Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.5.1

[PeteMitchell]

Baku by turn 42?

[JimmyC]

I think General Werner paired two Wurfrahmen once to drive towards Moscow...

I think he had 3 of them together that he used in conjunction with each other.
In this play through I upgraded 1 of the smaller artillery to Wurframen as I noticed it’s cheaper now compared to v2.4. But I’m struggling to find good use of it with only 1 range and in hindsight think a nebelwerfer would have been better. The 21cm nebelwerfer is the best compromise between damage capability and ammo IMO, however i don’t have any free slots yet to purchase.

[JimmyC]

We have seen through the winter of '42/43 with great success, having beaten back the Russian drive on Kursk. We caused devasting casualties to the Russians whilst preserving our forces and captured a large number of prisoners. However, this success came at a cost. By drawing in our reserves to Kursk from other sectors, it significantly slowed our advance on Moscow. And it is only June of '43 that we are going to be able to capture the Russian capital.

Army Group South meanwhile held off the enemies attacks and mostly defeated their armor. Now we are eliminating the still sizeable enemy infantry forces between the Donets and the Don Rivers, before making a drive on Stalingrad.

The plucky Finns, together with German artillery and fallschirmjager, managed to take Archangelsk after bitter and costly fighting. We will now send them South to occupy enemy held cities in the direction of Moscow.

In North Africa we succeeded in beating back the counterattacks from the Suez, fully broke through the line at El Alamein and captured Alexandria, giving the honor of capturing the city to the Italians as revenge for their defeats in this theater earlier in the war. We are over a year behind schedule, however and the oilfields still seem like a distant dream.

It is a bleak situation facing our forces in Tunisia. Whilst we were mostly able to destroy the enemy navy with the Regia Marina, the appearance of the Battleships HMS Nelson & HMS Rodney, together with the local air superiority of the enemy, has significantly turned the tide. We were forced back from the Kasserine Pass and are only just holding open a tenuous link between Tripoli and Tunis. Our forces defending the hills west of Tunis have also been forced back and are steadily seeding ground to the stronger enemy forces. We desperately need reinforcements in this theatre, however it is questionable whether they will arrive in time.

[McGuba]

Thanks for the reply. In my kind, respectful opinion, I think that 6-8 turns would be more optimal. From multiple playthroughs, it just seems to me that 12 turns is much too long for the sake of the scenario. I've captured them by the end of 42 and spent a long time waiting to the point that the fleets become pretty much pointless. I believe it would spice things up a bit, as well as give incentive for quicker capture. Thanks!

I think around 1 year / 24 turns or so would be more realistic. 6 months / 12 turns is probably still a bit too optimistic.

What we know for sure is that historically the Germans could only capture the smaller Maykop oil field, and even though they held it for 5 months, they were unable to repair it before the Soviet recapture.


AI answer:

August 8, 1942, elements of Army Group A took Maikop after a specialized German commando unit (the Brandenburgers) disguised as NKVD troops caused confusion and expedited the city's evacuation.

Scorched Earth:
Recognizing the threat, the Soviets utilized a highly effective scorched-earth strategy. Soviet units destroyed the oil storage tanks, set the facilities ablaze, and poured cement down the wellbores before retreating.

Soviet Recapture:
The Germans held the ruined fields for only five months. As the tide of the war turned, the Red Army launched a massive counter-offensive, recapturing the Maikop region in January 1943.

Why the Capture Yielded Zero Oil

Devastated Infrastructure:
The sabotage was so thorough that the Germans were unable to extract any usable crude before being pushed out. Rebuilding the destroyed facilities required entirely new wells and specialized equipment.

So I guess it definitely needs to be more than 5 months / 10 turns. Hence the current 12 turns waiting time. That's the absolute minimum in the hardest, "realistic +" version, in my opinion.

[slowgtp]

Thanks for the reply. In my kind, respectful opinion, I think that 6-8 turns would be more optimal. From multiple playthroughs, it just seems to me that 12 turns is much too long for the sake of the scenario. I've captured them by the end of 42 and spent a long time waiting to the point that the fleets become pretty much pointless. I believe it would spice things up a bit, as well as give incentive for quicker capture. Thanks!

I think around 1 year / 24 turns or so would be more realistic. 6 months / 12 turns is probably still a bit too optimistic.

What we know for sure is that historically the Germans could only capture the smaller Maykop oil field, and even though they held it for 5 months, they were unable to repair it before the Soviet recapture.


AI answer:

August 8, 1942, elements of Army Group A took Maikop after a specialized German commando unit (the Brandenburgers) disguised as NKVD troops caused confusion and expedited the city's evacuation.

Scorched Earth:
Recognizing the threat, the Soviets utilized a highly effective scorched-earth strategy. Soviet units destroyed the oil storage tanks, set the facilities ablaze, and poured cement down the wellbores before retreating.

Soviet Recapture:
The Germans held the ruined fields for only five months. As the tide of the war turned, the Red Army launched a massive counter-offensive, recapturing the Maikop region in January 1943.

Why the Capture Yielded Zero Oil

Devastated Infrastructure:
The sabotage was so thorough that the Germans were unable to extract any usable crude before being pushed out. Rebuilding the destroyed facilities required entirely new wells and specialized equipment.

So I guess it definitely needs to be more than 5 months / 10 turns. Hence the current 12 turns waiting time. That's the absolute minimum in the hardest, "realistic +" version, in my opinion.

Thanks for the response. That makes sense, and I appreciate your feedback...even if I don't like the answer.

[JimmyC]

I like that the river boat can now refuel at all cities on rivers. I usually put it in the Pripet Marshes to find/chase partisans, so it can now operate there quite freely without having to worry about running out of fuel.

It was also cool seeing how the train tracks were built turn by turn in Egypt/Libya as i was battling the Commonwealth forces.

I also noticed there are more versions of the strat bombers. the '43 versions aren't substantially different, but its still good to be able to be able to do the small upgrade.

The coastal battery at Archangelsk is a real pain, especially as it can repair. Would you consider perhaps making it not able to repair? I had a lot of trouble capturing it as a result.

[Intenso82]

But which one?
- Another 15cm Nebel, or a 21cm one? The 21 cm has a bigger punch but also 1 less ammo and 1 less rate of fire, for 10% higher price... I think that's a tough choice.
- Or perhaps another good-old 10.5cm leFH, for about the same price but with more ammo and more range, albeit with modest damage?
- Or a 15cm sFH, which has good range, good damage, good ammo supply, but much more expensive than any of the above?
- Or perhaps one of the mobile platforms?

I bought the 15cm arty—it’s very expensive, but it’s the best one))
The second Sig 33

I can’t recommend this to others because if it gets damaged, I’ll have to spend a ton of prestige on repairs and replacements.

I still think the artillery has insufficient defense.
It’s easily destroyed by enemy aircraft and artillery.
Especially since even the Soviets’ 76mm guns are quite deadly with R=3

I’d add 2-3 defense points, though the Soviets have even less.

I also believe that mobile artillery should have even more protection and the issue isn’t the thickness of the Pz.II’s chassis armor.
It’s that it can easily and quickly change position, meaning it can’t be quickly detected to launch a counterattack, whether by air or counter-battery fire.

I also notice the insufficient effectiveness of the Axis’s super-heavy guns.
They have reduced str. and reduced rate of fire, which unfortunately prevents them from destroying fortified positions.
But that’s exactly what they’re needed for!

So many choices... and this is only the artillery available in that specific turn. Later there will be even more options. I remember in one of my earlier multiplayer matches I was thinking for like an hour on what unit to purchase when I had a chance. Of course it all depends on the actual situation, strategy, prestige situation and priorities. And yet it can be really hard to make the "right" decision.

Another interesting choice is how many tanks to upgrade to the Pz.III and then to the Panther and how many to the Pz.IV.
I think I had 4-5 light tanks (including the flamethrower).
Maybe 3 to the Pz.IV and 2 to the Pz.III...
Hmm....

Also, after the raid by British bombers and the loss of 450 prestige, I’m thinking about buying 12.8 cm anti-aircraft guns without transport, hehe
It seems like a good purchase when free slots become available.

[Intenso82]

What if Hitler took the Mediterranean & Middle East? ‘Game over’ for the Soviet Union….
On this episode of History Undone, Fergus Macphee is joined by Rear Admiral Dr Chris Parry and Dr Klaus Schmider to discuss a plan that Nazi Germany never went through with. At the end of 1940, Hitler faced a choice of where to head next and Admiral Raeder's thoughts were clear: head south through the Mediterranean, capture British Empire strongholds and push through to the oil fields. Yet that never happened and Barbarossa was launched in 1941. Yet what if the Germans had taken that other option? This is History Undone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB55QAWB6E

It is a really interesting video, I highly recommend to every player of this mod. In general, this yt channel looks quite interesting with some other similar "what if" scenarios discussed by real experts.

It is known that the Axis had an operation called Fall Orient.
It seems they had an operation for every letter of the alphabet))

And this operation is yet another illusion.

They wanted to use a pincer strike.
One part through the Middle East, but the other essential part through the Caucasus.
Only the two parts together, not separately.

Regarding the implementation of the southern part through the Middle East.
The distance from Tripoli to Baku is about 5,500 km.
For comparison, the distance from Berlin to Moscow is 2–3 times shorter, at about 2,000 km.
With very good logistics in between.
5,500 km without logistics is nothing short of hell)

To cover the logistics costs from Tripoli to the furthest point reached by the Axis—about 2,000 km—50% of the fuel was required for transportation expenses. Just to refuel.
To cover a distance of 5,500 km, you need 10 times more fuel—that is, for every one refueled vehicle, you need to spend 10 refueling trips just to deliver the fuel.

This complexity is comparable to the current project to build a lunar base,
where sending a spaceship from the Moon to Earth requires 10 fuel-carrying spaceship to refuel it.

Considering that the British can launch a flanking attack or simply conduct raids anywhere along the 5,500 km of lines of communication...
They need to have about 500,000 troops or more just to guard the lines of communication.

Furthermore, to cover that distance, mobile troops are needed, of which the Germans had no more than 15% of their total forces. You can’t march 5,500 km on foot through the desert.
So only 1–2 divisions could have made it—that’s 1 unit in the mod.
And that very same Rommel corps(50к), which is smaller than an army.

If they had passed, what would they have seen?
They would have seen mountainous terrain, not very traversable by tanks and very easily defended.
Also, about half a million Red Army soldiers)
Who, as part of three armies, were protecting that very oil from any possible threat.
A frontal assault on such an army through the mountains is simply unrealistic.

Many of what they are discussing is actually relevant to this mod as well. At some point they also argue that instead of going towards the Donbas and the Caucasus from the north, the Germans should have only gone for Leningrad and Moscow, and then reach Baku from the south through the Middle East, which would have been KO for the Soviet Union. Which is very similar to your plan, with the only difference of going towards Baku with the Afrika Korps instead of southeast for the Iraq oilfields. But I think if the Afrika Korps is reinforced enough, it can even do both. Luckily, all of this can be tested in practice with this mod.

Regarding the choice of specific directions, I believe that focusing on one direction can lead to flanking attacks from another in reality.
But in the mod, this can only be tested in multiplayer against a human player. But they need to be given the opportunity to unlock units.
Then ignoring Kyiv could lead to a subsequent flanking attack and the cutting off of Army Group Center's supplies.
That's probably why this was the only option for the Axis.

[McGuba]

The coastal battery at Archangelsk is a real pain, especially as it can repair. Would you consider perhaps making it not able to repair? I had a lot of trouble capturing it as a result.

Ah, currently I am on holiday and do not have laptop with me so I cannot check it. So I guess there is a 10 strength coastal artillery? As far as I know there were some coastal guns around Archangelsk, same as with any other significant port city. Thus I think it is just right that it has some. Perhaps its max strength could be reduced a bit.

But then again, of course Archangelsk was not captured in WW2, they did not even get close, so we do not know how well it would have been defended. But due to its strategic importance probably quite well.

I still think the artillery has insufficient defense.
It’s easily destroyed by enemy aircraft and artillery.
Especially since even the Soviets’ 76mm guns are quite deadly with R=3

Again, I can't check it right now, but as I remember I did increase the defense of German towed artillery a bit for this version and perhaps that of some other nations as well, but not for the USSR. It was somewhat experimental, maybe more could be done later, but I have to keep in mind the balance of the multiplayer version as well. I prefer to make step by step changes.

As for the effectiveness of German super heavy guns, I think in reality these were more like propaganda tools and morale boosters than having actual battle value.

As for Pz.III or Pz.IV upgrade, I usually try to upgrade as many as possible to Pz.IV since those are better in 1942 and the first half of 1943, which is more important because that's where the outcome of the war is decided.

The dstance from Tripoli to Baku is about 5,500 km.
...

To cover the logistics costs from Tripoli to the furthest point reached by the Axis—about 2,000 km—50% of the fuel was required for transportation expenses. Just to refuel.
...
l

The arguement is, and they mention it in the video as well, that the hypothetical capture of the Nile delta, with the major ports of Alexandria and Port Said would have provided major supply bases. In that case the supply distance should have been measured from those and not from Tripoli. That would have made things much easier.

But of course this is still only hypothetical brain storming, which is up to debate.

[JimmyC]

On the Eastern Front our forces have crossed the Don after heavy fighting and with the river now freezing we are able to bring further reinforcements in a push towards Stalin's bunker at Kuybyshev. The enemy are still able to throw heavy tank forces at us, so the pace has slowed and fuel shortages are further delaying our advance.

With winter set in and rivers frozen, Army Group South made push on Stalingrad, but were attacked by heavy tanks from the North and are having to deal with this before making another attempt on the city. They are also waiting on promised Panther reinforcements, which are having a hard time reaching the area as the nearest captured cities are far away and the snowy weather further increases fuel usage of our tanks.

Things have turned around for the Africa Corps. After sending fighter and bomber units from Europe we were able to gain air supremacy and could destroy the British Battleships. This allowed the remnants of the Regia Marina to lend their support to our beleaguered forces, which were further reinforced with armor, allowing us to turn back the enemy. We are now poised to mop up the remaining enemy forces and capture the entirety of North Africa.

In the Middle East we are making a drive towards Syria and thereafter to the oilfields. A moderate counterattack by British forces was easily dealt with, although further slowed our advance by a couple of months. We desperately need to increase our pace in order to capture the oilfields and are transferring some mechanised units from North Africa to assist.

[Intenso82]

(My version)
Turn 58.

Leningrad has been captured.
Stalingrad too.
After a long wait, there has been a small advance near Moscow.

Clipboard_06-15-2026_01.jpg (680.06 KiB) Viewed 634 times

British forces have been sent to defend Baku, fortunately without air support.
Now we’ll have to deal with them first.
But we’ve also suffered some losses.

Clipboard_06-15-2026_01-2.jpg (345.3 KiB) Viewed 634 times

In the Mediterranean, Sicily has been successfully defended, incidentally, only a few seriously damaged units managed to land.

Interesting battles are still raging in the Atlantic, many convoys have gone down.
As well as a number of destroyers.
Now American escort fighters represent a very dangerous force and must be reckoned with. In one of the turns, all four of my planes were damaged (though there was only one fighter there). The rest were sent to the Mediterranean.

And what about Karl? I upgraded him and he was already on his way back to Russia, but he was destroyed by partisans along the way.

[Kas Narayda]

The game used to be in Russian. Not anymore? I went in and saw that English was everywhere in the interface. At the same time, the inscriptions on the main screen are in Russian.

[bondjamesbond]

The game used to be in Russian. Not anymore? I went in and saw that English was everywhere in the interface. At the same time, the inscriptions on the main screen are in Russian.

Because the Russian localisation pack hasn’t been updated on for ages ))) I hope someone talented—and left-handed—will come along and patch version 2.5.1

Link to the Russian language pack for the Battlefield Europe mod v2.2.
https://www.strategium.ru/forum/topic/1 ... s/page/74/
https://disk.yandex.ru/d/lWatBvrLyIIjjQ

[Kas Narayda]

The game used to be in Russian. Not anymore? I went in and saw that English was everywhere in the interface. At the same time, the inscriptions on the main screen are in Russian.

Because the Russian localisation pack hasn’t been updated on for ages ))) I hope someone talented—and left-handed—will come along and patch version 2.5.1

Link to the Russian language pack for the Battlefield Europe mod v2.2.
https://www.strategium.ru/forum/topic/1 ... s/page/74/
https://disk.yandex.ru/d/lWatBvrLyIIjjQ

I translated version 2.4 and then played, but in 2.51 the interface is in English. How can I fix this?

[JimmyC]

(My version)
Turn 58.

Leningrad has been captured.
Stalingrad too.
After a long wait, there has been a small advance near Moscow.

British forces have been sent to defend Baku, fortunately without air support.
Now we’ll have to deal with them first.
But we’ve also suffered some losses.

In the Mediterranean, Sicily has been successfully defended, incidentally, only a few seriously damaged units managed to land.

Interesting battles are still raging in the Atlantic, many convoys have gone down.
As well as a number of destroyers.
Now American escort fighters represent a very dangerous force and must be reckoned with. In one of the turns, all four of my planes were damaged (though there was only one fighter there). The rest were sent to the Mediterranean.

And what about Karl? I upgraded him and he was already on his way back to Russia, but he was destroyed by partisans along the way.

You have made much better progress compared to me. It shows the difference of abandoning North Africa compared to reinforcing this front!

Thats a massive bummer about Karl and kudos to you for not just restarting the turn. I am currently using upgraded Karl at Leningrad siege. I try to make a point of moving my cheaper units by rail 1st every turn (where i have multiple trains moving) just in case of partisans. I also keep security infantry etc. stationed round the prippet marshes. But the expanse of Ukraine/Russia are just too big to patrol, so you run some risk. From beginning of '44 i also aggressively patrol around southern France up to Paris, as partisans often appear in this areas towards D-Day (I use the minor allies or security infantry for such jobs).

I am interested to know how you only allowed a few weakened units to land in Sicily. Did you line the coast with cheap units and just absorb the damage or heavily stack naval and air forces to defend Husky?

[Intenso82]

You have made much better progress compared to me. It shows the difference of abandoning North Africa compared to reinforcing this front!

Yes, the Soviets surrendered around turn 70.
In the final stages of the game (after the fall of Moscow and Leningrad), it wasn’t too difficult.
I’d expected more resistance.

Now I have two active fronts: France and Iran.
It seems I’ve got far too many idle units.
Perhaps I should have opted to capture North Africa – I’m not sure.

But a landing in England in 1941–42 is still too difficult in my view.
Nevertheless, I had no problems with prestige in the first half of the game; it was usually around 2,000.
Only now, during D-Day, has it dropped to 500.

I also only had 2 free unit slots at the start; I bought 2 artillery pieces.
And just 1 slot since then; I bought a Jagdpanther.
So I’ve got no slots left to buy new units; I can only upgrade the ones I’ve got (at full price, hehe).

t_74_D-Day.jpg (889.41 KiB) Viewed 126 times

Thats a massive bummer about Karl and kudos to you for not just restarting the turn. I am currently using upgraded Karl at Leningrad siege. I try to make a point of moving my cheaper units by rail 1st every turn (where i have multiple trains moving) just in case of partisans. I also keep security infantry etc. stationed round the prippet marshes. But the expanse of Ukraine/Russia are just too big to patrol, so you run some risk. From beginning of '44 i also aggressively patrol around southern France up to Paris, as partisans often appear in this areas towards D-Day (I use the minor allies or security infantry for such jobs).

It’s interesting to see what happens next, as I lost the train, which only affected logistics by 9 out of 10.
Especially when, during the D-Day period, I need to bring back a huge number of units from Russia.

If I’d been able to buy trains, I’d have bought a few, even for 500 prestige.

Now I’m running a bit behind in setting up my defences in the West.

Using trains to transport cheap units is a good move.
I even thought it would be good to add a unit like an armoured railcar for reconnaissance and guarding the railway lines.

As for partisans in this game, there are no problems with them in the marshlands.
The number of security forces is about twice as high as usual.
But mainly, the trains run into partisans in other areas – either further east or further west in Poland.

I also often use reconnaissance units or obsolete tanks to deal with the partisans.

Partyzans.jpg (1 MiB) Viewed 126 times

I am interested to know how you only allowed a few weakened units to land in Sicily. Did you line the coast with cheap units and just absorb the damage or heavily stack naval and air forces to defend Husky?

It is usually a combined sea, air and land operation.
I expected the coastline to come under fire, just as it did during the D-Day landings, so I withdrew the ground units to the second line,
but that did not happen.
This time, the navy and air force were able to inflict serious damage before the landing.
Even the Tiger tank was unable to fire a single shot.
There were no targets.

t_55.jpg (306.84 KiB) Viewed 126 times

[PeteMitchell]

I would have expected you to go for sealion in 41?

[Locarnus]

I translated version 2.4 and then played, but in 2.51 the interface is in English. How can I fix this?

There are a bunch of files that make up the localization.
Weirdly the files in the localization folder can even replace whole menu and scenario files, not just the text for them! Unfortunately localization is an absolute mess for modding.

Main file should be
strings.pzdat

Then the scenario specific file, eg for the real+ scenario of BE I think it was this one
Kursk3.pzloc

But the localization also seems to overwrite non-translation files, like this one:
gamesetup.htm
So once you switch to ru language, it shows the scenario start screen for the unmodded game, not for BE...

It seems that the translation system in PzC is designed for a "finished" product.
I mean it is mainly intended to be do once, after all texts are written and all scenarios got their final edit.
But practically impossible to keep the localization up for changing texts and scenario scripts, for example due to continued modding.


I just released a highly experimental machine translation for BE with my Addon mod.
It is incomplete (none of the library texts are translated) and there are issues with pictures and formatting.
I also can't guarantee that it does not mess up the game at some point, since I have not tried any of it (not even in my native language).
So I still highly recommend english language.
But you are of course welcome to try
=> viewtopic.php?t=106547