Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[Intenso82]

Nevertheless, the Germans were able to extract about 4.7 million barrels from the Soviet Union, a quantity that they would have received anyway under the provisions of the friendship treaty of 1939.

If I correctly counted the barrels, then 4.7 million barrels is about 0.7 mt of oil.
Somewhere I read that in Western Ukraine there was a small oilfield, maybe Germany seized it without much damage and restored it.

It surely affects AI thinking time, but I am also (almost) sure that it could be increased.
Still, I would not complain as when I started making this mod, I could not believe that in the end it will be able to do so much without crashing the game. So the PzC game engine is extremely flexible.

Yes, the simple mechanics of PZC + deep detailing made it possible to create such unique content.
It is interesting that games of a global level of such content and such detailing can not be found anywhere else.
None of the global strategy known to me on the WW2 offers such mix.
Developers can't spend hundreds of hours researching and making a large number of unique units in just one or more instances.
Even HOI4 is very weak in this.

Although the game engine is not designed for global strategies, quite a lot has been done.
What would have happened if there was a special engine?

Сould add a few dozen new traits.
And add a few new parameters for the units.
Because if add many modifications of vehicles it will be difficult to make different stats.
And also completely redesign the system switching modes of the unit.

But of course can still improve hundreds of different parameters.
Especially for the opposite side.
Since usually the creators focus on the player's side and for the other side there is an imbalance.
But the multiplayer version can help with this

[Uhu]

What would have happened if there was a special engine?

I would be so glad to be a co-gamedesigner of such a game!
I would also build a much complex supply and reinforcement system (which would be not more complex for the player to manage, but for the engine - for example: calculating a supply chain beyond Poti harbor, which was captured by see - therefore sea supply - but limited, if hostile sea forces are still in the vicinity - plus calculating geography, plus distance from the Poti harbor, etc.).
The question is, who would make the engine, AI programming?

[Uhu]

Yes, someone else already suggested this, but unfortunately it is not possible to do it like that due to the afformentioned game engine limitations.

Plus it would require an extreme amount of time/work to do! Because every affiliated unit had to copied with the edited max fuel level in the eqp and efx file. Than every unit had to be inserted to the script - twice, one time at changing for the lower-fuel level unit and another time back to full l fuel level unit. You can make calculations, how much unit is affected...
On the other hand, what McGuba writes, that at the upgrade procedure, we cannot see the situation, what fuel state is (oil crisis on/off), that means, even for plains cannot be this done. On the other hand, for planes, it is not an option to have the -4 fuel/turn, because the system could not calculate this, how far a given plane can fly, so eventually many plane would perish because they could not fly home for refuel...

The share of Baku oil was about 2/3 of all oil produced.[...]

Therefore was my suggestion, making a rough calculation, that if the Axis captured Both Grozny and Baku fields, but they were mostly destroyed, but already 10% of it would be enough the close the oil crisis. So, 10% could be repaired and the transport could be also built in one year (also partly the south region would use that oil, so no need to transport everything to west) and therefore the oil crisis would end in one year.
On the other hand, I would suggest, that the oil crisis should start to end, if the player captures 3 fields (+ Romanian). That would mean, that capturing Middle East oil fields would also solve the problem. Sure, that is only a rough calculation, but I would calculate in this, that Britain is than so much weakened, that maybe they would sue for peace, etc.

But for the Allied player it is still better to capture at least one German objective city with the "+" as soon as possible as in that case the Germans cannot get more free replacement units for the time being.

Is it true, that if major German cities are captured, than the player do not get the bonus prestige amounts from Speer?

[Uhu]

A question: did somebody try in the operation to capture Moscow in 1941to avoid/bypass the fortified Smolensk-Mozhaysk road and advance ONLY from Kaluga as main and from Rzhev as secondary thrust? Was it easier as "eating through" the mentioned path?

[Uhu]

OK, I made a test about how quickly can the Baku- (and Grozny-) oil field be captured. It can be taken in turn 25. That's the best time result, what can be made IMHO. I also got luck, because the Soviet submarine at Poti could be eliminated quickly, as every attack against it was successful (no crash-diving).
The interesting detail is, that the player even do not need to organize strong forces for it! I used:
- 3x Gebirgsjäger, 1x Alpini, 1x Romanian Mnt, 1x Romanian Inf, 2x German inf, 1x Fallschirmjäger (dropped in turn 11 with the last good weather east of Poti), 1x Brandenburgers (dropped in the spring of 1942). (I also brought 2x veteran PzGrenadiers for later use in the Middle East)
- 1x Italian Mnt Arty, 1x Romanian 75mm Arty, 1x German 105mm tracked Arty
- 2x hero-PzIVF1's (probably PzIII's would also do the trick, but I calculated already with that, that the armor goes later further south for the Middle East oil fields)
- Plus I needed initial air help to clear the sea region at Poti and destroy the Battleship and later also a few assistance to soften Grozny and clear the armor west of Baku
Important is, that every turn, some unit has to go to sea transport from Constanza and Varna.
So, I think, even the early Moscow capture is possible - I could almost do it, while I did not plan this, and therefore there was not enough force to do this right. On the other hand, it is not useful to build a siege ring around Leningrad, because there will be not enough heavy force to maintain it and therefore high losses will be sustained and even the siege ring can be broken. Also invading Britain has to be pushed to the winter of 42/43.

The only question remains, what surprises will McGuba made for us beyond v1.9?

[Maths]

Hi, McGuba
I'm playing the Barbarossa scenario. As are stating Panzer Corps's rules, air operations are forbidden on a snowy weather. This works well in the case of small scale scenarios (basic scenarios in the base game which reprensent relatively small scenario). However in the Battlefield Europe mod, the scale is litteraly huge but a snowy weather still forbidding air ops. As a result, from late Novemeber to late Febuary (winter period in the mod), there are absolutely nothing in the air. That lead to allow the Allied bombers to stay over a Victory City in Germany and bomb indefinetely till the winter's end. That lead too to allow uncontestable air drops by the Soviets behind the lines...
In a nutshell is it possible to let air ops to take place during snowy weather with big penalties implement ?

[P210]

McGuba,

I do understand the -4 per turn thing. I'm just still suffering from PTSD from the first time it hit during *44/*45 winter.
On second try I was wiser and acted accordingly.
I also had ignorant presumption that a script can be used for capping max fuel on all units in certain category..

So, when we will have the opportunity to try the new naval warfare concept?

[McGuba]

Is it true, that if major German cities are captured, than the player do not get the bonus prestige amounts from Speer?

It only affects the last 100 prestige, which the player only gets if he is on the losing path after turn 77 (no Sea Lion and USSR has not been knocked out).

The only question remains, what surprises will McGuba made for us beyond v1.9?

There will be several changes, the one that affects the Black Sea operations will be that the Soviet fleet will be stronger as the OOBs will better reflect the historical ratios of 1941:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea ... 2%80%9344)

The Soviets will have motor torpedo boats, and also a few other small ships and the Romanians will only have two destroyer units in 1941 (one destroyer unit in the mod represents 8 actual destroyers/other escort ships). But the Romanians will get some more German and Italian reinforcements later in 42/43. With these and the weakening of the SU fleet it might still be possible to cross the Black Sea, but I think it will be harder. And there will be (magnetic) bottom mines and shallow and deep sea hexes. Overall, naval warfare will be more varied, especially in multiplayer.

Also, I think there will be more, but less valuable oil field hexes so Baku will be more valuable (with four oil fields), but better defended then before. And oil fields will not give prestige immediately as first they will need to get repaired after being destroyed by the retreating enemy. So again, it will be a compromise.

In a nutshell is it possible to let air ops to take place during snowy weather with big penalties implement ?

Historically in WW2 there were no air operations in bad weather. Aircraft were mostly grounded in snowing or fog or heavy rain. Even overcast cloud cover heavily limited the effectiveness of bombing. They did have a radio electric equipment to find their targets through a cloud cover or at night (Oboe) but it had limited range and was later subject to jamming. They did have, however, ground scanning radar for longer range missions. Anyway, I think it is good that there are no air ops in bad weaher in the game.

[Maths]

Hi,

Anyway, I think it is good that there are no air ops in bad weaher in the game.

Yeah, since the air ops (and units as well) represented in the mod are large scale, after reflection I agree with what you said. If air ops (and units) simulated were smaller it would have been good to allow air ops in bad weather (isolated flights) so OK

Actually during the first winter of the game I was frustrated from being unautorized to send anything in the air but with the winter'42 I figured out that it is better as it is now.

[McGuba]

Hi all,

There is a thing in my mind now (what I believe I can do technically): to possibly restrict the upgrade and purchase of ground units only to the victory objective cities in Germany and to a few other selected cities. Now I am thinking of Rome, Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria. Budapest and Bucharest would be candidates as well, but these are too close to the Eastern front (closer than the German cities) so most likely players would end up using these to upgrade German units as well which would not make much sense. But then it would also mean that Romanian and Hungarian (and possibly Finnish) units could only be upgraded in Germany. However, that would not be a big problem as these nations' meaningful upgrades are mostly German tanks anyway, and historically their tank crews were usually trained in Germany when they received German equipment.

So the main thing is that the Axis player would need to move its units back for upgrades and would not be able to purchase brand new ground units in far away or isolated occupied territories like England or the Middle East or a cut-off Caucasus even if there are empty core slots. I guess in most cases it would take like 5-6 turns to upgrade a unit instead of the actual 2-3 turns. Then players would need to consider even more if it is worth taking a unit off the frontline for a while or continue using it despite being increasingly obsolete thereby adding another nice layer of strategic thinking. Also, it would make the defense of Sicily harder as it would not be possible to spawn new units there when the Allies start to invade it. And of course new units could not be purchased right at the frontline wherever they needed. Instead, they could only be purchased in Germany (and in those few selected cities) and then transfered to the frontline by train.

It would be much more realistic than as it is, but it would also make the mod harder, especially for those not too skilled players who does not realize the importance of timely unit upgrades. Some players just do not seem to upgrade ground units even now, when it is possible anywhere. If it was restricted mostly to Germany these players would have no chance for winning at all as most likely they would not bother moving their units back from the frontline. So maybe it could only be like this in the "realistic" version of the mod and the lower difficulty versions could stay the same.

Another side effect would be that it would make the railway lines more busy as the Axis player would need to move units by train more often and not only for unit transfers, but also for upgrades. Which would further increase the importance of the defense of railroads from partisans.

I would be interested to know the opinion of the players of this mod on this idea.

Regards,
McGuba

[guille1434]

I just want to say that it is an excellent idea! (I always read anything new here in this sub-forum, but I seldom comment when I have not something positive to add). Specially if you make it an "optional" feature! I congratulate you for your outstanding work on this mod and the "stretching" you achieved with this game engine. As a "just average" player, never dared to try your mod, because I think I will be quickly toasted by the AI in such a game... But, having read all of it here, I am sure it would be a nice experience!!!

Besides, may be this idea can be "imported" to another scenarios or campaigns, adding an interesting strategic layer to the game mechanics (as you have said) and giving capital importance to some places to defend from enemy action (cities, ports) if you want to keep the ability and logistics support to be able to upgrade unit in your army.

Keep it up, man!

[Uhu]

Great idea! I thought already this, but did not know, it can be implemented in the game!
How about to implement my oil crisis version too in the harder version(s)?

Hi all,

There is a thing in my mind now (what I believe I can do technically): to possibly restrict the upgrade and purchase of ground units only to the victory objective cities in Germany and to a few other selected cities. Now I am thinking of Rome, Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria. Budapest and Bucharest would be candidates as well, but these are too close to the Eastern front (closer than the German cities) so most likely players would end up using these to upgrade German units as well which would not make much sense. But then it would also mean that Romanian and Hungarian (and possibly Finnish) units could only be upgraded in Germany. However, that would not be a big problem as these nations' meaningful upgrades are mostly German tanks anyway, and historically their tank crews were usually trained in Germany when they received German equipment.

So the main thing is that the Axis player would need to move its units back for upgrades and would not be able to purchase brand new ground units in far away or isolated occupied territories like England or the Middle East or a cut-off Caucasus even if there are empty core slots. I guess in most cases it would take like 5-6 turns to upgrade a unit instead of the actual 2-3 turns. Then players would need to consider even more if it is worth taking a unit off the frontline for a while or continue using it despite being increasingly obsolete thereby adding another nice layer of strategic thinking. Also, it would make the defense of Sicily harder as it would not be possible to spawn new units there when the Allies start to invade it. And of course new units could not be purchased right at the frontline wherever they needed. Instead, they could only be purchased in Germany (and in those few selected cities) and then transfered to the frontline by train.

It would be much more realistic than as it is, but it would also make the mod harder, especially for those not too skilled players who does not realize the importance of timely unit upgrades. Some players just do not seem to upgrade ground units even now, when it is possible anywhere. If it was restricted mostly to Germany these players would have no chance for winning at all as most likely they would not bother moving their units back from the frontline. So maybe it could only be like this in the "realistic" version of the mod and the lower difficulty versions could stay the same.

Another side effect would be that it would make the railway lines more busy as the Axis player would need to move units by train more often and not only for unit transfers, but also for upgrades. Which would further increase the importance of the defense of railroads from partisans.

I would be interested to know the opinion of the players of this mod on this idea.

Regards,
McGuba

[DandyDust]

Hi there all,
I´ve been looking for the DOWNLOAD-LINK!???
Please be so nice and give me a hind!
Dandy

[PeteMitchell]

Hi Dandy, in the very first post of this thread...

Hi there all,
I´ve been looking for the DOWNLOAD-LINK!???
Please be so nice and give me a hind!
Dandy

[jeff00t]

McGuba , your idea is great but as an option

and as optional , could you make your fantastic mod playable with no limit of turns? just the war, no rush stress... i just would like to know how many turns( or years) i can stand...

[McGuba]

As a "just average" player, never dared to try your mod, because I think I will be quickly toasted by the AI in such a game... But, having read all of it here, I am sure it would be a nice experience!!!

This is exactly why I made two easier versions for v1.9: a "medium" and an "easy" version in which 1/3rd and 2/3rds of the Allied unit reinforcements are removed. The "easy" is really there for players who are seeking a more frustration free experience or just want test how different game mechanics work in this mod. It can be still challenging though, as the game rules and the historical events are the same, but the force ratio is much less favourable to the Allied side. I think most players should be able to handle it.

Great idea! I thought already this, but did not know, it can be implemented in the game!

I ran a quick test and it looks like it is possible. First I tried to add two new terrain types for that, but then strange things started to happen and I just did not want to spend too much time with bug fixing and figuring out what the problem was. So in the end I will just modify two less used terrain types (jungle and rouogh desert) for this purpose (city and port with no ground unit supply) and will see how it works.

How about to implement my oil crisis version too in the harder version(s)?

Probably I will add a "softcore" version for now: two times more (8) Allied oil fields with half of them at Baku, but of course Baku better defended and harder to cross the Black Sea, 6 months for repairing the oil fields before the player would get any prestige for them (however capturing two or more oil fields will immediately reduce new Allied reinforcements), and unless at least two oil fields are taken and repaired German air units slowly start to lose experience due to less fuel available for flight training from 1943 (1 exp point per turn) then moderately in 1944 (3 exp points per turn) and finally significantly in 1945 (5 per turn). I have not decided about the Axis cruisers yet. The Italian cruisers and destroyers were fairly active in 42-43, escorting Axis convoys to North Africa and intercepting Allied convoys heading to Malta while suffering heavy losses in the process so I am not sure if their fuel should be limited in the same way as it is with the battleships now. There will be many other changes and I do not want to go crazy about changes to avoid ruining the fragile balance of the mod. Maybe I already ventured too far that's why I think it will be more like an experimental version. I think in the lower difficulty versions the waiting time for the repair of the oil fields could be shortened or omitted.

McGuba , your idea is great but as an option

Yes, I think I will only add it to the "realistic" version of the scenario, if at all.

and as optional , could you make your fantastic mod playable with no limit of turns? just the war, no rush stress... i just would like to know how many turns( or years) i can stand...

It is not possible to make scenarios with unlimited turns. But it is possible to make one with high enough turn number. But bear in mind that in this mod the Allies would not get more reinforcements after turn 95 or so. And there might be other unwanted side-effects for example the Axis not getting more prestige after turn 99 and stuff like that. So I am not sure that it would work at all. But it is possible to try it and you can do it for yourself quite easily. All you need to do is to install the mod correctly and then run the editor and load the kursk.pzdat file which should be in your \Panzer Corps\Data\ folder. This is the '"realistic" version of the main scenario. The "medium" and "easy" versions are the kursk2.pzdat and kursk3.pzdat, respectively. Then you should go to Edit - Scenario Params and then add the high enough number of turns for example 999 instead of the original 99 and then ok and save. Then if you start the campaign it should show the new max number.

Even though in the game it will only show the last two digits of the actual turn and max turns due to a limitation of the UI. If all else fails you can try to download and use this modified version of BE v1.9 with 999 max turns:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dak8wv5u3yhuc ... s.zip?dl=0

but again, several things would not work right with it after turn 99.

[P210]

Hello McGuba,

I definitely support the idea of restricting unit purchases to few selected cities.

But the upgrade restriction is more tricky. Can imagine some cases when it could be little bit too harsh requirement.
For example going for early to late PzKw IV G is important, but does not really require a trip to Germany. Up armored late models just gradually replaced early models lost in battle. I also believe that shurtzen were often installed in field (late PzKw III models).

Then again going from PzKw III to Panther would be a perfect case that requires retraining in Germany. Same applies when upgrading from towed AT to SP AT.

Also minor Axis infantry upgrade to '44 standard might be a mess (would guess that this is rare, but at least I have done it to some units).
Hungary and Romania had their own plane manufacturing capability, therefore it would be strange to ship air units to Germany for upgrade.
Minor Axis tank upgrades to German tanks in Germany would be totally understandable.

Just my 2 cents..

[McGuba]

I definitely support the idea of restricting unit purchases to few selected cities.

But the upgrade restriction is more tricky. Can imagine some cases when it could be little bit too harsh requirement.
For example going for early to late PzKw IV G is important, but does not really require a trip to Germany. Up armored late models just gradually replaced early models lost in battle. I also believe that shurtzen were often installed in field (late PzKw III models).

Unfortunately ground unit purchases and upgrades are inseparable in the game from a modding perspective. These two come in a "package" with the gndsup trait in the terrain.pzdat file. So its either both or none of them. Therefore it has to be a compromise. The question is, if its worth it. That's why I made this public inquiry to get a better understanding of the different opinions. And that's why I think it might only be optional. But then there will be maybe too many variations of the same scenario which will make it more confusing.

I understand that this upgrade restriction might not always be ideal. On the other hand, as it has been suggested by some players, to some extent it could be compensated by the addition of a few more units in the beginning as during the war some units would always be in transit for the upgrades. So like 1-2 tanks, 2-3 AT guns maybe 2-3 AA as extra in the beginning. I think infantry not so much as there is quite a lot of them and infantry upgrades are fairly rare. And there might be a few additional infantry units added in 1943 to illustrate the fact that the Wehrmacht reached its peak strength around that time.

From a role playing perspective, the curious case of the Pz.IVG early to late version upgrade can be explained as a yearly rest and recreation trip to home. Historically German units were often rotated, they hardly ever spent years continuosly in the frontline. Time after time they were sent to a less dangerous place like France or Italy or Norway, while they were quiet. Or just back to Germany to replace losses, reorganize the unit and train the new recruits.

Then again going from PzKw III to Panther would be a perfect case that requires retraining in Germany. Same applies when upgrading from towed AT to SP AT.

Again, it cannot be separated like that in the game. Upgrade is an ugprade wheter it is a "small" or a significant one.

Also minor Axis infantry upgrade to '44 standard might be a mess (would guess that this is rare, but at least I have done it to some units).

I do not really see why it would be. It is easy to imagine that these units require a retraining in Germany for the new infantry tactics and the use of the hand held anti-tank weapons, as it indeed happened sometimes.

Hungary and Romania had their own plane manufacturing capability, therefore it would be strange to ship air units to Germany for upgrade.

This change would not affect air units. These could still be upgraded or purchased at any airfield.

[P210]

Hello McGuba,

Unfortunately ground unit purchases and upgrades are inseparable in the game from a modding perspective. These two come in a "package" with the gndsup trait in the terrain.pzdat file. So its either both or none of them. Therefore it has to be a compromise. The question is, if its worth it. That's why I made this public inquiry to get a better understanding of the different opinions. And that's why I think it might only be optional. But then there will be maybe too many variations of the same scenario which will make it more confusing.

I understand that this upgrade restriction might not always be ideal. On the other hand, as it has been suggested by some players, to some extent it could be compensated by the addition of a few more units in the beginning as during the war some units would always be in transit for the upgrades. So like 1-2 tanks, 2-3 AT guns maybe 2-3 AA as extra in the beginning. I think infantry not so much as there is quite a lot of them and infantry upgrades are fairly rare. And there might be a few additional infantry units added in 1943 to illustrate the fact that the Wehrmacht reached its peak strength around that time.

From a role playing perspective, the curious case of the Pz.IVG early to late version upgrade can be explained as a yearly rest and recreation trip to home. Historically German units were often rotated, they hardly ever spent years continuosly in the frontline. Time after time they were sent to a less dangerous place like France or Italy or Norway, while they were quiet. Or just back to Germany to replace losses, reorganize the unit and train the new recruits.

Excellent point (underlined)! It absolutely makes sense on huge strategic 4 year campaign. Panzer Corps does not model supply issues that well and this change would bring more realism into the game. As you mentioned, some more tank, AT and AA might help to retain the excellent game balance by more easily allowing unit rotation.

If Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria will be upgrade cities in NA (Tank upgrades are vital and shipping tanks back and forth between NA and Europe would break the desert war balance. At least for me.) then I vote YES

[Uhu]

While I see the point, while Tobruk and Alexandria should be an upgrade port, I think, with that logic, London port should be also such a point.

If Tripoli, Tobruk and Alexandria will be upgrade cities in NA (Tank upgrades are vital and shipping tanks back and forth between NA and Europe would break the desert war balance. At least for me.) then I vote YES