Locarnus Addon 2025-08, for Battlefield Europe, Afrika Korps and Grand Campaign East

[Locarnus]

Whoops, Italy and Slovakia should not be farmable. Will correct that.
Not sure how to fix the overstrength issue. Worked better when there were no "interludes". But now there is little incentive to deploy units and I do not know how to influence the reserve units (I guess forcing the player to deploy is an option, but that is not an elegant solution either). I can at least fix the issue in case the player deploys his units, but waits out the turns (instead of "capturing" Hannover).

Not QUITE sure I'm understanding you, but I was under the impression that the reserves were cleared after every deploy and that money wasn't taken into the main scenario from the preludes (Goose_2's Youtube video showed him carrying over 2900, though).

Also the multiplayer map has one glaring mismatch with just the new equipment file. The Karl Gerat you changed to 10 strength r3 from 3 strength r10. It is now 3 strength r3.

Sorry, will rephrase.
Yes, with my addon, reserves, money and overstrength should be cleared when going into the big BE scenario.

Goose_2 is playing the big BE scenario without my addon (just using BE 2.3), he only uses my addon for his separate Afrika Korps playthrough.

In order to clear reserves after deployment, a special function of the scenario editor is used, that can simply be activated with a checkmark in the scenario editor (happens eg in the big BE scenario when my addon is installed).
However clearing prestige and overstrength requires special scripting (happens in the scenario before the big BE scenario - named "Kursk" due to some other issues with the campaign system).
Setting prestige to 0 is pretty straight forward, since there is an option for altering prestige within the scripting menu, though the conditions when to clear it can be a bit tricky.
Clearing overstrength from units is the most tricky part due to the scenario editor limitations. Using scripting in the scenario editor, I can address units on the battlefield (to make them lose their overstrength), however I can not address units that are not deployed (ie kept in reserve). So if the player simply does not deploy his units for the last interlude scenario, I do not know how to remove overstrength from those undeployed units. My only solution so far is, to force the player to deploy all his units for this last interlude scenario (eg by clearing the reserves in that scenario as well).

Imho BE pushes PzC far beyond the limits of what the engine was designed to do. So it often becomes a matter of finding workarounds for mechanics that were never envisioned/intended to be possible. And sometimes one workaround spawns another issue elsewhere.

I have not touched the multiplayer map at all. It has none of the many geography improvements (eg Prussia, Alps, and many more) or unit changes (eg Balkans, France, Soviet Union). I guess I could take a look at the scenario selection menu again, but so far I'm still trying to finish Afrika Korps compatibility first (winning path) and then review everything after that is done.


@eskuche: Great to see your Afrika Korps AAR, with BE 2.3 and Addon on FM Rommel difficulty!

With the very different unit selection philosophy, it offers an enormous source for feedback!
Especially in conjunction with the replay AAR by JanD and the youtube AAR by goose_2!

It also shows the progress of the Addon based on those 2 playthroughs, eg the gifted Italian arties at Ras and the Kradschützen at Brevity, as well as many smaller changes based on the detailed lists by JanD.

I'm looking forward to your approach to "Dash to the Wire"!

[eskuche]

Probably bug: FlakPz I is retaliated against when attacking from 0 range.

[JanD]

As far as I know, all units with 0 range get retaliated against.

[Vano2004]

https://armedman.ru/fotogalereya/trofey ... armii.html

[Locarnus]

Probably bug: FlakPz I is retaliated against when attacking from 0 range.

Thank you, will be corrected in the next update!
Any feedback on the Wurfrahmen 40 so far?

I'll complete the May update in the coming days, with basic AK winning path compatibility up to and including either Basra or Persia.
Lots of more complex stuff had to be left out due to time constraints, but I can still include some minor fixes and adjustments based on feedback!

@vano
Good idea, maybe the USSR could use some more captured/foreign equipment during the BE scenario!

[JanD]

Hi Locarnus

Could you please check "Dash to the wire":
The reward units shall appear after destroying the Hangars, but instead they appear in the players first turn.

[Locarnus]

Hi Locarnus

Could you please check "Dash to the wire":
The reward units shall appear after destroying the Hangars, but instead they appear in the players first turn.

Oh no!
Will check right away.

edit: Found the issue. The 4th hangar only spawns with 50% probability, so that there is a chance that no hangar exists in turn 1, triggering the rewards. It must have spawned when I tested the scenario. The 4th hangar will always spawn in the next patch. And the rewards will not be available before turn 3.

I also found a related scenario design bug while I was at it. It can happen that the player searches a location early (turn 2), finds no hangar there and then the hangar only spawns at that location in turn 3. While the hangar spawn in turn 3 can also be obscured by eg a sandstorm, leading to confusion. So for the next patch I limited the hangar spawn mechanic to the first 2 turns (and thus only 2 locations each, instead of 3, except for the 4th hangar without alternate locations).

[eskuche]

Probably bug: FlakPz I is retaliated against when attacking from 0 range.

Thank you, will be corrected in the next update!
Any feedback on the Wurfrahmen 40 so far?

I'll complete the May update in the coming days, with basic AK winning path compatibility up to and including either Basra or Persia.
Lots of more complex stuff had to be left out due to time constraints, but I can still include some minor fixes and adjustments based on feedback!

@vano
Good idea, maybe the USSR could use some more captured/foreign equipment during the BE scenario!

I got stuck with playing the full scenario instead of AK. There, I think it is very interesting at 1 range and 3 ammo. Has to be used smartly and only in very specific places, so its price is probably okay.

[Locarnus]

I got stuck with playing the full scenario instead of AK. There, I think it is very interesting at 1 range and 3 ammo. Has to be used smartly and only in very specific places, so its price is probably okay.

I admire your courage, to go into BE with FM Rommel difficulty setting!

[eskuche]

I got stuck with playing the full scenario instead of AK. There, I think it is very interesting at 1 range and 3 ammo. Has to be used smartly and only in very specific places, so its price is probably okay.

I admire your courage, to go into BE with FM Rommel difficulty setting!

I wimped out after not getting Kiev and started over on general
I think the removal of carried over prestige makes it sufficiently hard enough not to be able to do it blind. Am on turn 60 with just half of Caucasus and UK to go, though. Any plans on another release soon?

I will note that tank destroyers seem overtuned a bit – they have soft attack almost equivalent to tanks, and since their class changed to tanks from anti-tank, infantry don't even get the +2 bonus initiative/attack against them. I would maybe consider lowering their soft attack by one.

I am having a lot of fun shuffling units back and upgrading when I can fit in the time, though. Nice mechanic that actually feels more like real life rest & refitting, even compared to like Gary Grigsby WITE.

[eskuche]

Another thought I had to reflect to manpower effect in the game is to make (hear me out!) infantry not purchaseable, only upgradeable (!), since we get interspersed divisions per history. Minors non-Finnish infantry could also be a bit cheaper to encourage more use. Finally, I mentioned the AK, but here as well, overstrength might be able to be tuned down a bit to like 10-15-20-25-30 per point. It's almost impossible to get a 4 star unit anyhow.

[Locarnus]

I wimped out after not getting Kiev and started over on general
I think the removal of carried over prestige makes it sufficiently hard enough not to be able to do it blind. Am on turn 60 with just half of Caucasus and UK to go, though. Any plans on another release soon?

Yep, it is quite a different experience from the normal PzC campaigns!
Had to remove carry over prestige to attempt at least some sort of balance between those who played since Poland and those who start at Barbarossa.

I'll release the May update in the coming days. Though at the moment Afrika Korps is the main focus, due to the feedback and interest generated by the playthroughs! Which includes fixes and adjustments to the "losing path" based on that feedback, as well as initial compatibility of the "winning path" scenarios roughly up to Persia.

I will note that tank destroyers seem overtuned a bit – they have soft attack almost equivalent to tanks, and since their class changed to tanks from anti-tank, infantry don't even get the +2 bonus initiative/attack against them. I would maybe consider lowering their soft attack by one.

Agreed. I already had to lower the initiative of some Marders to be more consistent with other vehicles. But a general nerf of the soft attack values of many "no-turret" vehicles seems to be the only viable option for balancing them. It is a pity that PzC makes no distinction between dispersed soft targets (eg infantry) and unarmored vehicles (eg trucks).

I am having a lot of fun shuffling units back and upgrading when I can fit in the time, though. Nice mechanic that actually feels more like real life rest & refitting, even compared to like Gary Grigsby WITE.

Agreed, McGuba really changed the game with that upgrade mechanic for Battlefield Europe. My only contribution was the increase in potentially viable upgrade paths, based on chassis (eg Panzer 38(t) to Marder III to Grille).

Not sure how to handle the upgrades in traditional campaigns. JanD asked for more in-scenario upgrade opportunities during his first Africa Corps playthrough. Also due to the inability of unit switching in the deployment phase, which is tough to work around.

[Vano2004]

Here you can use as screensavers)
https://diletant.media/articles/28933289/
https://2wars.ru/chto-zapreschalos-dela ... -v-afrike/
https://picturehistory.livejournal.com/1526057.html


https://en.topwar.ru/6723-hroniki-vtoro ... aniya.html

[Locarnus]

Another thought I had to reflect to manpower effect in the game is to make (hear me out!) infantry not purchaseable, only upgradeable (!), since we get interspersed divisions per history. Minors non-Finnish infantry could also be a bit cheaper to encourage more use. Finally, I mentioned the AK, but here as well, overstrength might be able to be tuned down a bit to like 10-15-20-25-30 per point. It's almost impossible to get a 4 star unit anyhow.

Imho non-purchasable infantry (or other kinds of units) brings balancing problems between experienced and inexperienced players (who lose more units), as well as historical and ahistorical playthroughs. For experienced players it is also much easier to substitute infantry or react to a shortage in other ways.
Generally I tried to give the player more leeway, and I personally use house rules to account for possible exploits.
There are imho already so many issues requiring house rules, due to game engine limitations (eg not attacking the British coast with long range artillery, or not using paratroopers halfway across the map).
The original BE by McGuba tends to go the other way (no really long range artillery or additional paratroopers for purchase, effectively no unit purchases at all in 1941).

Agreed on those overstrength costs. Coming version 2022-05 has them set to 2/3 of the current values. Which should result in the values you mentioned above when reinforcing during the deployment phase.

@vano2004
Great selection of photos, as always.
Even one showing a rearward firing AT gun on a truck!

[Vano2004]

@vano2004
Great selection of photos, as always.
Even one showing a rearward firing AT gun on a truck!

Everything that could be put on wheels was put ) Mobility increased, the danger was also on top))

http://www.plam.ru/transportavi/velikaj ... 945/p6.php
https://kolesa-ru.turbopages.org/kolesa ... oy-mirovoy



https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/4x4-vehi ... p-6x6.html

[Locarnus]

Everything that could be put on wheels was put ) Mobility increased, the danger was also on top))

I'm impressed what the Italians managed to achieve with field modifications in Africa. A german 5cm Pak on a mobile chassis would have probably helped as well.

Speaking of mobile AT guns, I'm not sure how to solve that assault gun/tank destroyer balancing issue.

The 5cm Panzer III has nothing really going for it compared to a contemporary StuG III with long 7.5cm gun (except more ammo).
At the moment both have 6 soft attack, while the StuG has much better hard attack. Most other values are about equal around mid 1942.
But if I nerf the soft attack of the StuG III eg to 5, that would be a considerable difference compared to the Panzer IV (soft attack 8 ), while both use the same gun and both have MGs against infantry. Sure, the turret gives an advantage to normal Panzers, but it also raises the profile and tanks at this time rarely shot on the move anyway. After all, the StuG started out as an infantry support weapon system.
I would also have to nerf the soft attack of the the Marders even more (eg to 4), even though they used 7.5cm guns as well.

On the other hand, raising the soft attack of the Panzer III with 5cm gun to 7 would leave no room between the 5cm and 7.5cm in terms of balancing. While in reality there was quite the lethality increase (from eg ~170g explosive to ~680g explosive for the 5 and 7.5cm respectively).

Any input is welcome!

Code: Select all

# ID	Short Name	Cl	Cost	Am	Fu	Mv	Sp	Ra	Ini	SA	HA	AA	NA	GD	AD	CD	TT	Flag	Icon	From
23	Panzer III J/1	1	456	8	39	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	12	11	2	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.1.1942
24	Panzer III L	1	474	8	39	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	14	12	2	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.6.1942
25	Panzer III M	1	459	8	44	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	14	12	3	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.10.1942

63	StuG III F	1	434	5	41	5	2	0	8	6	14	0	1	11	11	2	1	0	StuG_IIIF.png	15.4.1942
64	StuG III F/8	1	455	5	40	5	2	0	8	6	15	0	1	14	12	2	1	0	StuG_IIIF.png	1.8.1942

74	Marder III	1	283	4	50	5	2	0	7	5	15	0	1	6	7	1	1	0	Marder_III.png	1.5.1942
60	Marder III H	1	291	5	55	5	2	0	7	5	16	0	1	7	7	1	1	0	Marder_IIIH.png	15.12.1942

30	Panzer IV F/2	1	532	8	37	5	2	0	9	8	14	0	1	11	11	2	1	0	Panzer_IVF-2.png	1.4.1942
# ID	Short Name	Cl	Cost	Am	Fu	Mv	Sp	Ra	Ini	SA	HA	AA	NA	GD	AD	CD	TT	Flag	Icon	From

[Vano2004]

An Austin K5-based artillery installation with an anti-tank 57 mm cannon for North Africa. 1942


An open 70-horsepower Morris-Commercial C9/B chassis with a four-seat cabin and a 40 mm anti-aircraft gun. 1941



Captured allies in Africa German anti-propelled artillery mount Marder III (Sd.Kfz.139) on the chassis of the tank PzKpfw 38 (t) with 76,2-mm gun PaK 36 (r) (deep modernization F-22 captured Soviet divisional gun)
https://en.topwar.ru/26559-iz-zhizni-gadyuki.html
https://waralbum.ru/168019/


Anti-tank self-propelled artillery unit 7,62 cm F.K.36(r) auf Panzerjäger Selbstfahrlafette Zugkraftwagen 5t "Diana"
https://shnyagi.net/271978-Trofejjnye-s ... emcev.html

[eskuche]

I think you generally want to move numbers up in PzC1, not down, because of the way that even very low attack things can chip damage off high defense targets. A different way to make the IIIs more attractive is to decrease the cost.

Regarding dispersed vs. single soft targets, a (quite significant) change would be just to make trucks and transports have very very low defense or to change them to all hard targets.

Would making some things 0 range do anything? Not quite sure how that mechanic works.

[eskuche]

Thinking more, PzC 2 handled this problem by making all infantry default at 15 strength. Would this be possible here? Conscripts already have this. This change would accentuate the differences between the actual predominant force on the ground and specialized units. This would also partially obviate the (working reasonably well now, although awkward to upgrade) 7 strength early German tanks, which could just keep their "mechanical" failings.

Edit: this would also allow moving up attack-defense values of other classes of units to help avoid cheap shots and nonsensical stuff like infantry destroying PzIIIs in open terrain.

[goose_2]

Everything that could be put on wheels was put ) Mobility increased, the danger was also on top))

I'm impressed what the Italians managed to achieve with field modifications in Africa. A german 5cm Pak on a mobile chassis would have probably helped as well.

Speaking of mobile AT guns, I'm not sure how to solve that assault gun/tank destroyer balancing issue.

The 5cm Panzer III has nothing really going for it compared to a contemporary StuG III with long 7.5cm gun (except more ammo).
At the moment both have 6 soft attack, while the StuG has much better hard attack. Most other values are about equal around mid 1942.
But if I nerf the soft attack of the StuG III eg to 5, that would be a considerable difference compared to the Panzer IV (soft attack 8 ), while both use the same gun and both have MGs against infantry. Sure, the turret gives an advantage to normal Panzers, but it also raises the profile and tanks at this time rarely shot on the move anyway. After all, the StuG started out as an infantry support weapon system.
I would also have to nerf the soft attack of the the Marders even more (eg to 4), even though they used 7.5cm guns as well.

On the other hand, raising the soft attack of the Panzer III with 5cm gun to 7 would leave no room between the 5cm and 7.5cm in terms of balancing. While in reality there was quite the lethality increase (from eg ~170g explosive to ~680g explosive for the 5 and 7.5cm respectively).

Any input is welcome!


Here are my thoughts. Pz3 has limited capabilities once into late 42. that is why the German army switched their focus on Panzer 4 for its capabilities to handle a bigger gun. My advice is keep the stats where they are at. The tank stars for experience make the soft attack appealing to some players where the hard attack stars of experience will appeal to most players as it appealed to the Wehrmacht. Pz3 tank gets +1 soft attack and hard attack for every star. StuG only gets +2 to hard attack for every star, their soft attack does not increase. Consider allowing tanks to have a blitz category which allows them to go 1 space farther but their attack and defense is less. This is what Lennis did in one of his mods and it was a nice feature.

Those are my thoughts

Code: Select all

# ID	Short Name	Cl	Cost	Am	Fu	Mv	Sp	Ra	Ini	SA	HA	AA	NA	GD	AD	CD	TT	Flag	Icon	From
23	Panzer III J/1	1	456	8	39	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	12	11	2	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.1.1942
24	Panzer III L	1	474	8	39	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	14	12	2	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.6.1942
25	Panzer III M	1	459	8	44	5	2	0	8	6	11	0	1	14	12	3	1	0	Panzer_IIIL.png	15.10.1942

63	StuG III F	1	434	5	41	5	2	0	8	6	14	0	1	11	11	2	1	0	StuG_IIIF.png	15.4.1942
64	StuG III F/8	1	455	5	40	5	2	0	8	6	15	0	1	14	12	2	1	0	StuG_IIIF.png	1.8.1942

74	Marder III	1	283	4	50	5	2	0	7	5	15	0	1	6	7	1	1	0	Marder_III.png	1.5.1942
60	Marder III H	1	291	5	55	5	2	0	7	5	16	0	1	7	7	1	1	0	Marder_IIIH.png	15.12.1942

30	Panzer IV F/2	1	532	8	37	5	2	0	9	8	14	0	1	11	11	2	1	0	Panzer_IVF-2.png	1.4.1942
# ID	Short Name	Cl	Cost	Am	Fu	Mv	Sp	Ra	Ini	SA	HA	AA	NA	GD	AD	CD	TT	Flag	Icon	From