Modern Conflicts 2.15 (RELEASED)

A forum to discuss custom scenarios, campaigns and modding in general.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

Akkula
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:14 am

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Akkula »

Turtler wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:04 pm @Akkula This is odd, since I had been using 1.32 for years by default, but a quick switch of one 1.32 to the other worked. I have no idea why.

That said, there are still some derpy things going on. The Title Cards for the scenarios are not showing, for instance.

But at least it will be functional now.
Strange :?
But if you have a clean game installation and 1.32.... I don't what else could it be.
Vano2004 wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 2:07 pm Hello bestselling author, I hope I installed everything correctly ?
That's correct!
Forget about the warning message, just accept it. In the Readme file everything is explained.... but I think you already have the game running properly anyway 8)
nikivdd wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 3:41 pm Hey Akkula,
I have four more unit requests for Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg:
Lux infantry, Lux Hvy Infantry, Lux HMMWV, Lux Dingo 2

I forgot to request them when i asked for the Belgian units.
Then i have everything i need.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sure. I will add them, don't worry.
Imeror wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:42 pm Hello there !

2 requests :
- can someone post pictures of the new Slaviansk'14 scenario ? I am very curious to what it looks like but I had the brillant idea to start an AAR just before the release of MC 1.8 (and I'm too stuborn to stop it), so I can't download it now :'(
- more an idea than a request : Akkula, I realize that you have totally forgot one of the NATO member. Not a major one but still significant, overshadowed by its southern neighbor ... Canada ! Maybe few US units could be replaced by candians one in v1.9 ? Or added in the NATO campaign ?

Anyway, the work for v1.8 is over, time to rest now. I'll not launch a salvo of requests as you are certainly taking a break from MC.


Oh, just a last question : you work on this mod since what ? 2016 or 2017 ? Still not bored ? (Please : say no :D )
- Screenshots: I was about to post some but Vano already did it 8) . As you can see, in those scenarios the Ukrainian units have a special camo.
- Request: Interesting, could be a good idea why not :idea:
- More request: keep them coming!, cannot promise to fulfill them all but I will try, thats for sure!
Vano2004 wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:45 pm
Imeror wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 6:56 pm Good, you were right : I was happy.
And as bonus I can see more of the new camo.

What do you think about the new soundtrack ?
Everything is fine everything is great ) The soundtrack is also on top !
I am glad you are enjoying it :D

Best regards,
Akkula.
Eastern Front: Soviet Storm (v1.96): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50342
Modern Conflicts (v2.10): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=72062
Estherr
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:49 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Estherr »

Hurray to 1.8!

Quick question: don't you think Nona-SVK deserve range-firing variant, just like Nona-S? They share same gun unit afterall. It will make new chassis way more useful, just like 2S9 got ALOT of new possibilities with firing mode switch.

upd: also, Serbian BTR-50 somehow ended up in tank category =)

upd2: RU localization for Modern Conflicts 1.8

upd3: RU localization for MdC 1.85

upd4: RU localization for MdC 1.95
Last edited by Estherr on Mon Nov 20, 2023 8:56 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Akkula's Modern Conflicts RU localization mod: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=969460#p969460
Vano2004
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:04 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Vano2004 »

Serbia
BTR-50S (2005) – the BTR-50PK modernization package proposed by the Serbian defense firm Yugoimport SPDR. A turret has been added to the delivery package (from the Yugoslav M-80 armored personnel carrier). It is armed with one 30 mm cannon, one 7.62 mm Zastava M86 machine gun, two 9M14 Malyutka ATGM launchers and four smoke grenade launchers.




BTR-50P with a 57 mm ZIS-2 anti-tank gun mounted on it. :lol:
With a 57-85 mm caliber gun mounted on it, the BTR-50P turned into a light self-propelled gun capable of providing fire support to infantry. The BTR-50PK did not have such an opportunity.
https://war-book.ru/bronetransporter-btr-50/

Well, of course he is far from even the PT-76 tank)
List of conflicts
1956 Soviet Invasion of Hungary (Soviet Union)
Vietnam War 1959-1975
1960-1975 Lao Civil War
1964-1965 Operation Dvikora (Indonesia)
1965 Indo-Pakistani War 1965 (India)
1966-1990 South African Border War
Six-Day War of 1967 (Egypt, Syria)
Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (India)
The 1973 Yom Kippur War (Egypt, Syria)
1975 Operation Seroha (Indonesia)
1975-2002 Angolan Civil War
Iran–Iraq War 1980-1988 (Iraq)
Gulf War 1990-1991 (Iraq)
1991-2001 Yugoslav Wars
The Ten-Day War of 1991
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
Bosnian War 1992-1995
1999– Second Chechen War (Russia)
2000 Maluku sectarian conflict on the Indonesian island of Ambon
2003-2004 Indonesian offensive in Aceh
2003 – Second Gulf War
2003 2003 invasion of Iraq
https://war-book.ru/legkij-tank-pt-76-sssr-rossiya2/

I don't remember if there is a PT at all in the mod _)
http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/v-boyah/eksp ... a-ix-baze/

A very interesting variant of the Soviet BTR-50 is the BTR-50P. Its peculiarity is the absence of a roof over the landing compartment, and the presence of ramps allows you to load heavy weapons or even cars onto it.

Thus, the BTR-50P could turn into an ACS or a cargo transporter. The 85-mm divisional gun D-44 could be used as heavy weapons.
https://odetievbrony.ru/viewtopic.php?id=4&p=1


A significant number of PT-76s on the eve of the collapse of the USSR turned out to be part of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Tanks transferred to the Internal Troops did not fall under the treaty on conventional weapons and could serve as a kind of reserve, given that by the end of the 1980s the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs had 29 divisions. In the future, as part of the Internal Troops, the PT-76 was used in two Chechen campaigns and has remained in service to this day.
guille1434
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by guille1434 »

Some "modern" units, from the 1982 era... The Unimog light truck, and a moving version of the Exocet ITB coastal missile launcher of Malvinas/Falklands fame... Enjoy!! :D
Attachments
Arg_Unimog.png
Arg_Unimog.png (24.38 KiB) Viewed 4531 times
Exocet_MM-38_ITB-move.png
Exocet_MM-38_ITB-move.png (35.06 KiB) Viewed 4531 times
Vano2004
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:04 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Vano2004 »

guille1434 wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 4:38 pm Some "modern" units, from the 1982 era... The Unimog light truck, and a moving version of the Exocet ITB coastal missile launcher of Malvinas/Falklands fame... Enjoy!! :D

https://warhead.su/2020/05/29/letuchaya ... -podkovali
Oh, that's just not enough)))
viewtopic.php?t=105728&start=60
Argentine infantrymen on captured KrAZ-256 dump trucks captured during the landing of the Argentines on the British Falkland Islands; April 1982
https://477768.livejournal.com/6804865.html
Estherr
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:49 pm
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Estherr »

guille1434 wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 4:38 pm Some "modern" units, from the 1982 era... The Unimog light truck, and a moving version of the Exocet ITB coastal missile launcher of Malvinas/Falklands fame... Enjoy!! :D
Yay, that's looking great! Exo-train may be a little too big to fit into hex, but looking great nonetheless 8)
Akkula's Modern Conflicts RU localization mod: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=969460#p969460
Vano2004
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:04 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Vano2004 »

Estherr wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 6:59 pm
guille1434 wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 4:38 pm Some "modern" units, from the 1982 era... The Unimog light truck, and a moving version of the Exocet ITB coastal missile launcher of Malvinas/Falklands fame... Enjoy!! :D
Yay, that's looking great! Exo-train may be a little too big to fit into hex, but looking great nonetheless 8)
O Yes )))
https://forums.airbase.ru/2020/04/t2064 ... -1982.html

Image
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/mitin/argen ... 65368e7684


Image
https://warhead.su/2019/02/09/kak-frant ... anki-vveli
Image

Why are the British Scorpion tanks in the BMP section and not in the tanks section ?
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/scorpion/bk/?page=4
http://www.xliby.ru/transport_i_aviacij ... _04/p2.php
https://coollib.com/b/373280/read
http://zonwar.ru/news3/news_513_FV101_Scorpion.html
https://en.topwar.ru/7998-bronirovannye ... tanii.html


Gurkhas in the Falklands. Soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 7th Royal Gurkha Rifles Regiment in the area of San Carlos Bay in the Falkland Islands. Year 1,982
https://dambiev.livejournal.com/228746.html
Кэп
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:42 pm
Location: Кубань

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Кэп »

Акула привет!
1.9 версию ожидать твое творение?
Когда? :D
Imeror
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Imeror »

Hello,

More ideas for Europe 2021 ! Because my secret dream is certainly to be a game designer. Too bad that my skills with a computer don't agree and stops at "open opendocument and write something".

More seriously, I've imagined this with the idea that NATO is a little bit stronger. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my general feeling. Russia has an edge at the start, but it tend to vanish quickly. So it would give more opportunity to russian player. Not a game changer, but it would help them while keeping a kind of realism that you want :



1 - I feel that a "cheese" strategy for NATO in central Europe could be to withdraw from the frontlines to regroup quickly with reinforcments that arrives from the rear. To Leave Eastern Ukraine to fortify the Dniepr river ; to leave the Baltic States to fortify a smaller front in Poland and avoid the overwhelming troops that Russia can send in the area at the start of the scenario. Just some rear guards units with low value staying behind to slow the Russians. Then, NATO player can hold better positions while more troops arrive. Once NATO armies are together, they are extremely hard to stop, especially if they not have suffer looses at the beginning of the scenario.

I have an idea to mitigate this.
I don't remember exactly how many prestige points have NATO at the start, but maybe you should reduce it, by like -4000 points. NATO player could receive a mission at turn 1 : "Allied countries are worried by the war and fear for their security ; you have to protect Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius and Dnipro at the end of turn 7 to show our resolve to protect all of our members."
NATO player receive +1000 points for each city still in control. This mission is easily achievable, but it would require that NATO player REALLY tries to protect them ; and not withdraw like "I don't care mates".

From a realistic point of view, NATO is an alliance of 30 countries, some have very different point of view and foreign policy. If High Command (the player) decides to sacrifice some of them and allies day 1 to save the assets from others big members, it could cause distrust, chaos and disorganize the alliance. So give to the player less prestige points if he decides to not protect all his members is a good way to punish him if he do so. I think ~2500 points are enough to play 7 turns, until the 4000 prestige points arrive.

Maybe 7 turns is too short or too long ; maybe 1 000 points per objective is not enough or too much ; maybe these are not the best cities to choose for this mission ; but you get the general idea.



2 - I had ideas about adding Turkey few weeks ago, Akulla replied that the whole area will eventually join the scenario. Well, it is already a long work, but I have a worse idea :D

Russia has some good assets in the Atlantic Ocean and Norwegian Sea at the start of the scenario. But what to do with them ? Only defensive or limited missions. Defend the Barent Sea to not allow NATO to seize Murmansk ; support russian ground advance in Norwegia. And that's it. NATO fleets outnumbers the russian one. Impossible to take control of the Sea (unless playing against the AI of course). Too hard to avoid enemies fleets and try to invade UK or another Western European country.

Then, I remembered the book Red Storm Rising. It was not the same setting than this scenario (late Cold War), but a country can have the same function in both scenarii : Iceland. This country don't have a real military forces, it count on the US to defend it. During the Cold War, the US have established a naval air station at Keflavik, to watch soviets submarines operations in the Atlantic. This base was closed in 2006, but we can assume it can be re-established in a scenario like your. I'm not sure, but I've heard that there are discussions to open it again. So, it can be considered operational.
So, maybe you could add Iceland (I would advise you to cheat a little bit with geography and make it closer to Norwegia, to not make a map too huge). It should have a very limited ground defense (like 1 US infantry unit without any experience within Keflavik base itself), few ships and one air unit to protect it. Not something hard to capture, unless NATO player decide to reinforce it at the expanse of the european front or the naval operation in the Norwegian Sea. On the other side, maybe giving few paratroopers or naval troops ready to embark inside transports would be a good idea to allow the russian player the opportunity to capture Keflavik. It would gives both a more offensive and achievable goal to the Russian Fleet in the Norwegian Sea.

By capturing it, Russia is opening the Atlantic Ocean to it's submarines. To represent it, the russian player would earn something like 1000 or 2000 prestige points. To sum up : an equivalent of Tartus base but for Russia in the Atlantic.




I Hope it helps.

Work is over for me at home, it will be time to continue my AAR :)

I hope that I will be able to finish it before the release of MC V2.0 :lol:
Europe 2021 : AAR turn by turn : http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109075
Modern Conflict : WWIII campaigns : https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116355
Кэп
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:42 pm
Location: Кубань

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Кэп »

Thank you very much for Slavyansk 14, only Igor Strelkov's detachment is missing in this mission for realism. The camouflage of the Armed Forces of Ukraine gives entourage at that time.
Кэп
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:42 pm
Location: Кубань

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Кэп »

The affiliation of military units to the branches of the military and the new camouflage provide complete immersion in a large scenario. I think Canada and Turkey are missing (although she is in NATO, but her position in the conflict is incomprehensible and will depend on the introductory conditions in the future scenario 1.9, as a version) And if we strengthen the grouping of the Russian Navy with ships of the Pacific Fleet, it would be interesting to see to confront the Turkish fleet in the waters of the Black and Mediterranean Seas. As well as battles on land with the Turkish ground forces in the Caucasus and Syria.
Кэп
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2020 4:42 pm
Location: Кубань

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Кэп »

In general, for this super fashion there is already not enough European card))
Imeror
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Imeror »

Кэп wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:54 pm I think Canada and Turkey are missing (although she is in NATO, but her position in the conflict is incomprehensible and will depend on the introductory conditions in the future scenario 1.9, as a version)

I'm going to talk politics here, I can delete the post if it's inappropriate.

- deleted to ensure peace :) -
Last edited by Imeror on Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Europe 2021 : AAR turn by turn : http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109075
Modern Conflict : WWIII campaigns : https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116355
Anderkav
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 1:08 pm
Location: Russia, Volgograd

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Anderkav »

hello everyone!
I tried the new 1.8 update and the Europe 2021 map. I want to say thank you to Akula and the whole community that continues to delight us with modifications.

unfortunately, right now I don't have much time to speak in detail, so briefly.
the map itself is pleasant and interesting, a huge number of Units.
but I will make the following comments:
1. there are not enough events and interesting tasks giving some bonuses or units
2. there are a lot of tanks, it seems to me that there are a little more of them than necessary (this is questionable)
3. there is not enough background to the conflict (at least a simple one)
4.There is a lot of experimental equipment in the Russian Federation, which is not in service (T-14, Kurganets, Su-57, etc.) it would be nice to give access to this equipment later and give it for free only for completing tasks
5.Time goes too slowly, it would be more realistic if 1 move would take 3-7 days
6. so far I have 6 moves, but I wonder if there will be mobilization in NATO and the Russian Federation?
7. The very confrontation between NATO and the Russian Federation is too unbalanced, what can you say about the entry of the PRC forces on the side of the Russian Federation (then the Russian Federation would have had chances, and it could be weakened)
8. SAM shell - remove the transport mode from it, after all, this is an air defense system specifically for covering columns
With all respect, Andrew
Imeror
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Imeror »

Hello !

I agree with your first point, Panzer Corps modding community is doing an insane work !

Some opinions about your other points :

1. Pretty agree. I've had the idea in a previous post to add the mission to protect Baltic States as NATO for example or adding Iceland that would be a place to capture (like Tartus, but for the opposite side). It goes more or less into the same direction. Note however that some are added when the scenario advance, but I still agree that 1 or 2 more for each side would be nice. More opportunities, more choices to made. It would be cool.

2. Not agree. What bother me most are IFV/AFV. Too much and less useful. Of course we need them, but I would more reduce those than tanks. I think that Akkula used the real numbers of vehicles to determine how many he put into the scenario, so I don't think he will change that anyway.
Politics give tools, generals have to do what they can with them. Maybe we can do a deal : send me your tanks, I give you my IFV :)

3. Yup. It's not esential, but why not ?

4. Agree for the first part, less for the last. Unlocking units with mission is not very realistic. But it could be more ok to have a message like "We need better weapons to win the war. After months of work we are finally ready to send a full unit of T-14 to the frontlines". Then, a T-14 unit would appear near Moscow. Since you propose to change the time, it would be even better. Having it after only 10 days (or turn) would feel really too short. But 2 months (still 10 turns), even if realisticaly way too short, would be far less "shocking".

5. Totally agree. I've also noted that, but always forgot to tell it.

6. Yes.

7. I agree, but I fear that Akkula is not interested to add China. Yet, the scenario favors NATO also in my eyes. If I understand well, he tries to balance it by adding experience to russian units and reducing the number of US forces in Europe. Maybe he will find a good balance that way (as long as it's not necessary to transform every russian troops into ultra elite forces with 5 stars each).
I'm sorry to talk AGAIN about Turkey, but maybe side it with Russia could balance the scenario. I've talked about it in a previous post : Turkey positions about NATO and Russia are ... particular. If Russia appear to be too weak in the scenario, maybe a special alliance between them could resolve it.
Otherwise, maybe the perfect balance is not that important. PC community seems to be more oriented toward singleplayer than multiplayer. So it's not a problem if the chances to win are not perfectly equal. As long as it's not a nightmare for one and an autowin for the other.

8 - I don't know. About this particular scenario, it would help rebalance since Russia has often to defend against air attacks, more than NATO. But these units also appear elsewhere, so... I don't know.



Akkula can't say he don't have feedback about his work ! :)
Europe 2021 : AAR turn by turn : http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109075
Modern Conflict : WWIII campaigns : https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116355
Anderkav
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 1:08 pm
Location: Russia, Volgograd

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Anderkav »

Imeror wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:58 pm Hello !

I agree with your first point, Panzer Corps modding community is doing an insane work !

Some opinions about your other points :

1. Pretty agree. I've had the idea in a previous post to add the mission to protect Baltic States as NATO for example or adding Iceland that would be a place to capture (like Tartus, but for the opposite side). It goes more or less into the same direction. Note however that some are added when the scenario advance, but I still agree that 1 or 2 more for each side would be nice. More opportunities, more choices to made. It would be cool.

2. Not agree. What bother me most are IFV/AFV. Too much and less useful. Of course we need them, but I would more reduce those than tanks. I think that Akkula used the real numbers of vehicles to determine how many he put into the scenario, so I don't think he will change that anyway.
Politics give tools, generals have to do what they can with them. Maybe we can do a deal : send me your tanks, I give you my IFV :)

3. Yup. It's not esential, but why not ?

4. Agree for the first part, less for the last. Unlocking units with mission is not very realistic. But it could be more ok to have a message like "We need better weapons to win the war. After months of work we are finally ready to send a full unit of T-14 to the frontlines". Then, a T-14 unit would appear near Moscow. Since you propose to change the time, it would be even better. Having it after only 10 days (or turn) would feel really too short. But 2 months (still 10 turns), even if realisticaly way too short, would be far less "shocking".

5. Totally agree. I've also noted that, but always forgot to tell it.

6. Yes.

7. I agree, but I fear that Akkula is not interested to add China. Yet, the scenario favors NATO also in my eyes. If I understand well, he tries to balance it by adding experience to russian units and reducing the number of US forces in Europe. Maybe he will find a good balance that way (as long as it's not necessary to transform every russian troops into ultra elite forces with 5 stars each).
I'm sorry to talk AGAIN about Turkey, but maybe side it with Russia could balance the scenario. I've talked about it in a previous post : Turkey positions about NATO and Russia are ... particular. If Russia appear to be too weak in the scenario, maybe a special alliance between them could resolve it.
Otherwise, maybe the perfect balance is not that important. PC community seems to be more oriented toward singleplayer than multiplayer. So it's not a problem if the chances to win are not perfectly equal. As long as it's not a nightmare for one and an autowin for the other.

8 - I don't know. About this particular scenario, it would help rebalance since Russia has often to defend against air attacks, more than NATO. But these units also appear elsewhere, so... I don't know.



Akkula can't say he don't have feedback about his work ! :)
Thank you for your comment. I partly agree with you, it's just that the Russian Federation in reality can do little to oppose NATO, especially in the air. In fact, only our nuclear shield protects us. We also have a huge amount of obsolete armored vehicles in storage, but I don’t think that we could put all of it into operation (but it could be an interesting stage of the war). Turkey could act not on the side of NATO (but nevertheless it has its own plans both for the Balkan lands and for Russia, as an ally of the Russian Federation it looks extremely controversial).

it is also worth noting that our production of equipment and, in general, the ideological training of military personnel cannot cover possible losses in a full-scale war, the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. in this regard, it would not be bad if the war in fashion began gradually, for example, from the conflict in Ukraine, and other NATO countries were gradually included.

P.S. I forgot to add that I agree with you about the role of BMPs, they are extremely limited in fashion and usually they are just worse tanks. their usefulness is extremely doubtful, it would probably be worth increasing their anti-personnel role and effectiveness in cities.
Imeror
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:48 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Imeror »

it's just that the Russian Federation in reality can do little to oppose NATO, especially in the air. In fact, only our nuclear shield protects us.
That's why I consider the scenario where Russia begin the turn is the best one. Most of their troops are at the border and can strike hard before NATO can organize it's defenses. But even if Russia has units in a better starting position, begin with more experience and if the US has less troops, I nonetheless still find the scenario too much in favor of NATO.
But as I sayed in a previous post, maybe after all it would be OK to not have a perfectly balanced scenario. In SP it is enjoyable to play each side.

We also have a huge amount of obsolete armored vehicles in storage, but I don’t think that we could put all of it into operation (but it could be an interesting stage of the war).
Yes, as reserve unit.
Talking about old storage made me think about something : Akkula put AMX-30 units for France. Our Armée de terre don't use them since the mid 90'. Maybe they can be removed as starting unit and become available only when sending reserves become necessary (we still keep them somewhere "just in case"). I think that some old equipments from others countries could also be removed and only appear later if needed. That could help a little bit the russian player, since he would face less units.

Turkey could act not on the side of NATO (but nevertheless it has its own plans both for the Balkan lands and for Russia, as an ally of the Russian Federation it looks extremely controversial).
Turkey's foreign policy certainly gives headaches to Akkula. :lol:
Maybe, even if Turkey continues to stay neutral in future version, closing the Bosphorus is also a little solution to help Russia. Russia become sure to control the Black Sea and can operate around more freely. The problem with that is that the Med Sea become totally useless. NATO just has to send ships to Syria and that's the only thing they have to do.

it is also worth noting that our production of equipment and, in general, the ideological training of military personnel cannot cover possible losses in a full-scale war, the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union.
It's the Panzer Corps engine : our armies will fight to the very last man... Or until the timer run out :lol:

I forgot to add that I agree with you about the role of BMPs, they are extremely limited in fashion and usually they are just worse tanks. their usefulness is extremely doubtful, it would probably be worth increasing their anti-personnel role and effectiveness in cities.
A little idea : Maybe every IFV could have two mode, even those whitout ATGM.
The first one could stay the classical one. The other could use the same autocanon but to represent a different use, it could be a range 1 attack with lower anti-infantry value, used to engage infantry in cover (city or forest).
This mode would represent IFV using their guns to stay safe far of the city/forest, but this time they use their guns to support allied infantry while they advance toward the objective, and force the defenders to stay low. And their double movement trait help them to relocate quickly. It would become a nice role.
But for now, I don't find IFV useful. When I do a full campaign, I don't even buy one of them.
Europe 2021 : AAR turn by turn : http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109075
Modern Conflict : WWIII campaigns : https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116355
Akkula
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:14 am

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Akkula »

Hello guys!,
Woah, what a nice amount of feedback :D . Massive thanks for taking your time to write all of those suggestions and ideas :D
I will not quote every point because the post will become huge, but I will try to summarize it.

Bugs and glitches: I noted them all and I already fixed most of them, thanks for the catch.
Turkey: I already mentioned it, but yes, the nation will be introduced in Update 1.9 (among others).

Europe Scenario:
* Turkey: I already have an idea of how to script the entrance of Turkey into the battle. Don't worry guys 8) . I promise it will be fun.
* Unlocking regions: Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan will be make their triumphal entrance into the scenario. Turkey through some sort of script and Armenia/Azerbaijan already since Turn 1 like the rest.
* Massive revamping: I thinking of rework huge areas of the scenario. I want to move away from the Mercator projection style in favor of the real one. This would enlarge the main European frontline and reduce the Finnish/Russian border which will make the combat much more interesting. The Northern Sea battle should also benefit from this change.
* Events: I hope to add some more events. I am taking in consideration most of your suggestions and ideas. Mobilization for sure is one of the most important ones.... although I want to clarify that the scenario already has the Russian reserves event in place.

IFV/Tanks: I used real life ratios for vehicles and manpower. Of course I had to tune some of them to favor gameplay. And let's be honest guys, in real life all armies have MUCH more IFV/APCs than tanks.
Imeror wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 1:10 pm Akkula can't say he don't have feedback about his work ! :)
Hehe, sure I can't :D

Again, many thanks to all of you!

Best regards,
Akkula.
Eastern Front: Soviet Storm (v1.96): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=50342
Modern Conflicts (v2.10): http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=72062
Anderkav
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 15, 2021 1:08 pm
Location: Russia, Volgograd

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Anderkav »

Imeror, you from France?) yes, in general, each less decent country has stock of old equipment. but to feel it in fashion I would not seem bad, expand the time frame of the scenario at least until year, would additionally be changing climatic conditions.
Vano2004
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:04 pm

Re: Modern Conflicts 1.8 (RELEASED)

Post by Vano2004 »

It is now fashionable in NATO countries to give their old equipment to one country ( it is beautifully conceived to send their scrap metal and get more benefits from it ) in return for receiving modern equipment from the USA)
https://masterok.livejournal.com/7949080.html
https://the-steppe.com/razvitie/kakim-o ... nye-strany
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2022/05/04/14814554.shtml

Soon North Korea will receive a new product ) Not that personally only business !
https://masterok.livejournal.com/3820398.html


So our esteemed author will have to make many more units ?
Image
The same can be done for the Afghans of the Taliban , they must be a modern army , since the abandoned military equipment cost 85 billion ) So the USA has not helped anyone yet)))
https://masterok.livejournal.com/7351192.html
https://en.topwar.ru/186518-britanskoe- ... larov.html
So generously they did not help anyone else, even their NATO allies)))


Photo of armored vehicles in the Chechen campaign of 1995.

https://tankyvbou.blogspot.com/2013/02/1995.html


Tanks and tank troops of Argentina :wink:
https://ru-armor.livejournal.com/311451.html
https://nosikot.livejournal.com/4996736.html

Why does everyone demand Turkey but forget about Iran , which still manages to make its own military equipment under the yoke of sanctions ?
https://www.pinterest.ru/pin/307511480791971689/
http://pro-tank.ru/blog/844-iran-develo ... s-zulfiqar
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Scenario Design”