusing because when a river goes through a city hex then it does not seem to have any effect at all, apart from allowing river boats to cross it. So the above rule does not always applies. This is not covered in the manual and looks like a bit of a black hole.

In original Panzer General (1994), on which Panzer Corps was based on, rivers were more like a terrain type, i.e. there were no rivers on forest or swamp or other terrains. In PzC these can be mixed and matched which leads to some confusion at times. I guess it was not well thought out.

[Kas Narayda]

The MOD is cool, but it's very hard to play even at a normal difficulty level. In my opinion, this is impossible given the continuous hordes of Soviet tanks and planes.
Has anyone won for the Axis on average difficulty?

[PeteMitchell]

There are AAR on this here on the forum as well as on YouTube.
A lot is about right focus and right timing.

[McGuba]

The MOD is cool, but it's very hard to play even at a normal difficulty level. In my opinion, this is impossible given the continuous hordes of Soviet tanks and planes.
Has anyone won for the Axis on average difficulty?

If you find it too difficult you can try to play the easier "Moderate" version of the big scenario. This one has less enemy units appearing. It may also help to play it on Sergeant or Lieutenant difficulty level instead of the recommended General.

Every player has a different skill level but luckily Panzer Corps difficulty can be adjusted easily and there are cheat codes as well.

Of course many players have managed to win the mod with the Axis on "average" (whatever it means) or even on the higher difficulty levels like Rommel or Field Marshal but typically even these required several attempts to do so.

[PeteMitchell]

The Germans lost it at their first attempt as well... so it's only fair that it may require several attempts...

[Кэп]

it's difficult there, I'm playing for the third time, but without an economic crisis, you need to make a blitzkrieg, and take control of the oil regions, this is additional prestige, and constantly modernize, my goal is to draw)), but it's difficult on the general) That's what makes this mod attractive, it's realistic!