Locarnus Addon 2025-10a, for Battlefield Europe, Afrika Korps and Grand Campaign East

[Locarnus]

The rechecking of non-frontline units is a very interesting proposition!

From starting in Norway, to France/BeNeLux and the ones hanging back behind the Barbarossa frontlines, let me expand it to Greece/Balkans.

I made an accounting of the German non-frontline, non-flak units (should be pretty much the same with and without Addon).
First number is the amount which is there at the start of the big scenario,
second negative number is the approx amount that are shipped to the frontlines asap (most to the eastern front).

Standard German infantry:
1-1 Posen
1-1 Breslau

1-1 Belgrade
3-1 Greece

2-1 Norway

1-1 Denmark
3-3 BeNeLux
5-3 France
--------------------------------
17-12 total standard Inf
edit: Some of them are exchanged for eg Romanian reserves or Italian inf (especially concerning Balkan/Greece and Norway).


Adding to that the other non-inf/flak units:
Ruhr and Berlin
2-2 Pak

Wien
1-1 Gebirgsjäger

Crete
1-1 Gebirgs- and
1-1 Fallschirmjäger

Nantes
1-1 Kradschützen

Paris
1-1 mot Grenadiere,
1-1 Pak
1-1 Arty
2 captured French tanks
----------------------------------
11-9 non-inf/flak units


So, practically about 21 existing units reinforce the frontlines as soon as they can catch up.
Might be ~15 units for players with fewer BE starts (or who are more cautious about partisans), but that is still a lot of units.
Those can make the difference between current gameplay (where players tend to push on the whole front in spring 1942)
and history (where the Axis was only able to push at the southern section of the fronline while just holding the Center and North).

Another aspect about the translation from historical divisions to in-game units:
There needs to be some accounting for the in-game "externalized" units (eg Pak, Arty), which historically are usually part of ordinary divisions.
So eg on average 10 historical eastern front divisions might be represented by 3 inf units, 1 pak unit, 1 arty unit and 1 additional unit (eg pak or flak or something else).
While in smaller deployment zones like Greece or BeNeLux, there are too few units to have "externalization" of pak and arty.
Therefore 10 divisions in these areas have to be represented by 6 infantry units and no additional units.
Or 5 infantry units, accounting for the lower strength of such non-frontline units.

edit: The numbers in the last paragraph are just a quick example for the principle, not based on actual represenation on the map.

(Quoting my earlier post because it is on the previous page of the thread).

@McGuba
I agree with thinning out some of the units that are "static" or passive.
In order to prevent them from unrealistically reinforcing the frontlines during 1941.

My first draft, taking the addon circumstances into account. Eg
- much tighter prestige situation at the start of the big scenario
- but ability to purchase units from turn 2 onwards
- "Landwehr" German security units (not only representing actual security divisions, but also general anti-partisan duty with limited equipment and training
- "Jäger" German light infantry units (with movement type and stats between normal and alpine infantry)

Existing standard German infantry:
2-2 Posen/Breslau
=> both normal infantry units replaced by security units

4-2 Balkan/Greece
=> Patras: Changed to Italian flag and German inf exchanged for weaker Italian inf
=> Athens and Belgrade: Both normal inf changed to "Jäger" light inf
=> Thessaloniki: German inf remains, or is exchanged for security unit

2-1 Norway
=> Narvik: German inf remains as it is
=> Lillehammer: Normal inf is changed to mountain unit
=> Oslo: German security inf added

4-4 Denmark/BeNeLux
=> All 4 German inf units deleted from map

5-3 France
=> 3 German inf deleted from map
=> 1 inf turned to German security inf
=> 1 normal inf remains as it is (eg near channel)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 7 German inf removed,
most others exchanged for either more terrain/historically approximate units (Jäger, Gebirgsjäger) or security/italian inf
one additional security inf in Norway.


Non-inf/flak units:
Ruhr and Berlin
2-2 Pak
=> both deleted from map

Wien
1-1 Gebirgsjäger
=> deleted from map

Crete
1-1 Gebirgs- and
1-1 Fallschirmjäger
=> untouched (the Addon also has a paratrooper support unit on Crete, which I forgot in the previous list)

Nantes
1-1 Kradschützen
=> untouched

Paris
1-1 mot Grenadiere,
1-1 Pak
1-1 Arty
2 captured French tanks
=> untouched (perhaps the mot Grenadiere can be removed as well)
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 2 pak and 1 Gebirgsjäger removed,
but most of the more specialized units remain.


The changes in both groups together should result in about 10 fewer units that can easily be moved to the frontlines.
Remaining units are differentiated between more elite Jäger ones and weaker security units.
This also takes into account that many of the units around the Balkans/Greece were already light infantry in all but name (the name of most of them is later officially changed to "Jäger", eg for the 7xx-th divisions).

[McGuba]

There needs to be some accounting for the in-game "externalized" units (eg Pak, Arty), which historically are usually part of ordinary divisions.

It is there already. I write about that in detail the in-game library in the Changes section. In a nutshell, each full strength towed artillery, AA and AT unit represents about 1,000 actual guns. The artillery units currently in the mod in turn 1 represent the historical numbers available based on this scale. For example there were some 3,800 10.5 cm howitzers lined up for Barbarossa in the east, with some 400 in reserve, and thus there are 4 such units in map at the start. Then there were another 1,700 such guns elsewhere, with the troops in France, Balkans, Norway, North Africa and with the Replacement Army in Germany or in reserve. A thousand of these are represented by the single 10.5 cm artillery unit in France and the rest is being used to replace combat damage of the existing units. (The only exception is North Africa where it is downscaled. Due to the limited supplies an artillery unit there represents only about 250 or so actual guns.)

So, practically about 21 existing units reinforce the frontlines as soon as they can catch up.
Might be ~15 units for players with fewer BE starts (or who are more cautious about partisans), but that is still a lot of units.
Those can make the difference between current gameplay (where players tend to push on the whole front in spring 1942)
and history (where the Axis was only able to push at the southern section of the fronline while just holding the Center and North).

Only if the Axis player is good enough. I have seen a number of single and multiplayer games in which the Axis got stuck at the historical frontline in 41-42 or even before that. But yes, probably it should be harder to achieve a better than historical result. However, in that case there would be even more players who would give up the mod at the first attempt out of frustration.

The Germans had a lot of units in the west in June 1941. Some 38-43 divisions. While many of these were static divisions with little or no field artillery and transports, there were quite a few regular infantry divisions as well, which were well equipped. Theoretically these could have been sent to the east in short notice. The partisan activity in France did not justify keeping such a large army there. It looks like many of these divisions guarded the coast against a possible British invasion that did not come (apart from the limited Dieppe attack). But when the losses started soaring in the east more and more of these were eventually sent to Russia. In the end only a few of the original static divisions stayed in France until D-day. In this regard the Axis player has the advantage that he knows that there would be no major Allied invasion in the west until June 44 and he can transfer most of these units elsewhere. If the Germans did the same, then who knows, it could have changed the outcome of the war as well. Therefore I am planning to reduce the number of these starting units a bit, and then make them appear on the map gradually in 41-43.

[Locarnus]

There needs to be some accounting for the in-game "externalized" units (eg Pak, Arty), which historically are usually part of ordinary divisions.

It is there already. I write about that in detail the in-game library in the Changes section. In a nutshell, each full strength towed artillery, AA and AT unit represents about 1,000 actual guns. The artillery units currently in the mod in turn 1 represent the historical numbers available based on this scale. For example there were some 3,800 10.5 cm howitzers lined up for Barbarossa in the east, with some 400 in reserve, and thus there are 4 such units in map at the start. Then there were another 1,700 such guns elsewhere, with the troops in France, Balkans, Norway, North Africa and with the Replacement Army in Germany or in reserve. A thousand of these are represented by the single 10.5 cm artillery unit in France and the rest is being used to replace combat damage of the existing units. (The only exception is North Africa where it is downscaled. Due to the limited supplies an artillery unit there represents only about 250 or so actual guns.)

So, practically about 21 existing units reinforce the frontlines as soon as they can catch up.
Might be ~15 units for players with fewer BE starts (or who are more cautious about partisans), but that is still a lot of units.
Those can make the difference between current gameplay (where players tend to push on the whole front in spring 1942)
and history (where the Axis was only able to push at the southern section of the fronline while just holding the Center and North).

Only if the Axis player is good enough. I have seen a number of single and multiplayer games in which the Axis got stuck at the historical frontline in 41-42 or even before that. But yes, probably it should be harder to achieve a better than historical result. However, in that case there would be even more players who would give up the mod at the first attempt out of frustration.

The Germans had a lot of units in the west in June 1941. Some 38-43 divisions. While many of these were static divisions with little or no field artillery and transports, there were quite a few regular infantry divisions as well, which were well equipped. Theoretically these could have been sent to the east in short notice. The partisan activity in France did not justify keeping such a large army there. It looks like many of these divisions guarded the coast against a possible British invasion that did not come (apart from the limited Dieppe attack). But when the losses started soaring in the east more and more of these were eventually sent to Russia. In the end only a few of the original static divisions stayed in France until D-day. In this regard the Axis player has the advantage that he knows that there would be no major Allied invasion in the west until June 44 and he can transfer most of these units elsewhere. If the Germans did the same, then who knows, it could have changed the outcome of the war as well. Therefore I am planning to reduce the number of these starting units a bit, and then make them appear on the map gradually in 41-43.

I guess it is a dilemma between a more historically accurate representation of the the odds on the eastern front in 1941 on one side, and a more historically accurate representation of what was available to the Axis in total.
The latter one is more represented by the on map units at this time. It is also easier to exploit for experienced players.
The former one would necessitate the removal of units which were deployed to non-frontline theaters. Thus reducing the players ability to strategically redeploy based on hindsight (allied invasion plans and partisan activity).

That is the basis for my draft in the last post. Which removes 6-8 German inf units and 2 pak units. Maybe that should be extended to the arty unit in Paris as well. They could then be gifted to the player at a later stage, as you wrote. Or that matter could be left to the player, who may decide on different spending priorities (based on Addon possibility to buy units from turn 2 onwards).

[McGuba]

- "Jäger" German light infantry units (with movement type and stats between normal and alpine infantry)

That's an interesting suggestion. But I guess these should have worse stats than regular infantry otherwise players would move them to the Caucasus or Tunisia instead of using them in the Balkans. Even then there is a good chance for that. But then the partisans they are facing would be too strong so it may be necessary to nerf some of the partisans that appear later in Yugoslavia.

2-1 Norway
=> Narvik: German inf remains as it is
=> Lillehammer: Normal inf is changed to mountain unit
=> Oslo: German security inf added

- I do not really see the point in placing a mountain infantry here. There is not much partisan activity here and thus using a mountain inf here is a waste of resources IMO. Most players would move it out anyway. Furthermore historically the mountain units in Norway and Finland were used in the Arctic area against Murmansk which is outside of the map. It looks like most of the divisions used here were regular ones.
- Historically there was no security infantry here in June 1941 so I am not so sure about that either. However, it looks like one or two of the regular infantry divsions were as such only in their names and in reality were weaker than reg inf.

4-4 Denmark/BeNeLux
=> All 4 German inf units deleted from map

5-3 France
=> 3 German inf deleted from map
=> 1 inf turned to German security inf
=> 1 normal inf remains as it is (eg near channel)

Yes, I am thinking about removing most, if not all of these from turn 1, but they would appear in later turns in small groups of two. Some of these units were regular infantry divisions which took part in the invasion of France and these could have been transfered to the east earlier if they wanted to. And in fact many of these divisions were indeed sent to the east in late 41 or early 42. Basically nearly all the regular ones. So I was thinking that they should appear a few turns after turn 1, understrenght and outside of the cities. Then they need a couple of turns to get back to full strength, moved to a city, embark a train and moved to the east, if that's what the player wants.

And then the infantry of the other, originally static inf divisions would appear as well in two small groups of two in turns 25 and 48, together with the other infantry reinforcements arriving at that time. Then the total number of infantry units given to the player would remain basically the same, they would only appear later. But this would slow down the Axis advance in 41-42 and therefore would make the scenario harder. Especially in multiplayer.

Non-inf/flak units:
Ruhr and Berlin
2-2 Pak
=> both deleted from map

Yes, I was thinking to remove these as well. There is not much point in moving these to the east anyway, it is better to keep them there and wait for the 5 cm upgrade. Or perhaps one should appear with the infantry units above. In reality there were some 2,300 Pak 36 guns with the occupational forces all over Europe. Since some of the occupation units in France would appear later they should bring their AT guns with them.

Wien
1-1 Gebirgsjäger
=> deleted from map

Probably yes. It looks like there is one too many German mountain inf unit at this scale in 1941. But it will be missed...

So yes, I am planning some very similar changes. But as a compensation there will be more extra units arriving later in 43-44 than before. Especially on the losing path.

[goose_2]

McGuba...I got to ask. Your brilliance to create engaging detailed mods for this game are truly a thing of beauty. I am amazed at the complexity and beauty of The Turan Campaign. It is a theater that in playing I have learned so much more about their contribution to the war effort. Your game has better educated me. Your BE Campaign is insanity on a whole 'nother level.

So my question is this:

What is the next mod you may be considering setting up?

If you are not considering doing a different mod, why not?

If I may make a suggestion. I would love to see a campaign/scenario that deals exclusively with the day to day fighting that took place in Stalingrad. TIK videos show what insanity went into the day to day planning and execution of that turning point battle.

Just wanted to drop a little bit of a bug in your ear, with hopes and prayers that it takes root and bears fruit.

Blessings on both of your endeavors.

You make this community a better place.

The Gooseman

[Locarnus]

- "Jäger" German light infantry units (with movement type and stats between normal and alpine infantry)

That's an interesting suggestion. But I guess these should have worse stats than regular infantry otherwise players would move them to the Caucasus or Tunisia instead of using them in the Balkans. Even then there is a good chance for that. But then the partisans they are facing would be too strong so it may be necessary to nerf some of the partisans that appear later in Yugoslavia.

Inf balancing at the moment in the Addon:
95 prestige Landwehr (below normal inf, catch all unit, including security) is somewhere between Romanian inf and Romanian reserves regarding stats, but closer to Romanian inf for prestige cost (will probably lower that price a bit).
127 prestige Normal Inf
166 prestige Jäger have +1 ini, -1GD, +1 CD compared to normal inf (and a new movement type between normal inf and alpine)
166 prestige Gebirgsjäger have -1GD compared to Jäger above (so -2 GD compared to normal inf), but alpine movement (which has been somewhat rebalanced as well and I'm still tuning movement types in general).

The idea was to make Jäger better for hills and forest (+ Close Defense and movement) and generally somewhat elite troops (prestige cost and initiative), but worse in open terrain (- Ground Defense) due to their lighter weapons.
Unfortunately game engine limitations make this not entirely feasible (eg when infantry defends against tanks in close terrain, the infantry ground defense stat is used).

Overall I'm not sure it works out, but I'm also not sure I would transfer all Jäger to the frontline. Their current stats make them great in the forested North of the eastern front and their movement makes them good in the desert. But they are also expensive in terms of casualties and the russian North is slow moving anyway with all that horse drawn artillery. The desert is open terrain, so there it is a trade-off as well. However they would be ideal against partisans, in the hilly Balkans/Greece area.
Not sure, will probably leave it for now and wait for some feedback/experience.

2-1 Norway
=> Narvik: German inf remains as it is
=> Lillehammer: Normal inf is changed to mountain unit
=> Oslo: German security inf added

- I do not really see the point in placing a mountain infantry here. There is not much partisan activity here and thus using a mountain inf here is a waste of resources IMO. Most players would move it out anyway. Furthermore historically the mountain units in Norway and Finland were used in the Arctic area against Murmansk which is outside of the map. It looks like most of the divisions used here were regular ones.
- Historically there was no security infantry here in June 1941 so I am not so sure about that either. However, it looks like one or two of the regular infantry divsions were as such only in their names and in reality were weaker than reg inf.

My thoughts were to "recreate the Norway units in the aggregate". So instead of placing 3 normal infantry units there, I went with 1 normal, 1 mountain (elite) and 1 security (representing below standard infantry).
This is somewhat influenced by goose_2, who is toying with the idea of not having Tirpitz in Narvik and thus provoking an allied invasion. Which would have drawn those Murmansk bound mountain infantry back to defend the iron ore shipping.
It would also somewhat make up for the deleted Gebirgsjäger near Wien. Players could still redeploy another Gebirgsjäger to the front, however as mentioned above, Gebirgsjäger in the Addon have drawbacks regarding Ground Defense due to their generally ligher weapons.

4-4 Denmark/BeNeLux
=> All 4 German inf units deleted from map

5-3 France
=> 3 German inf deleted from map
=> 1 inf turned to German security inf
=> 1 normal inf remains as it is (eg near channel)

Yes, I am thinking about removing most, if not all of these from turn 1, but they would appear in later turns in small groups of two. Some of these units were regular infantry divisions which took part in the invasion of France and these could have been transfered to the east earlier if they wanted to. And in fact many of these divisions were indeed sent to the east in late 41 or early 42. Basically nearly all the regular ones. So I was thinking that they should appear a few turns after turn 1, understrenght and outside of the cities. Then they need a couple of turns to get back to full strength, moved to a city, embark a train and moved to the east, if that's what the player wants.

And then the infantry of the other, originally static inf divisions would appear as well in two small groups of two in turns 25 and 48, together with the other infantry reinforcements arriving at that time. Then the total number of infantry units given to the player would remain basically the same, they would only appear later. But this would slow down the Axis advance in 41-42 and therefore would make the scenario harder. Especially in multiplayer.

At the moment I'm somewhat favoring an approach where only a few of those infantry are "gifted" to the player over time. The rest I would probably prefer to be part of the players strategic dilemma of prestige allocation. Eg for buying/redeploying ground units from turn 2 onwards, or repairing the fleet, or getting another fighter unit, or spending on elite replacements, and so on.
Imho both approaches have a lot of merit, so I'm looking forward to trying out both of them if we go different routes in that regard.

Non-inf/flak units:
Ruhr and Berlin
2-2 Pak
=> both deleted from map

Yes, I was thinking to remove these as well. There is not much point in moving these to the east anyway, it is better to keep them there and wait for the 5 cm upgrade. Or perhaps one should appear with the infantry units above. In reality there were some 2,300 Pak 36 guns with the occupational forces all over Europe. Since some of the occupation units in France would appear later they should bring their AT guns with them.

Agreed!

Wien
1-1 Gebirgsjäger
=> deleted from map

Probably yes. It looks like there is one too many German mountain inf unit at this scale in 1941. But it will be missed...

So yes, I am planning some very similar changes. But as a compensation there will be more extra units arriving later in 43-44 than before. Especially on the losing path.

The losing path is another very interesting topic.
I was just talking to goose_2 about that the other day!
So far most people, me included, have been focused on increasing the difficulty as much as possible while still being able to win (ie crush UK and Soviet Union).
And that is also what the forum discussions have mostly been about.

Imho the losing path is a potentially underexplored topic. Also going back to some of the experiences some youtubers had a while ago, with the losing path of BE (no matter the reasons).
And there always is that unofficial Dwarf Fortress motto: "Losing is fun!"
So the losing path might hold some underrated fascination and diversion, compared to the overoptimizing of the "winning path".

[goose_2]

I thought the BE Mod had scenarios set up for different time periods in the war so if you wanted to play where the war was at on D-Day, or at Stalingrad and stuff like that. But I do not see that on the available scenarios.

Have you ever considered setting those up?

[Locarnus]

I thought the BE Mod had scenarios set up for different time periods in the war so if you wanted to play where the war was at on D-Day, or at Stalingrad and stuff like that. But I do not see that on the available scenarios.

Have you ever considered setting those up?

As far as I know, those were "just" savegames from a version before 2.3 (2.2 or 2.1?). Which were played to that point along historical lines.
Which in turn means that they can not be simply updated from the scenario editor.

Game engine limitations mean, that it would take an extraordinary effort to implement them as proper scenarios, beyond the existing savegames.
I estimate that it would take a sizeable fraction of the whole "Battlefield Europe" scenario workload itself.
And due to way the scenarios are handled in PzC, future updates would also add lots of work for them.

Additionally, the concept of "losing is fun" seems to be somewhat alien to PzC players (like succession games ), so the target audience unfortunately would probably be miniscule for such a massive effort.

edit: Though I would be delighted if such a scenario was made and I would certainly enjoy playing it!

[McGuba]

McGuba...I got to ask. Your brilliance to create engaging detailed mods for this game are truly a thing of beauty. I am amazed at the complexity and beauty of The Turan Campaign. It is a theater that in playing I have learned so much more about their contribution to the war effort. Your game has better educated me. Your BE Campaign is insanity on a whole 'nother level.

Thanks, it was indeed my plan to put some light on the less-known role of Hungary in WW2 and the minor nations in general, and that's why I made the Turan campaign first. But I also knew it would never have the same popularity as a campaign about a major power. And so I got involved in the BE mod much more, moreso that its scope allows me to put more light on the other minor nations as well which are equally neglected.

What is the next mod you may be considering setting up?

If you are not considering doing a different mod, why not?

I wouldn't like to steal this topic from Locarnus so I wouln't want to go into details here but of course I have many theatres in my mind that would deserve more attention. The main problem is the lack of time so I am not sure if any of these will materialize in the end. Currently I still focus on fine-tuning the BE mod and I plan to revisit the Turan mod after that, which may need a little facelift as it is has been a long time since its last update.

If I may make a suggestion. I would love to see a campaign/scenario that deals exclusively with the day to day fighting that took place in Stalingrad.

Again, while trying not to steal this topic, in my opinion one of the most interesting aspects of PzC is the evolution of warfare and the constant upgrading of units over time. In a campaign that is limited to a single battle in a limited time frame players would have to use basically the same equipment throughout so I think it would not be that interesting. But who knows, I never say never.

I thought the BE Mod had scenarios set up for different time periods in the war so if you wanted to play where the war was at on D-Day, or at Stalingrad and stuff like that. But I do not see that on the available scenarios.

Have you ever considered setting those up?

Yes, as Locarnus explained it would require too much effort to create these as new scenarios, it is easier to create save games for that instead. Which also allows me to test the scenario itself while doing so. These save games for a later game start at Stalingrad or Kursk or Normandy/Bagration are ready, they are enclosed in the mod in the zip file within the "Save" folder. These game saves have to be copied manually to the "Save" game folder of the game PzC and then they can be loaded as normal game saves when the BE mod is being used.

Normally PzC game saves are stored in a folder under the "Documents" folder and it's a bit tricky to find them as the location of this folder differs with each version of Windows. On my current computer, which is an old Dell laptop using Windows 7, PzC game saves are stored in the "C:\Users\Dell\Documents\My Games\Panzer Corps\Save\" folder. Here is a quick guide on how to locate the "Documents" folder on each version of Windows:
https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001735.htm

Once you find it you have to go into the folders "My Games" then "Panzer Corps" and then "Save" within it to see the list of your game saves for the game. (However, it may be somewhat different as well in later versions of Windows.) Then the four game saves that I enclosed in the main BE mod zip in the "Save" folder have to be copied into this folder. Then yöu can load them from within the game as you would load any of your own game saves and then start (or in fact continue) playing from the given time period. It is not very user friendly, unfortunately, but that's the only way to do so. It think it is really interesting to play the underdog starting the mod for example in June 1944 and trying to avoid total defeat, or to see what would happen if you start the mod with the Kursk offensive and do not give up the offensive as the Germans did. (Lots of Soviet armour is waiting for a forced surrender in the Kursk pocket! )

As far as I know, those were "just" savegames from a version before 2.3 (2.2 or 2.1?).

The latest are game saves for BE 2.2. I did not make new ones for 2.3 as BE 2.2 and 2.3 are almost identical there are only minor differencies between these two latest versions and the ones made for 2.2 are fully compatible with BE 2.3.

166 prestige Jäger have +1 ini, -1GD, +1 CD compared to normal inf (and a new movement type between normal inf and alpine)

Perhaps if these were nerfed a bit more than they would be more streamlined for use in the Balkans. I mean like -2 GD instead while keeping the rest. Still not sure if it would be feasable to use them there, I would probably use them in Tunisia or the Caucasus instead which are also full of close terrain. However, some other later Jäger divisions were indeed used in the east, including the Leningrad area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_J%C3% ... Wehrmacht)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_J%C3 ... Wehrmacht)

and even at Stalingrad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_J%C3% ... Wehrmacht)

and elsewhere in the east including the Caucasus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_J%C ... Wehrmacht)

My thoughts were to "recreate the Norway units in the aggregate". So instead of placing 3 normal infantry units there, I went with 1 normal, 1 mountain (elite) and 1 security (representing below standard infantry).
This is somewhat influenced by goose_2, who is toying with the idea of not having Tirpitz in Narvik and thus provoking an allied invasion. Which would have drawn those Murmansk bound mountain infantry back to defend the iron ore shipping.

Sure, but it is a somewhat different setting because in this case the mountain units are constantly there waiting and not being moved south when the invasion comes. Also I am not sure if these could have been moved down south after all they were holding the line in the north and their redeployment would have resulted in a Soviet breakthrough there.

And there always is that unofficial Dwarf Fortress motto: "Losing is fun!"
So the losing path might hold some underrated fascination and diversion, compared to the overoptimizing of the "winning path".

In the single player games losing is not very common IMO. I think players are much more likely to give it up when they realize they have no more chance. But I agree with the part that losing is fun. It can be more easily experienced with the afformentioned game saves, escpecially with the one that starts in 1944. The other way to experience losing is playing a multiplayer match. It is not so much fun in those, this I can tell. But now I am also making efforts to make it more likely to achieve a draw in a multi match. Which hasn't happened until now, if I am right.

[McGuba]

Ah, and by the way I made a new icon for the German Security Infantry:

Wehrmacht_Sec.png (14.95 KiB) Viewed 3349 times

Sec.jpg (171 KiB) Viewed 3349 times

It uses the bridge engineer animation so it only fires with rifles. I will probably make one for the Jager as well, something similar.

[guille1434]

A suggestion: because garrison units are in general understrength units, I think it should be appropiate to use a icon with just two soldier figures instead of the standard three figure icon used for full-strength infantry units, making them more readily indentifiable at a glance while placed on the map.

Here is a candidate for such an unit icon, with its custom animation file. May be you find them useful.

By the way, this idea exchanging that I can read about in this thread is most interesting for me. Thanks for further developing this mod!

Greetings!

[PeteMitchell]

It would be cool if someone could add the Spanish Civil War to the BE mod, i.e. before Poland...

[Locarnus]

If I may make a suggestion. I would love to see a campaign/scenario that deals exclusively with the day to day fighting that took place in Stalingrad.

Again, while trying not to steal this topic, in my opinion one of the most interesting aspects of PzC is the evolution of warfare and the constant upgrading of units over time. In a campaign that is limited to a single battle in a limited time frame players would have to use basically the same equipment throughout so I think it would not be that interesting. But who knows, I never say never.

Absolutely, the unit progression and upgrades are one of the most interesting aspects. That's why I also focused on those for the Addon (and why I really like to see the upgrade and deployment deliberations in playthroughs ). No worries about stealing the topic. After all it started out as a small experiment on the giant BE shoulders. I'd be delighted if those shoulders would get even bigger .

166 prestige Jäger have +1 ini, -1GD, +1 CD compared to normal inf (and a new movement type between normal inf and alpine)

Perhaps if these were nerfed a bit more than they would be more streamlined for use in the Balkans. I mean like -2 GD instead while keeping the rest. Still not sure if it would be feasable to use them there, I would probably use them in Tunisia or the Caucasus instead which are also full of close terrain. However, some other later Jäger divisions were indeed used in the east, including the Leningrad area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_J%C3% ... Wehrmacht)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_J%C3 ... Wehrmacht)

and even at Stalingrad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_J%C3% ... Wehrmacht)

and elsewhere in the east including the Caucasus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_J%C ... Wehrmacht)

My thoughts were to "recreate the Norway units in the aggregate". So instead of placing 3 normal infantry units there, I went with 1 normal, 1 mountain (elite) and 1 security (representing below standard infantry).
This is somewhat influenced by goose_2, who is toying with the idea of not having Tirpitz in Narvik and thus provoking an allied invasion. Which would have drawn those Murmansk bound mountain infantry back to defend the iron ore shipping.

Sure, but it is a somewhat different setting because in this case the mountain units are constantly there waiting and not being moved south when the invasion comes. Also I am not sure if these could have been moved down south after all they were holding the line in the north and their redeployment would have resulted in a Soviet breakthrough there.

Good points!
Imho the Balkan light infantry units (eg 704, 714, 717 and 718 before their redesignation as Jäger 104, 114, 117 and 118) are somewhat between "Jäger" and security infantry. So short of creating yet another unit type, I would also recreate them in the aggregate. Eg instead of 2 "in-between" units I would represent them with 1 Jäger and 1 security inf unit.
While I would consider the divisions that started on the eastern front in mid 1941 to be on a higher level. Eg starting them out as Jäger divisions even though they were only officially designated "Jäger" divisions in ~1942, like 5, 8 and 28. Especially those that started on the eastern front in 1941 as light infantry divisions, which were also only officially designated "Jäger" divisions in 1942, like 97, 100 and 101.

And then there is also the consideration about total "special units".
How many Jäger, Gebirgsjäger and Fallschirmjäger should be on the map, with or without accounting for that "representation in the aggregate"?
I'm leaning towards 4:3:1 ratio at the moment (also because I'm eager to try them with their new movement and so on in different theaters), though with the deleted French and BeNeLux divisions that might be too much compared to ordinary inf.

And there always is that unofficial Dwarf Fortress motto: "Losing is fun!"
So the losing path might hold some underrated fascination and diversion, compared to the overoptimizing of the "winning path".

In the single player games losing is not very common IMO. I think players are much more likely to give it up when they realize they have no more chance. But I agree with the part that losing is fun. It can be more easily experienced with the afformentioned game saves, escpecially with the one that starts in 1944. The other way to experience losing is playing a multiplayer match. It is not so much fun in those, this I can tell. But now I am also making efforts to make it more likely to achieve a draw in a multi match. Which hasn't happened until now, if I am right.

Agreed, though I have to say a relatively stable draw would be an enormous achievement, due to the absence of most supply and logistics considerations with this game engine!

A suggestion: because garrison units are in general understrength units, I think it should be appropiate to use a icon with just two soldier figures instead of the standard three figure icon used for full-strength infantry units, making them more readily indentifiable at a glance while placed on the map.

Here is a candidate for such an unit icon, with its custom animation file. May be you find them useful.

By the way, this idea exchanging that I can read about in this thread is most interesting for me. Thanks for further developing this mod!

Greetings!

That is a very good point!
I'm alsways somewhat hesitant to add more animations, but I'm now also recalling several occasions where I confused normal Romanian inf with their reserves.
The 2 figures icon would solve that as well, and they are certainly different enough from engineers. Might I thus also ask for some Romanian reserves icon which can use the same 2 figure firing animation?

Thank you for all your support, both for this addon in particular and the whole PzC community!

It would be cool if someone could add the Spanish Civil War to the BE mod, i.e. before Poland...

Agreed, that would be awesome. It would further strengthen the identification with the small core force. Just not sure how to balance the heros, that could be earned in the process.

[McGuba]

How many Jäger, Gebirgsjäger and Fallschirmjäger should be on the map, with or without accounting for that "representation in the aggregate"?

I would say an infantry unit in the mod normally represents the riflemen of about 3.5 actual infantry divisions (together with their heavy weapons like mortars, infantry guns, AT rifles etc. which are not represented as individual units in the game). However, there was only one Fallschirmjäger division in 1941 so this unit should be understrength in the mod. But it is not so it can be argued that it is a full strength unit because it has superior training and morale and thus it's overall figthing power (or unit strength) is comparable to that of 3 regular infantry divisons. Which may sound a bit cheesy, but I don't mind.

Then if I am counting well there were 10 Jäger and 10 Gebirgsjäger divisions formed in the war. Some of the Gebirgsjäger divisions were formed after 1941 so I think it is good if there are only two these in turn 1 and then one or two more of these can appear later. And it looks like there were at least 2 mountain divisions used in the far north at Murmansk at any one time so these should be taken out of the equation.

Again, it can be argued that due to the superior training each Jäger and Gebirgsjäger unit represents 2-2.5 actual divisions instead of 3.5. Then there should be 4 of each. Or only 3 of each if we stick to the 3.5 representation ratio of regular infantry divisions per PzC unit.

Now I tend to have 4 of each (with 1 Gebirgsjäger based at Murmansk at all times so in fact one less of this) as I think there is a similar ratio with the Romanian mountain units. Romania had 4 mountain brigades in 1941 which were transformed into 4 mountain divisons in 1942. Thus now they start with 1 mountain inf unit in 41 and they get another in early 42.

though with the deleted French and BeNeLux divisions that might be too much compared to ordinary inf.

That's why I do not plan to permanently delete these. They would only appear/activate later. These units were part of the 1941 standing army and eventually almost all were deployed in the eastern front.

While I would consider the divisions that started on the eastern front in mid 1941 to be on a higher level. Eg starting them out as Jäger divisions even though they were only officially designated "Jäger" divisions in ~1942, like 5, 8 and 28. Especially those that started on the eastern front in 1941 as light infantry divisions, which were also only officially designated "Jäger" divisions in 1942, like 97, 100 and 101.

Hm, another possible option might be to have only 3 or 4 Light Infantry units in turn 1 (1 or 2 in the Balkans and 2 in the east depending on what actual division to PzC unit exchange rate seems more suitable in this case) which are later automatically changed to a Jäger unit at some point with a script. Let's say the two Light Infantry units originally deployed in the east would become Jäger in mid 1942 and the one(s) in the Balkans in April 1943, with a script for free. As I see that's when these were redesignated to Jäger units.

The only question is what should be the difference between the currently non-existing Light Infantry and the Jäger unit types, if there should be any at all, apart from their name. Perhaps the Light Infantry could have the same reduced GD stat as the Jäger (compared to a regular infantry), but with normal leg movement. So basically it would be somewhere halfway between a Security infantry and a regular Wehr inf unit. Then when the automatic upgrade comes the only change would be the movement type to Light Infantry movement. Or perhaps it could also get a minor stat increase as well, like +1 initiative or +1 CD or something like that.

A suggestion: because garrison units are in general understrength units, I think it should be appropiate to use a icon with just two soldier figures instead of the standard three figure icon used for full-strength infantry units, making them more readily indentifiable at a glance while placed on the map.

That's a great suggestion! So in the end I think it should be made like this: in turn 1 there would be several static (garrison) infantry units in the west with no movement and with this icon. Then at some point these would be changed to a normal infantry unit with a script, when they were historically restructured from a static division to an assault division. Ideally they would be changed in small groups of two at certain turns and from that point the player can move them where he wants to as normal infantry units. It is just the thing that the trigger happy player has to be warned in the first turn not to disband these "useless" static units hoping to free up some core slots as they would become active some time later.

OK, so finally it looks like we are getting somewhere, and I like it!

[guille1434]

A suggestion: because garrison units are in general understrength units, I think it should be appropiate to use a icon with just two soldier figures instead of the standard three figure icon used for full-strength infantry units, making them more readily indentifiable at a glance while placed on the map.

That's a great suggestion! So in the end I think it should be made like this: in turn 1 there would be several static (garrison) infantry units in the west with no movement and with this icon. Then at some point these would be changed to a normal infantry unit with a script, when they were historically restructured from a static division to an assault division. Ideally they would be changed in small groups of two at certain turns and from that point the player can move them where he wants to as normal infantry units. It is just the thing that the trigger happy player has to be warned in the first turn not to disband these "useless" static units hoping to free up some core slots as they would become active some time later.

I am glad both of you liked the idea of two figures icons for representing understrength garrison units... About giving them 0 movement, I think this will cause those units to surrender if getting enough damage/supression when attacked by an enemy unit instead of pulling back towards another hex. I don´t know if this is a desirable effect... May be giving them movement = 1 and no posibility of attaching an organic transport vehicle to those kind of units?

Also, Locarnus, I will be making the Romanian reserve/garrison units you asked and upload them very soon!

[McGuba]

Normally most, if not all of these units would be changed to regular infantry units before the Allies would invade the west where they are based. Other than that yes, there is a chance that they would surrender more easily. But in case of a weak garrison unit I do not think it would be a major problem even in the unlikely event that they are attacked.

And here is my candidate for the bigunit picture for such a static garrison unit, lol:

Static_Inf.png (52.75 KiB) Viewed 3168 times

Wakey-wakey!

[Locarnus]

Again, it can be argued that due to the superior training each Jäger and Gebirgsjäger unit represents 2-2.5 actual divisions instead of 3.5. Then there should be 4 of each. Or only 3 of each if we stick to the 3.5 representation ratio of regular infantry divisions per PzC unit.

Now I tend to have 4 of each (with 1 Gebirgsjäger based at Murmansk at all times so in fact one less of this) as I think there is a similar ratio with the Romanian mountain units. Romania had 4 mountain brigades in 1941 which were transformed into 4 mountain divisons in 1942. Thus now they start with 1 mountain inf unit in 41 and they get another in early 42.

[...]

Hm, another possible option might be to have only 3 or 4 Light Infantry units in turn 1 (1 or 2 in the Balkans and 2 in the east depending on what actual division to PzC unit exchange rate seems more suitable in this case) which are later automatically changed to a Jäger unit at some point with a script. Let's say the two Light Infantry units originally deployed in the east would become Jäger in mid 1942 and the one(s) in the Balkans in April 1943, with a script for free. As I see that's when these were redesignated to Jäger units.

The only question is what should be the difference between the currently non-existing Light Infantry and the Jäger unit types, if there should be any at all, apart from their name. Perhaps the Light Infantry could have the same reduced GD stat as the Jäger (compared to a regular infantry), but with normal leg movement. So basically it would be somewhere halfway between a Security infantry and a regular Wehr inf unit. Then when the automatic upgrade comes the only change would be the movement type to Light Infantry movement. Or perhaps it could also get a minor stat increase as well, like +1 initiative or +1 CD or something like that.

I'm inclined to start with the higher estimate of 4 Jäger and 3 Gebirgsjäger in mid 41.
This would allow their deployment in different theaters within the same game, while still being reasonably within historically supported bounds.
Which in turn would also make it easier to evaluate their stats and movement parameters based on player experience in those different theaters (eg Middle East, Tunisia, Balkan/Greece, northern Russia, Caucasus and Norway).
And then revisit their deployment, stats and possible splitting into a weaker subtype based on that.

That's why I do not plan to permanently delete these. They would only appear/activate later. These units were part of the 1941 standing army and eventually almost all were deployed in the eastern front.

A suggestion: because garrison units are in general understrength units, I think it should be appropiate to use a icon with just two soldier figures instead of the standard three figure icon used for full-strength infantry units, making them more readily indentifiable at a glance while placed on the map.

That's a great suggestion! So in the end I think it should be made like this: in turn 1 there would be several static (garrison) infantry units in the west with no movement and with this icon. Then at some point these would be changed to a normal infantry unit with a script, when they were historically restructured from a static division to an assault division. Ideally they would be changed in small groups of two at certain turns and from that point the player can move them where he wants to as normal infantry units. It is just the thing that the trigger happy player has to be warned in the first turn not to disband these "useless" static units hoping to free up some core slots as they would become active some time later.

I'm hesitant regarding truely static units (movement=0). In some earlier game a soviet strat bomber neutralized that airfield in Finland with the fixed AA on it. So some time last year I gave all the "fixed" AA a movement of 1, but only in AT mode, without rail transport capability. And I also made them aux units, initially for easy identification compared to non-fixed units.

About static infantry: I'm not sure how the allied bombers will react to that, it has been a very long time since I had infantry units in France beyond minimum levels. It could be a nice prestige sink, to keep them alive. On the other hand, it would be problematic if they block important tiles based on player strategy, like harbors for an early Sealion or so (or even make bomber traps for the AI). Not sure I would like to have a lot of those units around at all, if I can not do anything with them until they are "freed".
So at the moment, I see some potential benefits and issues, with no clear favorite implementation.

Oh and about "readily identifiable" and "aux units":
I'm really considering turning the Finnish and Hungarian units into aux ones. Since both of them have some special mechanics from the beginning. Eg the no-transport limit for Finland and the return mechanic for Hungary. Making both of them somewhat distinct from the other player/Axis units.
And that grey plate would allow for far easier differentiation (with the optional, alternate strength plate mod installed).

Same goes for those non-upgradeable, captured units, like the former French tanks near Paris.
Since it is the last scenario anyway, this would help with the visual cues.

Thinking some more about it, those security units could also get grey aux plates, that would also help with easy identification.

[PeteMitchell]

And what do these static units mean for the game balance?

[McGuba]

I'm hesitant regarding truely static units (movement=0). In some earlier game a soviet strat bomber neutralized that airfield in Finland with the fixed AA on it. So some time last year I gave all the "fixed" AA a movement of 1, but only in AT mode, without rail transport capability.

The problem with movement 1 is that many players would move them far away from their intented place even if it takes ages. And in the meantime they would curse the designer for this nonsense in each turn. So it is better to have no such movement limitation or make them fully static, IMO.

As for the Finnish fixed AA, I gave it the "captureflag" trait in the next version so that it can recapture the airfield even if in AA mode. But it can still recapture it in BE 2.3 if it is switched to AT mode. It is a valid observation though, and now I will add the "captureflag" trait to the German fixed AAs as well as some of them are placed on an airfield or city hex. (Even though they can also recapture them if switched to AT mode, but it is seemingly not obvious.)

About static infantry: I'm not sure how the allied bombers will react to that, it has been a very long time since I had infantry units in France beyond minimum levels. It could be a nice prestige sink, to keep them alive.

I think it would be an added bonus that the short ranged Allied planes will have some meaningful target to attack in France before D-day. Especially in multiplayer. Historically they were fairly active there in 41-43. Because now, again especially in multiplayer, those British planes do not have much to do there for many turns. However, ideally these static infantry units should be placed next to the static AA units so that they cannot be bombed so easily. It is true that they may become prestige sinks, but they will also be cheaper than regular infantry so when protected by AA they may in fact become prestige sinks for the Allied side. Also, if I am right, units which are attacked may gain some experience from the attack so if the player uses elite replacements these may even become more experienced as a result of the continuous attacks.

But it works both ways: I remember in one of my earlier multiplayer matches my opponent Uhu disbanded a radar (or a strongpoint?) unit in France to prevent me from constantly attacking it and thereby gaining experience with my Allied air units. While it seemed to make sense in the short term, when D-day came it allowed me to land my units there easier so in the end he admitted that it was probably a mistake from him. So yes, it can be argued pro- and against if it's worth it to use a static unit for target practice or if it is better to disband it. I think it depends on the overall situation.

On the other hand, it would be problematic if they block important tiles based on player strategy, like harbors for an early Sealion or so (or even make bomber traps for the AI).

Obviously they would not be placed in port cities. As for AI traps, as we can see in goose_2's playthrough, it is possible to create better AI traps by simply placing a train in one of the port cities protected by unseen AA guns. Then the AI will be more than happy to attack these endlessly. But they can also be placed out of the spotting range of the Allied radars. Or in a way that the AA defense can also be seen by the AI at all times. There are a few spots like that. Or perhaps these units would be the first to become regular infantry so they would not be subjected to bombing for too long. There are several options to consider.

Not sure I would like to have a lot of those units around at all, if I can not do anything with them until they are "freed".

In which case you can always disband them. But that would mean losing a good regular infantry unit.

And what do these static units mean for the game balance?

A few infantry units less to count on in the early turns. Which will make the mod somewhat harder of course. But there will be several more units appearing in 43-44 which will compensate for that to some extent. Most likely it will be harder to achieve an early victory. But I think it has to be done from a historical point of view. Currently it is possible to move all those units from the west to the east early on, when in reality many of them were not equipped for offensive operations. That's the main reason why they were there and not because the German High Command was too lazy to move them to help in the east. The other reason was probably the limitations of the supply situation. As we know they struggled to keep the army in the east supplied during the first winter, which resulted in the retreat in the wake of the Battle of Moscow. If there were even more units in the east it would have been even harder to keep them supplied. And also they were there to protect France from a possible British landing. Now we know that it did not happen and it also does not happen in the mod but back in those days they could not be sure.

And again, as always, it has to be tested.

[guille1434]

Well, I have uploaded an unit pack with some variations over the Romanian garrison/reserve infantry units, and also the German garrison troops icon. All of them work with the same animation file (also uploaded in "my" thread).

About the movement or no movement capability for those types of units, I would prefer them to have a minimum of movement, to avoid turning them into fixed obstacles which would hinder other units movements and make them more realistic (after all, they are not fixed fortifications, but infantry units, albeit somewhat weak ones). I think we can "un-encourage" the player to "migrate" such units to the front by giving them that limited movement (equal to 1) and also making them unable to use any kind of transport (sea, rail, air, truck, etc). Also, with the same objective, those garrison units can be given "normal" defensive stats, but poor attack stats values, to emphasize their (almost) static, defensive role. But, I think it would be nice for that unit to have a limited "local area of influence" and being able, for example, to move one or two hexes to finish off a depleted enemy unit (a partisan unit, for example) who has previously attacked it.