The "Gabe-Mod" (v8.4.4)

[GabeKnight]

For the symbol, you could use something like this :
Could you make a test and see if the bug is always here ?

No upgrade between different classes => no "bug" or exploit possible anymore.

Thanks for the pic (looks like an envelope ), but this didn't matter to me. I've already deleted the recon changes, these were for testing and demonstration purposes only. But it's real easy if you'd want to do it for yourself in the "Forgotten Units Mod"...

[terminator]

Is there a link to download and test your mod ?
If it works it should be incorporate in a future official upgrade
I find this much clearer solution and in more it corrects a big bug !

[Horst]

Suddenly, two gameplay mods pop up at same time! It's good to see there are finally do-it-yourself people fixing vanilla before we all got white hairs and long beards waiting for just another update to come!

About the Ise: yep, creating another class is also an idea, but adding unique unit names should also work there. I think the airSupply trait and airCarrier trait in classes.txt isn't that necessary for a plane-carrier to work. No idea for what the group=carrier setting is there.

I remember these stats numbers in classes.txt are for the type of icon-stats each class supports, like land-defense for naval units instead of bombard-defense of land-units. I quickly gave up messing around there.

I recommend using unit_id numbers in the high ten-thousands as we are already officially at 5k numbers. 9k numbers is a bit risky.

As for recon planes: I simply changed all recon planes from recon-class to tactical-bomber class, like Panzer Corps did it. Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the (in-)famous tank-killer ace pilot, also started as recon pilot in Poland. That's still better than getting some car drivers pilot a plane and messing up the land/air-command points while upgrading. I haven't met an original scenario yet which caused some issues, but let's see. As long as the recon planes have a good AI-team plan, nothing should go wrong here.

Okay, you asked for Me 410 stats:
The mystery of the vanilla stats! Reverse-engineering is always tricky.
I hate guessing stats, but let’s see according to my own research and comparing vanilla stats:
Cost: eh, maybe from 95 to 110, so it’s more expensive than a Bf 109G and Ju 87D/G with 100.
MP: 12 is fine (Me 410 is as fast as a 109F (12) while 100 km/h faster than an 110E (11))
Fuel: 12 is okay (there are normally more differences between 110C-E’s fuel 10 but let’s ignore that now; even a much shorter-ranged Ju 87B has 12!)
Inf-attack: 14 to 11 (still lower than a much more accurate dive bomber; Ju 87B has 12)
Veh-attack: 14 to 11
Air-S attack: 11 to 10 (higher than110E’s 8 but lower than 109G’s 11; excellent remote-barbettes to fire backwards with 2 MG 131)
Air-L attack: 13 to 14 (twice as much power than a 109F/G2 (9/10); the MG 151/20 is about thrice as powerful than an MG FF of the 110E which has Air-L 12)
Nav-S attack: 4 to 5 (well, these vanilla naval attack values are generally kept very low for non-dive bombers, but the 410 can drop a 1000 kg bomb compared to 500 kg of the Bf 110)
Nav-L attack: 2 to 3
Air defense of 11 looks okay, compared to 109G’s 12 and 110E’s 9; it is faster, sturdier and has very good remote-barbettes for defense compared to the 110E’s fluffy single MG 17.
The other defense values don't really need a change either, but use your own judgement for everything. That's part of the fun mod-fixing a game!

Maybe these stats are more to anyone’s likening.

I never liked the mix of powerful ground and air attack values for interceptor-like planes in Panzer Corps either. That was the main reason for me to start creating tactical bomber mode variants for planes like the Bf 110. My true dogfighter/interceptor modes may only use their guns without bomb support.
Naturally, there should also be a difference in fuel/range for fighter/TB modes. No aircraft with full bomb-load can fly as far/long as with simple gun-load, especially if drop tanks are used instead of bombs. Researching proper ranges for aircraft is one of the most frustrating activities: combat radius, ferry range, with/without drop tanks, normal/max bomb load,… that’s not always clear in sources, and especially not available for every variant. So much about guessing stats again.

[GabeKnight]

Done. Me 410 stats implemeted.

... but use your own judgement for everything. That's part of the fun mod-fixing a game!

Right. But on what basis?
....as long as my military/warfare/units/history/armament knowledge resides on a kind of sub-zero-level . (Trying to change that, it takes time...)

For the time being I'll have to depend on the community. And it seems to be working... Thanks Horst, as always.

There appears to be some interest in the mod, so I'm gonna make it available in two versions soon:
1) units.csv with fixes only and
2) the complete mod with fixes and described changes

But I've still got to figure some things out first.

[Horst]

I'm not really up to fix vanilla and especially not many more units than the Me 410. In particular the ground unit stats rules are more difficult to understand.
As exercise, you could fix the SdKfz 233 recon unit which has (accidently?) the same stats like the SdKfz 232. While fixing that little road-bug in PK/12_Kursk, I've spotted a single aux 233, so a fix could boost a little the aux-prowess even if you don't use them as core.
It probably gets officially fixed one day, but it's a good test how close you are guessing the stats. I can also tell you how I like the stats if you do a suggestion there.
And should you do some fixes to campaign scenarios, always make good notes what you have changed there should the scenarios get officially changed one day and you aren't really sure what they did.

[GabeKnight]

Horst, the Me 410 stats you provided worked very nice with me. Still needed my dogfighters, but the Me410 could defend itself and my bombers and still deliver some ground attack punches. Now the plane's an "updated" version of the BF110E ground attack fighter, which feels kind of right in terms of gameplay. Thanks again, I'm keeping those stats.


Surprisingly, the im- and export of the units.csv with MS-Excel proved to be quite unproblematic. Finally no more text-editor...

Works exactly like this:

1. Open the units.csv file within Excel.
2. There should hopefully a text conversion-assistant popup. Click on.
3. Change the separating method from tabs to semicolons
4. Now it’s critical that you first scroll to the right and hold shift-key to mark all colums. Only then change the format from Standard to Text, otherwise Excel won’t convert correctly the dates and attack values. Done.

Now you can save and edit as an usual Excel file. Afterwards "save copy as..." and choose the "CSV (MS-DOS) (*.csv)" file type option. That's all.
Just tested it with the "SU-122 germany" texture fix, it works.


Next I'm gonna investigate, what you meant by this comment: "Air/naval defense values of many infantry units are still messed up, for example" and continue to implement my "planned" changes further.

Initially, I didn't want to change "small" stuff like +/-1 stat changes, but the Me410 issue made me think...

I never liked the mix of powerful ground and air attack values for interceptor-like planes in Panzer Corps either. That was the main reason for me to start creating tactical bomber mode variants for planes like the Bf 110. My true dogfighter/interceptor modes may only use their guns without bomb support. [...] So much about guessing stats again.

That may be a little too much for me. Instead, I'm probably just gonna add some "air-exit-hexes" to official scenarios also. Did you create an unique icon for the plane's switching mode mechanic?

[Horst]

You need a (copy of) unit picture to create new unit-modes, as you require unique unit-names for the switch-mechanic. The pictures are tied to the unique unit-names that are also needed for transports, for example I created a 4x4 version of the Opel Blitz for late '40, or the Sd.Kfz.250nA and Sd.Kfz.251D with MG42 instead of MG34 for ‘43. All theses received a duplicate of the original unit pictures copied into the Content\Graphics\Units folder.
Creating new modes with proper stats is indeed somewhat too complicated if you don't get smart of the vanilla stat creation. This is much easier if you create conversion-formulas based on real-world data to automatically create all these variant stats for you.

The air/naval def inconsistencies of infantry units should be easily spotted if you browse the units with Excel. I wouldn't find them easily with a text-editor either. This is really something important to fix, more so than a couple of recon units. It’s not only the SdKfz.233 but the rest doesn’t look that correct either. For example, the armament of the Sd 222 is basically the same like the 231 and 232.
It's maybe better to wait for official fixes if complicated stat fixes are needed, but you have to report them first: it's no bug if no one reports it!

[terminator]

- and ... I'm keeping my train-arty ("Schienengeschütz") no matter what
     [generic, new unit, id=4999]

Have you added this unit to your mod ? I don't find it in your file units.csv ?

I have added this unit to my mod :

railgun.png (311.26 KiB) Viewed 4305 times

All the units from Battle of Britain could be added.

[SirAllan]

Hi Guys
Where do I find your mods mentioned here, so I can download and try them out

[GabeKnight]

Have you added this unit to your mod ? I don't find it in your file units.csv ?

Yes, but as of now, the units.csv is not a mod, but just a few unit fixes (not changes) for those lazy fellows out there. Like the SU variants having different land command points values or the Hungarian AA/AT mix-up. The exception's the Me410 fighters stat changes in there.

I'm still tinkering on some things inside the mod not working right, like this error with my added "Attack Carrier" class I found and corrected just now:

- created new class of attack carriers [ACARRIER] with the id=51 (I hope this ID isn't linked to something important other than some description maybe... ) as a clone of the existing carrier class entry[...]

Well, this ain't working right like this. As a small warning , if creating new unit's classes inside the "classes.txt" file, make sure this ID to be CONSECUTIVE otherwise it'll break the "target" definition in the AI-trigger-setting resulting in an immediate program crash (in the scenario editor only)! Has to be id=21 in this case (v5.2.9), then everything works okay:
EDIT: id=21 is correct, overlooked the tenders... ...that's why testing's important

Editor_acarrier.jpg (251.1 KiB) Viewed 4283 times

[Horst]

A little problem is now with the Ise's new class that it possibly won't be targeted by AI bombers anymore that are rather set to carriers in vanilla scenarios. I still think adding the unique unit Ise(P) as supported carrier to each Jap carrier-plane should generally work better. Just my thoughts.

[GabeKnight]

A little problem is now with the Ise's new class that it possibly won't be targeted by AI bombers anymore that are rather set to carriers in vanilla scenarios. I still think adding the unique unit Ise(P) as supported carrier to each Jap carrier-plane should generally work better. Just my thoughts.

Now that's a good point. Damn.

At least it won't completely screw up official scenarios, either. And if no AI-target's specified, the AI attacks everything anyways...or I'll end up with an "untouchable" Ise

Why all this headache over one unit? It's all Erik's fault! If there hadn't been an Ise in my core playtesting the USNavy, I'd wouldn't even care about this one...
Well, it was just a test to see if it's possible, after all. And it is. It works with scenarios created and played out of my mod.

...but in the end you're right....I'm changing it .....or....... think up some whole different solution......

[Horst]

Better play safe with full compatibility. That’s what people expect should they play with your fixes or mod, no matter what you personally like or not. A new class isn’t really worth it that the AI will play even worse than it already does. I haven’t studied how or if at all the AI handles different classes in the code. Who knows what funny things happen with new classes?

Something else: does it make sense to create more sniper variants for each year (currently only Japanese and US Marine Scouts)?
They have only 3 inf-att. This gives a 1:0 first-strike prognosis against infantry ‘37 units with inf-def 9. All infantry-class units with year-variants get an increase in attack and defense that the poor snipers won’t do damage anymore and get easily pawned in late-war. 45er inf-att 16 vs. sniper inf-def 2 = ouch!
I see the point that towed guns and structures could easily get smashed by snipers later, so increasing their attack could be only one point per two years, but their defense should really be improved over the years, similar like the commando units. What snipers rather do is reducing the efficiency by killing officers and not wiping out battalions, but a little damage could never hurt over the years.

If you follow the same progression like commando units, snipers could look like this:
Theoretical commando 37: inf-att 4-6, inf-def 3, veh-def 14
Sniper 37: inf-att 3, inf-def 2, veh-def 13
Sniper 39: inf-att 3, inf-def 3, veh-def 13
Sniper 40: inf-att 4, inf-def 4, veh-def 14
Brit Cmd 40: inf-att 6-8, inf-def 5, veh-def 15
Sniper 41: inf-att 4, inf-def 5, veh-def 14
Sniper 42: inf-att 5, inf-def 6, veh-def 15
Sniper 43: inf-att 5, inf-def 7, veh-def 15
Sniper 44: inf-att 6, inf-def 8, veh-def 16
Sniper 45: inf-att 6, inf-def 9, veh-def 16
Brit Cmd 45: inf-att 11-13, inf-def 10, veh-def 17
This way, snipers have a similar good defense against vehicles like commandos as camouflaged units.
I guess adding more bunkers and mg-nests with inf-att/def increase over the years possibly would also make sense to counter the infantry improvements.

[Erik2]

I would prefer snipers, cavalry and similar types to have but one type covering the whole war.
It would add a lot of 'fluff' to the editor and make selection more difficult. Not much gain by having yearly editions of these units in my opinion.

[terminator]

I guess adding more bunkers and mg-nests with inf-att/def increase over the years possibly would also make sense to counter the infantry improvements.

I have the same idea. I think that my scenario Omaha Beach could be better with stronger "Bunker '44". Bunkers do not resist longer against late units.

[Horst]

It is indeed getting full in the editor with all the many units and variants, but you can click on the cross/check if you want to hide unavailable units.
Somehow, I like the two infantry variants of 39 and 43 in PzC as it keeps a better overview without all the many different availability dates throughout the year for all infantry types.
I’ve slightly followed this PzC example and created infantry stats rather based on their armament instead of a strict, implausible progression per year. The only progression I kept is the veh-att as there are often upgrades with no improvements which doesn’t look that great either.
As example with the Japanese infantry units:
Year: inf-att/veh-att/inf-def/veh-def
37: 6-8/2-6/6/4 (Type 38 Rifle, Type 11 LMG, Type 89 GD)
39: 6-8/3-8/6/5
40: 6-8/3-9/6/5
41: 6-8/3-10/6/6
42: 6-10/4-13/13/6/6 (Type 100/40 SMG, Type 11 LMG, Type 2 30mm RifleGr introduction)
43: 7-10/4-14/7/6 (Type 99 Rifle and Type 99 LMG introduction)
44: 7-10/4-15/7/6
45: 7-10/4-18/7/6 (Type 4 AT rocket-launcher introduction)
As you can see, the inf-att values are hardly changed while infantry is getting much better against vehicles over the years.
The stats are calculated based on power and performance/penetration with effective range or a simple bonus like with SMGs, thus you don’t have that chess-like balance of vanilla anymore.

As example the US infantry 45 with Garand, Grease Gun, BAR, M2 60 mm Mortar, M9A1 HEAT RG, and Bazooka M9
45: 8-10/7-19/8/9
The Garand here is the decisive factor that gives US infantry the edge on open terrain and therefore increases their general infantry defense. I think this is enough to simulate the higher RoF of the Garand well.
A single point difference to Jap infantry is still not that huge, but you still have that little historical simulated difference. There is much more difference between mechanised units of factions, who cares about the infantry then?
The Bazooka M9 here has also a much better effective range than the Type 4 AT semi-prototype launcher thus the better long-range/defense values. I left the recoiless rifles out as these were too advanced/uncommon for me.

In the end, structures like bunkers, still better keep their effectiveness throughout the war if the infantry stats only slightly change. And let’s not forget the survivability of towed guns! Setting the availability dates of all infantry tapes to 1/1/year isn't that critical either this way. Upgrading infantry types isn't always as must if only veh-att values are slightly improved, so you can spend your precious RP for mech units at first - it all depends on each faction when important gear/upgrades become available.
Yearly variants of snipers aren’t really needed either in my mod, but their survivability in vanilla is still catastrophic.

[terminator]

I don't understand the Supply (Column U) for the Land recon units :
- Humber MKII = 1
- SdKfz 222, 231, 232, 233 = 2
- BA-10, BA-20, Panhard 178 =3
- L 3-33 , L 3-35 = 4
Why these units have - they different values of Supply ?
Shouldn't they all have the same value, for example 2 ?
The average is 2.27 for the Land Recon Units.
All the UnitsRecon.csv :

Units(Recon).zip

(2.71 KiB) Downloaded 123 times

[Horst]

I would definitely not give more than 2 supply/command points to recon units, as 3 offers better combat units.
I give weak recon vehicles with single MG like the Willys, Dingo, BA-20, and 221 only 1 point, while others with additional 15+mm gun get 2.
It’s possible that the Italian L3 tankettes are all changed to tank later like the Japanese and Chinese ones, but let’s see. l3_33_Greece is also still a recon unit with only steps-1. You could report it as bug if you like, as I remember they changed the Jap/Chinese ones too in the past.

[terminator]

I would definitely not give more than 2 supply/command points to recon units, as 3 offers better combat units.

I agree.

I give weak recon vehicles with single MG like the Willys, Dingo, BA-20, and 221 only 1 point, while others with additional 15+mm gun get 2.
It’s possible that the Italian L3 tankettes are all changed to tank later like the Japanese and Chinese ones, but let’s see. l3_33_Greece is also still a recon unit with only steps-1. You could report it as bug if you like, as I remember they changed the Jap/Chinese ones too in the past.

If I understood correctly :
- SdKfz 222, 231, 232, 233 = 2
- SdKfz 221 = 1
- BA-20 = 1
- BA-10 = 2
- Panhard 178 = 1 (?)
- Humber MKII = 2 (?)
- L3-33, L 3-35 = 4 -> Tank

[Horst]

Class change, Trait additions
l3_33_china -> lightTreaded
l3_35_china -> lightTreaded
l3_33 -> tank-class, lightTreaded
l3_35 -> tank-class, lightTreaded
l3_33_Greece -> tank-class, lightTreaded, noPurchase, slowRepair (as it is captured)
L3_35_Hungary -> tank-class, lightTreaded

Supply
type92_osaka 2
type91_sumida 2
type91_sumida_rail 2
braat_overvalwagen_ac_japan 2

willys_m1917 1
willys_37mm 2
willys_50cal 1
m20_scoutcar 2 -> 1
m8_greyhound 2

Dingo 1
Humber_MkII 1 -> 2

zundapp_motorcycle 1
sdkfz_221 2 -> 1
sdkfz_222 2
SdKfz_231_6Rad 2
SdKfz_232_8Rad 2
SdKfz_233 2
Panhard_178_Germany 3 -> 2
BA-10_Germany 3 -> 2

ba-10_china 3 -> 2
ba-20_china 3 -> 1
sdkfz_221_china 2 -> 1
sdkfz_222_china 2

Panhard_178 3 -> 2

ba-10 3 -> 2
ba-20 3 -> 1

Lanchester_6x4 2