Uhu wrote:* It was a bitter surprise that the prestige-gift were reduced from 1500 to 1000. Probably because of Trondheim's 50 p/turn, right?
Yes. 50 prestige per turn multiplied by 99 is almost 5000 extra prestige for the whole campaign. That's why I added the prestige penalty at the end of turn one and that's why I reduced the prestige awards for the capure of the main objective cities/areas. They can still come handy, just not that decisive.
* Why was the Lancia 3Ro taken away from the Italian 105mm gun? It was the only potent and relative fast combination from the Italian gun arsenal...
I realised that the Lancia 3Ro was not used to tow or carry the 105 mm gun. It could not tow it, as it could not be towed at high speeds due to its WWI era wheels and suspension, and although they did make tests to load it onto the platform of a Lancia Ro by using ramps, they found it too time consuming. (Artillery guns should be made ready for relocation as fast as possible to avoid counter-fire by enemy artillery.)
I found that photo earlier (when they load the cannon onto the platform of a Lancia) and thought that it was a common form of transportation, but in fact it was only a failed test. It is all explained here (in French, but Google translator works well in this case):
Originally designed for horse-drawn traction and thus deprived of suspensions, the 105/28 cannon could not be towed by a motor vehicle at high speed (for the time ...), under penalty of being exposed to significant deterioration. To remedy this, the army decided to equip all parts of the wheel trains for mechanized traction in the late 1920s. The wheel train consisted of two metal wheels with rubber tread connected by an axle with suspensions with metallic blades. The upper part of the wheel train was fixed under the barrel, so that its wheels did not touch the ground. For off-road traction, since the speed was very limited, the wheel train was placed between the gun arrow and the tractor, thus serving as a front end. The tractor retained for towing the 105/28 was the Pavesi P4.
Despite its undeniable utility, the roller train had the disadvantage of lengthening the time of deployment of the cannon and limited the traction speed to 18 km/h. In 1937, the Army decided to launch various experiments to try to increase the speed of displacement of the canon to 40 km/h. Three solutions were proposed and tested in Libya: the transport on the platform of a Lancia Ro truck, the adoption of wheels equipped with Pirelli semi-penile wraps and the adoption of a new tire wheel train. For the first solution, the truck carried two ramps to load and unload the gun. This method was discarded because the time to load the cannon was considered too long.
http://www.italie1935-45.com/regio-eser ... -de-105-28
On nearly all pictures that I could find the 105/28 is towed by the Pavesi P4. However, somewhere I read that the SPA TM 40 (the "big brother" of the TL 37) was also used to tow this gun and it had a higher speed, but according to the same site, historically only a small portion of the guns were upgraded to the semi-pneumatic wheels which allowed high speed traction:
By April 1942, 839 guns of 105/28 were still in service, of which only 108 were equipped with semi-pneumatic tires.
Still, I might add the TM 40 later, but then I need to make a new icon for this tractor first. And it should only be available later, in 42/43 to allow time to produce enough tractors and for the wheel upgrade.
GeneralWerner wrote:Some remarks concerning my current AAR of version V1.8. I am trying to replay my very first AAR where I also focused on the Caucasus oil fields and ended with a tightly loss. Now with more experience of many victories against the AI I want to do it better than in the past.
You might be more experienced, but the mod has also become harder in the meantime.
So I claim that (at least for me) the “Focus on the Caucasus” strategy is a failure. But maybe somebody else can proof the opposite?!
Maybe with a shorter, straight frontline in the middle it is possible. But holding Rostov is indeed a big issue. Historically, the biggest problem was the over-extension of the frontline. There were just not enough Axis troops to hold a 2-3000 km long frontline and to provide them with modern weapons and supplies. The Soviets could assamble a strong force anywhere and break through this long frontline with ease.
My Italian battleships ran out of fuel between Tobruk and Crete. When the yellow fuel warning came they already could not reach any harbor. Maybe this could be retuned to get the fuel warning earlier or to have some more fuel to move around 20 hex fields if the warning is coming.
Unfortunately it is hard coded and cannot be changed. Naval units in general can easily run out of fuel as the warning does not come up when it should (when they have to turn back to reach a friendly port), as it happens with the air units, but when fuel level reaches a certain low amount.
Therefore I just added several messages to warn players to stay near friendly ports with the heavy ships.
I suggest that the Torch invasion fleet should also spawn more in the west and move to Sicily at least if there are so many Axis ships operating in the sea between Sicily, Tunisia and Malta.
Yes, it would make sense, but it should not be too far as historically the Sicily landing (ealry July) came soon after the fall of Tunisia (mid May), which in this mod is only 3 turns (6 weeks). That's why they are so close. But I will look into it. However,
Of course the Allied heavy cruisers, destroyers and subs attacked immediately and as they seem much stronger than my ships and subs they made a real massacre
In fact the Allies did have a massive naval force and air superiority and the (remants of the) Italian fleet did not even dare to intervene for fear of suffering heavy losses and gaining nothing. Also they were lacking fuel, so this outcome is not that far from reality.
But McGuba wrote he made Palestine more difficult and he removed the Axis sub in the Black Sea
I wrote taking Palestina
might be more difficult, but mainly because of the terrain and not because of increased resistance. I took out the Romanian submarine at the start as the Axis had only one submarine (the Romanian Delfinul) in 1941 in the Black Sea, and from v1.8 each naval unit should represent a certain amount of actual ships or submarines. The single Axis submarine in 1941-late 1942, the Delfinul only sank one Soviet merchant ship in nine patrols and suffered from mechanical problems so it did not make a huge contribution to war efforts. By fall 1942 six small coastal German Type II U-boats were transfered to the Black Sea via land and later two new Romanian submarines were comissinoned. That's why the only (understrength) u-boat unit in the area appears later.
Also, I did not really like the relatively easy shortcut to the Caucasus provided by the Black Sea. There was a reason why the Axis did not attempt major landing operations in that area. The Soviet navy outnumbered the Axis several times.
