Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[McGuba]

Well in that regard I do not see the justification of Luftwaffe inf units

I think there is no continuity conflict here: maybe the new leader of the Luftwaffe would do the same and would also strongly support the creation of a Luftwaffe infantry - we cannot know for sure since it is a kind of "what if" scenario anyway, so might as well be like that. What we know is Luftwaffe infantry was regarded to be of generally poor quality, at least initially, due to not getting too much infantry training. So probably it also made sense to send them to the frontline as they were, lead by their own officers and so on, keeping unit cohesion and higher morale, than sending them out in small groups to regular infantry divisions as cannon fodder.

I would be heavily against any chemical weapons in this mod from a moral perspective as it is a very slippery slope.

No, I do not plan to add these.

Imho Donetsk/Stalino would qualify for being added to the 40 prestige per turn $ locations (like Narvik and Tunis). Giving the player a historically valid incentive to defend along the Mius river, in order to preserve the raw material output of the area between the Mius river and the Dnepr.
It could partially replace the income bonus that the player gets from 1942 onwards?

Maybe. But I don't know how much these mines were actually utilized by the Germans. I guess they were mostly destroyed by the retreating Soviets, just like the factories. And it is not so easy to re-open a destroyed, collapsed mine, as far as I know. I would assume it is even harder than repairing a destroyed oil field, but I might be wrong about that.

And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?
Still looks strange, not seeing that connection on the map in 1941. And it poses a challenge for the number of bridge units.

There were several bridges over the Dnieper river in 1941, and though many, if not all were destroyed when the Germans reached that river, in most cases there was some kind of pontoon bridge or at least a ferry service in operation in pretty much every larger city.

...


Now I am just making some last minute changes: for example I have just realized that the early machine gun only version of the Bf 109 was still quite common until late 1940 - it looks like about a third of the Messerschmitt fighters lost in the Battle of Britain were of the E-1 version, which had only 4 rifle caliber machine guns and no cannons. Which means that this E-1 version must have been used widely in the earlier invasion of France as well. So I have changed that and now there are some weaker E-1 versions in that scenario (earlier there were only the better E-3s).

It may also helps to understand why the Luftwaffe suffered so high losses in France: 1,129 German aircraft were lost due to enemy action (overall losses were about one third of the original strength in just 6 weeks), while corresponding French losses were 574 aircraft lost in the air (of which 174 were lost to Flak). RAF losses were 959 aircraft (of which 477 were fighters and 381 bombers), but only about 75 Hurricanes were lost in air combat, most were lost on the ground or were abandoned.

So the invasion of France was not an easy ride for the Luftwaffe, and since many of the Bf 109s were only equipped with 4 machine guns, while the Hurricanes had 8 similar guns, and many French fighters had one or two 20 mm cannons, it seems that the Bf 109E-1 was severely undergunned compared to most Allied fighters, even if it had better performance.

What is even more interesting is that it looks like while most of the cannon armed E-3s were quickly upgraded to the E-4 standard by mid 1940 (which also had two 20 mm cannons in the wings, but different ones which could fire the more effective "mine shell"), most of the E-1s did not get this upgrade and were used until late 1940 or longer. It was because upgrading an E-1 to an E-3 or E-4 was not so easy: the MG 17 machine guns in the wings of the E-1 had a complicated ammunition feed system that ran the whole length of the wing, over a roller, and back again. That feed system had to be removed from an E-1 wing converted to use cannons. So it wasn't just like simply replacing the machine gun with a cannon. Perhaps it was easier to replace the whole wing for that. It looks like it was just too much fuss and therefore they just continued to use the machine gun only Messers for much longer than they should have. Which probably was a mistake since even the British fighter pilots were unhappy with their 8 machine guns in their early Hurricanes and Spitfires, claiming these did not have enough destructive power, especially against bombers.

For that reason I will give the "noupgrade" trait to the auxiliary unit Bf 109 E-1s in the France scenario so that the player has to use these throughout this scenario and cannot upgrade them to the better E-3. But the core unit E-1(s) from Poland can still be upgraded to an E-3 before this scenario.

[PeteMitchell]

Ignoring Caucasus, interesting approach, not sure...

[Locarnus]

And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?
Still looks strange, not seeing that connection on the map in 1941. And it poses a challenge for the number of bridge units.

And there were bridges there, but the Germans destroyed them as they retreated!

Sorry, meant to add "near Kherson", so should have read:
And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr near Kherson until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?

As you wrote, there were several railway bridges, as far down the river as Zaporizhzhia.
But it seems that there was no fixed crossing downstream from there on.

Until the Germans built and completed a railway bridge near Kherson in November 1943?
Completed just in time to use it for their retreat and then blow it up again...

It seems that the Soviets completed the railway tracks from there to the Crimea in 1944, but did not complete a new bridge near Kherson until 1954 (also a railway bridge)?

Imho Donetsk/Stalino would qualify for being added to the 40 prestige per turn $ locations (like Narvik and Tunis). Giving the player a historically valid incentive to defend along the Mius river, in order to preserve the raw material output of the area between the Mius river and the Dnepr.
It could partially replace the income bonus that the player gets from 1942 onwards?

Maybe. But I don't know how much these mines were actually utilized by the Germans. I guess they were mostly destroyed by the retreating Soviets, just like the factories. And it is not so easy to re-open a destroyed, collapsed mine, as far as I know. I would assume it is even harder than repairing a destroyed oil field, but I might be wrong about that.

Yeah, it seems they got some resources, but by the time they had repaired the most significant damage, the Soviets were already back. Would require a repair timer like the oilfields, perhaps even 1.5 years or so?

[McGuba]

Sorry, meant to add "near Kherson", so should have read:
And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr near Kherson until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?

Until the Germans built and completed a railway bridge near Kherson in November 1943?
Completed just in time to use it for their retreat and then blow it up again...

Yes, I read the same. But it looks like there was some sort of pontoon bridge and a ferry so I guess ground units could cross the river with relative ease at Kherson anyway. So for now ground units can cross the river through the city of Kherson without delay, assuming they are using the ferry service of the city or a pontoon bridge, but there is no visible bridge there over the river.

And I recall reading there was also some kind of railway ferry at some point so I guess railway cars could be ferried one by one. Now I don't remember if it was operated by the Germans before November 1943, or by the Soviets after they captured the area, or perhaps both of them. But I would assume that the capacity of such a railway ferry must have been rather limited. Certainly not the same as having a fully functioning railway bridge so in the context of the mod I think it should be nonexistent. So railways have to take a detour to the north to cross the river at Denpropetrovsk. The railway bridge there was surely used by the Germans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merefa-Kherson_bridge

It seems that the Soviets completed the railway tracks from there to the Crimea in 1944, but did not complete a new bridge near Kherson until 1954 (also a railway bridge)?

Yes, it looks like that.

Yeah, it seems they got some resources, but by the time they had repaired the most significant damage, the Soviets were already back. Would require a repair timer like the oilfields, perhaps even 1.5 years or so?

I don't know, maybe even more.


EDIT:
Ah, actually I found this:

2
During World War II, parts of the Donbass were occupied over 22 months by the German Wehrmacht. The German occupation authorities undertook great efforts to rebuild and exploit the mines, which had been destroyed by the Red Army during retreat. Next to 1,800 German mining specialists, about 90,000 local miners – a quarter of them women – and around 20,000 Soviet prisoners of war were employed in the mines. Besides the workers who had to work for the Germans in the occupied territories, more than 350,000 Soviet citizens were deported from the Donbass as Ostarbeiter to Germany. In some cases, working in the Donbass mines could save local miners from deportation to Germany. An important role for the reconstruction of the mines and their successful exploitation was played by numerous local Soviet engineers who tried to improve their living conditions by collaborating with the Germans. Altogether, significant reconstruction work took place under German occupation and coal output increased. However, prewar production levels were only partly reached due to the immense destruction of the mines. The local population’s work experience under German occupation bore many similarities with their earlier experience of the Soviet: forced recruitments and deportations were not totally new for the Donbass inhabitants – even if the degree of violence reached a new level under the Germans. Under German occupation, the population of the Donbass experienced extreme mass terror and violence. According to the Soviet Extraordinary Commission, in Donets´k (Stalino) region alone, mass graves with more than 323,000 victims (174,000 civilians and 149,000 Soviet prisoners of war) were discovered after the liberation.2 However, just as it was under Soviet rule, everyday life under the Germans cannot be characterised only by terror and violence. It was an effective combination of terror, incentives and propaganda. The Germans’ “new order” was not so new for the civilian population of the region, and in many respects was in keeping with what they had experienced under Stalinist rule.

https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9348


And AI said this:

1. The German Occupation (1941–1943)

- The Labor Force: Desperate for fuel, German occupational authorities forced roughly 20,000 Soviet POWs and 90,000 local miners to work the coalfields, supervised by German mining specialists.
- Brutal Conditions: Miners faced intentional starvation. Those forced underground received near-famine rations, such as bread mixed with sawdust, resulting in many dying from exhaustion and cave-ins rather than combat.

2. The Soviet Recapture and Post-War (1943–1950s)

- The Labor Force: Following the Red Army's liberation of the Donbas, the Soviet Union faced a massive labor shortage and a completely devastated industrial infrastructure. They utilized millions of Axis prisoners of war (predominantly Germans, but also Hungarians, Romanians, and others) for forced labor.
- The Work: Tens of thousands of these POWs were sent to the Donbas to clear flooded pits, rebuild collapsed infrastructure, and mine coal to restart the Soviet economy.
- The Hardships: Conditions in the mines were perilous. The work was physically debilitating, safety regulations were practically non-existent, and prisoners frequently suffered from malnutrition, disease, and "black lung".

So actually it looks like there was some coal mining. I am not sure though how significant it was for German war efforts in general. As there was an abundance of coal in Germany and occupied Poland and Czech territories as well. So I am not too sure if it is justified to give more prestige for that.

[JimmyC]

I've always wondered - if you do the earlier scenarios does it mean you effectively get 5 extra units in addition to the prestige? Or if starting Barbarossa directly, do you still get those 5 units but they are less skilled?

[Uhu]

They are still there - as the initial setup represents the historical force setup. (If you do not change the 3 Panzer, 1 fighter, 1 tac bomber collection).
So yes, they are there but they do not have extra kills and/or optional heroes yet.

I've always wondered - if you do the earlier scenarios does it mean you effectively get 5 extra units in addition to the prestige? Or if starting Barbarossa directly, do you still get those 5 units but they are less skilled?

[Locarnus]

Now I am just making some last minute changes: [...]

Last minute suggestion:

Cutting off the top of the Freya radar graphic.
The graphic obstructs the Strength plate of the unit on the hex field north of the Freya radar.
It sometimes leads to a player not seeing that the unit needs healing.

[McGuba]

Last minute suggestion:

Cutting off the top of the Freya radar graphic.

Done.

I've always wondered - if you do the earlier scenarios does it mean you effectively get 5 extra units in addition to the prestige? Or if starting Barbarossa directly, do you still get those 5 units but they are less skilled?

There are no extra units added on top of the starting number in that case, as Uhu wrote 3 Panzer, 1 fighter, 1 tac bomber units are still there, same as if taken over from the pre-Barbarossa scenarios, unless the player changes that set up. And these units have 200 experience (in General difficulty) in turn 1, if I am right. If the player starts in 1939, they may gain some more experience by then, but not much more, it also depends on how well those are played.

I think the main difference is these units will have more kills accumulated by 1941, if started in 1939, meaning they will potentially get their first hero earlier than the other units of the main scenario.

Also in BE 2.4 and before it was possible to save much more prestige points (potentially several thousands more) for the start of Barbarossa if started in 1939, but in 2.5 not so much more or potentially even less if the early scenarios are not played very well.

[JimmyC]

I was usually able to accumulate significant prestige from doing the earlier scenarios. Noted this will no longer be the case. I think i will just skip them for 2.5 and jump directly into Barbarossa.

[JimmyC]

Quick question regarding heroes on planes. Do they boost both types of attack/defense? For example, Rudel hero gives the Stuka +3 to attack and defense. But is that air attack/defense, ground attack/defense, or both?

Also, For towed AT, i recall there is some bonus to initiative if they are being attacked. Can someone point me to the thread where this is explained or even better let me now here?

[Locarnus]

Quick question regarding heroes on planes. Do they boost both types of attack/defense? For example, Rudel hero gives the Stuka +3 to attack and defense. But is that air attack/defense, ground attack/defense, or both?

Also, For towed AT, i recall there is some bonus to initiative if they are being attacked. Can someone point me to the thread where this is explained or even better let me now here?

As far as I remember, an attack hero bonus benefits all attack stats, if that base attack value is not 0. Eg air attack does not get buffed if the unit has no air attack to begin with, but a negative value (eg counter air attack) is buffed.
Same for a defense hero bonus buffing all defense stats, except if they are 0 to begin with (important for close defense)?

If an AT class unit is attacked by a tank or recon class unit, then the AT class unit gets +3 initiative (does not matter what the actual unit is, only the classes are relevant). No bonus if the AT class unit is the attacker.

If an infantry class unit fights an AT class unit, it gets +2 defense regardless who the attacker is.

[McGuba]

I was usually able to accumulate significant prestige from doing the earlier scenarios. Noted this will no longer be the case. I think i will just skip them for 2.5 and jump directly into Barbarossa.

Yes, I do not really want to "force" veteran players to replay the early war scenarios only for that. Especially not those who have already played the mod several times. The main function of the early scenarios is to serve as tutorial missions for new players, showing and explaining some of the more important changes and preparing them for the big thing.

But it may still worth to play them again every now and then, and I did a couple of changes in those as well, mainly in the invasion of France scenario. So it is entirely optional, it is fine if someone starts in 1939 and it is also fine if in June 1941. A good player may reach June 1941 with a few hundred extra prestige if starting early, but not with many thousands more like in the previous versions. Probably now it is more important that the starting core units will gather more kills by 1941 and then potentially get the first hero earlier, but that's somewhat marginal and thus can be skipped.