Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[bondjamesbond]

Then you will have to make full - fledged ports ! Convoys with valuable cargo should be escorted from warships so that wolf packs and bombers would not completely deprive England and the USSR of Lend Lease support ) Axis countries should also be given additional ports and cash cows , then it would be possible to unload ammunition and fuel directly into the sea )


https://uboat.net/types/xiv.htm
https://warspot.ru/7596-proryv-blokady-pod-vodoy

https://waralbum.ru/27383/

[Locarnus]

Then you will have to make full - fledged ports ! Convoys with valuable cargo should be escorted from warships so that wolf packs and bombers would not completely deprive England and the USSR of Lend Lease support ) Axis countries should also be given additional ports and cash cows , then it would be possible to unload ammunition and fuel directly into the sea )
[...]

I just published the Addon update introducing German strategic bombers as payment tokens.
First for strategic transports (sea, train, air) and smaller German naval vessels.
Every penny you spend on ships, you will miss for other frontlines.
And navy purchases are at the moment only available from turn 16 onwards, so you can not attempt to catch up to the British navy in 1941.

Went with [starting number of transports] + [max number of purchases] * [transports per purchase] for now:
8 + 3*1 sea transports
5 + 3*2 train transports (one strat bomber buys two trains)
2 + 3*1 air transports (for land units)

So you start with 5 available trains. You can make three purchases. Each purchase gives you two additonal trains and costs you one strat bomber (~530 prestige).

[bondjamesbond]

Then you will have to make full - fledged ports ! Convoys with valuable cargo should be escorted from warships so that wolf packs and bombers would not completely deprive England and the USSR of Lend Lease support ) Axis countries should also be given additional ports and cash cows , then it would be possible to unload ammunition and fuel directly into the sea )
[...]

I just published the Addon update introducing German strategic bombers as payment tokens.
First for strategic transports (sea, train, air) and smaller German naval vessels.
Every penny you spend on ships, you will miss for other frontlines.
And navy purchases are at the moment only available from turn 16 onwards, so you can not attempt to catch up to the British navy in 1941.

Went with [starting number of transports] + [max number of purchases] * [transports per purchase] for now:
8 + 3*1 sea transports
5 + 3*2 train transports (one strat bomber buys two trains)
2 + 3*1 air transports (for land units)

So you start with 5 available trains. You can make three purchases. Each purchase gives you two additonal trains and costs you one strat bomber (~530 prestige).

Well , let 's try out your experiment ! If the convoys that have reached will add units or prestige , the player will take care of them !The other side will try to sink the ship with all its might , since it is probably better to give prestige for every sunk ship , even if not much , but there should definitely be a reward )Let the partisans attack the rails and bridges , then the garrisons and the gendarmerie and the punishers will be of use )

https://novate.ru/blogs/201119/52448/




Who said that the pirates died))) That's how jolly Roger was understood in time of the 20th century)))
https://s30232294060.mirtesen.ru/blog/4 ... olyiy-Rodz
https://club443.ru/arc/index.php?s=0&sh ... 21&st=2150

[Locarnus]

Well , let 's try out your experiment ! If the convoys that have reached will add units or prestige , the player will take care of them !The other side will try to sink the ship with all its might , since it is probably better to give prestige for every sunk ship , even if not much , but there should definitely be a reward )Let the partisans attack the rails and bridges , then the garrisons and the gendarmerie and the punishers will be of use )

Having British units tied to convoys could provide a greater incentive to fight the Battle of the Atlantic.
At the moment, submarine reinforcements and especially losses seem to outweigh the benefits of waging the submarine war.

[bondjamesbond]

Well , let 's try out your experiment ! If the convoys that have reached will add units or prestige , the player will take care of them !The other side will try to sink the ship with all its might , since it is probably better to give prestige for every sunk ship , even if not much , but there should definitely be a reward )Let the partisans attack the rails and bridges , then the garrisons and the gendarmerie and the punishers will be of use )

Having British units tied to convoys could provide a greater incentive to fight the Battle of the Atlantic.
At the moment, submarine reinforcements and especially losses seem to outweigh the benefits of waging the submarine war.

Because the AI fleet is now underdeveloped ) Sea battles can be carried out if everything wakes up to function correctly))) Yes, convoys will have to be protected and guarded, but it is necessary to raise the incentive for each drowned ship so that the player will receive a reward, albeit not a big one))

http://www.nnre.ru/istorija/voennye_dne ... ne/p12.php

https://en.topwar.ru/78712-lend-liz-sev ... henie.html

On August 31, 1941, the first Arctic Allied convoy with strategic cargo arrived in Arkhangelsk, undetected by German aerial reconnaissance, codenamed "Dervish". Officially, the convoy did not receive the letter letter PQ, but in the literature and the media there are mentions of this convoy under the letters with the number PQ-0.

During the war years, 40 convoys consisting of 811 vessels passed through the Arctic waters to the Soviet Union. In the opposite direction, 715 ships with QP numbers left for the ports of Great Britain and Iceland as part of 35 convoys.

https://warspot.ru/4318-arkticheskie-ko ... m-uglu-ada



https://panzercorps.wordpress.com/2016/ ... n-tactics/

[Locarnus]

With both goose_2 and Duedman essentially defeating the Soviet Union around turn 60, I wonder what can be adjusted in that respect.

They played with different versions (without and with Addon), as well as gameplay (rng) and difficulty settings.
Neither engaged in the battle of the Atlantic and both heavily relied on Flak exploitation to defeat the Allied bombers.

They both used different strategies against the SU (Moscow priority, unit upgrades), but the key for success was imho their previous experience with the scenario.

After the focus on and essential defeat of the SU between late 1943 and early 1944, it was only a matter of time to crush the western Allies.
Even the "second half" of the fight against the SU (turns 30-60) was more of a mop up operation.
The SU reinforcements just trickled in and could be defeated separately, after the loss of a chohesive frontline in the East.

So my question is, how to bolster the SU in the mid game and thus make the end game more fun for non-blind playthroughs?

[Uhu]

Play on FM, Rommel, or any harder difficulty.

With both goose_2 and Duedman essentially defeating the Soviet Union around turn 60, I wonder what can be adjusted in that respect.

They played with different versions (without and with Addon), as well as gameplay (rng) and difficulty settings.
Neither engaged in the battle of the Atlantic and both heavily relied on Flak exploitation to defeat the Allied bombers.

They both used different strategies against the SU (Moscow priority, unit upgrades), but the key for success was imho their previous experience with the scenario.

After the focus on and essential defeat of the SU between late 1943 and early 1944, it was only a matter of time to crush the western Allies.
Even the "second half" of the fight against the SU (turns 30-60) was more of a mop up operation.
The SU reinforcements just trickled in and could be defeated separately, after the loss of a chohesive frontline in the East.

So my question is, how to bolster the SU in the mid game and thus make the end game more fun for non-blind playthroughs?

[Locarnus]

Play on FM, Rommel, or any harder difficulty.

Duedman played BE + Addon 2022-10 on General difficulty, reduced randomness, with pre-scenarios, non-blind.
goose_2 played BE 2.3 on FM difficulty, normal dice, with pre-scenarios, non-blind.

What difficulty setting would you recommend for goose_2 to make the game interesting beyond turn ~50?

[Intenso82]

What difficulty setting would you recommend for goose_2 to make the game interesting beyond turn ~50?

BE 2.4, General+, normal random, -Undo, w/o pre-scenarios.

[Locarnus]

What difficulty setting would you recommend for goose_2 to make the game interesting beyond turn ~50?

BE 2.4, General+, normal random, -Undo, w/o pre-scenarios.

Are you saying that the SU is considerably harder to defeat in BE 2.4 than in BE 2.3?

[Intenso82]

What difficulty setting would you recommend for goose_2 to make the game interesting beyond turn ~50?

BE 2.4, General+, normal random, -Undo, w/o pre-scenarios.

Are you saying that the SU is considerably harder to defeat in BE 2.4 than in BE 2.3?

I think yes.
I tried to play in BE 2.4 it was more challenge after turn 60.

Normal random - makes it possible to lose valuable units.
-Undo - does not allow use recon cheat.
w/o pre-scenarios - the player will have less prestige and experienced units on start Barbarossa.

Realistic+ version - gives pressure on fuel limits.

[Locarnus]

Are you saying that the SU is considerably harder to defeat in BE 2.4 than in BE 2.3?

I think yes.
I tried to play in BE 2.4 it was more challenge after turn 60.

Normal random - makes it possible to lose valuable units.
-Undo - does not allow use recon cheat.
w/o pre-scenarios - the player will have less prestige and experienced units on start Barbarossa.

Realistic+ version - gives pressure on fuel limits.

Hm, I do not believe those things to make a great enough difference against the SU when it counts the most.

Imho something more is necessary.
Once the Axis crushes the dynamic SU frontline, SU reinforcements can be defeated piecemeal when they trickle in.
And taking crucial objectives like Moscow, Leningrad and Baku makes that even easier.

The AI is just too inept to reestablish a critical mass, even locally.
Perhaps it would make sense to "bunch up" reinforcements a bit more to compensate that AI restriction.
Resulting in at least some credible counterattacks, rather than a steady stream of easily defeated "finger food".

[PeteMitchell]

BE 2.4, General+, normal random, -Undo, w/o pre-scenarios.

Are you saying that the SU is considerably harder to defeat in BE 2.4 than in BE 2.3?

I think yes.
I tried to play in BE 2.4 it was more challenge after turn 60.

Normal random - makes it possible to lose valuable units.
-Undo - does not allow use recon cheat.
w/o pre-scenarios - the player will have less prestige and experienced units on start Barbarossa.

Realistic+ version - gives pressure on fuel limits.

I would also expect this to make a difference.

However, it may also make sense to concentrate the spamming of SU units during certain turns to create some sort of stronger wave, i.e. not to increase units in total but to have just more at a certain point in time maybe.

[jchello]

Quick question for a newbie and forgive me if this has been covered before. In the description for Operation Barbarossa on the grand campaign it suggests not to take any russian victory cities if you plan on doing operation Sea Lion for risk of "angering the Russian bear too much". Can anyone tell me what this actually means in practice? If I am going to forgo all the prestige that could be gained from those cities I would like to know that it is worth it in some tangible sense. Does this mean that the russians will not get as many reinforcements or some such? Thanks!

[Intenso82]

Hm, I do not believe those things to make a great enough difference against the SU when it counts the most.

Needs to be tested in practice)
In my vision, the player has a small window to capture Moscow in 1941, if this does not happen, the Soviets will be stronger.

Imho something more is necessary.
Once the Axis crushes the dynamic SU frontline, SU reinforcements can be defeated piecemeal when they trickle in.
And taking crucial objectives like Moscow, Leningrad and Baku makes that even easier.

The AI is just too inept to reestablish a critical mass, even locally.
Perhaps it would make sense to "bunch up" reinforcements a bit more to compensate that AI restriction.
Resulting in at least some credible counterattacks, rather than a steady stream of easily defeated "finger food".

At the same time, with less prestige.
The player will experience difficulty in capturing strategic objects.
Due to the fact that the Soviets will constantly have fresh units on the way.

It is also generally consistent with the doctrine of the Soviets.
They did not sit in a static defense, but constantly counterattacked.

As we know it was even in 1942 and 1941 too.
Until Stalingrad in 1942, it was an attempt to deblock Leningrad.
In the center is the Rzhev operation, 4 offensives of the Soviets from 42 to 43.
In the south, the Kerch and Kharkov offensive operations in 1942.

Well, the Soviets constantly counter-attacked, albeit unsuccessfully, but it put pressure on the Axis.

Therefore, I would like even more offensive operations before Stalingrad. And fewer static lines of defense.

[McGuba]

Quick question for a newbie and forgive me if this has been covered before. In the description for Operation Barbarossa on the grand campaign it suggests not to take any russian victory cities if you plan on doing operation Sea Lion for risk of "angering the Russian bear too much". Can anyone tell me what this actually means in practice? If I am going to forgo all the prestige that could be gained from those cities I would like to know that it is worth it in some tangible sense. Does this mean that the russians will not get as many reinforcements or some such? Thanks!

As far as I remember in the early versions of the mod there was such a mechanic (i.e. the SU got less units attacking early on if the Axis was more passive), but it may have been removed at some point in the past. I think now it mostly means that if the Axis player focuses on Sea Lion at the start and stays on the defense in the east then the historical Soviet offensives of 41-42 will not be as damaging and would be easier to stop. Mainly because of the distance between the area of those operations and the Soviet border. Additionally, the unit strength damages of the first winter can be avoided if the Axis army does not advance to the east.

What difficulty setting would you recommend for goose_2 to make the game interesting beyond turn ~50?

BE 2.4, General+, normal random, -Undo, w/o pre-scenarios.

I agree. In addition, I think Goose made great use of the pre-scenarios, mainly by selling a core unit and replacing it with another SdKfz 232 (8 rad), if I remember well. Thereby he could attack with two of these highly mobile 8-wheeled recon units in 1941 instead of just one. I think it was also exacerbated by his use of the recon-undo "trick", as he calls it. Basically whenever he moves recon type units, he leaves them a few movement points and then presses the "Undo" button, which allows him to resupply them in the same turn (after moving them). In this way his recon units never run out of fuel and never have to spend a whole turn resupplying, unlike any other ground unit. This is clearly a game bug, which should have been fixed by the developer at some point, but never was. Now, since the race for Moscow in 1941 is so crucial, this exploitation of a game bug (which was unknown to me until I saw him doing it) can break the balance quite significantly and there is not much I can do about it, unless suggesting players not to use it or play the game with the "Undo" option unchecked.

As for a second SdKfz 232 being present in 1941, I have decided to give this unit the "nopurchase" trait in the next verison of the mod. In reality the Germans had only 186 SdKfz 231/232 8-rads in June 1941, with 162 of these in the East. Which makes up a single understrength unit. (That's why this unit starts with strength 8 in turn 1, given that a full strength "vehicle" type unit represents 200 actual vehicles in the mod.)

In reality, the SdKfz 232 was quite expensive and complicated to produce, hence the rather limited production run. I have the information that some 47 more of these were produced between June-Dec 1941, followed by 154 in 1942 and 200 in 1943, when its production ended. Therefore, given the historical production numbers, the player should not be able to purchase a second one of this until mid/late 1942, even if we assume that none of the newly produced vehicles are used to replace losses.

Besides being historically more accurate, it would also ensure that players cannot use two of these highly mobile units in 1941 which makes it rather easy to reach and capture Moscow before the Soviet reinfocement units would appear there. Something that players can currently do so, even if they start the scenario in 1941, since all they have to do is to upgrade an existing recon unit to this type.

So all in all, until a new version comes, I would suggest players looking for a historically more accurate and challenging experience to play BE 2.4 on FM (or Rommel, or perhaps even on a combination of these two), starting in June 1941, on real+, normal random dice, using only one SdKfz 232 until mid 1942, and not using the recon-undo "trick" or save-reload at all. I hope it makes sense.

Are you saying that the SU is considerably harder to defeat in BE 2.4 than in BE 2.3?

It is somewhat harder. As to what it means "considerably" may be subject to debate. Perhaps Uhu, and others who played both versions can share more of their experiences in this matter.

Hm, I do not believe those things to make a great enough difference against the SU when it counts the most.

Needs to be tested in practice)
In my vision, the player has a small window to capture Moscow in 1941, if this does not happen, the Soviets will be stronger.

Yes, that's the original idea since v1.0.

Imho something more is necessary.
Once the Axis crushes the dynamic SU frontline, SU reinforcements can be defeated piecemeal when they trickle in.
And taking crucial objectives like Moscow, Leningrad and Baku makes that even easier.

The AI is just too inept to reestablish a critical mass, even locally.
Perhaps it would make sense to "bunch up" reinforcements a bit more to compensate that AI restriction.
Resulting in at least some credible counterattacks, rather than a steady stream of easily defeated "finger food".

Yes, that may be correct. However, I think it is fair to assume that had the Axis captured Moscow (and/or Leningrad, etc.), Soviet resistance would have become less organised and more chaotic after that.

[Locarnus]

An idea:

Give the Soviet Union more units from the western Allies, based upon the amount of Axis trade warfare in the Atlantic.

This would give a further incentive to the Axis player to actually wage the "Battle of the Atlantic".
It would also buff the Soviet Union, if the player does not conduct this trade war (which is the default among experienced players at the moment).
Rough implementation does not require more AI zones.

It could be argued that the Western Allies would have sent more help to the Eastern Front, if the supply to the UK itself would not have been contested.

[McGuba]

Give the Soviet Union more units from the western Allies, based upon the amount of Axis trade warfare in the Atlantic.

Currently the SU gets the historical number of Western (Lend Lease) units, in proportion to the Soviet home produced units. Increasing the number of western units would change this historical ratio to an unhistorical one, making the western units over-represented.

This would give a further incentive to the Axis player to actually wage the "Battle of the Atlantic".
It would also buff the Soviet Union, if the player does not conduct this trade war (which is the default among experienced players at the moment).
Rough implementation does not require more AI zones.

It could be argued that the Western Allies would have sent more help to the Eastern Front, if the supply to the UK itself would not have been contested.

I think your argument is highly speculative: historically only a relatively small portion (about 25%) of the US aid to the Soviet Union was sent via the North Atlantic - Arctic Sea route. And of this only about 7% was lost, 93% arrived safely, despite German efforts to disrupt this flow. The majority of the US aid was sent via the Pacific route (50%) and the Persian corridor (25%). And these two routes could not be disrupted by the Germans.

German efforts, however signficant they were, could only cause partial disruption at best and only for limited time. Had these efforts were more successful, it is probably more likely that the Allies would have tried to send more aid through the other two routes.

Nevertheless, I agree that it may be beneficial to make it somewhat more worthy for the player to use the u-boats (and perhaps the Kriegsmarine) to attack the convoys instead of conserving them for D-day or a late war Sea Lion.

For example each destroyed convoy unit could result in one less Allied unit (Western or Soviet), that would otherwise appear later. This could mean not only one less Lend-Lease Soviet unit in the east, but perhaps rather one less Western air unit appearing in the UK or one less ground unit for D-day.

Also, if there are too many active German U-boats in 1944, perhaps there should be even more Allied destroyers appearing to better protect the D-day invasion and/or Sea Lion (at least in the single player version). The Allies had a fairly good intel on the actual strength of the German U-Boot Waffe, and if it had been any stronger than it was then most likely they would have provided even more escort to the invasion fleet.

[Locarnus]

Give the Soviet Union more units from the western Allies, based upon the amount of Axis trade warfare in the Atlantic.

Currently the SU gets the historical number of Western (Lend Lease) units, in proportion to the Soviet home produced units. Increasing the number of western units would change this historical ratio to an unhistorical one, making the western units over-represented.

My point is, that the scenario becomes "unhistorical" in the first player turn, and thus everything becomes a matter of plausibility.
Keeping everything on "historical" rails regardless of player choices is imho more historically implausible.

This would give a further incentive to the Axis player to actually wage the "Battle of the Atlantic".
It would also buff the Soviet Union, if the player does not conduct this trade war (which is the default among experienced players at the moment).
Rough implementation does not require more AI zones.

It could be argued that the Western Allies would have sent more help to the Eastern Front, if the supply to the UK itself would not have been contested.

I think your argument is highly speculative: historically only a relatively small portion (about 25%) of the US aid to the Soviet Union was sent via the North Atlantic - Arctic Sea route. And of this only about 7% was lost, 93% arrived safely, despite German efforts to disrupt this flow. The majority of the US aid was sent via the Pacific route (50%) and the Persian corridor (25%). And these two routes could not be disrupted by the Germans.

German efforts, however signficant they were, could only cause partial disruption at best and only for limited time. Had these efforts were more successful, it is probably more likely that the Allies would have tried to send more aid through the other two routes.

Imho it is even more speculative that the Germans would keep building submarines, if the built ones are just hoarded without being used for those 2 "crucial" years (1942, 1943).

For me, the path of those "war materials" reaching the front line is secondary. My primary concern is, that "war production" reaches the front lines. And if there is no Battle of the Atlantic, then imho both Allies and Axis would certainly find a way to shift their war production to existing (or new) front lines.
At the moment, practically only the player is able to do so, without balancing "reaction" on the Allied side.

Nevertheless, I agree that it may be beneficial to make it somewhat more worthy for the player to use the u-boats (and perhaps the Kriegsmarine) to attack the convoys instead of conserving them for D-day or a late war Sea Lion.

For example each destroyed convoy unit could result in one less Allied unit (Western or Soviet), that would otherwise appear later. This could mean not only one less Lend-Lease Soviet unit in the east, but perhaps rather one less Western air unit appearing in the UK or one less ground unit for D-day.

Also, if there are too many active German U-boats in 1944, perhaps there should be even more Allied destroyers appearing to better protect the D-day invasion and/or Sea Lion (at least in the single player version). The Allies had a fairly good intel on the actual strength of the German U-Boot Waffe, and if it had been any stronger than it was then most likely they would have provided even more escort to the invasion fleet.

Yes, it is a matter of balancing.
Imho a historical "Battle of the Atlantic" should result in the current Allied makeup.
Thus Allied units would have to be added on top of the existing ones (to the eastern and/or western fronts), which would then only spawn if the player underperforms the "Battle of the Atlantic".
On the other hand, if the player overperforms in the "Battle fo the Atlantic", some of the currently existing Allied units can be taken away.

[McGuba]

My point is, that the scenario becomes "unhistorical" in the first player turn, and thus everything becomes a matter of plausibility.
Keeping everything on "historical" rails regardless of player choices is imho more historically implausible.

Not everything is kept on "historical" rails regardless of player choices or achievments, e.g. Soviet counter offensive in December 1941 being less lethal if Moscow is captured by then, D-day not happening if Sea Lion is successful, etc. There are of course a lot of speculation in these but I think they are more or less plausible. I just think that claiming that the Allies would have sent even more help to the Soviets had the Germans were less enthusiastic about attacking the Atlantic convoys may be a bit too far-fetched. As they could have used their extra unused resources to many other things such as a more effective blockade of the continent like they did in WW1 or an even stronger strategic bombing campaign.

My primary concern is, that "war production" reaches the front lines. And if there is no Battle of the Atlantic, then imho both Allies and Axis would certainly find a way to shift their war production to existing (or new) front lines.
At the moment, practically only the player is able to do so, without balancing "reaction" on the Allied side.

Well, that's probably (partially) true, at least in the single player version. There could be some more balancing reaction in that case, it is just hard to find the right balance and to implement it. So that there could be different outcomes whether or not the Axis player engages in the Battle of the Atlantic and if he does then to what extent and to what success.

Thus Allied units would have to be added on top of the existing ones (to the eastern and/or western fronts), which would then only spawn if the player underperforms the "Battle of the Atlantic".

For sure, the only question is, what it means to "underperform"? Compared to what? Since most of the Allied naval movement is randomized it is also a matter of luck, to be honest. Some players may be more lucky than others, only because they may attack with less u-boat units but those may find and destroy more Allied convoy units. Then of course the problem if someone plays with or without normal (random) dice rolls. Then the highly randomized and hard coded submarine evasion event. There are just too many variables here to balance it "correctly". As again, what should be regarded as "correct" when we only know for sure what happened historically.

On the other hand, if the player overperforms in the "Battle fo the Atlantic", some of the currently existing Allied units can be taken away.

It is really hard to find the balance here. My rough estimate, if I remember well in my "historical" playthroughs (when testing the actual latest version and when I played more or less historically) was that I could usually destroy only around 10 or even less Allied convoy units in the scenario. In these I only used the U-boats, and not the Kriegsmarine, with limited air support (only the two starting "sea planes", the Condor and the BV 138) and of course no recon-undo cheat or save reload or things like that. Which in effect can also distort the result quite significantly, if we are here.

So perhaps I could say there could be like 10 extra Allied units on top of the current number and then if the player can wage a more effective Atlantic campaign by destroying even more convoy ships than even less Allied units would appear, like one after each additional convoy unit destroyed.

Or perhaps it could be even more drastic and each convoy ship unit would affect the spawning of two Allied units at some point. But there is a catch here, it should not be overdone as in that case players would behave the opposite by giving dispropotionately high priority to the naval war in order to win more "easily".