Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

[deducter]

I find that towed AT are already plenty useful, as long as you employ them correctly. Most importantly they are cheap. I actually use one for most of my videos, and although it is tricky to employ correctly, it can be very successful. In the hands of the AI, they perform fine as is. If you leave tanks and other hard targets uncovered by artillery, the AI will attack with them and can inflict serious losses against the unprepared player.

I think their GD is fine in 1939-1942. In 1943 I can increase the GD of towed AT units by 1. I actually did increase the GD of the 88 gun in PaK mode from 5 to 7 in 1943. The other towed AT guns can use a smaller increase.

[ivanov]

I was thinking more of a CD. All the towed AT have it set at zero. It's just so easy to pick them up with the infantry in the close terrain... I don't think that they sould be more vulnerable than the vuehicles in the urban combat. Acutally maybe they would be less vulnerable ( they would count on more organic infantry support, than the tanks or the assault guns ).

[deducter]

I thought about the CD issue with the towed units, and this includes artillery, towed AA, etc. I think it is best that they remain extremely vulnerable in close terrain. If I increase their CD to say 1 for GC39-42, the effect would barely be noticeable. Increasing it to 2 would give them the same value as infantry, which isn't good. In GC43 and beyond, well, unless I increase their CD to like 3 the effect would barely be noticeable, due to the presence of highly experienced units running around. I think the current system is fine. Place towed AT guns in close terrain at your own risk, unless you back them up with artillery.

[nikivdd]

I noticed that fuel stats are reduced. What's the effect in offensive missions? Are the number of turns in such a missions sufficient?
I do praise the mod for a realistic use of the equipment, or in other words, to use them as they were meant to be used.

[ivanov]

I thought about the CD issue with the towed units, and this includes artillery, towed AA, etc. I think it is best that they remain extremely vulnerable in close terrain. If I increase their CD to say 1 for GC39-42, the effect would barely be noticeable. Increasing it to 2 would give them the same value as infantry, which isn't good. In GC43 and beyond, well, unless I increase their CD to like 3 the effect would barely be noticeable, due to the presence of highly experienced units running around. I think the current system is fine. Place towed AT guns in close terrain at your own risk, unless you back them up with artillery.

But do you really think that the 0 CD value of the towed AT is justifiable? In reality, even the smallest AT unit ( battery ), would be protected by a machine gun squad. Wouldn't it be correct, to increase the towded AT ( and maybe AA ) to at least to +1 in the early DLC's and to +2 in the 1943 onwards?

IMO the most vulnerable units in the close terrain should be: tanks, dedicated SPAT, artillery, recon ( due to the small component of the organic infantry support and design best suited for the combat in the open ). The towed AT and assault guns should receive a CD buff - designed for an urban combat and/or due to the organic infantry support ( machine guns etc ).

[Chris10]

But do you really think that the 0 CD value of the towed AT is justifiable? In reality, even the smallest AT unit ( battery ), would be protected by a machine gun squad. Wouldn't it be correct, to increase the towded AT ( and maybe AA ) to at least to +1 in the early DLC's and to +2 in the 1943 onwards?

+1
but this is not the only reason...
Towed AT guns with high explosive shells were harrasingly dangerous to infantry...due to the fact that they could be moved around silently by hand and cause of their high rate of fire they posed a real threat to enemy infantry in close and urban combat.

The rate of fire of the Pak 38 was 15 RPM, Pak 40 15 RPM and the 8,8 Pak 43 up to 10 RPM (Forget about the 20-25 RPM english Wiki mentions for the Pak43. US and UK sources are pretty bad when it comes to german equipment and often totally wrong)
While the Pak43 was to heavy to be moved by hand a Pak 43 unit consisted of 12 Guns and 192 Soldiers.
So AT units offered a considerable close defense and if the enemy had an AT gun with explosive rounds at hand while you were sitting in the building at the end of the road you really had something to be concerned about...not even mentioning trying an infantry attack on an AT gun position with numerous guns able to provide crossfire...suicide mission...just sayin


btw even the Pak 38 was highly dangerous to T-34 and others if using the german tungsten (wolfram) rounds but since availability dropped considerably since 1943 the available Wolfram was reserved for rounds for other units (Tigers etc) if available at all

[deducter]

A small CD buff would be cosmetic at best, due to the increased effects of experience on infantry. With no artillery support, towed AT would still be crushed. With artillery support, towed AT are already hard to kill. If you want those towed AT guns to survive for some time in close terrain, a CD buff to 3 or 4 in 1939 minimum would be required.

From a gameplay perspective, if you make towed AT resistant to tanks and infantry, then those units are too good. I ask you, what's the counter to them in that case? From a design perspective, a unit with no vulnerabilities is unacceptable. If you add SA and CD to towed AT units, then who'd ever buy infantry. Right now towed AT have a very clear vulnerability: close terrain.If you remove that, then they become another super unit.

[Chris10]

A small CD buff would be cosmetic at best, due to the increased effects of experience on infantry. With no artillery support, towed AT would still be crushed. With artillery support, towed AT are already hard to kill. If you want those towed AT guns to survive for some time in close terrain, a CD buff to 3 or 4 in 1939 minimum would be required.

From a gameplay perspective, if you make towed AT resistant to tanks and infantry, then those units are too good. I ask you, what's the counter to them in that case? From a design perspective, a unit with no vulnerabilities is unacceptable. If you add SA and CD to towed AT units, then who'd ever buy infantry. Right now towed AT have a very clear vulnerability: close terrain.If you remove that, then they become another super unit.

I think the secret lies in combined arms...thats what it requieres to take out AT positions = Art Suppression,Airstrike > Inf Attack from various sides or multiple attacks
It could do some good to have AT hard to take out for both Tanks and Infantry. It moves a bit away fom the Paper and Scissor mechanic bringing up new tactical considerations.
Iam not demanding anything... ...just thinking loud
of course it has to be checked what the impact on the gameplay flow is

[deducter]

Well, right now artillery and airstrikes are used on everything. Towed AT units are already cheap and very common in the GCs. If you made them resistant to infantry and tanks, it wouldn't give rise to new tactical considerations. It'd make tanks truly useless and force players to stack more artillery and Stukas. That's terrible design.

[Chris10]

Well, right now artillery and airstrikes are used on everything. Towed AT units are already cheap and very common in the GCs. If you made them resistant to infantry and tanks, it wouldn't give rise to new tactical considerations. It'd make tanks truly useless and force players to stack more artillery and Stukas. That's terrible design.

Tanks were truly uselss against AT in close terrain, whats the downside or the news with this ?
Lowering AT GD could make them more vulnerable in open terrain were they easily could be outrun and outflanked by literally any unit if not entrenched in fortifications.
Could the Rate of Fire help in balancing this ?
Iam sure you have studied the comabt mechanic more in depth then I when it comes to combat results so Iam curious what effect that may could have.
AT should really be an obstacle for infantry in CD and a real threat for tanks in those terains but should fall easy prey on open ground to most units.

[deducter]

Tanks are already useless against AT, especially in close terrain. Again, if AT is a serious obstacle in close terrain, it'd just force the player to get more artillery and air units for their core, which is a worse problem. You have to be very careful about making units with no weaknesses. The Tiger II in my mod, for instance, is as invincible in combat as ever. But it still has weaknesses: a skyhigh price and almost no fuel. But AT units are already cheap, they are already good against tanks. If you want them to perform decently against infantry in close terrain you'd have to increase their SA and CD, both significantly.

If AT were to be redesigned to be good in close terrain but bad in open terrain, that at least is worth considering, but on the other hand, we already have a unit that is good in close terrain: infantry. And lowering the GD of AT units doesn't work as well as you think either, it'd make them more vulnerable to tanks after suppression by artillery. It seems again there's the problem of which is the lesser of two evils, AT units good in clear terrain, or AT units better in clear terrain. It's very hard to design the units to work the way people seem to want, and such a change would take me too long to implement if you want a new version of this mod out sometime this week or early next week.

[ivanov]

I think we have reached the ultimate problem facing all the war game designers, that is the theory meets the games reality

The idea would be to make the towed AT really strong but only in the defence - as strong as it is now against the tanks and a little stronger agains the infantry. They should be a reall pain in the ass to overcome - right now they only are, when placed in the trenches. Could maybe the increased CD be offset by lower SA? Also, maybe some more subltle approach could be adopted - I'm not sure if presently the close terrain initiative cap applies to the towed AT? If so, what would happen if it was removed? I don't like the idea of making the AT more vulnerable in the open.

[deducter]

The low SA of the towed AT units is also part of why they perform so poorly against infantry in close terrain. And yes, their INI is capped in close terrain, and there's no way of modding this short of gamebreaking moves like adding the "close" modifier to those units. Then towed AT units will reign so supreme against tanks in close terrain that it'd be absurd.

I can try increasing the CD of towed AT and towed AA units to 1 in 39-42 and 2 in 43-45, but I don't think any other changes will be acceptable. Towed AT will be slightly tougher on defense, but I doubt most players will even notice.

[alex0809]

I don't think it's so bad anyway, even if it might not be completely realistic I think a little bit of rock-paper-scissors is not so bad. Enemy AT guns -> send infantry. Protected by artillery? You're gonna have a hard time... I think this is how it should be! If AT guns would be made stronger vs infantry then infantry loses the last thing where it is really shining late-war (because even in cities the late-war tanks are better than any infantry as you don't go in without suppressing them, that would be suicide anyway...) Of course, this doesn't make them viable for the PLAYER but let's face it, there's no way to make them viable without making them absurdly overpowered simply because there are so few defense missions, and that's just what AT is for in the game. And I think an enemy medium AT gun protected by artillery can be an extremely effective offense-stopper so I'd say it is fine.

[deducter]

(because even in cities the late-war tanks are better than any infantry as you don't go in without suppressing them, that would be suicide anyway...)

Not really true in my mod. In terms of cost effectiveness, infantry is by far the best way to kill tanks in cities.

[ivanov]

I can try increasing the CD of towed AT and towed AA units to 1 in 39-42 and 2 in 43-45, but I don't think any other changes will be acceptable. Towed AT will be slightly tougher on defense, but I doubt most players will even notice.

I think such a tiny change would be better than nothing. I understand that from the gameplay point of view, more radical approach would be unacceptable. Thank you for this.


Alex - I think the whole point of this mod to make the game a little more realistic - that is IMO it's main advantage over the original game. Of course each change needs to be reconsidered 10 times before implementing and the gameplay issues need to go first.

[Radoye]

IMO the smallest towed AT guns deserve to get some extra CD. These were light small things easily moved about and concealed (which what "close terrain" is all about) and were often used in support role for infantry similar to infantry guns when no better was available. I'm talking about the 25 - 57 mm range.

For the 75mm, 88 and other beasts they're pretty much good as-is.

[alex0809]

Not really true in my mod. In terms of cost effectiveness, infantry is by far the best way to kill tanks in cities.

Cost-effective, yes. But when the enemy has an entrenched but suppressed infantry unit in a city for example, a Tiger will do more damage to it than an infantry unit so in this case the Tiger is a lot more useful to exploit the suppression.

[deducter]

Not really true in my mod. In terms of cost effectiveness, infantry is by far the best way to kill tanks in cities.

Cost-effective, yes. But when the enemy has an entrenched but suppressed infantry unit in a city for example, a Tiger will do more damage to it than an infantry unit so in this case the Tiger is a lot more useful to exploit the suppression.

You can do that if you want, but with so little ammo on Tigers, do you really want to be wasting it fighting infantry in cities? Even the lost of one strength point on a Tiger will cost 67 prestige to elite reinforce at the deployment phase, and if it is overstrength points that'll be 135 prestige, nearly the cost of a standard Wehrmacht Infantry 43. An infantry does just as well, quite possible better, actually. The Tiger is much better in the open.

A Guards 43 with 2 stars has GD = 12, vs a Tiger with 2 stars SA = 11.
A Guards 43 with 2 stars has CD = 5, vs a Wehrmacht infantry 43 with 3 stars SA = 7. The infantry does better. A grenadier with 3 stars has SA = 9, and performs much, much better than a Tiger for a tiny fraction of the cost.

[orlinos]

I did a longish post, commenting on units in early DLC's with your mod. I decided to post only the link in this topic, as the post itself is too long and would break the flow of discussion. (Sorry for lack of URL tag, cannot use it yet on the forum).

viewtopic.php?f=145&t=34590