Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[McGuba]

The idea is to test this scenario if it's possible to hold ground till 1945.
I now play very carefully with ugrading right things, trying not to loose units and saving some money for dark times 1943.

Yes, upgrading the right equipment at the right time is very important in this mod. Hopefully you will do better this time.

Now this time i suppose i am well prepared . August 16 , 1942 a steady Smolenks defencive line. AI seems have stuck at finding a clue how to brake it.
[/url]

Maybe you should also place some artillery behind the infantry units to provide defensive fire. It greatly increases the effectiveness of infantry units in close terrain like cities or forests.

Will there be a 'panzer corps 2' version of this my favourite mod?
(Although I might have to get a new computer to play it

It depends on how "mod firendly" it will be. As it stands now it will be 3D with supposedly full 3D units and creating 3D models is beyond my skills. I guess it is beyond most modders skills, so if it will be like that I predict that there will be much less mods for it. Same as with OOB.

But nevermind, we can still continue to mod PzC1.

How much time need for this work.... respect!

Thanks, I do not know how much time, but quite a lot. The first v1.0 was released 3 years ago and I still work on it occasinally. Also do not forget that many other people contributed with unit icons, sounds, ideas, suggestions, feedback etc. etc. So it is more like a collective effort of this fantastic community here.

I think the only way to beat the d-day invasion is to take the UK as soon as possible. It used to be possible to block them in the bocage but with the unit stats buffed up to deducters I dont think it can be done now. I find the east coast bulge above london , although tricky, is the best option. I have tried via the south coast (I think it was jimmy c's method or was it general werner?) but i could not make it work from there.

General Werner is doing a nice AAR in which he successfully landed in South England. So it is still possible in v1.8:

viewtopic.php?f=145&t=76120

I would say 1.8 is much harder than 1.7 the buffing up of unit stats and cost to deducters stats makes it impossible to get lots of tigers but I can get to the same place as 1.7 except for tunisia. That seems to be much much harder. I used to be able to defend against 'torch' but not any more, there seems to be alot more enemy units so in my next go I am not going to bother with it, sacrifce sicily and end up fighting in italy. Should be much easier and cheaper.

Also in the same affrometnioned AAR GW managed to hold Tunisia and repel the US invaders. The trick is to send the lone Tiger tank unit there with some supporting units, but I think it is also possible without it. The only problem is the British Navy is very active in the area at that time so the naval transports need heavy escort.

Although it is possible, it is not encouraged in this mod to purchase or upgrade more Tigers. One tank unit represents 200 tanks in the mod and there were hardly more than 200 operational Tigers available for the Germans at any given time in WW2. I think it is better to save prestige for more cost effective upgrades like Panther, Stug or Fw 190.

Back to Torch. In fact historically there were only 15-20 operational Tigers in Tunisia at most at any time and even those could cause quite a lot of headache to the Allies:

• 14th of Fev 1943 – 6 Tigers of the 501st Schw.-tank battalion engaged and destroyed in open combat 20 Shermans and Stuarts for no loss in North Africa.
• 20th of March 1943 – 6 Tigers of the 504th Schw.-tank battalion attack elements of the 9th US armored division, destroying or knocking-out 35 light/medium tanks in battle of Maknassy Pass.
• 21st of Apr 1943 – 6 Tigers support the defense in Tunis. They knock-out 40 tanks [unknown number of actually destroyed vehicles] of the 9th British armored Division, and force the others to retreat. Only 1 Tiger is lost to enemy fire.
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722

Now imagine there were not only 15-20 operational Tigers in North Africa, but ten times more, around 200 (one tank unit in the mod). Those might have been able to destroy most Allied tanks and in WW2 an army without tanks could not hold out for long. In North Africa most Tigers were lost to mines or mechanical failures and not to enemy fire. The Western Allies did not have anything to match it, the Tiger was really the king of the battlefield until mid 1944. The other advantage of using the Tiger in Tunisia is that it does not have to move long distances there, as opposed to the vast Eastern front, so its low reliability (simulated by its low max fuel) does not limit its capabilites that much.

[JimmyC]

I attacked the south west coast of England for Sealion and found it to be relatively doable, although that was in 1.6 and i believe it is much harder now in 1.8.

Regarding Torch and the Allied landings, i have done it both ways - both defeating Torch before they hit Tunis and also allowing them to take Tunis and beating them in Sicily. Again, both were done in 1.6, so i think its a lot harder now. GW beat them in Tunis in his most current playthrough. For sure though Malta needs to be taken if you want to stand a chance.

[JimmyC]

Playing through 1.8 i have a couple more things i noticed that i wanted to check about:
1. The Brückenpioniere does not seem to work on the Tigris or other rivers around Iraq. Is this deliberate? I was unpleasantly surprised when trying to use their bridging function to get my units to cross these rivers.
2. When i upgraded the Italian self propelled artillery (Semovente??) in early/mid '43 the newer version seems to have worse stats than the older one and at an additional cost. Not sure why this was, except perhaps for aesthetic as they have a cool camouflage colour scheme? Or am i looking at something wrong?
3. The Tiger you gift the player has its strength fixed to 9, so if you want to make it 10, it costs a bomb as it counts as overstrength. What is the reason for this? I think it used to be Wittmann who was in this tank, but it seems you no longer have him as a hero. Any reason for excluding him now?

By the way, i love the new units that you gift the player as the war progresses and the announcements that come at the start of almost every turn. It makes the game more immersive.

[Ceek]

By the way, i love the new units that you gift the player as the war progresses and the announcements that come at the start of almost every turn. It makes the game more immersive.

Yes, I agree with JimmyC! And in my most recent playthrough it's noticeable at this point the turns that don't have some kind of event transpire. McGuba, given your voluminous knowledge of WWII history, I think it would be wonderful if you could design 1.9 to literally have even small events for the player for every turn of the game. In addition to some more unit gifts. One event type I might suggest would be the infusion or withdrawal of prestige in only somewhat-anticipated ways. I'll give a couple examples of what I'm talking about.

In the old Panzer General, there were moments in the game where you could "weigh in" on strategic decisions with the OKW but at the cost of your prestige. It might be interesting if this could be integrated in some fashion into the game engine. So, for example, failure to encircle Kiev in '41 (because you want to drive on Moscow) by the given date would cost you prestige for failure to carry out orders. This could also be implemented into the other OKW "orders" throughout the war.

More generally, I also think some variability in how prestige is awarded might create interesting gameplay scenarios. For example, to coincide with the Russian winter offensives in '41/'42 and '42/'43, the player could suffers prestige dips due to the difficulty of resupply logistics in the East. To counter this, the player gets that deducted prestige "back" in a single lump sum in the spring months to support summer offensives. In a way this would help to simulate the massive resupply and refitting that coincided with Case Blau and Kharkov in '42 and '43 and could encourage the player to upgrade/buy new units rather than just reinforce existing forces.

Regarding unit gifts, one specific idea I had was making an event for the lead up to Kursk. So, if the Kursk event fires (i.e., Russians retake the city in '42/'43) , you are cautioned to hold off your counter-attack until the arrival of wonder weapons in a turn or two. Then apologies are extended for manufacturing delays. A turn or two beyond the promised date, the "fruit" is disappointingly under-strength: Elephant (5?), Nashorn (6?), and Hummel (7?). This kind of event would both add to the immersiveness and add some of the unit types to the game board that did play a small but noted role in the war.

More generally, I like the idea of making more of the gift units for players less-than-full complements as you started to do in 1.8--particularly any special/wonder units. That way, you can give the player the chance to "handle" many of the special units in the game without having to pay full freight for them. This also realistically simulates that these units were never produced in the numbers necessary to change the course of the war (also simulating the completely chaotic arms race going on between different manufactures/designers vying for the Reich's attentions). (I admit I have yet to complete a full play through in 1.8 so maybe this is already implemented).

I make these suggestions knowing that you already have events similar to these elsewhere in your scripts, so I think they are possible. Whether or not they should be included is more a question of whether or not you think they "fit" the kind of game play you're seeking. I, of course, understand if you don't think they make sense.

Again, my thanks for this endlessly entertaining mod and your continual curating and improving of it. It's still my go-to gaming experience when I have free time, which says a lot!

[McGuba]

1. The Brückenpioniere does not seem to work on the Tigris or other rivers around Iraq. Is this deliberate? I was unpleasantly surprised when trying to use their bridging function to get my units to cross these rivers.

Sorry, it is not intentional. And I did not know about it. The rivers Tigris, Euphrates and Nile are in fact defined as canals so that these cannot freeze during the winter months. It is a better-than-nothing work around solution as it would be weird to have frozen rivers in the desert which can be easily crossed at winter.

It seem to be a PzC bug that bridge engineers cannot cross canals, I think they should, since they can cross major rivers.

Maybe I should add another line to the message box about winter turns/desert sand storms and stuff to warn players for this phenomenon.

2. When i upgraded the Italian self propelled artillery (Semovente??) in early/mid '43 the newer version seems to have worse stats than the older one and at an additional cost. Not sure why this was, except perhaps for aesthetic as they have a cool camouflage colour scheme? Or am i looking at something wrong?

The later Semovente has a same caliber, but longer gun which results in better hard attack value in AT mode. While the Semovente 75/18 had a 75 mm 18 caliber long gun, the later 75/34 had an almost twice as long 34 caliber long gun giving it better armour penetration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_75/18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_75/34

The slight decrease in the air defense value is a bug, I will fix it in the next version.

3. The Tiger you gift the player has its strength fixed to 9, so if you want to make it 10, it costs a bomb as it counts as overstrength. What is the reason for this? I think it used to be Wittmann who was in this tank, but it seems you no longer have him as a hero. Any reason for excluding him now?

This unit is understrength to represent the rarity and the small scale production. It is still much better than anything the Allies have until early/mid 1944.

This mod never had Wittman as a hero, and there is no special reason for exluding him other than the extremely limited number of Tiger tanks at this scale. Most German tank aces achieved their status fighting in a Tiger and there is only one such unit in the mod by default. However, I might add Wittman as a second hero to it, but with very limited bonuses. Most historians seem to agree that these tank aces accumulated their impressive kills thanks to the superior tanks they had rather than due to their special skills.

Yes, I agree with JimmyC! And in my most recent playthrough it's noticeable at this point the turns that don't have some kind of event transpire. McGuba, given your voluminous knowledge of WWII history, I think it would be wonderful if you could design 1.9 to literally have even small events for the player for every turn of the game.

Yes, it would be possible to have something for each turn, but in my last play test I somehow started to feel it is already a bit too much. In some turns there are several messages, not just one and it might just distract players. Sometimes the less is more.

One event type I might suggest would be the infusion or withdrawal of prestige in only somewhat-anticipated ways. I'll give a couple examples of what I'm talking about.

Sure, I see your point here, but from the feedback it looks like most players hate the initial 1000 prestige penalty in turn 1 and want a compensation for that, even though they can get back up to five times more thanks to Trondheim being added to the list of important friendly cities in v1.8 and giving 50 prestige in as much as 99 turns.

However, I see some point in giving a prestige penalty for the first winter as the Wehrmacht was not prepared for it and it caused significant logistical problems, not to mention the real prestige loss in the face of the world, who for the first time saw the invincible Germans being stopped by some bad weather and the hordes of uneducated Russian peasants. It was indeed a real prestige loss by all means. The question is, how players would react to it in a mod which is already regarded as too hard by most players. But if they get the same amount back, they may or may not accept it.

Regarding unit gifts, one specific idea I had was making an event for the lead up to Kursk. So, if the Kursk event fires (i.e., Russians retake the city in '42/'43) , you are cautioned to hold off your counter-attack until the arrival of wonder weapons in a turn or two. Then apologies are extended for manufacturing delays. A turn or two beyond the promised date, the "fruit" is disappointingly under-strength: Elephant (5?), Nashorn (6?), and Hummel (7?). This kind of event would both add to the immersiveness and add some of the unit types to the game board that did play a small but noted role in the war.

Yes, I like this idea, and might add something like that.

[JimmyC]

Maybe I should add another line to the message box about winter turns/desert sand storms and stuff to warn players for this phenomenon.

Yes, it would be good if you could include something in the commentary so that players are aware. Not sure how you are going to explain it whilst keeping it immersive though? Perhaps you can elude to the tidal/muddy banks of the Euphrates/Tigris being usuitable for bridging

The later Semovente has a same caliber, but longer gun which results in better hard attack value in AT mode. While the Semovente 75/18 had a 75 mm 18 caliber long gun, the later 75/34 had an almost twice as long 34 caliber long gun giving it better armour penetration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_75/18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semovente_da_75/34

The slight decrease in the air defense value is a bug, I will fix it in the next version.

The stats shown when you hover over the upgrade option are for artillery mode, so its difficult to realise that there is a difference in the AT stats between the 2 versions. All i could see was that the air defence is reduced, so i wondered why it is worth to upgrade. Good to know about its better AT abilities. Hopefully in PzC2 they can improve on the interface so that all information can be easily accessed.

[McGuba]

Yes, it would be good if you could include something in the commentary so that players are aware. Not sure how you are going to explain it whilst keeping it immersive though? Perhaps you can elude to the tidal/muddy banks of the Euphrates/Tigris being usuitable for bridging

Yeah, it sounds like a good idea.

The stats shown when you hover over the upgrade option are for artillery mode, so its difficult to realise that there is a difference in the AT stats between the 2 versions. All i could see was that the air defence is reduced, so i wondered why it is worth to upgrade. Good to know about its better AT abilities. Hopefully in PzC2 they can improve on the interface so that all information can be easily accessed.

True. If you click on the arrow under the unit photo you can see the stats of the secondary mode or "unit change", but it is indeed difficult to compare the secondary stats of two units. Another work around solution might be adding a message box when the new Semovente becomes available.

[deranzo]

Thank you for your efforts everyone. I'm also a new mod maker and i know how time consuming is this process.
Great work

[JimmyC]

Which is the most cost effective SPAT of late war ('44 and after)? I am in early '44 and thinking to upgrade some of my towed AT. Any suggestions? I'm thinking maybe JagdPz. Hetzer is super cheap but i don't see it being able to stand up to much...

[empedocles]

Due to the low prestige situation I always faced when I reached mid 44, I HAD to recurred to the Hetzers. They are pretty good all things considered and with some support from artillery and planes they can defend well against most of the tanks you will face.

[McGuba]

I also think it depends on how much prestige the player has. The JagdPz.IV is somewhat better and has an excellent upgrade potential to the much more effective one with the long L/70 gun, but the Hetzer is significantly cheaper and only marginally worse. In a balanced core both could have a place, but for upgrading experienced towed AT guns maybe the JagdPz.IV is the better choice if you can afford, but you can also purchase one or more new Hetzers with zero experience as they are cheap and can fill the gaps in some places quite well.


And by the way for the bug reported earlier:

1. The Brückenpioniere does not seem to work on the Tigris or other rivers around Iraq. Is this deliberate? I was unpleasantly surprised when trying to use their bridging function to get my units to cross these rivers.

I found a solution: I just added the "river" trait to strait terrain type and now it should work as intended, so it should be fine from the next version of the mod. With the river trait added units still cannot cross these "rivers" during winter, but bridgers can build a brige over them. Thanks again for reporting it.

[JimmyC]

I also think it depends on how much prestige the player has. The JagdPz.IV is somewhat better and has an excellent upgrade potential to the much more effective one with the long L/70 gun, but the Hetzer is significantly cheaper and only marginally worse. In a balanced core both could have a place, but for upgrading experienced towed AT guns maybe the JagdPz.IV is the better choice if you can afford, but you can also purchase one or more new Hetzers with zero experience as they are cheap and can fill the gaps in some places quite well.


And by the way for the bug reported earlier:

1. The Brückenpioniere does not seem to work on the Tigris or other rivers around Iraq. Is this deliberate? I was unpleasantly surprised when trying to use their bridging function to get my units to cross these rivers.

I found a solution: I just added the "river" trait to strait terrain type and now it should work as intended, so it should be fine from the next version of the mod. With the river trait added units still cannot cross these "rivers" during winter, but bridgers can build a brige over them. Thanks again for reporting it.

Glad you could fix it. It was only a minor nuisance, but still a bit annoying considering i'd transported my Brückenpioniere all the way over there. Please also be sure to make towed AT in the same upgrade path for the next patch as they are basically useless at the moment - in the current version you have a choice of either upgrading them to SPAT or sacrificing them. It just doesn't make sense to keep them (given their poor stats) or upgrade them to higher caliber towed version (given the significant cost).

Regarding SPAT, I spent quite a while looking at the different SPAT units given the non-upgradability of the towed AT in the current version. Indeed the Hetzer is great value for money - probably the best value for money SPAT unit that the Axis can get. Below is a chart of some of the mid/late-war SPAT with key stats shown:


As you say, i think it all comes down to prestige. If you are fairly well off it could be worth going for the JagdPz IV series, with their better stats. If you are rolling in dough, the Jagdpanther seems optimal. And if you are skint, the Hetzer is a great call. Its just a shame you can't upgrade tanks to SPAT or vice versa, given they used the same chassis in some variants (eg. JagdPz IV used the Panzer 4 chassis). I'm assuming the game's hard code doesn't allow this though.

[McGuba]

Yeah, unfortunately in PzC(1) it is not possible to make out of class unit upgrades. However, there might be a work-around solution for this, which I may try later, but I think in this mod it could break the unit balance. For example if all Pz.II and Pz.38 could be upgraded very cheaply to a Marder there would be too just many Marders - much more than what was historically. But I will make some more calculations and see if it is possible at all.

Glad you could fix it. It was only a minor nuisance, but still a bit annoying considering i'd transported my Brückenpioniere all the way over there.

Sure, I was not aware of this as I also assumed that they should be able to build bridges over canals, but this "bug" apparently comes from the base game. I had to modify the orignial game file to make it work as it should.

[Yrfin]

Yeah, unfortunately in PzC(1) it is not possible to make out of class unit upgrades. However, there might be a work-around solution for this, which I may try later, but I think in this mod it could break the unit balance. For example if all Pz.II and Pz.38 could be upgraded very cheaply to a Marder there would be too just many Marders - much more than what was historically. But I will make some more calculations and see if it is possible at all..

Maybe this is solution (for 1.9 of coz).
1. Add new unit Pz II (RFM) "Ready For Marder". Same stats like Pz II. Available at spring 42.
2. Make message for player: "Prepare yours Pz II to upgrade to Marder".
3. Player can upgrade few Pz II to Pz II (RFM) for cost upgrade Pz II -> Marder II.
4. Script update : All Pz II (RFM) -> Marder II.

[McGuba]

I do not think it is possible to do it like that as in the unit action script only the unit class can be added, but not the unit type. The unit type seems to be irrelevant for this script. The other thing that can be added is the unit name, but that is the custom name given by the scenario creator in the editor to each individual unit. And it cannot be changed during the game. With other words, it could not make a distinction between "Pz II" and "Pz II (RFM)" as that is the unit type, and not the name.

What I was thinking to try is to add a Marder II and a Marder III "retrain" unit to the tank class (obviously in the same upgrade family with the Pz.II and Pz.38, respectively) and make it multipurpose to an actual Marder II or III AT unit from which it cannot change back to tank class. The "retraining" AT unit would be useless, its only purpose is to make the switch to tank class possible. Theoretically it should work, but my concern is in that case all Pz.II and Pz.38 would be upgraded to the much better Marder by the players quickly and it would lead to an unhistorical core composition as the Marders were not that numerous (at least the early types) in 1942:

Marder IID 201 converted from April 1942 to June 1943 - which leaves around 100 for 1942
Marder II 576 produced from June 42 to June 43 - which leaves around 200-300 for 1942
Marder III 344 produced from April to Oct 1942 - leaving 344 for 1942
Marder IIIH 242 produced from Nov 42 to Apr 43 - which leaves a few dozen at best for 1942

Also, as it can be seen, historically most Marders were newly produced and not converted from existing tanks in 1942. However, some more surviving Pz.38 and Pz.II were converted to Marder in 1943.

Now, in turn 1 there are 3 Pz.38 and 3 Pz.II tanks in the mod. Which means about 1200 tanks (6x200). If all these are upgraded to Marders in mid 1942, there would be 1200 Marders when in fact there were no more than 600-700 by the end of that year (with attrition in mind). Historically, the Pz.II and Pz.38 were used in paralel with the Marders so what would keep the players to keep using them if they can be upgraded to Marders easily?

Ideally, there should not be more than 3 Marders in the mod at any time as these were only improvised assets until enough dedicated SPATs could be produced. So what would stop most players from upgrading all light tanks in 1942 at a low cost and thereby significantly changing the game balance with unkown side effects?

[empedocles]

I guess you can't force the player to upgrade a unit on a certain city/region, right? If so, you could force the player to have to move his PZ.II tanks to Germany and waste train and turns in the meantime. This would deter players to mass upgrade as it would be more costly from a strategic point of view.

Another silly idea, what about if you just create a new tank unit type called Marder in the same upgrade family as the PZ.II tanks and you only change the stats to better reflect the switch to an AT? You can only make this option available in 1943.

[Ceek]

Perhaps an easier solution would be to hard code the upgrades to Marders into the scenario and simply remove the option of player choice. The actual mechanics of this could be handled in a manner akin to how the Hs-129 recon planes are withdrawn and replaced by other types. These could happen in winter of '41/spring of '42 as part of the preparations for Case Blau.

I imagine it could work like this. Sometime around turns three or four, the player could have a message saying that the High Command has become convinced of the obsolescence of the Pz. II and Pz. 38 types in the face of Russian heavy tank units. Consequently, OKW is embarking on a series of refit and redesign plans. The first stage of will be the gradual withdrawal of some of the obsolete tanks from service and replacing them with open-canopied, long-barreled AT units. Stage two would be to provide new guns to Pz. III and IV units, and stage three would be to design and deploy new medium and heavy tank units to the front. These reforms will take any where from 6-to-18 months take full effect and the player will receive notifications as these upgrades and refits are completed and available.

Further, the player could be informed that stage one (the refitting of Pz. 38 and Pz. II units) requires a significant amount of time and expense that requires the units to be fully withdrawn from service back to the factories in Germany. The benefit is that the upgrades will require only a nominal reduction of prestige (perhaps delaying the +100 prestige bonus granted in early '42?); the downside is that the following units will be requisitioned and replaced at the OKW's discretion. The player would be advised to keep in mind that those units will "disappear" on the given turn from the front and that that they will require rail transport "back" to wherever they were and to keep that in mind when positioning them in the winter and spring months. (Separately, this could also "help" make the Russian winter offensives even more challenging!)

The only issue I can see with this is the need to inform the player early enough so that if they are planning an early Sealion they won't be rudely surprised to discover that their invasion force disappears from the beaches in late '41/early '42.

[Yrfin]

I guess you can't force the player to upgrade a unit on a certain city/region, right? If so, you could force the player to have to move his PZ.II tanks to Germany and waste train and turns in the meantime. This would deter players to mass upgrade as it would be more costly from a strategic point of view.

I think its a best solution: upgrade several pre-named Pz II/38 only in German factory in City (unit action script in Hex (X,Y)) by player choice.
And looks is more realistic than auto-upgrade in the open field.
This method also can be used for modernization StuG IIIE ->StuG IIIF.

[JimmyC]

Perhaps a way to do it would be to create a Pz38(t) in the anti-tank class (with exactly the same stats as the one in the tank class. Then you could assign 1 or 2 of the starting Pz38(t)'s as the anti-tank variety which is able to be upgraded to Marder, whilst the remainder would remain outside the upgrade tree. That way you could restrict the number that could be upgraded.

I agree though that as soon as the Marder series becomes available i would otherwise upgrade all my Panzer 38(t)'s to Marders if it were allowed, as Marders are just much better.

[McGuba]

Perhaps a way to do it would be to create a Pz38(t) in the anti-tank class (with exactly the same stats as the one in the tank class. Then you could assign 1 or 2 of the starting Pz38(t)'s as the anti-tank variety which is able to be upgraded to Marder, whilst the remainder would remain outside the upgrade tree. That way you could restrict the number that could be upgraded.

With this the problem is that AT and tank units behave very differently even if they have the same stats. (AT units get bonus initiative on defense and penalty on attack). So the two Pz.38 units would be very different even though they would look the same and have the same stats. It would be very confusing for most players.


To be honest, none of the options are really good, but I also think that

I guess you can't force the player to upgrade a unit on a certain city/region, right? If so, you could force the player to have to move his PZ.II tanks to Germany and waste train and turns in the meantime. This would deter players to mass upgrade as it would be more costly from a strategic point of view.

I think its a best solution: upgrade several pre-named Pz II/38 only in German factory in City (unit action script in Hex (X,Y)) by player choice.
And looks is more realistic than auto-upgrade in the open field.
This method also can be used for modernization StuG IIIE ->StuG IIIF.

is the best solution. However, in this case it is somewhat strange that while all other units can be upgraded in the front, these have to be withdrawn to Germany. A possible immersive solution to explain it might be that since it is a cross class upgrade, the crews need more in-depth retraining which necessitates a withdraw to Germany. It is possible to do it in this way as I have the important German victory objective hexes marked with the "+" and these could be the retraining sites. There could be a timeframe, a small prestige penalty, and only some of the Pz.IIs and Pz.38s could be upgraded like that and then players could decide wheter they want to use this feature or not. (It has the clear drawback that the number of experienced tank units would reduce.) Also, only one of the starting StuGIIIs could be upgraded to the AT version so that the other can be used for the later StuH 42 upgrade. Then there would be a time and a small prestige penalty (e.g. 100 prestige) involved which would make the whole process more interesting. It would also be historical, as even though most Marders and AT StuGs were newly produced, some were indeed converted from existing old vehicles. Deal?