Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[JimmyC]

Someone mentioned it earlier in this thread, but in North Africa there are 2 American self propelled artillery units just south of Gibraltar. I guess there is some bug with them getting stuck there and not heading towards Tunis. Its fine for some units to occupy cities around there, but its just strange that it is 2 SPA’s.

[JimmyC]

I've just finished my AAR if anyone is interested in reading it. It was quite a long one as i really enjoyed the game, so wrote more compared to my last AAR.
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=67404

Even though i had a better result in my first playthrough, i actually enjoyed it more this time round. Full credit goes to McGuba for making such a great mod! I can easily see myself playing through the entire mod again, but for the moment will just try the Normandy save and then give BNC's WotW mod a go.

[Uhu]

I experienced, that at turn 65-66, although there were several Allied str bombers over key German cities, I got no penalties (no bad weather). I was of course happy, just came the question for me, if it is intentional, or no, and if yes, what is the explanation for that.

[McGuba]

If you do decide to implement it for your mod, I would want their attack stats to be quite weak, such that attacking with them would be an option of last resort. Looking at their stats, they already appear quite weak actually...

Yes, obviously I would not overpower them. But their current stats are way too low, they do not have a chance against any enemy ground unit, even on defense. Rendering them pretty much useless during bad weather. So I guess they would have slightly higher ground attack stats in ground mode and lower air attack stats, similarily to the 88, but they would be far less effective against enemy tanks. I believe the 20 mm ones should be better against soft targets and the 37 mm ones against tanks. And maybe they would have a bit higher ground defense as they had an armour shield as opposed to the 88. Basically I would like to make these units a bit more competative.

How about the animation though for when they are in AT mode? Are there such animations around?

Currently there is not, but having done modified animations for the 20 and the 37 mm AA guns now I feel confident enough that I could make them.

Are you also intending to implement this function for the self propelled AA? I think that SPAA would benefit a lot more from this option compared to towed AA.

Indeed, this is my biggest fear. Towed AAs with active ground attack would have somewhat limited value due to their slow speed, similarily to towed AT guns. So they would be mainly more useful on defense, especially in bad weather, and occasionally useful on attack. And it would largely match the historical facts. However, when it comes to self propelled AAs, this is another story. They could be used to attack suppressed enemy ground units with a good results quite often, thanks to their mobility. And here even low initiative would not matter. So these units would either need to have an increased price or they should not become multipurpose. But the latter would conflict consistency. (Why the towed ones are multipurpose if these are not?)

On the other hand, in the next verison there would be more enemy units so some compensation would be beneficial. I also plan to make the Soviet 76 mm artillery and AT gun multipurpose as essentially it was the same gun.

Someone mentioned it earlier in this thread, but in North Africa there are 2 American self propelled artillery units just south of Gibraltar. I guess there is some bug with them getting stuck there and not heading towards Tunis. Its fine for some units to occupy cities around there, but its just strange that it is 2 SPA’s.

Yes, sometimes a few units can get stuck there. But not always the SPAs. It has to be bad luck.

I experienced, that at turn 65-66, although there were several Allied str bombers over key German cities, I got no penalties (no bad weather). I was of course happy, just came the question for me, if it is intentional, or no, and if yes, what is the explanation for that.

It is intentional: weather is set to random at this time, but it is still winter, so it might be bad and then it would not be fair to give a penalty.

[Uhu]

I say, the ground attack possibilities would add not much plus to the AA's. The BE is a really fine tuned, balanced system now, and I fear, this change would be quite a bit. The other question, how the AI would use it. I think, there is already a wide variety of possibilities with units, tactics, strategy, micro-, and macro management in the game, so no need to even more extra.

[hugh2711]

I change most of the german AA's to 88mm's. cart all the AA from the whole map over to north france (apart from the 88mm afrika corps one). the small satellite nation AA's i iether disband to get more slots or quickly use them for canon fodder to conserve more valuable units. by nurturing my airforce i.e. no suicide attack/attack at all costs attacks and bringing some air units from the previous scenarios as well i find that is enough to deal with the air threat. Particularly if you take the uk as early as possible the air threat diminishes quite alot - although still in russia but of course i transfer my surviving airforce to the east. when taking the uk i usually lose some of the 88's. that i transport over, they are an effective ground antitank unit (bit weak against infantry type units) there as well as giving some AA cover however the satellite nations ones are a waste of space and disbanding them gives a few valuable slots. The german 2cm flak vierling can be useful in the early air war so i keep those but use them as decoys/cannon fodder during and after. by the end of the game i only have about half the german 88's left and no other AA.

If the statistics of the AA units were changed i would have to change my strategy completely!

[McGuba]

I say, the ground attack possibilities would add not much plus to the AA's. The BE is a really fine tuned, balanced system now, and I fear, this change would be quite a bit.

Hm, if it would not add much plus to the AAs, why would it change the balance?

The mod is indeed well balanced at the moment, even if it is still a bit too easy to win the war for the Axis. From late 1941 Germany and its minor allies were at war with the three major powers of the world (and their numerous minor allies) so there was very little realistic chance for an Axis victory from that point. Therefore I plan to further increase the number of enemy units appearing to increase the difficulty and to make a DV or MV even harder. At the moment there is 140 more units in the coming v1.7 build compared to the last release. Which might sound a lot but in fact it is only a 7% increase as there were nearly 2.000 enemy units on the map already. However, not all of these would appear as if the player takes the key objectives their number can be reduced significantly. As a comparison the Axis have around 450 units which means the Allies have 4-5 times more units, and indeed historically they produced 4-5 times more tanks, aircraft, guns, etc. So the ratios are still more or less accurate, as long as the mod is played historically.

And yet still, the increased number of enemy units in the next version will likely change the balance a quite a bit. Which necessitates some compensation given to the player.

In the face of ever increasing enemy opposition the Germans were forced to use their available assets as flexible as possible. A nice example would be the dual use of AA guns. Apart from being historically accurate it would also help to counter the increasing number of enemy units, especially during winter when AA guns are otherwise mostly useless. I made some more research on the possible dual use of German flak and I managed to dig up a WW2 US intelligence report on the subject:
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/w ... mber10.pdf

Among others it makes the following statements (bold by me):

The possibility of employing AA guns in forward areas in an offensive role definitely removed them from the status of defensive weapons and placed them in the category of important offensive weapons. The Polish Campaign, the French Campaign, and the early successes of Rommel in the Libyan Desert are eloquent proofs of the increasing development and use of AA weapons against mechanized ground targets. It should be remembered, of course, that AA gunnery demands weapons with a high rate of fire, rapid fire-control calculation, fast tracking speeds, and a high muzzle velocity. These factors contributed materially in the decision to adapt these weapons to an AT role.

Aside from AT roles, light flak weapons, particularly the 20-mm, have been used for many different purposes against ground targets. They have been used against hostile machinegun nests, and bunkers have been neutralized by using these weapons for attacks on the openings. They have been employed in occupied villages and towns to overcome scattered resistance, and, like the 88-mm guns, they have also given ground support to engineers engaged in bridging operations

Conclusions
...
4. The principal German AA weapons are dual purpose AA and AT weapons which can be and are used in other roles as well.
5. In the approach to battle, and until air superiority has been obtained, German AA weapons which are actually assigned to an AA role remain in that role, except for purposes of self-defense against ground targets or where sudden opportunities for surprise fire against ground targets outweigh the necessity for AA protection. As air superiority is obtained, however, AA weapons are released for AT missions as well as for other roles against ground targets.

The fact that even US intel recognized the German doctrine to use their light AA guns extensively, and on many cases offensively, against ground targets tends to provide the historical evidence to do so in this mod.

The other question, how the AI would use it.

It seems that the AI is quite good with the 85 mm Soviet AA gun: it uses it in both roles according to the available targets. I am under the impression that it tries to make as much damage to the player units in terms of prestige points percentage as it can when choosing the targets. I assume it would do the same with other dual purpose AA guns. Additionally, not all allied AA guns would be dual purpose as allied dual use of those guns was not so wide spread, if I am right.

I think, there is already a wide variety of possibilities with units, tactics, strategy, micro-, and macro management in the game, so no need to even more extra.

This mod is not for the faint hearted casual players anyway, so I think it would not make a big difference. And now it seems that it would be fully accurate historically.

I change most of the german AA's to 88mm's.

Which would strengthen the point. Currently only the 88 is dual purpose and upgrading all AAs is unhistorical as the Germans used large numbers of light AAs as well. If they are made dual purpose they would become more valuable and it is more likely that players would leave them as they are which is desirable to better represent a historical army composition. Especially if AA guns would no longer be in the same upgrade family, making their upgrade much more expensive.

the satellite nations ones are a waste of space and disbanding them gives a few valuable slots. The german 2cm flak vierling can be useful in the early air war so i keep those but use them as decoys/cannon fodder during and after.

Which is in start contrast to the above quoted German doctrine: "as air superiority is obtained, however, AA weapons are released for AT missions as well as for other roles against ground targets." Which is currently not possible as they cannot be changed to AT mode. Whereas if they could, players would less likely to waste them.

If the statistics of the AA units were changed i would have to change my strategy completely!

Probably yes, at least when it comes to the use of AA guns. But, if it works the mod can be a bit more accurate historically.

[captainjack]

as allied dual use of those guns was not so wide spread, if I am right

What I've read suggests that while the western allies did occasionally use AA guns as AT, it wasn't that common.

I recall reading that the 3.7" guns were reasonably effective when used as AT in the desert, but they lacked some of the features that allowed the 88 to be a true dual role gun. I'm going back over 30 years, so details are a bit hazy, but the lack of gun shield, higher profile and more difficulty in getting to fire in AT roles (difficulty in getting the required depression for firing) were contributing factors, plus they were needed for air defence so there were doctrinal reasons against this use. I think that the ability of the 25 pounder to do a passable AT role probably made it a bit less necessary to use the 3.7AA. Additionally, the allied forces generally had more tanks than the axis in the desert and had less need to compensate by more aggressive use of AT to make up the shortfall.

However, I have read that the 20mm Italian AA guns were used in an AT role by the Italians and (when captured) by the allies.

[Uhu]

so there was very little realistic chance for an Axis victory from that point. Therefore I plan to further increase the number of enemy units appearing to increase the difficulty and to make a DV or MV even harder.

I think, we already discussed this: it is possible to make a MV, or DV (even in 50 turn ) is not because there is not enough enemy, but that the Axis powers:
- do not have some mad dictators
- do not have hatred between their nations, which hinder effective cooperation
- can act together, as one and not as several independent nations
and most important, tha Axis powers:
- have the time machine (save/reload)
- have an almost-all-knowing intelligence agency, which knows every major Allied plans.

[Uhu]

I still replayed the Kursk-save (what a surprise... ). I wanted to make a better, earlier-success outcome in the Mediterranean and a less stressful game ending (to not captured the last key city in the last turn, with one of the last unit).
There were several interesting experiences:
- one was, that the mod is really genius, that things never happens the same way, and there are always some events, which brings you new challenges. For me, this time it was, that 2 (!) Soviet para 43 inf units appeared at Sevastopol and quickly captured it, while the other dug in the trenchline. Nobody was "at home", because the garrison went to the eastern side of the Carpathians to guard the rail line for the winter. Luckily, I could recapture the region with relative few sources using, but still, it was a surprise situation.
- after several trying, I feel myself now an experienced one in the defense of Sicily. So, the island can be defended. Even from the Kursk-save. Even on Rommel difficulty with half-income. You "just" need air control. I direct do not write air superiority, because, you cannot earn it - always new, strong Allied planes show up, but you need still to control most of the sky. So, you can defend Sicily, if you can annihilate the invading fleet, destroying the troop transporters - whatever the cost! While there is a medium luck/random factor too, because Allied naval units move quite unpredictable, still, if you bring south your air fleet from western Europe from the start plus bring some other from the east in winter of 1943 (1x Fw, 2x veteran-hero Bf 109's, the Ju88 and the Do 217E and the Me410), than it can be done. I wanted to even trick with it to let one us inf alive to capture Sicily, than fast landing on Malta, thus getting the new units, while avoiding the big invasion forces. It did not happen, because the us inf captured one key town in Sicily, but refused to move to the other. ...and I just waited several turns, with my transport plane over the empty Malta hex... until I realized, that that inf will not take Sicily, so I will not get the extra units. So, I captured Malta. Which gave my so much extra prestige, that after that, I was out of the prestige scarceness!
So, my advise for generals, who play from the Kursk (and Stalingrad) save - defend Sicily at all cost! And capture Malta, because it brings a lot of prestige. And you can use all of the units, which you would have to transport to Italy, elsewhere. After capturing Malta, the air fleet can fly to western Europe and end the Allied terror bombings. Sure, there will be several heavy turns, when there will be huge penalties by the bombings, and also in the east, the air war will be a little harder, but this is the sacrifice, what have to be given for the later and bigger good.

[JimmyC]

...Therefore I plan to further increase the number of enemy units appearing to increase the difficulty and to make a DV or MV even harder. At the moment there is 140 more units in the coming v1.7 build compared to the last release. Which might sound a lot but in fact it is only a 7% increase as there were nearly 2.000 enemy units on the map already. However, not all of these would appear as if the player takes the key objectives their number can be reduced significantly. As a comparison the Axis have around 450 units which means the Allies have 4-5 times more units, and indeed historically they produced 4-5 times more tanks, aircraft, guns, etc. So the ratios are still more or less accurate, as long as the mod is played historically.

And yet still, the increased number of enemy units in the next version will likely change the balance a quite a bit. Which necessitates some compensation given to the player.

Great, i can't wait to give it another shot once you release v1.7. I am currently playing the Normandy/Bagration save, but am mostly just banging my head against a wall as unit after unit of Axis troops gets annihilated! Do you have an ETA yet? I want to give BNC's WotW mod a go first, so no rush. Just wondering.

Having used a few of the construction units in my last playthrough, i found them to generally not be worth the cost. Tanks seemed to crush them easily, even when attacking from a river. And infantry does the same (although only when it attacks from land). Also you can't repair them. The indirect fire trait you gave them means its now actually worth attacking with them in your own turn, but they rarely cause more than 1 point of damage (and usually 0 vs armour). However, i'm wondering now whether the indirect fire trait is actually a bad thing, as they seem to cause less damage against troops both when attacked and attacking. It seems now their only real usefulness is during the players turn, to bombard the enemy (for suppression) and then attack that unit with some other of your troop. In that sense normal artillery is so much more better, as it can defend troops in the AI's turn and move and repair. As it is, they just dont seem to have much use.

Can you think about increasing their stats a bit to make them worth it? Or maybe turn the indirect fire trait off, so that they cause more damage against troops attacking them?

A totally unrelated question, but in my last playthrough i was expecting the Finnish troops to switch sides during '44. As a result i never upgraded them. But even though i didnt defeat Russia, the Finns stayed on my side until the end. What is the trigger for the Finns to switch to Russia? I'm guessing maybe its dependent on whether you hold Leningrad?

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I want to give BNC's WotW mod a go first, so no rush. Just wondering.

You seem to have made a habit of forgetting the '2'

Having used a few of the construction units in my last playthrough, i found them to generally not be worth the cost. Tanks seemed to crush them easily, even when attacking from a river. And infantry does the same (although only when it attacks from land). Also you can't repair them. The indirect fire trait you gave them means its now actually worth attacking with them in your own turn, but they rarely cause more than 1 point of damage (and usually 0 vs armour). However, i'm wondering now whether the indirect fire trait is actually a bad thing, as they seem to cause less damage against troops both when attacked and attacking. It seems now their only real usefulness is during the players turn, to bombard the enemy (for suppression) and then attack that unit with some other of your troop. In that sense normal artillery is so much more better, as it can defend troops in the AI's turn and move and repair. As it is, they just dont seem to have much use.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" - Patton.

- BNC

[JimmyC]

I want to give BNC's WotW mod a go first, so no rush. Just wondering.

You seem to have made a habit of forgetting the '2'

Sorry, my bad.

Having used a few of the construction units in my last playthrough, i found them to generally not be worth the cost. Tanks seemed to crush them easily, even when attacking from a river. And infantry does the same (although only when it attacks from land). Also you can't repair them. The indirect fire trait you gave them means its now actually worth attacking with them in your own turn, but they rarely cause more than 1 point of damage (and usually 0 vs armour). However, i'm wondering now whether the indirect fire trait is actually a bad thing, as they seem to cause less damage against troops both when attacked and attacking. It seems now their only real usefulness is during the players turn, to bombard the enemy (for suppression) and then attack that unit with some other of your troop. In that sense normal artillery is so much more better, as it can defend troops in the AI's turn and move and repair. As it is, they just dont seem to have much use.

"Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" - Patton.

I believe the reason for this statement was that you could just ignore them by going around them. But this implies that they are relatively strong and hence you wouldn't want to attack them directly if given the option. In their current form they just don't seem strong enough to even warrant avoiding them though...

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I believe the reason for this statement was that you could just ignore them by going around them. But this implies that they are relatively strong and hence you wouldn't want to attack them directly if given the option. In their current form they just don't seem strong enough to even warrant avoiding them though...

Still fits in this case though: they are a waste of time to build.

- BNC

[melnibonian]

Hello guys

I seem to have a problem getting to the full campaign. I have installed the mod via JSGME but all I see is this



I have the latest patch so there must be something else? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot in advance

[Uhu]

but am mostly just banging my head against a wall as unit after unit of Axis troops gets annihilated!

Yes, the frustration level is high...Did you read my end results of my earlier playthrough? Maybe it can bring you some help. But it will need probably still several reloads, as for me either.

[JimmyC]

but am mostly just banging my head against a wall as unit after unit of Axis troops gets annihilated!

Yes, the frustration level is high...Did you read my end results of my earlier playthrough? Maybe it can bring you some help. But it will need probably still several reloads, as for me either.

Can you point me to it, as i missed it. Is it in this thread or the other one?

My strategy in the East is to retreat everyone westwards to more defensible positions. Actually, its the same in the West (retreat to the Rhine) and the Med (retreat to the Gothic Line). The hard thing is that with such little prestige, i don't know which units i should prioritise repairing? Also, i am unsure how far i can retreat west before Romania switches sides?

[JimmyC]

Hello guys

I seem to have a problem getting to the full campaign. I have installed the mod via JSGME but all I see is this

I have the latest patch so there must be something else? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot in advance

That display looks different than mine as the tab headers display different wording. The top right tab should read "scenarios". You should be able to select it from there if its installed properly.

[Uhu]

Can you point me to it, as i missed it. Is it in this thread or the other one?

Here it is:
viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985&start=1160#p570315

You need to hold Paris, as it is a great location to make a defense bastion and other way you will not have the place to lunch the V's, which are badly needed prestige income.

[JimmyC]

Can you point me to it, as i missed it. Is it in this thread or the other one?

Here it is:
viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985&start=1160#p570315

You need to hold Paris, as it is a great location to make a defense bastion and other way you will not have the place to lunch the V's, which are badly needed prestige income.

Thanks. Hmm, maybe it is too late for me to keep Romania on my side as the Russians are just about to break through. i just focused on strong defenses on the rivers and also of the oilfield. I had a bad experience in Barbarossa of defending Paris, so i planned to abandon it. But I now see it is useful for V-rockets. Is it possible to hold Orleans with the Allied surface fleet so nearby though?

Can i ask - why should you care about Baulkans and Greece? Why not abandon it and move the troops to the key areas?

Lastly - what troops should you focus on repairing? There are so many that you have to prioritise. I decided not to repair any bombers. Only fighters and only if i have already repaired all ground units first. Also, i always use green replacements on everything!