Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[Kas Narayda]

I have a feeling that the allied planes appear according to the script when I destroy a certain number of them. Is it so?

[Kas Narayda]

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!

I would not call it realistic when a squadron flies to a bombing site or attacks other squadrons for 15 days. Well, the units that appear out of the void are generally the height of realism ))
And for some reason, aircraft upgrades at any airfield, even in a remote desert, take place in just 15 days ))
And the fact that the Allies have 1-2 stars at once is generally out of the realm of fiction. Nonsense for the sake of balance.

[PeteMitchell]

Interesting thought, I wonder what it would mean to be able to upgrade the planes only at certain airports, same as with the tanks...

[McGuba]

I have a feeling that the allied planes appear according to the script when I destroy a certain number of them. Is it so?

No, new Allied air units appear constantly regardless of how many of them are being destroyed. However, unfortunately the silly AI often lets them run out of fuel so many of them just fall down without any offensive action of the player.

I would not call it realistic when a squadron flies to a bombing site or attacks other squadrons for 15 days.

This is a characteristic of the vanilla game and cannot be changed by the mod. In vanilla Panzer Corps scenarios turns usually last for 1-5 days or something like that, so these are not much better in this regard but no one seem to complain about that.

There is obviously a certain level of abstraction in the mod, not everything is 100% real, it is only realistic within the limitations of the original game engine and compared to the vanilla campaigns which have many fantasy units, events and mechanics, not to mention the ever changing map scale from scenario to scenario. But again, this is not a "failure" of the vanilla Panzer Corps as originally it was a remake of the great old classic Panzer General which was very similar in this regard.

As for air units hanging over a city or anywhere else for more than one turn, in the context of this mod it only means that aircraft are mostly active in that specific area in that specific amount of time. It means they make several raids/attacks/interceptions in that area over the course of several days and not just one extra long mission that lasts for two weeks. That would be not be possible, of course.

Well, the units that appear out of the void are generally the height of realism ))

The large majority of the new units in this mod appear far from the frontline in historical production and training centers or in the open sea. Then they make their way to the frontline on their own. Compared to that, in the vanilla scenarios enemy units can appear at any enemy held city even if it is completely surrounded and cut off, and the AI can even purchase 6 new units around the very last victory objective in the very last turn which can be very annoying. Things like that normally do not happen in this mod.

There are indeed several units that appear closer to the frontline though, mainly in 1941, but these are supposed to be recruited/mobilised/activated in that specific area so that they can immediately sent to action. But this is not typical and only a small minority of the new units appear like that.

And for some reason, aircraft upgrades at any airfield, even in a remote desert, take place in just 15 days ))

Aircraft have a unique feature: they can fly over the desert or to a remote island fairly quickly.

And the fact that the Allies have 1-2 stars at once is generally out of the realm of fiction. Nonsense for the sake of balance.

Unit experience in this mod represent not only actual battle experience but also training, morale, unit organization and doctrine. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else to avoid such confusion. I just do not really have a good idea for a better name for this.

And by the way, many new Axis units also start with 1-2 experience stars when they appear during the scenario as reinforcements so this is more or less balanced. However, as the war progresses new Axis units tend to have less experience to represent the reduced quality of their training and worsening morale, while new Allied units are the opposite. This is quite accurate historically as for example while the pilot training in Germany was gradually shortened during the war, in the US it was the opposite.

And thus while it is not only for the "sake of balance", it is also useful to counter the basic weaknesses of the AI which is not very capable at the tactical level. For example the AI do not even use basic tactics like mass attack or phased recon movements and it also often lets its air units run out of fuel, as mentioned earlier. These deficiencies leave the AI at a huge disadvantage which should be compensated somehow for a balanced gameplay experience.

Again, all I can suggest is to reduce the difficulty level before starting the main scenario: the first two difficulty levels "Sergeant" and "Lieutenant" give only 50% and 80% experience to the AI units respectively, while giving more to the player units. This should offset the pre-set experience level of the AI units at your required level.

[Slartibartfast]

And the fact that the Allies have 1-2 stars at once is generally out of the realm of fiction. Nonsense for the sake of balance.

Unit experience in this mod represent not only actual battle experience but also training, morale, unit organization and doctrine. Perhaps it should be renamed to something else to avoid such confusion. I just do not really have a good idea for a better name for this.

Some suggestions: "Effectiveness", which in military theory also includes the material capabilities of a unit, but otherwise includes the other factors you listed. "Expertise" which is not an accurate description, but it is a result of training and experience combined and could stretch to cover doctrine and organisation. "Readiness" or "Capability" are also inaccurate, but I think it might capture a feel for how able a unit is.

[McGuba]

Some suggestions: "Effectiveness", which in military theory also includes the material capabilities of a unit, but otherwise includes the other factors you listed. "Expertise" which is not an accurate description, but it is a result of training and experience combined and could stretch to cover doctrine and organisation. "Readiness" or "Capability" are also inaccurate, but I think it might capture a feel for how able a unit is.

I think of all these probably "Effectiveness" would be best. But still not sure if it is worth changing the current "Experience" to this as it would only be a cosmetic thing, a different name for basically the same thing, same game mechanic. That may also confuse some players who could assume it is something new or different.

[Locarnus]

I have a feeling that the allied planes appear according to the script when I destroy a certain number of them. Is it so?

No, new Allied air units appear constantly regardless of how many of them are being destroyed. However, unfortunately the silly AI often lets them run out of fuel so many of them just fall down without any offensive action of the player.

Watching one of the last few episodes of the BE youtube match between Duedman and HerzogSieg, I had an idea about that.

Here at this point in the video, Duedman discovers that one of his italian fighters (non desert variant) can not reach his airfield in the desert with the leftover fuel, lacking 1 fuel to do so.
The fighter was positioned there based on the fuel range limit indicators in the previous turn, which seem to not (or not always? not completely sure about all the situations and calculations yet) use the actual movement cost from the file.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3o4L2xaIX4&t=3065s

What if we can use that error to trick the AI into losing fewer planes to fuel shortage?
Eg lets set the movement cost in the table to 0.9 instead of 1 for practically every normal tile.
That should make the fuel range limit indicators a bit more conservative, thus leaving the planes with a bit more fuel to reach an airfield (at least in most? cases).
Perhaps enough fuel margin to prevent some of the AI losses to erroneously calculated fuel range limits.

Then set the movement cost for the wrong tiles to 1 (eg desert for normal planes, and clear tiles for desert planes), instead of the current -10 (10%).
There would still be a benefit to convert the aircraft, but now the wrong movement type does not also invalidate the fuel range indicators. It just removes the new safety margin introduced above.

The movement of all planes could then be reduced by 1 in the equipment file, keeping actual operating range the same (for the player, the AI would be more conservative with fuel usage).

[McGuba]

What if we can use that error to trick the AI into losing fewer planes to fuel shortage?
Eg lets set the movement cost in the table to 0.9 instead of 1 for practically every normal tile.
...

Yes, that's an interesting idea and it may worth trying it in practice, thanks!

However, if it works, as a side effect, it would of course result in the AI having more air units active increasing the overall difficulty of the mod or even the whole game if used with the official DLCs.

By the way,I guess the possible reason for the AI letting its air units running out of fuel is that it does not give priority to units low on fuel, it just goes through the usual sequence of moving its units, and by the time it gets to an air unit that is low on fuel it cannot reach a friendly airbase since other air units have already taken all the empty hexes which is kind of silly and could potentially be avoided by a little better sequencing of the unit movements/actions. But oh well, that's another story...

[goose_2]

What if we can use that error to trick the AI into losing fewer planes to fuel shortage?
Eg lets set the movement cost in the table to 0.9 instead of 1 for practically every normal tile.
...

Yes, that's an interesting idea and it may worth trying it in practice, thanks!

However, if it works, as a side effect, it would of course result in the AI having more air units active increasing the overall difficulty of the mod or even the whole game if used with the official DLCs.

By the way,I guess the possible reason for the AI letting its air units running out of fuel is that it does not give priority to units low on fuel, it just goes through the usual sequence of moving its units, and by the time it gets to an air unit that is low on fuel it cannot reach a friendly airbase since other air units have already taken all the empty hexes which is kind of silly and could potentially be avoided by a little better sequencing of the unit movements/actions. But oh well, that's another story...

Is it possible to change the way planes count being next to an airfield? Players know that as long as you are next to an airfield you own you will refuel, but if you are low on fuel the hexes next to the airfield say that you will run out of fuel. So, the ai just stays put and crashes.

[Locarnus]

However, if it works, as a side effect, it would of course result in the AI having more air units active increasing the overall difficulty of the mod or even the whole game if used with the official DLCs.

Yeah, that is the difficult question. How much does it actually affect AI losses.

I guess the fuel capacity for planes should also be reduced by eg 5 percent (10 % lower costs per tile, but no fractions calculated for actual fuel costs, and the first movement tiles cost the same fuel anyway).
And the unit movement reduction in the equipment file, for every aircraft, to come back to the current distanced.

By the way,I guess the possible reason for the AI letting its air units running out of fuel is that it does not give priority to units low on fuel, it just goes through the usual sequence of moving its units, and by the time it gets to an air unit that is low on fuel it cannot reach a friendly airbase since other air units have already taken all the empty hexes which is kind of silly and could potentially be avoided by a little better sequencing of the unit movements/actions. But oh well, that's another story...

Yeah, AI sequence is weird.
Though some parts almost feel intentionally bad, eg that the enemy does not use arty for suppression, before attacking a unit.
With current stats, that could be very frustrating for players.
Especially in the grand campaign where the core has to be nurtured for dozens of scenarios.

Is it possible to change the way planes count being next to an airfield? Players know that as long as you are next to an airfield you own you will refuel, but if you are low on fuel the hexes next to the airfield say that you will run out of fuel. So, the ai just stays put and crashes.

I do not know of any way to mod the actual AI.
Only indirectly influence its decisions with the stat differences of the units and so on.

[goose_2]

What I mean is make the hexes around airfield's show as refueling areas for air units? Is that not possible?

[McGuba]

And the unit movement reduction in the equipment file, for every aircraft, to come back to the current distanced.

The max movement of every aircraft should be reduced by 1 to keep the current movement ranges. But then again, even with or without that correction all air units will be able to move 1 extra hex on top of their max movement shown in the game, under ideal circumstances. Which may be somewhat confusing as well. For example I can see an enemy fighter with 13 movement speed 14 hexes away from my undefended and weakened tac bomber and yet it will be able to attack and potentially destroy it. Not good.

On the other hand, the current risk of unexpectedly running out of fuel if a non-tropicalised air unit is used over the desert gives another reason to convert air units according to the theater to minimize that risk. And in fact losing a friendly air unit due to this can be role played or perhaps even explained by the fact that in reality flying over the desert was fairly dangerous. Historically quite a few aircraft got lost due to mechanical failures, sand storms or simply because they got lost and ran out of fuel. In fact many aircraft disappeared over the desert without a trace.

And of course there was a reason why it was necessary to "tropicalise" aircraft by installing sand filters, enlarged oil cooling systems and whatnot. Without these modifications planes would have been much more vulnerable to the adverse desert conditions which in turn would have been more likely to cause mechanical failures.

The only problem is, currently it is not communicated to the player. There should be at least a warning given in the message boxes. Then if the player continues to use non-tropicalised air units over the desert despite the warning he has to be ready for a potential loss.

If adopting your idea, in the absence of this potential risk, the only difference would be a slightly reduced movement range over the desert. In which case players would more likely to decide not to bother with the conversion and just use normal air units over the desert as well. Which in turn would take away some of the realism from the mod. So perhaps it may better to leave it as it is and just give warning message.

[Locarnus]

What I mean is make the hexes around airfield's show as refueling areas for air units? Is that not possible?

Unfortunately not possible to mod, as far as I know.

And the unit movement reduction in the equipment file, for every aircraft, to come back to the current distanced.

[...]
The only problem is, currently it is not communicated to the player. There should be at least a warning given in the message boxes. Then if the player continues to use non-tropicalised air units over the desert despite the warning he has to be ready for a potential loss.
[...]

Yeah, I tested a bit more and the movement range can be confusing for the player with the 0.9 setting.
Everyone is already used to the current way, including the incorrect display and so on.

The main benefit would be to the AI, but since current aircraft numbers are balanced for the current way, it could be a lot of work with ambiguous costs/benefits in the end.
I still find it very harsh to lose a whole air unit (with hero and so on) due to not having the correct desert/non-desert version. But would that justify all the changes and loss of familiarity with the system for all the other situations?
Perhaps not.

Not thrilled about having yet another warning message message either, but I'll add it to some existing text messages. Like the appearance of the german Africa aircraft in turn 6? or so.

[McGuba]

The main benefit would be to the AI, but since current aircraft numbers are balanced for the current way, it could be a lot of work with ambiguous costs/benefits in the end.

I agree. Another "advantage" of the AI losing air units due to letting them run out of fuel is that in that way it gets rid of its obsolete aircraft types over time. Since it does not do unit upgrades on its own, it would continue to use obsolete air units well beyond their historical life span.

I still find it very harsh to lose a whole air unit (with hero and so on) due to not having the correct desert/non-desert version. But would that justify all the changes and loss of familiarity with the system for all the other situations?
Perhaps not.

Yes it is indeed a bit too harsh, but historically there were considerable aircraft losses due to mechanical failures and accidents, which are not simulated in the game. Somewhere I read that the Soviet Red Air Force had more non-combat losses in WW2 than planes lost in actual combat. Mainly because of training accidents. (Which is also yet another reason for accepting the AI losing many of its air units due to refueling issues.) But of course the Axis and Western Allied air forces also had significant non-combat losses.

Not thrilled about having yet another warning message message either, but I'll add it to some existing text messages. Like the appearance of the german Africa aircraft in turn 6? or so.

Yes, I was also thinking to reinforce that message with such a warning. And perhaps to add another reminder somewhere else as well, wherever it fits.

[goose_2]

So, I have also been thinking about starting a multiplayer playthrough of BE, I have been told to await the 2.5 updated release. Is that something that is being worked on?

When is eta on updated version?

If so I want to give my opponent an advantage, so should I let them have a +1, 2, or hold on to my buttcheeks, a +3 advantage?

[McGuba]

Yes, I do work on 2.5, but no ETA yet.

If so I want to give my opponent an advantage, so should I let them have a +1, 2, or hold on to my buttcheeks, a +3 advantage?

I am not sure that it is necessary to give an advantage to your opponent. Unless your opponent is still learning the game or much less skilled than you. The Axis and Allies are more balanced in the multiplayer version of the mod, it is not like in the single player in which the AI controlled Allies have many times more units due to the inferior AI.

I also do not really understand what you mean by "+1, 2 advantage" would you give your opponent more prestige or unit experience? I think it would be better just to play as it is, and then if you feel that you are way ahead of your opponent you can just simply disband a number of your own units to even the odds. But that may be tricky as well, because at some point you may think you are doing well and then after a few turns it may turn out you were not.

Also an alternative suggestion, while waiting for the next version, perhaps you should consider trying loading up one of the prepared save games that come with the mod? Then you could start the big scenario at a later time, like at the historic Battle of Kursk in '43 or Bagration-Normand landings in '44? I guess especially the latter one would make you "hold on to your buttchecks" big time. As far as I know there is no such a youtube play through so far...

[Locarnus]

Yes, I do work on 2.5, but no ETA yet.

If so I want to give my opponent an advantage, so should I let them have a +1, 2, or hold on to my buttcheeks, a +3 advantage?

[...]
Also an alternative suggestion, while waiting for the next version, perhaps you should consider trying loading up one of the prepared save games that come with the mod? Then you could start the big scenario at a later time, like at the historic Battle of Kursk in '43 or Bagration-Normand landings in '44? I guess especially the latter one would make you "hold on to your buttchecks" big time. As far as I know there is no such a youtube play through so far...

A youtube playthrough from the 1944 BE save would be great!

Especially since most existing youtube BE playthroughs are practically decided well before that time.
This would make the last year much more interesting.

[PeteMitchell]

All the save games would be a great idea

Yes, I do work on 2.5, but no ETA yet.

If so I want to give my opponent an advantage, so should I let them have a +1, 2, or hold on to my buttcheeks, a +3 advantage?

[...]
Also an alternative suggestion, while waiting for the next version, perhaps you should consider trying loading up one of the prepared save games that come with the mod? Then you could start the big scenario at a later time, like at the historic Battle of Kursk in '43 or Bagration-Normand landings in '44? I guess especially the latter one would make you "hold on to your buttchecks" big time. As far as I know there is no such a youtube play through so far...

A youtube playthrough from the 1944 BE save would be great!

Especially since most existing youtube BE playthroughs are practically decided well before that time.
This would make the last year much more interesting.

[Locarnus]

Just watched another episode of the Duedman vs HerzogSieg BE 2.4 multiplayer match.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEwgaklXx1k&t=543s

The Allied player had previously attacked one of the Axis aircraft, but only inflicted 7? strength damage.
Now the Axis player fully destroys 3 Soviet fighter units in return, while suffering only 1 additional strength damage.

Calculating with ScnReplaceCost of 25%, each strength points is worth 1/40 of the full unit price.
So the last strength point keeping a unit alive is worth 31 times as much as strength points 2-10. Not even considering experience, heroes or the inability of the Soviet player to replace full unit losses.
Thus the Allied player destroyed ~8 strength, while the Axis player destroyed 3*40 = 120 strength equivalent.

ScnReplaceCost.......25
ScnEReplaceCost......75
CamReplaceCost.......0
CamEReplaceCost.....50

I wonder if it would be beneficial to BE game balance to significantly increase the replacement costs?
Especially with multiplayer in mind.
To eg something like this:

ScnReplaceCost.......50
ScnEReplaceCost......100

Thus considerably narrowing the extremely wide gap between only strength 2-10 losses and the loss of that last strength point, which kills the unit.
A replacement strength point would then cost 1/20 of the full unit price.
That last strength point keeping the unit alive would then be worth only 11 instead 31 times the equivalent of strength points 2-10.

[McGuba]

I wonder if it would be beneficial to BE game balance to significantly increase the replacement costs?
Especially with multiplayer in mind.

While I understand your reasoning it is probably too late for such a huge change. It would significantly change the existing balance as the Axis player spends most of his prestige on unit replacements in this mod. This would turn everything upside down and all the prestige allocation and penalties would require an extensive re-balancing.

Full unit losses are indeed very painful, but much less painful for the Allied player since he basically gets all his units for free. And I think it has to be like that because that's the best way to recreate the historical high losses of the Allied side in this mod. The Allied player gets a lot of units for free but is also destined to lose a lot.