Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[Yrfin]

What do you think about add features in Battlefield 1.9 :
1. Ability buy Mobile Würzburg Radar (weight 1500 kg-transport SdKfz 10) and add Fw 200C-4 trait Radar (from Feb 1942). It was in real.

As I know the smaller Würzburg had a shorter range. Even the bigger Würzburg Riese, which is depicted in the mod, had a rather modest range (70 km which means 3 hex in the mod) and I guess any smaller than that would be pretty much useless (the smaller mobile Würzburg had a range of 29 km which in the mod should be only one hex).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar

Heavy AA have range 3 (about 20 km in real) so mobile Würzburg can have same.

3. Ability buy and paradrop Strongpoints (for winter defense in Russia for example)?

I do not think it is a good idea to add paradrop Strongpoints. I never heard anything like that doubt it would be feasble in real life in large numbers.

May be not Strongpoint but something like Wirefield/minefield for building defense line. Just idea. And paradrop - only for purpose delivery in game (not for reality), cos in game not ability "drop' from truck.

[Yrfin]

Few ideas about airplanes:
1. Add in Fighter/Bomber airplanes class (Bf 109-4/B for example):
- switchable Fighter to T.Bomber (less fuel /move/ ini)

2.Same for S.Bombers (Ju 88/He 111 for example) - add ability switch to T.Bomber mode.

What do you think about it in game ?

[captainjack]

I have tried making 110 and 410 and the FW190F and G switchable between tac bomber and fighter class. It worked quite well once I'd made a few minor tweaks to ensure the two versions were different enough to make you had to think about which version to use at any time.

First, as tac bomber the AA became passive AA (they are supposed to be looking for ground targets not chasing air targets).
Second, as fighters SA, HA and Naval attack were reduced to 1/3 of the tac bomber values.
Because switching is a useful feature, I also raised the cost a bit (I usually add 20 prestige for switching, but possibly 10% increase would be more reasonable).

As fighters they are not very good against other fighters because of low initiative, but they make reasonable escorts and ground cover, because defensive fire isn't dependent on initiative and the fighter combat bonus is handy. They also make quite good bomber destroyers, although the low initiative means they need to be cautious with US bombers with good passive AA and reasonable initiative.

I haven't tried switching tac bombers and strategic bombers. My main concern is that it could make them too powerful (see Wellingtons which, for reasons beyond my understanding, someone in the dev team classed as Tac bombers but kept the GD of a strategic bomber), but also because you'd normally have quite different performance, range handling and bomb load requirements for the two jobs so they wouldn't easily be able to switch mid mission (whoever thought the Ju88 and HE177 should be dive bombers clearly didn't share my thinking).

[Yrfin]

What do you think about:
1. give ability capture cities to infantry (and may be some kind of special units) only ? No AT, no tanks, no recon - only infantry ?
2. why dont include Clear territory to mode "low supply" also? Only in cities and ports units will be have full resupply ?
3. option " Upgrade penalty." in rules switched off. Why not switch it on ? Its make possibility upgrade units more smart.

[McGuba]

Few ideas about airplanes:
1. Add in Fighter/Bomber airplanes class (Bf 109-4/B for example):
- switchable Fighter to T.Bomber (less fuel /move/ ini)

2.Same for S.Bombers (Ju 88/He 111 for example) - add ability switch to T.Bomber mode.

What do you think about it in game ?

On the one hand making units multipurpose is fun and gives an extra depth to the game. However, on the other hand it also makes it more complicated and if it is overdone this game may lose its main appeal - relative simplicity. I have already made several unit types multipurpose in this mod and also added many new land transports and made many changes which alltogether make this large map and long scenario even more complex and far more complicated and challenging than the vanilla game. I fear that if I make it even more complex with even more choices offered to the players it will no longer be as fun as it is. Thus I have to be very careful before adding any such changes, even if they would seemingly make sense.

To top it up, the AI is not very good with multipurpose units and it is still unclear how it decides to switch a certain unit. I think that more multipurpose units would make the already weak AI even weaker in general.

What do you think about:
1. give ability capture cities to infantry (and may be some kind of special units) only ? No AT, no tanks, no recon - only infantry ?

This rule would certainly slow down the mod and it would significantly change the balance. And I do not think players would like it as they got used to the current rules in the last 5 years or so.

2. why dont include Clear territory to mode "low supply" also? Only in cities and ports units will be have full resupply ?

I would rather make cities AND roads AND railroads, but unfortunately it is not possible. I think only cities and ports would be a bit too restrictive, but having full supply in forests or mountains or swamps, but not in desert, as it is in the vanilla game, is also weird a bit. The supply system in PG/PC is flawed and oversimplified, OOB seemingly makes a better job in this.

3. option " Upgrade penalty." in rules switched off. Why not switch it on ? Its make possibility upgrade units more smart.

This variable is set at 0 by default in the base game and I never really bothered changing it. I think most players got used to it. My other concern is, even if it is set to for example to 25%, how the player would know the prestige loss when upgrading a unit which has 271 prestige points? Will it lose a star or not? Probably most players need to have a calculator by the hand to figure it out which makes the game slower and again more complicated.

[tactical22]

This MOD is incredible! Congratulations.
I have one question. I have placed ground units in all B spots around Leningrad but the strenght of russian units is not decreasing. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks

[McGuba]

This MOD is incredible! Congratulations.
I have one question. I have placed ground units in all B spots around Leningrad but the strenght of russian units is not decreasing. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks

Hi,

Nothing, you just have to be patient. Historically the siege of Leningrad lasted for two and a half years and it was completely cut off for one and a half year. Even then it did not fall and it is depicted in the mod likewise: its defenders will only lose 1 strength point after each 5-10 turns of encirclement. In 1941/42 it should take like 5-6 turns and later it takes more and more time to reduce their strength. And in the meantime the Red Army may (and will) attempt to lift the siege.

[Mountaineer]

It would be great if there were more deployment hexes to provide options.

[Yrfin]

What do you say about tuning small scenarios (Poland):
- move 2.Pz and 4.Pz to South Group (for historical reason)
-change 9.Inf for LeHR.Pionier (for historical and gameplay reason)
-change Ju 87 to Hs 123 (same reason) ?

Why in next version BF not add small-scale scenario Norway with ability include Fallschirmjagers in core (for France and Krit in future) ?

[tactical22]

Hi McGuba. You are my hero! I love this game! Since we know hystory of WW2 we can expect many events to happen. Have you considered the idea of using the same map for a fictional WW3? You could create a brand new World. I love the events messages. If you are a Lord of the rings fan you could create a mod for the battle of the middle earth similar to BE.

[McGuba]

It would be great if there were more deployment hexes to provide options.

I wanted to have this restriction so that players start Operation Barbarossa with a historical order of battle and unit placement. Therefore every player starts with equal chance and unit placement in turn 1 does not really affect the outcome of the war. However, after that (almost) complete freedom is provided to players. It is possible to win or lose at any difficulty level.

What do you say about tuning small scenarios (Poland):
- move 2.Pz and 4.Pz to South Group (for historical reason)

It is possible. Originally I placed 2nd and 4th Panzer in the north so that all core army units are in the same area, even though it is somewhat unhistorical. But they can swap with pretty much any auxiliary unit without affecting the game balance greatly.

-change 9.Inf for LeHR.Pionier (for historical and gameplay reason)

I do not know much about the significance of this particular unit, but why not?

-change Ju 87 to Hs 123 (same reason) ?

As I clamied earlier, each air unit represents 100-150 aircraft in this mod and as far as I know there were less than 40 Hs 123 planes available in 1939. There were a lot more Ju 87 at that time (nearly ten times more - someting like 360) making it a much more significant type so I do not really see why I should replace it.

Why in next version BF not add small-scale scenario Norway with ability include Fallschirmjagers in core (for France and Krit in future) ?

I was thinking about it and I might add it some time later. But I think it could be a bit too small scale in this mod.

Hi McGuba. You are my hero! I love this game! Since we know hystory of WW2 we can expect many events to happen. Have you considered the idea of using the same map for a fictional WW3? You could create a brand new World. I love the events messages. If you are a Lord of the rings fan you could create a mod for the battle of the middle earth similar to BE.

Yes, the possibilities are virtually endless, but my free time is not. As it took quite some time to make this mod I would think at least twice before starting another major project like this.

[Yrfin]

As I clamied earlier, each air unit represents 100-150 aircraft in this mod and as far as I know there were less than 40 Hs 123 planes available in 1939. There were a lot more Ju 87 at that time (nearly ten times more - someting like 360) making it a much more significant type so I do not really see why I should replace it.

Just for me - PzC are not only turn-based war game, but a war game with historical context. Id like play war game with historical context .

"II.(Schl)./LG 2
This unit was formed as Fliegergruppe 40 on 1 July 1938. During the Polish campaign of September 1939 II.(Schl.)/LG 2 under Major Georg Spielvogel, operated as a 'ground assault' unit in the Luftwaffe, operating the Henschel Hs 123."
For more information about Hs 123 in WWII you can see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehrgeschwader_2

And about scale's numbers : It was 2 (two !) Karl-Gerat in siege of Brest (The original Batterie 833 was redesignated as the first battery of the new battalion and a new second battery was formed, each battery having two howitzers, with orders to be combat ready by 1 May 1941 in preparation for Operation Barbarossa.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Gerat

So I think scale must be more flexible in Big game like BattleField 1.9:)

Small scale is not big problem, but its just improved BF in all and make more interesting play 3 sub-scenario (with ability have additional elite Fallschirmjagers in core).

Same for France - add StuG III [8] in core (nopurchase noupgrade Max=8 Cost=0). Just for historical reason and presentation new type of equipment in future battle (Barbarossa).

[Yrfin]

What do you think about presenation new unit "Gendarmerie.Div" for anti-partisan action ?

[Yrfin]

Sometime BruckenPioniers not looking good for fight.
Maybe its need change to multi-purpose ?

5 Bruckenpioniere.Abt 0 130 5 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 8 17 2 0 0 ger_inf_Bruckenpioniere.png 04.04.1935 31.12.1945 11 beng close primary 90012 BP sea rail
90012 Saper.Kolonne 0 130 5 0 2 1 0 5 0 6 0 1 8 17 3 0 0 ger_inf_Pioniere.png 29.06.1935 31.12.1945 3 nopurchase meng minesweeper minekiller 5 BP sea rail

And I know what McCuba said: "People dont like changes"

[Yrfin]

Big Compane BF must start in Iuly 40, not in June 41. IMHO.
Discuss.

[Mountaineer]

Stavanger Norway should be heavily fortified like Bergen. It was one of the most heavily fortified locations to protect all of the radar installations and the airfield.

[Yrfin]

Looks like Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.8 topic is almost dead

Ok, lets start New Topic: Tribute to Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.8 !
In new Tribute Mod for BF:E we will see:
- new units with extendend ability ( new sub-classes units (fighter/bomber, dual-purpose infantery and tanks units, naval aircrafts, new mode: "Ambush mode" for Tanks/AT and more )
- changed units (tweaking stats of current units)
- new identifiers for group of units
- new rules in game mechanics (ability purchasing structure, rail and naval units)
- historical names and balance in deployments
- extended scriptings for dynamics changes in battle situation
- different rules for different theatres of war
- more video contents about historical and ingame situation
- ability change territorial limitation (create custom defense line, destroying enemy bridges and capture HQ, changes in bridge-make systems)
- improvements in supply mechanics in game
- remaking movements system (include coutryside, rivers and mount)
- improvements in upgrade's rules
- implements new RoF rules for all units
- changes in formation core units
- restriction in modifining units
- changes in prestige mechanics for captures
- introducing HQ units with special ability
- adding special-force units with real abilitices
- changes in transporting ability
- changes in mobility (about 10 new type of movements: amphibies, heavy tanks, sturmgroups, extended cars, extended tanks, towed and so
-remake AA systems (without passive deffense)
- no more old bonus unit ! Youre got what you deserve
and more.

[Intenso82]

Ok, lets start New Topic: Tribute to Battlefield: Europe MOD v1.8 !
In new Tribute Mod for BF:E (Yrfin's Mod) we will see:

The author makes a Mod as HE sees it.
Anyone can make your own Mod)
But it's a lot of work.

[Yrfin]

I wanna make Mod with great influense of real players. Its why I ask a questions about new Mod from community.

[Ceek]

The mod is hardly dead. One of its keys to its long life and success has been McGuba's careful curation of each update. This mod has been served just as well by the modifications he hasn't made as by those he has. I hope he continues to exercise his judiciousness and restraint in making future updates.