Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[fgiannet]

How do I send a save game file? I can not find a place for attachments in PM.

Doing away with trucks is a very interesting concept.... A strategy game should involve decision making (do I put the unit on trucks for increased speed while risking increased vulnerability). Evaluating different courses of action is what makes them fun (risk vs reward, etc.). Less decisions = less fun.

But.......you would not see trucks at this high a level of strategy anyway (or in any other game close to this level such as Gary Grigsby WitE, etc.). McGuba has vastly elevated the level/scope of this game. I seems to make sense.

Intenso82's use of such units in RAW was perfectly executed (not opinion by the way.....an objective fact ). I had started putting units in front of bridge layers that began appearing along the rivers in RAW (to prevent Germans crossing). There was one space shrouded by the FOW. I let it go because I had thought the odds would be low that another bridge layer would be there. There was a bridge layer there....and motorized infantry poured through (not in their transports but in their effective combined attacking/transport mode). He successfully recreated the experience of a surprise attack (such a rare thing with an AI) by custom tailoring such units and thinking ahead about the conditions that would enable them to be used most effectively (as well as providing redundancy in those conditions). All of this was done without scripted units appearing behind the player, etc. The information was available to the player the entire time and yet could still surprise them (the AI was made to play smarter.....something you have impressively achieved with BE as well).

Sbpc1 makes an excellent point (doing away with attached transport) and Intenso82 provides an excellent example of how best to implement it. It could lead to the creation of interesting Soviet Mechanized Corps (you could demonstrate the historical improvement in Soviet tactics this way).

And Sbpc1's entrain scripting idea (for such a large scenario) is very interesting as well.

Just looking at that old BE save file brings back great memories of the magnitude of your endeavor. Thank you very much.

[Maths]

how about doing away with the attached transport way of doing things altogether?
just add 1 or 2 moves to an infantry unit to represent how much/want type of transport forms PART of that unit.
increase costs for units so equipped maybe decrease the GD and AD to represent some vulnerability whist getting into position/retreating. the concept of infantry sitting in trucks patiently whilst allowing the enemy to fire at them is ok i guess at an ASL (boardgame) type level (call it opportunity fire) but at the hex scale/time per turn of Battlefield: Europe it seems silly.

But.......you would not see trucks at this high a level of strategy anyway (or in any other game close to this level such as Gary Grigsby WitE, etc.). McGuba has vastly elevated the level/scope of this game. I seems to make sense.

Intenso82's use of such units in RAW was perfectly executed.

Sbpc1 makes an excellent point (doing away with attached transport) and Intenso82 provides an excellent example of how best to implement it. It could lead to the creation of interesting Soviet Mechanized Corps (you could demonstrate the historical improvement in Soviet tactics this way).

That is the best solution I think and that's indeed what I tend to do when I make my own modifications but I also like to stick to the design when I play something made by someone else. And reacting to what @fgiannet said about the AI, this solution is also more AI friendly as it will stop sending forward loaded units first which you can destroy very easily although this doesn't happen much in BE.

You are definetely right about the scale. And to continue with your example : even at lower scales than WitE (divisional scale) trucks do not really make sense above company level. Battalion level wargames represent motorized units by normal infantry with just higher movement, trucks are implied.

[McGuba]

Again, some very interesting discussion is going on here! Almost like back in the day, which means PzC is still not dead yet.

how about doing away with the attached transport way of doing things altogether?

Intenso82's use of such units in RAW was perfectly executed (not opinion by the way.....an objective fact ).

That is the best solution I think and that's indeed what I tend to do when I make my own modifications but I also like to stick to the design when I play something made by someone else. And reacting to what @fgiannet said about the AI, this solution is also more AI friendly as it will stop sending forward loaded units first which you can destroy very easily although this doesn't happen much in BE.

In fact some time ago I was indeed thinking to introduce Intenso82's combined motorized infantry concept from RAW to this mod. I even discussed the possibility with him in a few messages. I agree that this worked nicely in the RAW mod: when I played it I was also surprised by the swift movement of the German motorized infantry units which could support the tanks directly. And as such I felt the pain of the early war Allied commander who had to endure the same. But this change would not be without problems:

1. In the RAW mod only the AI controlled Germans have this kind of unit, the human controlled Soviet side has the "traditional" infantry with attached truck transport. Although I generally liked the idea, somehow I felt it a bit unfair as only the AI controlled enemy had such units. Nevertheless, it works well in that mod, because it helps the dumb AI to attack more effectively as there are no infantry units rushing forward in vulnerable trucks. But that mod is currently only designed to be played from the Soviet side, in contrast with the BE mod which has a multiplayer version and as such the two sides should be well balanced with the same assets available for both players. And thus both the Axis and the Allied player should have the same combined motorized infantry to make it fair. And even if there wasn't multiplayer, I think both sides should have the same gameplay mechanics to avoid players feel they are being cheated and that the AI is being given "unfair" advantages.

2. Basically all the US and the British infantry was motorized in WW2. So most, if not all their infantry units should be similar "combined" infantry with high movement. While the Soviets and espcecially the Germans should have less such units. That would change quite a lot of things in the mod as it was balanced and tested with the current "traditional" system. It would most likely make the Allied side stronger and the Axis weaker. This would mainly be a big problem in the multiplayer version as its rebalancing and moreso its re-testing would require a long time, quite possibly years. It is a question whether if it would worth it or not.

3. It would be hard to make a difference between the truck and armored halftruck equipped German motorized infantry in this system. So perhaps there should be only one generic German motorized infantry. But than the difference between the tactical use of truck and armoured half-track mounted infantry could not be simulated which would remove some of the complexity and fun from the mod. And then the same problem would affect the similar Allied units. As for example the Americans had significant amounts of half-tracks but they also used lots of trucks.

4. If motorized infantry units are to be turned to such "combined" units, then what about the motorized artillery? If trucks do not really make sense at this level, I suppose these should be turned to similar "combined" towed artillery units with truks/tractors included and thus high with movment as well. But then what would be the difference between such units and the existing self-propelled artillery units? Why would anyone prefer the latter over the former when they have essentially the same tactical usefulness? And of course the same goes to towed AA and anti-tank units with motorized transport. Moreso that these were basically all motorized in most armies. How would they differ from the current self-propelled AA and anti-tank units when they would also be able to move long distances and fire in the same turn? And then again, if motorized infantry units are turned to such "combined" units, but motorized artillery units are not, how to explain it to the player? Besides being somewhat inconsistent, the problem of the AI rushing forward with its artillery towed by truck transports would still exist so it would only solve part of the issue.

5. And also I have to agree with fgiannet:

Doing away with trucks is a very interesting concept.... A strategy game should involve decision making (do I put the unit on trucks for increased speed while risking increased vulnerability). Evaluating different courses of action is what makes them fun (risk vs reward, etc.). Less decisions = less fun.

I think these decisions make the vanilla game great. Reducing the number of decisions and simplifying it would make it less fun. Obviously there is a lot of abstraction in the mod and it is by no means a 100% depiction of WW2 warfare at this strategic level, but it is not intended to be as such. For that there are other games like Gary Grigsby's and the like. But in my subjective opinion those are less fun as the games of the good old PG franchise. And also the "motto" from the first page of this thread is "A strategic mod on tactical level (or a tactical mod on strategic level, lol)" meaning that it is a mixture of a large scale hard-core strategic game and a beer and pretzels tactical game. Which should not be taken too seriously, but still...

And also for this:

But.......you would not see trucks at this high a level of strategy anyway (or in any other game close to this level such as Gary Grigsby WitE, etc.). McGuba has vastly elevated the level/scope of this game. I seems to make sense.

For sure, but in that case in the end there should only be two types of ground units in the mod at this scale: a generic infantry and a generic tank unit, and that's it. Would that be fun? I don't think so. And again, for that purpose there are other more refined games with the necessary additional features like research, morale and diplomacy e.g. the Strategic Command series. Those do a great job on their own, but do not really have the same tactical aspect as the games of the PG franchise.


So in the end, while I think there is indeed a potential and a rationale in this idea it may create more problems than solutions. However,

I do agree on the fact that truck-mounted infantry rarely fought mounted but in the game loaded units don't fire back when attacked and you can be happy with "only" a 6-strength loss... I think that trucks in the game are efficient in simulating the enhanced rear-area movement of appropriate units but AFAIK trucks did bolster a unit's reactivity, tactical movement ability and thus overall performance.
...
although I would still advocate a slight increase of their ground defense if these units were to go on the frontline loaded on trucks.

This looks like a plausible solution and may worth a try. It would be less of a change than the "combined" motorized infantry concept and as such would create less rebalancing and testing issues while avoiding most of the potential problems I listed above and keeping an existing fun/complexity aspect of the game.

So yes, I think it would be possible to increase the ground and air defense of all the truck (and other weak land) transports in the mod from the current GD 1-2 and AD 3-6 to something like GD 4 and AD 8-10. This would give them about the same defense as the current (mounted) cavalry units which are still quite vulnerable to attacks, but not as much as the current paper thin trucks.

This solution has the advantage of being easy to make, and it would also reduce the negative effect of the silly AI always moving these into the first line.

Another option would be to be a bit more bold and give them like GD 6 (or even 7-8?) to make them even more resistant to enemy ground attacks while leaving them still quite vulnerable to air attacks. This would of course further enhance the above effect. This would simulate that a vulnerable truck convoy is being attacked, it suffers some (potentially still heavy) losses but then try to turn back or disperse to reduce the losses and not just continue to move forward to get totally massacred like some silly lemmings, as is the case currently.

And in the end if this is still not enough, the "combined" motorized infantry concept is still waiting, but then most of the problems I listed above should be addressed somehow.

How do I send a save game file? I can not find a place for attachments in PM.

I send you a PM with an e-mail.

Turn 18 passed.
Looks more complicated than previous versions.

It is indeed. There are more choices, more options, more scripts than before. Which is good and bad at the same time.

After the 16th turn, for some reason the prestige per turn dropped to 40 and not about 240-280 as it was before, heh ..

That's strange. Isn't it because you upgraded some German strategic bomber units to fighters in the early turns? It costs 200 prestige per turn for each unit but it only happens when the new fighter unit appears, 11-12 turns after the bomber unit disappeared. By which time players tend to forget about that early message box which explains that.

Battleships against ground units are still very effective. Perhaps too much.

Perhaps their ground attack should be further reduced. But there is not much room left for that.

But I couldn't find any tangible visual differences between Light Infantry and Sec. Infantry.

Yes, I plan to modify the Security infantry a bit to make it more different.

But it remains possible to buy vehicles for ordinary infantry.
It turns out mobile infantry with vehicles and ordinary infantry with vehicles ...

Sure, one can always simply put infantry on trucks to give them more mobility. But the German Schützen/Panzergrenadier regiments were a bit more than that, they had special training for cooperating with tanks, while regular infantry had not. Thus they have a bit better stats and they are also more cost effective to buy than regular infanty + trucks. However, buying Panzergrendiers without truck or halftrack is not cost effective at all.

[Intenso82]

1. In the RAW mod only the AI controlled Germans have this kind of unit, the human controlled Soviet side has the "traditional" infantry with attached truck transport. Although I generally liked the idea, somehow I felt it a bit unfair as only the AI controlled enemy had such units. Nevertheless, it works well in that mod, because it helps the dumb AI to attack more effectively as there are no infantry units rushing forward in vulnerable trucks. But that mod is currently only designed to be played from the Soviet side, in contrast with the BE mod which has a multiplayer version and as such the two sides should be well balanced with the same assets available for both players. And thus both the Axis and the Allied player should have the same combined motorized infantry to make it fair. And even if there wasn't multiplayer, I think both sides should have the same gameplay mechanics to avoid players feel they are being cheated and that the AI is being given "unfair" advantages.

In my vision, such a unit in the hands of the player will be an uberunit. Therefore, they should not be available for purchase.
In the hands of the AI, it smooths out the dullness of the AI, which is good.

I am of the opinion that the units of different sides should be diverse, with their own abilities.
(Yes, a long time ago I played Dune 2 a lot, hehe)
Mobile infantry is more of a tactic, coordination and more of a German doctrine, in combination with tanks.
It is unlikely that any of the other sides could repeat this. This is a unique unit for Germany.
Next in the middle are the countries of the Western Allies.
They can use a combined mode like in BE or just a vehicle with improved protection.
Next comes the Soviet, where the infantry was almost not motorized.
Motorized infantry from tank brigades is part of tank units.
In the old version of the RAW mod, the Soviets had a lot of motorized infantry.
But most of it was only on paper. So now I decided to significantly reduce this number.
There are still a couple of moto infantry units, but these are elite units.

Intenso82 wrote: ↑19 Nov 2022 18:05
After the 16th turn, for some reason the prestige per turn dropped to 40 and not about 240-280 as it was before, heh ..
That's strange. Isn't it because you upgraded some German strategic bomber units to fighters in the early turns? It costs 200 prestige per turn for each unit but it only happens when the new fighter unit appears, 11-12 turns after the bomber unit disappeared. By which time players tend to forget about that early message box which explains that.

Yes, there was definitely an upgrade, it seems, of two bombers.
But it seems that I have not yet received fighters, but the prestige has decreased)
Might be worth taking the upgrade fee first.

[fgiannet]

1. It is incredible how much thought must go into balancing for multiplayer (especially on such a large mod as this). Most players probably want things balanced in single player as well (more likely to quit if they feel things are “unfair”).

2. I do not think having trucks is the same as being a motorized division. You make a great distinction by speaking of training and expectations regarding panzergrenadiers. The German motorized infantry divisions were typically deployed with and supported panzer divisions on the offensive. The Western Allies had no such divisions or even the strategic concept AFAIK. They had infantry and armored divisions but nothing to bridge the gap in between the two (and infantry divisions are for assaulting positions not rapid movement). They probably would have developed motorized divisions if they had to fight over larger/more open territory for years (you can see a commonality between the armies in their development of combined arms formations). They should only have trucks for increased movement. The Soviet Mechanized Corps often had more infantry than a Soviet Infantry Division and more tanks than a German Panzer Division. There could be an argument for their inclusion. They would probably equal the same number of German units (when calculating all the respective manpower, German Motorisiert only had 2 regiments) but appear later. The Soviet Tank Corps do not have enough infantry to be included.

Your other points are intelligent as well. Raising the abstraction will eventually lead to having very generic units on a map (which would be fine with me and probably means I am not the right player to be giving suggestions ). I mean......I don’t even care about fair.....was it fair when those Ordos Ornithopters kept destroying my harvesters 25+ years ago?!

I understand your vision for the mod better and will enjoy playing it even more now (and Maths is clearly smart enough to make his adjustments without waiting for 2.5 ).

[Locarnus]

Interesting discussion!

In my addon I experimented a bit with the Kradschützen unit, as a sample to possibly extend the mechanic to the Sahariana and similar units.
Currently (addon version 2022-10) the Kradschützen unit can switch between infantry mode (6 wheeled, phased recon movement, 6 GD, 2 CD) and recon mode (8 wheeled, phased recon movement, 5 GD, 1 CD).
The idea was to simply provide 2 more movement in recon mode, but at the cost of defense values. But of course the infantry mode also provides the hardcoded infantry class bonus and the recon mode povides the hardcoded recon class malus (eg when attacking AT class units).
Overall the unit is weaker than normal infantry, being primarily a recon unit.
Imho something that works quite well is the limitation to one movement type (wheeled), regardless of infantry or recon mode.
Having such an "integrated" transport normally provides movement advantages, but also movement mali eg during snow or mud season.

Overall I'm not quite happy with the current state, but unsure how to improve it.
Players are rather reluctant to switch units in general and too much switching can also be detrimental to the "flow" of the game.
Though this might also be a familiarity issue for units that can only switch in the addon but not in the vanilla PzC game.

Maybe same ground and close defense for both modes, but no phased recon movement in infantry mode?

Extending that concept to the Panzergrenadiere could result in some more "specialized Panzergrenadiere type", that can switch between infantry and integrated "transport" mode. Perhaps limiting the more expensive SdKfz 250 to that special Panzergrenadiere unit, while the cheaper 251 works as usual for the other standard infantry units.

I have also buffed the SdKfz 250 and 251 values a bit, since they are usually for more elite units anyway. Though they are still not used very much and then there is the problem with being "hard type units" against late hard attack values of soviet and other tanks.

[Maths]

Again, some very interesting discussion is going on here! Almost like back in the day, which means PzC is still not dead yet.

That is indeed great and awesome mods like yours are accountable for a lot of that !

In fact some time ago I was indeed thinking to introduce Intenso82's combined motorized infantry concept from RAW to this mod.

1. In the RAW mod only the AI controlled Germans have this kind of unit, the human controlled Soviet side has the "traditional" infantry with attached truck transport. Although I generally liked the idea, somehow I felt it a bit unfair as only the AI controlled enemy had such units. Nevertheless, it works well in that mod, because it helps the dumb AI to attack more effectively as there are no infantry units rushing forward in vulnerable trucks. But that mod is currently only designed to be played from the Soviet side, in contrast with the BE mod which has a multiplayer version and as such the two sides should be well balanced with the same assets available for both players. And thus both the Axis and the Allied player should have the same combined motorized infantry to make it fair. And even if there wasn't multiplayer, I think both sides should have the same gameplay mechanics to avoid players feel they are being cheated and that the AI is being given "unfair" advantages.

You're right about multiplayer, I only had a couple of experiences with multiplayer BE so I first forgot about the balance issue changing how trucks work would cause.

2. Basically all the US and the British infantry was motorized in WW2. So most, if not all their infantry units should be similar "combined" infantry with high movement.

In my vision, such a unit in the hands of the player will be an uberunit. Therefore, they should not be available for purchase.
...
In the hands of the AI, it smooths out the dullness of the AI, which is good.
...
I am of the opinion that the units of different sides should be diverse, with their own abilities.
Mobile infantry is more of a tactic, coordination and more of a German doctrine, in combination with tanks.
It is unlikely that any of the other sides could repeat this. This is a unique unit for Germany.

I agree with that. AFAIK There was no motorized infantry divisions per se in the Western Allies armies. As said, both the US and the UK/Commonwealth had almost all their divisions equipped with trucks but they used those trucks only for rear area movement and never (AFAIK again) in the way Germany did use its motorized ID.

Next in the middle are the countries of the Western Allies.
They can use a combined mode like in BE or just a vehicle with improved protection.

In this regard, I would opt for leaving Western Allies (WA) trucks units unchanged. Vanilla truck system accounts for rear area movement quite well and since the WA did not use their trucks as mobile attacking forces, keeping the vanilla weakness of those trucks as it is could fit the bill here.

Next comes the Soviet, where the infantry was almost not motorized.
Motorized infantry from tank brigades is part of tank units.

I must confess that I don't know much about soviet motorized divisions and doctrines. I can't tell how they were used. I heard about motorized corps but from what I understood those were more of tank corps with a slight focus on infantry rather than actual large formations of trucks... but again I'm not the right person to ask on that case.

3. It would be hard to make a difference between the truck and armored halftruck equipped German motorized infantry in this system. So perhaps there should be only one generic German motorized infantry. But than the difference between the tactical use of truck and armoured half-track mounted infantry could not be simulated which would remove some of the complexity and fun from the mod. And then the same problem would affect the similar Allied units. As for example the Americans had significant amounts of half-tracks but they also used lots of trucks.

Fair point ! Apart from giving even greater (and certainly unjustified) combat stats than truck-infantry it would be difficult to emphasize the difference between the two.
And the tweak you've suggested initially (making halftracks more efficient on the offensive while keeping their relative vulnerabilty) would more accurately depict the doctrinal change pointed out by @P210.

4. If motorized infantry units are to be turned to such "combined" units, then what about the motorized artillery? But then what would be the difference between such units and the existing self-propelled artillery units?

Agreed. At this scale, I interpret the slow moving artillery units getting into firing positions as the time consumed by the attacker to prepare his assault on an enemy prepared position. So keeping artilley as they are is crucial both for the sake of the above and also to segregate them from self-propelled pieces.

5. And also I have to agree with fgiannet:

Doing away with trucks is a very interesting concept.... A strategy game should involve decision making (do I put the unit on trucks for increased speed while risking increased vulnerability). Evaluating different courses of action is what makes them fun (risk vs reward, etc.). Less decisions = less fun.

I think these decisions make the vanilla game great. Reducing the number of decisions and simplifying it would make it less fun. Obviously there is a lot of abstraction in the mod and it is by no means a 100% depiction of WW2 warfare at this strategic level, but it is not intended to be as such. For that there are other games like Gary Grigsby's and the like. But in my subjective opinion those are less fun as the games of the good old PG franchise. And also the "motto" from the first page of this thread is "A strategic mod on tactical level (or a tactical mod on strategic level, lol)" meaning that it is a mixture of a large scale hard-core strategic game and a beer and pretzels tactical game. Which should not be taken too seriously, but still...

Absolutely true. And while the games mentioned here and there are difficult to compare with PzC, I do believe that your mod takes the apparent simplicity of PzC and turns it into something really interesting and actually quite complex thanks to really thought out mechanics. So the "same" goal is reached while going through a more friendly way than WitE/WitW for example which are very heavy and sometimes cumbersome games for better and for worse.

For sure, but in that case in the end there should only be two types of ground units in the mod at this scale: a generic infantry and a generic tank unit, and that's it. Would that be fun? I don't think so. And again, for that purpose there are other more refined games with the necessary additional features like research, morale and diplomacy e.g. the Strategic Command series. Those do a great job on their own, but do not really have the same tactical aspect as the games of the PG franchise.

Definetely. BE is a Panzer Corps mod with what it implies in terms of abstraction, complexity etc...

So in the end, while I think there is indeed a potential and a rationale in this idea it may create more problems than solutions. However,

I do agree on the fact that truck-mounted infantry rarely fought mounted but in the game loaded units don't fire back when attacked and you can be happy with "only" a 6-strength loss... I think that trucks in the game are efficient in simulating the enhanced rear-area movement of appropriate units but AFAIK trucks did bolster a unit's reactivity, tactical movement ability and thus overall performance.
...
although I would still advocate a slight increase of their ground defense if these units were to go on the frontline loaded on trucks.

This looks like a plausible solution and may worth a try. It would be less of a change than the "combined" motorized infantry concept and as such would create less rebalancing and testing issues while avoiding most of the potential problems I listed above and keeping an existing fun/complexity aspect of the game.
So yes, I think it would be possible to increase the ground and air defense of all the truck (and other weak land) transports in the mod from the current GD 1-2 and AD 3-6 to something like GD 4 and AD 8-10. This would give them about the same defense as the current (mounted) cavalry units which are still quite vulnerable to attacks, but not as much as the current paper thin trucks.
This solution has the advantage of being easy to make, and it would also reduce the negative effect of the silly AI always moving these into the first line.

In the light of your experience as the mod's author and the problems you have underlined, this sounds indeed like the most feasible tweak and a good compromise.

Another option would be to be a bit more bold and give them like GD 6 (or even 7-8?) to make them even more resistant to enemy ground attacks while leaving them still quite vulnerable to air attacks. This would of course further enhance the above effect. This would simulate that a vulnerable truck convoy is being attacked, it suffers some (potentially still heavy) losses but then try to turn back or disperse to reduce the losses and not just continue to move forward to get totally massacred like some silly lemmings, as is the case currently.

Actually this is very close to the above solution in theory and is a serious alternative to the more moderate tweak. I don't know which one would best depict the realistic/historical situation.

And in the end if this is still not enough, the "combined" motorized infantry concept is still waiting, but then most of the problems I listed above should be addressed somehow.

Who knows ?

Really enjoying this discussion !
Greetings,

[fgiannet]

Next comes the Soviet, where the infantry was almost not motorized.
Motorized infantry from tank brigades is part of tank units.

I must confess that I don't know much about soviet motorized divisions and doctrines. I can't tell how they were used. I heard about motorized corps but from what I understood those were more of tank corps with a slight focus on infantry rather than actual large formations of trucks... but again I'm not the right person to ask on that case.

The Soviet Mechanized Corps....another innovation the Soviet military gets no credit/acknowledgement for (along with artillery divisions, Cavalry-Mech groups, etc.). The Soviet line infantry did a lot of walking and pushing but Stavka was smart/innovative enough to concentrate scarce transportation into their Mechanized Corps (which were different from Tank Corps). It was a motorized division on steroids (albeit with less powerful artillery support).

https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/7/12 ... ised-corps

http://www.niehorster.org/012_ussr/43-0 ... h_003.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechani ... iet_Union)

[bondjamesbond]

Okay, there are trucks and horse-drawn vehicles for the delivery of cargoes of infantry and artillery) There are also railways and sea delivery) After 1944, the Wehrmacht and the SS very much began to feel the unsatisfied need for fuel and lubricants, spare parts and ammunition (tungsten still had to be obtained, and the stocks captured in Europe were gradually spent as trophies) So if we want a truthful mod, then it's time to introduce economy and reserves into micromanagement)

Having unleashed the Second World War, Germany found itself in a kind of oil trap. Combat operations with the participation of a huge army required enormous funds and resources from it, including huge reserves of fuel. But with him in the Third Reich, things were far from brilliant.

http://www.dogswar.ru/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7&start=70

On the eve of the war, oil production in Germany looked simply pathetic. German companies produced only 0.55 million tons of oil per year.



For comparison
In 1938, 164.1 million tons of oil were produced in the USA, 30.2 million tons in the USSR, 10.4 million tons in Iran, and 6.6 million tons in Romania.

Germany was sitting on a real oil import needle. It was about six million tons per year. Most of the oil products the Third Reich received from the Americans. But after Hitler started the Second World War, these supplies actually stopped. Since May 1940, Berlin's ally, Romania, has been supplying oil to Germany (in 1940 - about 1.2 million tons, in 1941 - already about three million tons), but this was clearly not enough.



Tanks and planes devoured huge amounts of fuel every day. And the more Germany was drawn into the war, the more gasoline, diesel fuel and fuel oil it needed.



Germany's blitzkrieg tactics were largely due to her lack of fuel supplies. One of the main tasks of military operations has always been to capture enemy fuel resources. It was no coincidence that Hitler counted on a breakthrough to the Middle East and Iran - to the largest oil regions of the world. The Soviet Union also occupied an important place in his oil plans.



Reich Minister of Armaments and War Industry Albert Speer later admitted: "We invaded Russia because of oil."



The war against the USSR was also prepared as a lightning operation that would lead to the capture of Soviet oil fields, fuel storage facilities and oil refineries.



This, according to the German military, on the one hand, would paralyze the Red Army and ensure the victory of the Reich, and on the other hand, would provide the necessary amount of oil for many years to come.



Read more on TASS:
https://tass.ru/spec/oilvictory

https://en.topwar.ru/35451-lend-liz-dlya-gitlera.html

LXIII. Military and economic potential of the Third Reich: oil and oil products
Any war, and even more so a total war, puts forward certain requirements for the participants. This is, first of all, the presence of powerful armed forces. But it is also important to have a developed economy and a military-industrial complex that provides for the needs of the army and navy during the conflict. Relatively speaking, the readiness of any state for war can be depicted as a triangle, the basis of which is the national economy, the middle line is the military-industrial complex, and the top is the armed forces.

So let's look at the military and economic potential of the German Empire on the eve and during the Second World War. Let's start with oil and oil products. As you know, after the end of the First World War, the head of the Foreign Office, Lord Curzon, argued that "the Allied cause sailed to victory on the crest of an oil wave." That's right: in the war of engines, fuel for these same engines is resource No. 1.

So, at the beginning of the war, the needs of the Reich (the total needs of the economy and the armed forces) in oil products were estimated at approximately 690 thousand tons per month. Of this figure, approximately 275 thousand tons were closed due to domestic production, another 180 thousand tons - due to imports from Romania and the USSR, the rest - from accumulated reserves (as of September 1, 1939, they amounted to about 2.134 thousand tons) .

During the war, the situation changed dramatically.

Firstly, the consumption of oil products has grown outrageously.

Secondly, from June 22, 1941, all deliveries from the Soviet Union ceased due to the outbreak of war against it. True, the Germans very quickly received at their disposal the deposits of Galicia, which Stalin so carefully negotiated for himself in 1939 in exchange for appropriate compensation to Germany.

Thirdly, this is actually the situation with Romanian oil. The team of authors of the 12-volume "History of WWII 1939 - 1945", comparing the economic potential of the USSR and the Axis countries, for some incomprehensible reason, recorded the Germans as an asset 10 million tons of Romanian oil per year, which, excuse me, is nonsense, t .to. a) in 1938 - 1944 oil production in Romania has never risen above 6.6 million tons (1938); b) it steadily declined, reaching 5.3 million tons in 1943; c) far from all the produced oil was exported (and, mind you, not necessarily to Germany) (maximum - 4.5 million tons in 1938, minimum - 3.2 million tons in 1943) and d) the maximum that Germany could count on and what it received in 1941 was 2.9 million tons, i.e. an average of 242 thousand tons per month.

Theoretically, the Germans, probably, could have pumped out more oil from the Romanians, if not for one "but" called "logistics". The problem was that in peacetime, all the oil purchased by Germany in Romania entered the Reich through three channels: a) by sea; b) ships on the Danube and c) railway. At the same time, in 1938, sea transportation accounted for more than 3/4 of all deliveries, river transportation - 1/5, and railway - less than 1/30!

With the outbreak of World War II, the possibility of cabotage transportation of oil from Constanta somewhere to Hamburg or Venice was excluded. And the transport capabilities of the Danube and the railways are significantly limited by the weakness of the river tanker fleet and the capacity of the Romanian railways.

https://grid-ua.livejournal.com/22379.html


Economy of World War II
https://wwii.space/Экономика-Второй-мировой/



https://btgv.ru/history/warcraft/страте ... years-ago/




https://smolbattle.ru/threads/Ящики.80609/


https://www.angi.ru/news/2898594-Где%20 ... й%20войны/

[P210]

Borrowing from Scott Adams: "Two movies on one screen". That is how I view PzC BE.

There is strategic level. Decisions about where to allocate resources (prestige), where and when to attack against which opponent and with how much force so that in the end you control the whole Europe and NA & ME, smaller decision about spending prestige to grow and maintain expert Airforce or upgrading to latest and greatest tanks, the whole Naval strategy etc.

Then there is the tactical level, which I see as immersive 3D Chess game on a huge board, with hundreds of different pieces and with occasional airlift

It is step or two higher abstraction level than Steel Panthers III, but still nicely represents the effect of incredibly fast equipment evolution over the war years and the necessity to keep up with it. Separating support units, Artillery, AT and AA, from basic Infantry and Tank units allows Chess like game where one has to find the best way of using each unit and its strengths to your advantage within given terrain.

Game balance. The original Panzer General got it right. Bought my first PC just to play PG
BE single player balance is also about perfect. TV is still feasible with Realistic+, General, full dice, no reply mode. Admit, have been playing this too much and would like it to be harder
BE multiplayer balance, after few games with different versions, seems quite good. Need to start a new MP game to evaluate the latest version

[Intenso82]

It is step or two higher abstraction level than Steel Panthers III, but still nicely represents the effect of incredibly fast equipment evolution over the war years and the necessity to keep up with it.

Allow me some nostalgic memories
When PG1 appeared it was a real godsend for me.
But also great games that I spent a huge number of hours on are SteelPanters 1, 2, 3 Brigade Command.
Then the classic wargames with a bunch of numbers were too complicated and incomprehensible for me.
In 2000, SteelPanthers: World at War, MatrixGames, came out, then I found out about this publisher)
This base game was free with a free download from the site.
Spent more time playing it.
Then a tandem with the Slitherine appeared and after about 10 years we saw PanzerCorps.

[bondjamesbond]

The late firm Strategic Simulations Inc. gave fans very good games, just like Westwood once did with his arcade C &C
https://www.old-games.ru/catalog/?developerCompany=36
Panzer corps is also already a classic, what motivated the creator of the second corps is not clear)))

[Intenso82]

Does anyone have a screenshot of the deployment of troops for the successful defense of Sicily?
If you focus on protecting her, not protecting Tunisia.
Is such a line possible?

[Uhu]

I think it depends on:
1., Strong air force
2., Strong naval force
If you do not have these, you cannot defend Sicily.

Does anyone have a screenshot of the deployment of troops for the successful defense of Sicily?
If you focus on protecting her, not protecting Tunisia.
Is such a line possible?

[Intenso82]

I think use core troops Tiger, maybe Stug
2 arty, 6 inf. w/CD=3 jager, Pio or PzGrd
+some decoy inf. to slow down Allies landing

[faos333]

... The original Panzer General got it right. Bought my first PC just to play PG

Me toooo !!!!!!!!!

[faos333]

I think use core troops Tiger, maybe Stug
2 arty, 6 inf. w/CD=3 jager, Pio or PzGrd
+some decoy inf. to slow down Allies landing

I have not yet tried to defend Sicily landing in BE, but I think, maybe Goose tried it, in his BE 2.2 version.

[bondjamesbond]

In order to successfully defend Sicily, it was necessary to get rid of the mafia in reality)))

And soon Lucky Luciano, who was in an American prison, was visited by old friends and associates - lawyer Moses Polakof and Meyer Lansky, the "mafia accountant" (one of the founders of the gambling business in Las Vegas). On behalf of the American government, they made the "godfather" "an offer that cannot be refused."


Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky

Cooperation with the mafia turned out to be very successful: American ports worked like clockwork during the war years. And during the landing of the allies in Sicily (“Operation Husky”), the losses of the Americans, who were assisted by local mafiosi, were much less than the British.

Montgomery's Eighth British Army, which landed in Syracuse and Pachino, made its way to Messina with stubborn battles for 5 whole weeks.

The American troops of George Patton (Seventh Army) from Gela and Licate reached Palermo almost without a fight in seven days. On this journey, at the request of Lucky Luciano, they were personally accompanied by the "boss of bosses" of Sicily - Calogero Vizzini (Don Calo), whom the Americans called the "General of the Mafia". Later, he was even appointed mayor of the city of Villalba and awarded the title of "honorary colonel" of the American army.

And the second most influential mafia of the island, Genco Russo, without any help, captured Colonel Salemi, a staunch fascist and commander of the impregnable fortress of Monte Cammarata. Many of the soldiers and officers of the demoralized garrison were Sicilians. Threatened with reprisals against members of their families, they capitulated to the mafiosi.

Giuseppe Genco Russo, mafia boss of the city of Mussomeli (province of Caltanissetta)

According to eyewitnesses, in the cities where the Americans entered, shooting often began: the emboldened mafiosi settled scores with their enemies and with overly principled policemen.

https://sergpodzoro.livejournal.com/322847.html

Sicilian Blitzkrieg
On July 20, a tank column approached Villalba. A strange yellow flag with a black "L" in the center fluttered over the lead tank. Don Calo met the column at the entrance to the village in order to personally lead the Americans through the danger zone. The column marched without encountering resistance. While the British and Canadians fought their way across the plains of Sicily, the Americans advanced through the mountainous regions almost unscathed. The mafia cleared the roads of snipers, provided guides, provided support for the local population. American officers received from her information about bridges, rivers, and the presence of sources. The cities surrendered without a fight, the garrisons capitulated without firing a single shot. As one of the American officers enthused, Calogero Vizzini's assistance amounted to an entire panzer division. Only the soldiers of the Wehrmacht, for whom the oath to the Fuhrer was higher than the request of a certain Don Kahlo, offered desperate resistance to the Americans. Crushing the German units, the Americans went north to take the capital of Sicily, Palermo.

Who played the game Mafia 2 remembers the first mission)))



https://www.strategium.ru/forum/topic/3 ... nt-3652486

[laubbaum13]

Hi Guba,
the download links for Panzer Corps v1.31 or/and v1.32 are broken. Do you have another one or any idea where we can buy.
BR laubbaum

[bondjamesbond]

Hi Guba,
the download links for Panzer Corps v1.31 or/and v1.32 are broken. Do you have another one or any idea where we can buy.
BR laubbaum

http://flashback.games/files/PanzerCorps_131.zip
http://flashback.games/files/PanzerCorps132.zip


https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76489