Am creating new balanced MP scenarios

[McGuba]

As for making a new one, it's like making a hand-drawn animated movie: a multi-image png gets played rapidly, and at the same time a sound file is played. So it all has to be matched up manually. Great fun... If I may recommend something, McGuba has made a really nice mod (see his sig), which uses these bicycle units complete with matching animation. Check out his efx file.

Ah, yeah, sure, have a look on the Hungarian campaign. It has not only working bicycle infantry, but also horse transport for different countries (including Germany and USSR) with unique icon and movement sound. The new units can be found at the end of the equipment file. I also made a 'pack horse' land transport for the light mountain artillery, with alpine movement = 3, so that the mountain guns can keep the speed with the alpine units in the mountains. I think the easiest is to check it out and simply copy these things i.e. efx.pzdat entries, icons, movement sounds and animations for your mod if you like them. Feel free to do so. If you need any help, just ask.

I migth also recommend using a late war infantry unit (given that you are working on '44 scen) which uses panzerschreck / bazooka to replace the stock infantry icon, for which a very nice animation was made by Thomas. This unit is used by my mod as well in the late war scenarios (so far only German and Hungarian icon, though).

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the animation info. I'll see if I can work something out.

And thanks too for your suggestions, McGuba. The sendspace link isn't working for me right now, so I may have gone over my download limit. But I'll try and get hold of it over the next few days.

I thought I'd summarise the new developments that are being made to the scenarios:

1) Greater troop density. More units. The original maps were too big for the number of units or the number of units were too small for the maps. Hence my decision to increase the army sizes to 5-6 divisions for the large maps and use smaller maps for the original three division games.

2) Introduce infantry divisions. They are, after all, the bread-and-butter of armies, armoured divisions being the icing on the cake. They also will help to anchor games with their slow movement - I have decided to cap all units in the infantry divisions with three hex movement except for the recon unit (Fusilier, Scout Cavalry and Humber AC for the British Infantry Division). Apart from their tanks, the key feature of armoured divisions is their mobility. If all units are mobile then the mobility aspect is nullified. There will be much more tactical interest in using that mobility against slow-moving formations.

3) Victory hexes. I have changed the victory conditions from capturing a certain number of flag hexes to capturing victory hexes. There will be eight victory hexes (on a large map) and the aim will be to capture seven for victory. This should make things more focussed and objective-driven.

4) The new mod, of course. I think the changes will greatly improve multiplayer. Things like the over-powered heavy anti-air artillery made offensive air operations near-suicidal. The air units as well are better balanced, with the Fw 190A ceasing to be an uber-unit.

[the_iron_duke]

I've been doing some testing comparing the infantry in the standard and GCUR EQ files. As mentioned, engineers can go down an initiative level. HW weapons are less valuable in the GCUR. They only really outperform normal infantry when defending close terrain. I think 191 points is about right if a regular infantry is 167 points. Grenadiers have one less movement and one less ammo than regular infantry. They also need a transport, which makes them more expensive, for the infantry division, at least. (Infantry transports with a 3 hex movement cap could cost something like 30 points).

Having reduced the Pioniere's initiative, I'm not convinced they are worth more than the standard EQ's 233 points. I think that's a fair cost compared to 167 points for standard infantry. Again, in infantry divisions they would need a transport. I think they might be worth more in single-player with minefields and forts.

The Fallschirmager is a very strong infantry unit and I think 250 points is a good reflection. But I would say that that price does not include their actual parachuting ability. I think the cost and stats of the Fallschirmjager in the standard EQ file is purely a reflection of their stats (167 points for Fallschirmjager and 187 points for infantry) and doesn't give any extra cost for the parachuting ability. So there could be an extra cost given for parachute units for this function.

Apart from that, the infantry stats in the GCUR look good to me. The global changes deducter applied to infantry appear to be:

1) Increase Ground Defense
2) Increase Close Defense
3) Reduce Soft/Hard Attack a little.

Any other thoughts on the infantry stats? In other respects I think I'm satisfied with them. Infantry versus infantry combat is a little bit less deadly. I'll have to increase the prices of the Allied engineer units. I think I'll use the 43 versions of bridge engineers.

[the_iron_duke]

A note on my use of heavy weapons units.

They are difficult to incorporate in the game as these types of units generally exist as companies within battalions, rather than battalion-size units. For the German Panzer Division and British Armoured Divisions it was easy to incorporate one as they each contain one mechanized infantry battalion (the rest being motorised) and so they were an obvious choice.

For the infantry divisions, it's a bit different. The British Infantry Division, a bigger entity than a German infantry division, had an independent Machine Gun Battalion in the Division and so they get a HW unit. The German infantry division doesn't and so they don't get one (but the infantry do have better H.A. individually and, of course, are not short of tank and anti-tank power).

Another thing I've been thinking of is making replacements cost 100% prestige rather than 25% prestige. Any thoughts on this idea or drawbacks?

[ThvN]

Your figures look good to me, especially the reduction in INI for the engineers means you can make them cheaper than I first suggested. INI is a very 'expensive' stat in my eyes, at least now they will always be handicapped a little when facing regular infantry.

the cost of replacements, you can either keep it at 25% and give only little amounts of prestige, or you can do 100%, but than you may need to readjust your prestige injections for the players again. And it is not very relevant, but will you make the elite reinforcements more expensive as well?

I like your idea of different types of mobility. A small tweak I did was to give the SE trucks all-terrain movement (Opel Blitz had a 4x4 version), just to make things a bit different. The British 'Lorry' (Bedford QL-series) is only 'wheeled' in the game, but it actually is a 4x4, and the 'Bren' Universal Carrier is half-tracked in the stock eqp file, I changed that as well.


A little note about HW infantry, the icons may show a machinegun but 'heavy' infantry used mostly mortars. If you base their stats on that premise they make a lot of sense: that is why they were not as mobile as regular infantry, but it explains the higher INI and soft attack better than a few extra bullet-showers. So I always assume the HW infantry to be mortar/MG units.

Well, if you want to have both 'normal' and HW infantry for the Germans, there may be some ways to represent them. When you look at a regiment, you can say a quarter of all companies are 'heavy'. They are distributed equally throughout the bataillons, but you could make a 3:1 mix of Wehr and HW infantry 'bataillons' to represent this.

And as a nice plot device, the Germans also had separate machinegun bataillons... It took me some googling to find some decent info in English, but here you go: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=180261 Halfway in that thread is the best info.

Most of the early MG units were converted into mortar units, but in 1944 some new formations were activated. I also saw some of these as part of lighter divisions (mountain/paratrooper divisions). I also saw a lot of separate 'Festung' (=strongpoint/fort) machinegun-bataillons, which were for static defense. The mobile ones seem to have used mostly trucks or bicycles.

[the_iron_duke]

I think if reinforcements were 100% cost it could help gameplay. Having cheap replacements favours the army with stronger units as they can kill some weak units, soak up the damage and cheaply reinforce to 100% effectiveness, while the opponent with the weaker units has lost his troops for good. If reinforcements were 100% cost then the loss of those weak units would not be in vain as they would have inflicted proportional and meaningful damage to the stronger unit.

I'm not sure what elite replacements would be set at - can it be more than 100% or disabled?

I thought you mentioned some time previously that the amounts of prestige from capturing flag hexes could be easily modified? Could make it something like 250 points gained from a flag hex, maybe more for victory hexes.

Also thinking about the extra costs for units, including transport. Here are the standard equipment file's transport costs:

Opel Blitz - 50
sdKfz 251/1 - 100
SKfz 7 - 70

Quad - 80
Matador - 50
Lorry - 50

Could keep the standard 50 points for a truck. Any changes to costs? For example, is an SdKfz 251/1 worth twice as much as a truck? Is the Quad too mobile?
I'll think about the other transport modifications you suggested.

Here are some other extra costs that I think should be added to units. I'm just throwing numbers out there off the top of my head...

Infantry division transport: c.30 (horse ones don't need fuel but should be more susceptible to damage than truck ones.)
Parachute ability: 30
Bridge engineer ability: 40-50
Mountain ability: 20 (difficult to evaluate as it depends on the maps. My scenarios have taken place in flat areas of Europe without much in the way of hills or mountains - any in fact!)

Could also revive the British Commando unit since its stats can be boosted to make it a good unit! Also, for the sake of completeness, could look at the Gebirgsjager.

EDIT: Actually, I think I might have to do a bit more analysis on infantry points and costs. Have spotted a couple of things... Also, have found that I can load the equipment file into Microsoft Works Database. Will put the infantry stats in and then can use tools like sort by category.

[ThvN]

I think if reinforcements were 100% cost it could help gameplay. Having cheap replacements favours the army with stronger units as they can kill some weak units, soak up the damage and cheaply reinforce to 100% effectiveness, while the opponent with the weaker units has lost his troops for good. If reinforcements were 100% cost then the loss of those weak units would not be in vain as they would have inflicted proportional and meaningful damage to the stronger unit.

Very good reasoning.

I'm not sure what elite replacements would be set at - can it be more than 100% or disabled?

In the gamerules.pzdat file, look for the 'ScnReplaceCost' and 'ScnEReplaceCost' settings, they are set as a percentage, it's easy to change and should be able to be set higher than 100%, although I never tried that, so check to be sure. If you are having trouble to edit the file, I can make a modded one with your changes very easily, just let me know.

I thought you mentioned some time previously that the amounts of prestige from capturing flag hexes could be easily modified? Could make it something like 250 points gained from a flag hex, maybe more for victory hexes.

In the gamerules.pzdat file, look for 'FlagCaptureBonus' and 'VHCaptureBonus' and change it in whatever you like.

Also thinking about the extra costs for units, including transport. Here are the standard equipment file's transport costs:

Opel Blitz - 50
sdKfz 251/1 - 100
SKfz 7 - 70

Quad - 80
Matador - 50
Lorry - 50

Could keep the standard 50 points for a truck. Any changes to costs? For example, is an SdKfz 251/1 worth twice as much as a truck? Is the Quad too mobile?
I'll think about the other transport modifications you suggested.

I'll have a more detailed look later, but remember the Quad is tied to the 25-pdr gun, its cost will matter more if it is made available to other units as well. The cost for a unit cannot be fully separated from the cost for its transports. That's why the towed AT guns are so bad; they cost almost as much as a decent tank as soon as you start equipping them with a half-decent transport.

For a simple example, in the stock game the 15cm sFH and 17cm K18 have different transports (K18 only uses SdKfz 7), which almost closes the gap in total cost when you go for a halftrack for the 15cm. So it can be very tricky, cost-wise. So from your list, the Quad, Matador and SdKfz 7 are a bit different because they are tied to certain units.

BTW, the SdKfz 250 is missing, it costs 200pr for an extra 2 movement. Not a good deal, but it shows some of the oddities of the stock transport stats...

Here are some other extra costs that I think should be added to units. I'm just throwing numbers out there off the top of my head...

Infantry division transport: c.30 (horse ones don't need fuel but should be more susceptible to damage than truck ones.)
Parachute ability: 30
Bridge engineer ability: 40-50
Mountain ability: 20 (difficult to evaluate as it depends on the maps. My scenarios have taken place in flat areas of Europe without much in the way of hills or mountains - any in fact!)

Could also revive the British Commando unit since its stats can be boosted to make it a good unit! Also, for the sake of completeness, could look at the Gebirgsjager.

Brainstorming your ideas is a very good idea, so don't hesitate. I see some traits as a cost 'multiplier', not as a fixed cost. For example, a unit with high attack stats will benefit more from a 'meng' trait, so I try to make it progressively more expensive, in stead of slapping on a fixed cost. But since you are comparing infantry, this is not a real concern.

Will parachuting units be a feasible tactic in your scenarios? If it can swing a battle, it should be expensive, especially because air transports are essentially free (how much of those on your map, BTW?).

During the GC's, I often use Gebirgsjäger, and I once had a pair with +1 move, but on flat ground they do not work well, because I never give them transports, because that nullifies their movement through mountains. So are they more of a 'flavour' unit on your maps or do you want to give them more distinguishing abilities besides their movement mode?

[the_iron_duke]

I left out the SdKfz 250 as I haven't been using it, mainly because it's so expensive.

Paratroopers are tricky. They take great risk in performing airborne operations and so I don't think they should be too expensive - maybe 30-50 points extra. They are useful in a firefighter role. I'm not sure whether they could pull off any battle-winning tactical offensive moves, though - but it might pay off to try!

The Guards 44 unit is vexing me, particularly its cost compared to heavy weapons units. I think it's probably over-powered/under-costed. I'm not sure it should be as powerful as a British or German HW unit, but with better movement and ammo. I think its stats are too high. There were lots of Guards formations. I think Guards units should be more similar to regular British/German infantry (as opposed to the regular Soviet infantry that are weaker).

[ThvN]

A little insomnia post, the modded Guards '43 are a bit overpowered, indeed. I think the fact that deducter did not adjust the cost for the AI units is playing up here. Move 3 with those stats is very powerful.

If you want to nerf them a little bit, I can divulge the fact that the Soviet army lacked effective, man-portable infantry AT weapons. Even the British, with their PIAT's (a questionable design) should have higher HA than the Soviet infantry. Either that or the Guards '43 INI would have to be lowered, to represent the fact that they had to get a bit closer to combat armour as effectively as the other nationalities.

Infantry HA is more than just bazookas I think, but those at least provide a good balance between hitting power and range. Equally damaging weapons were very short-ranged (land mines, AT hand grenades), and required a terrain advantage or near-suicidal tactics. And I can wish all the HA I want, but the truth is the Soviets were masters of the AT rifle and not much else. So I reckon their '43 infantry iterations would max out at the Regular '43 level with regards to HA. With all due respect to their guard units, but scrounging Panzerfausts and trying to quickly develop a counterpart does nothing to console me they have effective weapons of their own...

If you want to learn more about the subject, have a read about how the Japanese (failed to) destroy Allied armour up close, and the unnecessary sacrifice of human life to compensate for the lack of effective AT weapons for the infantry, despite the advantages of terrain. To take out even mediocre tanks often required suicidal tactics; compared to that, even the 30-60m range of a Panzerfaust was often enough to get away relatively unscathed with a surprise attack. I think this is one of the few areas where technological ability trumps experience. It's the same sort of gap that exist between a man armed with a sword and one armed with a blunderbuss. If the blunderbuss misses and you have no backup, you're toast, but the odds are against the swordsman.

[the_iron_duke]

I think the Guards 43 unit could have the same stats as a British Infantry 43 unit. Guards formations were division, corps and army size formations. So I think that if using them, then all the infantry units in that formation (e.g. Guards Mechanized Corps) would be Guards infantry units. So they represent experienced infantry rather than anything approaching elite troops.

I have posted a picture below showing the key infantry units - regulars, heavy-weapons and engineers - of the German, British and Soviet armies for easy comparison and analysis. The first table is using the standard EQ file and the second is using the GCUR stats.

[the_iron_duke]

I've been analysing the stats for the key infantry units and am happy with everything in the GCUR stats except for the following things (not counting unit cost stats).

Definite changes:

- All engineer units' initiative down to 2.
- Guards 43 unit downgraded, perhaps to British Infantry stats.

Possible changes:

- Engineer ammo level. Germans have only 4, British have 6. Could perhaps give British 5 ammo, Soviet Eng 4/5?
- Engineer soft/hard attack values. Could be modified. Should they all have the same soft attack? Are the Hard Attack values too high?

[ThvN]

I can make a few suggestions, for comparison here are some figures I am using:

Normal '43 Infantry:
Soviet: Ammo=5 / INI=2 / SA=5 / HA=3 / CD=5
UK: Ammo=7 / INI=3 / SA=5 / HA=4 / CD=4
USA: Ammo=7 / INI=3 / SA=6 / HA=4 / CD=4
Germany: Ammo=6 / INI=3 / SA=5 / HA=5 / CD=4

I'm thinking of tweaking the HA for the USA/Germany units, +1 one each. Haven't tried it yet, though.

HW '43 Infantry:
Soviet: Ammo=6 / INI=4 / SA=6 / HA=5 / CD=4
UK: Ammo=7 / INI=5 / SA=6 / HA=5 / CD=3
USA: Ammo=7 / INI=5 / SA=7 / HA=6 / CD=3
Germany: Ammo=6 / INI=5 / SA=6 / HA=7 / CD=3

My HW infantry is not always better than the regulars, they represent MG/mortar units, so more INI/SA, less CD. The Soviet Guard unit is an odd one, I know Guard units were usually better equipped than their regular counterparts, as they got preference when equipment was allotted. So I see them as 'fully equipped' versions of the regulars.

Engineers '43:
Soviet: Ammo=4 / INI=2 / SA=5 / HA=6 / CD=6
UK: Ammo=5 / INI=2 / SA=5 / HA=6 / CD=5
USA: Ammo=5 / INI=2 / SA=6 / HA=7 / CD=5
Germany: Ammo=5 / INI=2 / SA=5 / HA=7 / CD=5

You can also give them the higher CD that deducter uses; it can balance the fact that I use a lower INI. Basically, they are light infantry with specialized, short-ranged equipment which gives them their high HA (to attack strongpoints) and higher CD (to represent their short-ranged capabilities and the fact that they can quickly erect defensive positions).

Overall, the lower ammo for the Soviets is to represent their poor supply system. But they have higher CD because they carried a lot of SMG's which gave them an advantage in close terrain.

[the_iron_duke]

Interesting. The ammo looks good, like less for the Soviets representing poor supply. I'll have to give it a test later, before I'm able to comment on things like high initiative for heavy weapons.

[the_iron_duke]

Have been bit busy so am slow in analysing. I've started by comparing Soviet vs German regular infantry combat. I don't know what Ground Defense you are using, ThvN, so the combat is only in Close Terrain, which is likely the most important combat type for infantry. The tests involve a German Wehrmacht 43 infantry and a Soviet Regular 43 attacking each other in a forest.

Standard EQ file

Wehrmacht 43 attacks Soviet Regular in Close Terrain:

Wehr. inflicts 53% - Reg. inflicts 49% = 4% Wehrmacht advantage

Soviet Regular 43 attacks Wehrmacht 43 in Close Terrain:

Reg. inflicts 44% - Wehr. inflicts 58% = 14% Wehrmacht advantage

GCUR

Wehrmacht 43 attacks Soviet Regular 43 in Close Terrain:

Wehr. inflicts 40% - Reg. inflicts 40% = Equal advantage

Soviet Regular 43 attacks Wehrmacht 43 in Close Terrain:

Reg. inflicts 35% - Wehr. inflicts 44% = 9% Wehrmacht advantage*

ThvN

Wehrmacht 43 attacks Soviet Regular in Close Terrain:

Wehr. inflicts 35% - Reg. inflicts 35.2% (44% unsupr.**) = 0.2% Soviet Regular advantage (basically equal advantage)

Soviet Regular 43 attacks Wehrmacht 43 in Close Terrain:

Reg. inflicts 32% (40% unsupr.) - Wehr. inflicts 40% = 8% Wehrmacht advantage

* At least I am assuming this. While the Soviets have 35% kill percentage and the Germans 44%, the eventual outcome is shown as 4 killed, 3 suppressed for both sides. I am assuming the 35% is being rounded up to 40 and the 44 is being rounded down to 40 but that there is really a 9% difference? Or am I reading this all wrong?

** Since ThvN's method uses initiative difference, it includes suppression during combat. So a Soviet Reg attacking a Wehrmacht in Close Terrain loses initiative and two of its 10 strength points get suppressed. So the actual effective kill percentage is 8/10s of 40% = 32% (shown as 3 killed, two suppressed). I think that's right?

Conclusions:

- I like the way both of the modified EQ files make infantry vs infantry combat a bit less lethal, with ThvN's being the least lethal.
- GCUR and ThvN mods produced almost identical advantage differences (although different routes to get there).

[the_iron_duke]

Here are the new infantry division transports: Opel Blitz*, British Lorry*, Matador*, Quad*, Soviet Truck*.

[the_iron_duke]

Also, is it possible to mod the game rules so one gets prestige each turn for each flag held? It would encourage both aggressive play and keeping control of territory if one got 5 or 10 points a turn for holding one.

[Tarrak]

Also, is it possible to mod the game rules so one gets prestige each turn for each flag held? It would encourage both aggressive play and keeping control of territory if one got 5 or 10 points a turn for holding one.

I am not sure if you can do that within the game rules but it should be certainly possible with trigger in the scenario.

[McGuba]

the_iron_duke wrote:Also, is it possible to mod the game rules so one gets prestige each turn for each flag held? It would encourage both aggressive play and keeping control of territory if one got 5 or 10 points a turn for holding one.


I am not sure if you can do that within the game rules but it should be certainly possible with trigger in the scenario.

1. Designate all flags on the map as e.g. "zone 1"

2. Add the scripts:

Add prestige action: add 10 prestige to Axis, 0 prestige to Allies
Run at: Beginning of Axis turn
Run count: n (number of turns in the scenario)
Add trigger: turn 1, -1 AND Number of Axis flags in zone 1 is equal to 1

Add prestige action: add 20 prestige to Axis, 0 prestige to Allies
Run at: Beginning of Axis turn
Run count: n (number of turns in the scenario)
Add trigger: turn 1, -1 AND Number of Axis flags in zone 1 is equal to 2

Add prestige action: add 30 prestige to Axis, 0 prestige to Allies
Run at: Beginning of Axis turn
Run count: n (number of turns in the scenario)
Add trigger: turn 1, -1 AND Number of Axis flags in zone 1 is equal to 3

etc. etc. depending on how many flags there are in the scneario.
also, you have to do the same for the Allies.

a bit tedious work, but currently this is the only option, as far as I can tell.

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the scripting details, McGuba. I agree it looks a little tedious but do-able, nevertheless.

Some more thoughts on your stats, Thomas.

On HW units: I haven't tested them in detail but they look a bit stronger, which is fine. I've been thinking of changing the units I had made as HW in the the German and British Armoured Divisions to regular infantry, as that is more realistic, and saving heavy weapons units for historically battalion-sized units. So the Machine Gun Battalion of the British Infantry Division, for example. For the Germans, they could be independent units, as you suggested earlier. From what I can see, there seem to be two types of these German units: machine gun and mortar battalions. It might be simpler to group them together into a single infantry heavy weapons unit. Their abbreviation could be s.Wff. (schwere Waffen), as listed in the German Military Abbreviations manual (which also lists the Fusilier unit as Füs.).

On engineers: I think Soft Attack and/or close defence would need to be higher if using lower initiative for them. The standard EQ file uses 7 S.A. for German engineers, and 6 for British/Soviet.

Here is a test using a British Infantry 43 and a British Engineer 43 attacking a Wehrmacht 43 with 4 entrenchment points in forest, using ThvN stats.

British Infantry 43 has 35% kill rate (defending Germans kill 44% back)

Engineers 43 have 44% kill rate which, with an unsuppressed strength of 8, makes an effective kill rate of 35.2% (defending Germans kill 40% back).

So the effective kill ratio is basically the same, although the engineers suffer slightly less losses.

Here are some other British Engineer stat permutations using a Wehrmacht 43 with 4 entrenchment in a forest as the target.

Brit Eng Kill rate - Kill rate after suppression taken into account- German defensive kill rate - Difference - (Eng stats)
53% - 42.4% - 40% = +2.4% (Engineers have 7 S.A. and 5 C.D.)
44% - 35.2% - 35% = +0.2% (Engineers have 5 S.A. and 6 C.D.)
53% - 42.4% - 35% = +7.4% (Engineers have 7 S.A. and 6 C.D.)

[ThvN]

Füs. is correct, I haven't seen s.Wff. used, but Waffen (=weapons, arms) was abbreviated Wff. , so that's good enough I guess.

A few others:
Radf. (Radfaher = cyclist), for example Inf.Radf. is infantery mounted on bicycles.

Reit. (Reiter = (horse) rider), for example Inf.Reit. is infantery mounted on horses. Horse(s) was abbreviated as Pfd. (=Pferd(e)), which might be more appropiate when they were pulling things instead of being ridden.


About the engineers, more specifically my thoughts ( rant alert ) behind creating their stats:

I don't picture them as 'heavy' infantry, but more as classic combat engineers. These can build and assault fortifications, but their firepower mainly comes from ordinary infantry weapons. Most engineer units used similar equipment as standard infantry, but they did not have the same firepower.

My goal is that they will have to be used in very specific circumstances, otherwise they will be a waste of prestige, like bridge engineers. I didn't want to make them able to take on HW infantry, but give them enough attack to give them a chance vs. regular infantry. Because structures are hard targets they still need decent HA, so that's a bit of a compromise.

If there are heavily entrenched troops, they will be able to fight them better than most infantry, but they will still need support like everyone else. They can clear minefields and take down structures, but if you go head-to-head with regular or even heavy infantry units you are wasting them. My idea is that they are part combat, part support troops, and their effectiveness comes from their specialties (traits), not stats.

Basically, I worry that if I make engineers too good the only reason for light infantry to exist is their movement. But now you must weigh their effectiveness more carefully and think about how useful they will be before you purchase/deploy any. With weaker engineers it just might be that normal infantry is a better (cheaper) choice against the opposition, but for certain jobs the engineer is still very good.

The original Panzer General was horrible at this, as there was a 'best' infantry unit (bridge engineer), with normal engineers also being generally better than HW as well. So they were the logical choice in any situation, which I don't like. But you are right, they might need a little bump for their CD, I've also given them a little higher GD/AD to represent their ability to quickly entrench (rest of them still have normal values, that's why I didn't list them, but I'm still experimenting with a lot of stats)