Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.5.1

[Arvidus]

With the addition of Denmark, does that mean you'll need an update on the flags? ^^

[McGuba]

With the addition of Denmark, does that mean you'll need an update on the flags? ^^

Actually I made it, I just forgot to upload for the new version:

flags.png (54.37 KiB) Viewed 7637 times

Thanks for reminding me, now I update the first page of this topic, too.

[McGuba]

But ...
Pz Flamm II was build 112 + 43 remaded. Its not at BF scale.

That's why I did not add it to the OOB by default. But many players like this unit, and if they want to upgrade to it, they can. Also there were other converted flamethrower tanks as well, Pz.I, Pz.III (another 100 examples at least). So the Flammpanzer II can stand for all these as an averge unit if the player decides to upgrade one.

Marder IID was produced 201 pcs. 1 Unit ?
New type movement for 350 pcs (1-2 unit in scale BF) ?

Yes, why not? Also I wanted to make more difference between the Marder IID and Marder II, who are otherwise quite similar. Now these have a more different movement style.

But what do you think about:
- HQ units

I think we discussed it earlier. I do not really see the point in HQ unit in this mod as its only function would be spotting. And for pure reconnaissance I have added quite a few other air and ground recon units and I prefer to use them. I would only add a HQ unit if it could have a real function, for example if it could provide initiative bonus to nearby ground units (just as "radar" trait does to air units) but unfortunately there is no such unit trait in PzC.

- ability build Defence Lines .

To some extent it is already there as players can purchase minefield and bunker builder units. Now I plan to add some more of this, especiall for the muliplayer version.

- ability AI counter-attack by triggers .

I do not really understand this. There are already lots of scripts which can trigger an AI counter-attack if certain conditions are met.

- change type of Terrain for strategical used
(Str. Recon for information, Bridge for key points)
and so on.

I do not really understand this one, either, but I guess you mean that the terrain type should change like bridges. Well, it would require a lot more AI zones which we do not have.

[JimmyC]

McGuba, please update the link to v1.9 in the first post on this thread as it still links to v1.8. To get the 1.9 link you have to trawl through the posts to find it.

Otherwise, i am looking forward to trying out the new mod. Fingers crossed my pc doesn't die again whist playing it.

[hugh2711]

MANY THANKS again for your great mod. As usual this version seems to be even tougher than the previous (and that is only on medium level The positioning and lower strength of some of the prepositioned units seems (so far) to make even the first move more difficult!.

may I make a suggestion for version 2.0?
make an option so that you can import your core from halfway through GC41 or at an appropriate time. Like gc42 WEST reset the prestige and also limit/adjust the prepositioned units to account for the relevant number imported. Also you woud have to do the rudel upgrade.

[McGuba]

McGuba, please update the link to v1.9 in the first post on this thread as it still links to v1.8. To get the 1.9 link you have to trawl through the posts to find it.

Thanks for reporting, I did it.

Otherwise, i am looking forward to trying out the new mod. Fingers crossed my pc doesn't die again whist playing it.

It is always nice to see a veteran commander dusting his uniform and going back to action when the nation needs him the most.

MANY THANKS again for your great mod. As usual this version seems to be even tougher than the previous (and that is only on medium level The positioning and lower strength of some of the prepositioned units seems (so far) to make even the first move more difficult!.

No problem. I did not really intend to make this version even higher. Even though it might look that some units are understrength, most of these are newly added units like the 21cm Mörser or the 10.5cm long range Kannone. These were indeed much less numerous than the 10.5cm leFH or the 15 FH, but the new guns provide some interesting new tactical choices: the 21cm Mörser is a siege gun which can almost always do 1 point damage to just about any enemy ground unit, making it quite similar to the very heavy Karl mortar (which represents all the different very heavy siege guns the Germans had above 21cm), with the difference that the Karl is less mobile but also less vulnerable. The 10.5cm Kannone is the only available Axis gun with range 4 so it can attack deep into the enemy territory. Another understrength heavy artillery, a 17cm Kannone with range 5(!) will also be added, but only in 1943.

may I make a suggestion for version 2.0?
make an option so that you can import your core from halfway through GC41 or at an appropriate time.

Unfortunately I do not own any of the GCs so it is not likely to happen unless someone else does it. Also, the equipment file of this mod is currently incompatible with the official campaigns.

[Cataphract88]

Thanks a lot for the update.

[BobStClair]

Little reporting,

in v 1.8 I was able to close Kiev pocket and take Moscow before winter, in v 1.9 able to close Kiev but reached only outskirts of Moscow with view on soviet tanks...
Multiplayer session started, 5th turn, and no problems about enemy movements.

[hugh2711]

It appears to me that you can get more prestige (and more experience) to start the big scenario of you go for marginal victories in the smaller scenario's first. Would it be better to make sure that decisive victories are significantly more profitable given how tight prestige is in the main big campaign?.

[McGuba]

Little reporting,

in v 1.8 I was able to close Kiev pocket and take Moscow before winter, in v 1.9 able to close Kiev but reached only outskirts of Moscow with view on soviet tanks...

My original intention was to face the player with a real choice so that not both of those can be accomplished. It is true that in this latest version it is more emphasized. Although I did not try, I believe it is still possible to capture at least the Kremlin hex by turn 10-11, but only if there is a very determined advance and it might only be possible with a recon unit with recon movement. But it might cost the player the Kiev encirclement, more so as the time limit for the Kiev encirclement has been reduced squentially: in "realistic" the Soviet forces in the pocket get their fuel back and activate in turn 9-10, in "medium" in turn 11-12 and in "easy" and "muliplayer" in turn 12-13. (In our current multiplayer game with Intenso I could only close the pocket in turn 12 - just in time, but could not get very close to Moscow.) Thus especially in "realistic" difficulty the player has to hurry to encircle Kiev before they would activate and counter-attack, but also has to hurry to reach Moscow. Doing both is very difficult, and I think it has to be.

Multiplayer session started, 5th turn, and no problems about enemy movements.

Yes, we did another test and it looked good in that one. Still, we decided to continue with the one we started earlier. Actually there are some advantages as well in this mode (playing without seeing enemy movements and attacks within spotting range) as players have to make even more guesses. However, we have already discovered several things which will have to be fixed: for example some Soviet units can get stuck in invisible AI zones and lose their fuel for a while. These zones were made for human-AI game and I forgot to remove them. Also, some more balancing will be necessary as the British look a bit too strong in Africa and the Middle East and also the Soviets against the Finns. Anyway, now main focus is on polishing the mulitplayer scenario, so any feedbacks are very, very welcome, since testing in multiplayer takes a lot more time than testing in single player mode.

It appears to me that you can get more prestige (and more experience) to start the big scenario of you go for marginal victories in the smaller scenario's first. Would it be better to make sure that decisive victories are significantly more profitable given how tight prestige is in the main big campaign?.

Ah, yeah, it is possible. I just do not really know how much I should add for each scenario.

[hugh2711]

Yes it appears to be quite a big prestige difference (a couple of thousand?) as you can take your time; to force lucrative prestige earning surrenders and taking extra non-primary towns/airfieldsif you go for MV's. I think next time I will go for marginal as if the previous scenarios are prolongued I can also get more experience as well specially on my fighters by strafing. That also makes a difference given I usually dump everything in the previous scenarios except for the heroed (A+2 D+1) tank and import the maximum amount of fighters into the big scenario.

[BobStClair]

My original intention was to face the player with a real choice so that not both of those can be accomplished. It is true that in this latest version it is more emphasized. Although I did not try, I believe it is still possible to capture at least the Kremlin hex by turn 10-11, but only if there is a very determined advance and it might only be possible with a recon unit with recon movement. But it might cost the player the Kiev encirclement, more so as the time limit for the Kiev encirclement has been reduced squentially: in "realistic" the Soviet forces in the pocket get their fuel back and activate in turn 9-10, in "medium" in turn 11-12 and in "easy" and "muliplayer" in turn 12-13. (In our current multiplayer game with Intenso I could only close the pocket in turn 12 - just in time, but could not get very close to Moscow.) Thus especially in "realistic" difficulty the player has to hurry to encircle Kiev before they would activate and counter-attack, but also has to hurry to reach Moscow. Doing both is very difficult, and I think it has to be.

vs AI: Yes, it feels right, outskirts reached with recon and panzer units after bypassing Smolensk-Vyazma-Mozhaysk, but stopped without infantry support and Kremlin hex is occupied with soviet arty
Multi: turn 5, my opponent reached Minsk, so I think, he will have problems with Gomel first and maybe also with Kremenchuk. Soviets retreated to Petrozavodsk for better positions, so no real battle there...

Yes, we did another test and it looked good in that one. Still, we decided to continue with the one we started earlier. Actually there are some advantages as well in this mode (playing without seeing enemy movements and attacks within spotting range) as players have to make even more guesses. However, we have already discovered several things which will have to be fixed: for example some Soviet units can get stuck in invisible AI zones and lose their fuel for a while. These zones were made for human-AI game and I forgot to remove them. Also, some more balancing will be necessary as the British look a bit too strong in Africa and the Middle East and also the Soviets against the Finns. Anyway, now main focus is on polishing the mulitplayer scenario, so any feedbacks are very, very welcome, since testing in multiplayer takes a lot more time than testing in single player mode.

Multi: Able to flank axis forces (he lost PzIIIG), with Cruiser and Dingo, more recon forces + Valentine from Middle east ready to cross Suez and bypass him to Benghazi line, I feel very comfortable there from beginning as there is no interference from axis navy.

Convoy routes: I think, very heavy destroyer presence possible for Allies in 5. turn, I am not so sure about that.

[Intenso82]

in "realistic" the Soviet forces in the pocket get their fuel back and activate in turn 9-10, in "medium" in turn 11-12 and in "easy" and "muliplayer" in turn 12-13. (In our current multiplayer game with Intenso I could only close the pocket in turn 12 - just in time, but could not get very close to Moscow.)

Now it is clear
I thought closing the Kiev pocket is possible only until the 10th turn.
It seemed to me that it would be possible to prevent the encirclement near Kiev.
Moreover, I have a forecast for the 11th turn, it was raining.
And without the CAS, the Germans would hardly have reached the necessary hexes.
But in reality it was cloudy. The weather was on the side of the Germans
However, the defense of the Soviets could not stand until 12-13 turn.

I will say that playing with McGubа is very fun, t=12.
Very interesting are sea battles.

I hope the Italian Battleship Littorio(fixed) will be recovered for a long time after the attack of the brave British submariners.
Although it is possible Mussolini already found resources for his repair And soon we will see him again in the Mediterranean Sea

British Intelligence also suggests that in the winter the German submarine fleet will increase its activity, and Kriegsmarine will try to conduct several operations in the North Atlantic.
At the same time, things are not going well for Rommel in Africa. Therefore, intelligence believes that the Germans will not leave the "Desert Fox" in the sands.
And will try to support him by transferring some troops from the continent.

At the same time, Moscow has not surrendered and continues to fight.
Odessa is still fighting.
Recently Soviet strategic aviation bombed Berlin!
The advance of Soviet troops in the Helsinki area in Finland has slowed somewhat. The Axis decided to help and transfer the German units to Finland.

And I can not post screenshots because it's a military secret

[JimmyC]

I’m playing the Bagration load as I don’t have the time atm for the full campaign. I already notice some changes you made, such as not being able to purchase 17cm and 21cm artillery, 15cm has improved, whilst AT is a lot better (both because its in the same upgrade class, but also the camo). For its price I think the 3.7cm Flak 36 is now the best buy of the towed AA.

It also seems that there are a wider variety of SPAT that are now all in the same series, which helps with the budget.

Sad to see the Italian air has been nerfed as it was pretty expensive in 1.08 anyway and now I think its probably not worth upgrading. Will have to play the full campaign to see though.

As I’m mostly in survival mode its harder to notice the differences, although I am guessing the Bagration load will be harder than before due to the penalties for bombing cities. Once I have the time I will have a crack at the full campaign.

[Yrfin]

Pz IID/E was produced about 43 pcs
Yep. Of coz this unit a can to took place in Very Special Small Tactical Scenarios. But not a in BF.
And same about Pz II Amfibious and IIG (12 pcs).

I never said that the Pz.IID would ever be present in this mod. All of the 43 produced Pz.IID were converted to Pz.II Flamm between May 1940 and Febr 1941. However, the more numerous Pz.II Flamm and Marder IID had the same basic chassis and tosion-bar suspension as the Pz.IID which resulted in different road and off-road speed for these types. That's why I added the new movement type.

In your logic lets add "new" movements type for ALL Pz 38(t) chassys (Cristy Chassys)?
And for Brit "Crusader" type Tanks (Cristy Chassys) ...

- "Desert tracked" movement added: tracked units have to be "tropicalized" (with improved air filters and cooling installed) i.e. upgraded to a similar unit with different movement type for free for optimal movement on desert and dunes terrain, however, these are comparably slower on clear and countryside terrain (units with "wide tracked" movement are not affected as they already have better mobility on soft terrain)

I dont think what idea of "Desert tracked" movement is right choice.
May me better way just to upgrade "desert" unit (Tropical equipment) with additional Fuel (Maintaince) ?
And "Tropicalized" Bf 109E-7(Trop) don't have a tracks

- "Wide tracked" movement added: units with this movement type can move faster on soft terrain due to their wider tracks which results in lower ground pressure per square inch (e.g. T-34, KV-1, Tiger, Panther, Churchill and their derivatives)

Wide track ? And what about Weight on Track ?
Im think T-34 and Tiger don't have SAME pressure per square inch ...Same with Churchull/KV.

- change type of Terrain for strategical used
(Str. Recon for information, Bridge for key points)
and so on.

I do not really understand this one, either, but I guess you mean that the terrain type should change like bridges. Well, it would require a lot more AI zones which we do not have.

Yep. I just think about changes a special "points" (Hex) for activate AI counter-action. You don't need Zone but only Hex coordinate + Radius for Unit Action..

[guille1434]

Just an opinion about tracked vehicles movement types...

After a brief research about the ground pressure values of several WWII era tanks, I found that the best value was for the T-34/85 (and I suppose the T-34/76 was a little better, because it was lighter) with a value of 0.74 kg/cm2... The second best was the Pz.IV (in its lighter 1939 model, so, later variants would have had higher values as they were progressively heavier) with 0.77 kg/cm2. Every other type had values of 0.80 and higher...

See the source: http://mathscinotes.com/2016/06/tank-tr ... -examples/

So I think the only tank with special (better) movement on mud and snow terrain should be the T-34 in its various versions... Al the others, have to be classed in the "regular" or vanilla tracked move type, and I think that a separate move type for heavy tanks (Tiger I and II with 1 kg/cm2 for example, no data for the KV series, but I think they have similar values to the Tiger tanks) should be implemented.

Besides, there is a possibility to add a new move type for tanks with very good climbing capability, like all the versions of the Churchill tanks which were known for having very good steep slopes climbing ability. This move type should give advantage in hills and mountain terrain hexes (may also be rough desert hexes)... I don't know if there was another tank model with similar capabilities to also give this move type.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the special move type for the Pz.IID and its derivatives...

Just my opinion on this interesting subject...

[Intenso82]

I dont think what idea of "Desert tracked" movement is right choice.
May me better way just to upgrade "desert" unit (Tropical equipment) with additional Fuel (Maintaince) ?
And "Tropicalized" Bf 109E-7(Trop) don't have a tracks

I think the tropical version of the units is a great idea.
Because it is complex.
In addition to the different cost of moving on desert hexes, this is also a change of camouflage for the desert and Europe. If you want to transfer a unit from Europe or Africa.
If you just add fuel for the units, this will not give the desired effect.
Because the Tropical unit in Europe will be better than the usual version, without special reasons.
For fighters, as far as I know, there have been improvements related to air filters, which have all been out of order for non-adapted aircraft. But maybe someone knows this topic better

[McGuba]

After a brief research about the ground pressure values of several WWII era tanks, I found that the best value was for the T-34/85 (and I suppose the T-34/76 was a little better, because it was lighter) with a value of 0.74 kg/cm2... The second best was the Pz.IV (in its lighter 1939 model, so, later variants would have had higher values as they were progressively heavier) with 0.77 kg/cm2. Every other type had values of 0.80 and higher...

See the source: http://mathscinotes.com/2016/06/tank-tr ... -examples/

So I think the only tank with special (better) movement on mud and snow terrain should be the T-34 in its various versions... Al the others, have to be classed in the "regular" or vanilla tracked move type, and I think that a separate move type for heavy tanks (Tiger I and II with 1 kg/cm2 for example, no data for the KV series, but I think they have similar values to the Tiger tanks) should be implemented.

If we look further it looks like it is not that simple. If you double check that quoted source and click on the on the source it refers to when it comes to the T-34 it appears the the writer of that post made a mistake as in fact the ground pressure for the T-34/85 is given as 0.84 kg/cm2 and not 0.74. To make things worse a book gives a ground pressure for the Panther as 0.735 kg/cm2:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=9NYbDA ... ty&f=false


Also, when it comes to the Sherman:

U.S. crews found that on soft ground such as mud or snow, the narrow tracks gave poor (i.e., high) ground pressure compared to wider-tracked second-generation German tanks such as the Panther and Tiger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#Mobility


Things might start to clear, if we read the comments section of this article:

As far as I can remember, Zaloga (T-34 in Action) says that ground pressure of T-34's is :
– 0,68 kg/cm² for models 1940 and 1941 ;
— 0,75 kg/cm² for model 1942 ;
– 0,83 kg/cm² for model 1943 ;
– 0,85 kg/cm² for T-34-85.

But T-34 had five road wheels on each side, whereas Pz.-Kpfw. Ⅳ, Panther and Tiger E had eight, and Tiger B, nine. Not all the track links have the same weight onto them, only those on which a roadwheel is passing support an heavy burden.

Pz.-Kpfw. Ⅳ H had ground pressure of 0,89 kg/cm², and J, of 0,86 kg/cm² ; Panther G : ground pressure = 0,88 kg/cm² ; Tiger B : 1,02 kg/cm².

Dividing per eight or nine and multiplicating per six ground pressure of German tanks maybe give a better idea, I assume :

– Pz.-Kpfw. Ⅳ, as if 0,67 or 0,64 kg/cm² and six roadwheels ;
– Panther G, as if 0,66 kg/cm²… ;
— Tiger B, as if 0,68 kg/cm²… .

For T-34 :
– Model 1943, as if 1,00 kg/cm² and six roadwheels ;
– T-34-85, as if 1,02 kg/cm²… .

IS-2 :
0,82 kg/cm² (six roadwheels).

‘Pz.-Kpfw. Ⅳ H had ground pressure of 0,89 kg/cm², and J, of 0,86 kg/cm² ; Panther G : ground pressure = 0,88 kg/cm² ; Tiger B : 1,02 kg/cm².’

According to Panzertruppen the numbers are:

Panzer III – for A-D 0.67-0.68, for E-J 0.92-0.97, for L-N 1.02-1.04
Panzer IV – for A 0.68, for B-D 0.77-0.83, for E 0.91, for F 0.88, for G 0.93, for H-J 0.89
Panther – for D-A 0.73, for G 0.75
Tiger I – 0.74
Tiger II – 0.78

Panzertruppen was written by Thomas L. Jentz

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-L.-Jentz/e/B000APB64E

All his information comes directly from official German reports.

Spielberger's books were the best ones about German tanks, but Jentz' books are even better.

Fabio Prado's website says that the ground pressure of a Panther was 0,88 kg/cm². I suppose it's for the Panther G, for it's the same figure I have by some other sources for this version.

According to the same website, the ground pressure of a Tiger B was 1,03 kg/cm², and the ground pressure of a Tiger E was 1,05 kg/cm² (Spielberger : 1,02 and 1,04 kg/cm²). Its main source is Germany's Tiger Tanks, by Thomas Jentz, however it's not always accurately quoted. Prado's data sometimes differ from those of German war time reports, but the gap is small, when it exists.

Extract of the article on the Tiger B :
« The combat tracks, which weighed 3.2 tons each, were 800 mm wide thus providing an acceptable ground pressure (when the tracks sunk to 20 cm) of 0.76 kilograms per square centimeter. »
So, according to this website, as its author understood Jentz' Germany's Tiger Tanks, ground pressure of Tiger B is 1,03 kg/cm² without penetration, and 0,76 kg/cm² with 20 cm penetration. All the sources I know say that the Tiger B moved far easier on soft grounds than current tanks having ground pressures of 1 kg/cm², that's why I assume the figures given by Jentz in Panzertruppen are from reports taking into account the effect of a better weight repartition due to the number of roadwheels – or so I think.

So in the end it looks like not only the actual area of the track matters, but also the number of wheels. Especially if these are large interlocking wheels which distribute the weight of the tank more evenly on the total length of the track, as in the case of the Panther and the Tiger. Then, when the tank sinks a bit into the soft terrain (and all tanks sink a bit due to their weight), the weight of the tank is distributed on more wheels thus creating a lower actual ground pressure.

By the way, a Finnish source give 0.77 kg/cm2 ground pressure for the KV-1, which is also quite good for its size:

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/TANKS7.htm

[McGuba]

I dont think what idea of "Desert tracked" movement is right choice.
May me better way just to upgrade "desert" unit (Tropical equipment) with additional Fuel (Maintaince) ?
And "Tropicalized" Bf 109E-7(Trop) don't have a tracks

I think the tropical version of the units is a great idea.
Because it is complex.
In addition to the different cost of moving on desert hexes, this is also a change of camouflage for the desert and Europe. If you want to transfer a unit from Europe or Africa.
If you just add fuel for the units, this will not give the desired effect.
Because the Tropical unit in Europe will be better than the usual version, without special reasons.
For fighters, as far as I know, there have been improvements related to air filters, which have all been out of order for non-adapted aircraft. But maybe someone knows this topic better

In the next version I plan to make the same with air units. For example the Bf-109 had a number of "tropicalized" versions. And so did other aircraft. In the mod this change serves a double purpose: units with the normal camouflage look weird on a desert terrain which cries for an icon change. And it should take a turn as a unit upgrade free of charge, but obviously taking time. But it has to have a meaning so that players are urged to do so otherwise their units will move slower (indicating reduced effectiveness/tactical range).

And "Tropicalized" Bf 109E-7(Trop) don't have a tracks

Which is of course true, but the sand could cause a real problem to its engine and other systems, so additional filters had to be installed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messersch ... 9_variants:
The final G-2 production batches built by Erla and Messerschmitt Regensburg were equipped as tropical aircraft (often referred to as G-2 trop), equipped with a sand-filter on the front of the supercharger intake and two small, teardrop-shaped metal brackets on the left side of the fuselage, below the cockpit sill. These were used as mounts for specially designed sun umbrellas (called Sonderwerkzeug or Special tool), which were used to shade the cockpit.

In your logic lets add "new" movements type for ALL Pz 38(t) chassys (Cristy Chassys)?
And for Brit "Crusader" type Tanks (Cristy Chassys) ...

As far as I know the Pz.38 did not have Christie suspension. The Pz.38 had a more conventional leaf spring suspension and the Pz.IID (and Marder IID and Flammpanzer II) had torsion bar suspension, which again differs from the Christie suspension. The Pz.IID had reportedly much slower off-road speed than the earlier Pz.II subtypes, that's why it was discontinued. As far as I am concerned the Pz.38 and its subtypes had no such problems.

[JimmyC]

I played through the first 3 scenarios on General and noticed a few changes. First (and biggest) is the change to the starting core. I approve of this change as it better reflects what you would actually want to bring into Barbarossa (although I sidelined the JU 87 and bought another fighter for the Med scenario).

Poland – no noticeable change here.

Norway was a fun small mission and I could accomplish it relatively easily. I noticed that a destroyer in the far north didn’t move for the entire time that I had him in my sights (around 6 turns). This allowed me to just pound it from range with my capital ship. It could be a bad script/bug or perhaps the AI just sat it there as the attack odds were unfavorable? The sneaky allied subs caught me out (my poor recon now lies at the bottom of the Skagerrak). Good work!

As for France, it has always been my least favorite of the scenarios as it feels like a massive grind. Also, since around 1.04 I have never been able to achieve a decisive victory in France. This time round though, I managed to achieve the decisive victory relatively comfortably (around 4 turns in my pocket). It also felt more fun and free flowing than before and the evacuation mechanic seemed to work better than in previous iterations. I can’t tell exactly what you changed, but I approve!