Slitherine

Hi McGuba,

Changes in 1.7 seem very good.

The vehicle mobility issue has indeed been a bit annoying as during the bad weather halftracks bog down but Opel’s just keep on going

How does the change effect truck movement in desert?

Moving most attack aircrafts in the same family is also welcome and justified.

Some personal thoughts about unit stats

- Bf 110 C/D/F attack values could be higher considering standard centreline armament is 2 x 20 mm + 4 x 7.9 mm. Maybe AA15 would be more representative.

- Bf 110 initiative values seem fair. Bit lower on night fighter G version is understandable due to added drag and weight of radar and other equipment.

- Me 410 initiative and attack seem too high. Standard armament on bomber version is 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 or 13 mm. Not much difference to Bf 110 F. Also the 410 is generally perceived little faster than 110 but maybe even less agile. So initiative 9 is maybe too high. 8?

- Fw 190 F8 (most produced version) initiative 9 is OK due to added armour weight. Armament is typically 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm. Only missing mid wing cannons. AA15? Representative bomb load 2 x 250 kg + 1 x 250 or 500 kg? GA?

- Fw 190 G long range bomber. Armament reduced to 2 x 20 mm but no extra armour. AA13? Initiative – Without drop tanks and bombs it’s actually lighter than fighter 190. Initiative 10? And as drop tanks are the defining feature on G model the range should be some 40% longer than standard 190. Typical bomb load 1x 250 or 500 kg. GA? http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2 ... 190_02.htm

- StuG III A. In my view the single most useful vehicle of the war. I have modified the availability so that the A version is available before Fall Gelb. Considering it played noticeable role despite low numbers and as the sIG 33 is available and was used at the time in similarly low numbers. (Though I think player is justified have absolute max. 1 x sIG 33 and the same applies to early StuG’s.)

- StuG III B – E. According to Osprey New Vanguard book “Sturmgeschütz III Assault Gun 1940-42” by Hillary Doyle the StuG’s did use hollow charge AT ammunition in quantities already in beginning of operation Barbarossa. One account states that some 1500 x HL were used in Leningrad area. Hard attack in AT mode to 9?

You see I’m anxiously waiting for the 1.7 and have had too much time to think

Ceek wrote:Would love to see an update with any other new features or changes from 1.6!

So I have just finished my test play of v1.7 during which I found a few minor issues. I just have to fix these, plus do the usual finishing touches, and then hopefully I can upload it by this weekend.

oladelmar wrote:Hi McGuba,

First off; this mod is FANTASTIC. It has cost me back pain, sore eyes, sleep deprivations and has had a severe impact on my social life

Yeah, unfortunately ( ) I know this feeling, so I have decided to place a warning message for the next version. It indeed can be quite addictive, but still whenever I finish it (and achieve at least a draw) it somehow gives a feeling that now I really did something and I see the world and history differently. Strange.

Here's a few opinions from an old hand, after my first playthrough. I've read your ideas for v1.7 and I see you're planning on increasing the number of AI units - probably a good thing, but I'd like to offer some additional ideas for increasing difficulty. I'm currently on my second playthrough, and have resorted to a few 'rules' to limit AI exploits

Sorry, but I have already closed down v1.7, so any new ideas would only find their way to a later v1.8 version.
I have to be like this, otherwise the release of v1.7 would be postponed forever.

- To compensate for the AI 's inability to cope with the FOW, giving most AI units a 4 hex line of sight would go a long way. While it's fun to catch the occasional AI truck and blow it to pieces, it's a bit sad to be able to deal with an entire winter offensive's worh of inf and arty that way.

Probably you are right in this, however, I would attempt to keep the fair play and not to give the AI units super powers. Thus I will probably try to further increase the number of Allied recon units and/or add some spotting for some, but not all units.

- IMHO, a simple and realistic way of increasing difficulty would be to simply disable a lot of upgrade compatibilities. New tanks and aircraft are expensive, and it would force the player to choose more between maxing out number of units or upgrading experienced ones with new gear.

I think in this regard the mod is quite well balanced. It is more up to the player's skills and how much prestige you want to get accordingly. If you feel that the prestige allotment is too generous you can try playing it on Rommel difficulty, which gives only half of it. Uhu proved that it is possible to beat the mod even on that difficulty, even though it is very hard. Or alternatively you can set any lower than 100% player prestige manually in the advanced options when you start a new scenario. I guess normal 100% prestige on General difficulty should be appropriate for most experienced players, but you know how it is, for some it is still impossible to win with this amount, for others it is too easy...

- I'd love some diplomatic actions, if that's possible; early occupation of Vichy France, invasion of Spain/Turkey, intervention in Syria...

I would love, too, but with the current max 32 AI zone limitation it is impossible. I used all the available AI zones to simulate historical events which did happen, or could easily have happened, like Sealion. The other alternatives are virtually endless, but the available AI zones are not.

- The single most unrealistic feature of the game engine is sea transport and supply. It took until 1944 for the allies to be able to land 6 divisions(the rest was airborne) over a beach, and with massive resources. To at least partially reflect this, the number of available sea transports should be reduced, as they act as landing craft AND troop transports. As I'm sure you know, supply was Rommel's problem, more so than the number of tanks/troops he could field.

You must be reading my mind, as I have already reduced the max number of Axis sea transports from 14 to 8 and the rail transports from 14 to 10. Even that might be a bit too generous, but I do not want to make huge changes in one release. Historically the Germans were struggling to gather enough ferries for Sealion and on top of that the British kept attacking the French ports and destroyed many of those. Anyway, this change will certainly make naval invasions and transports much harder and riskier. Now every lost naval transport really matters and thus they will need more protection.

- If you're able to script patrolling(as with the Atlantic destroyers), all AI fleets would benefit from this. As it is, the player can decimate fleets with impunity using out-of-sight tactics. Being able to sink the Home Fleet with the Admiral Scheer and a sub flotilla is fun, but not good for game balance.

I guess there will be some more patrolling hexes in v1.7, but I cannot reall improve it due to the lack of AI zones. However, the Home Fleet will be more numerous, and will increase with time. Among others I have added the battleships HMS Anson and Howe, which were finished after 1941. Until v1.6 there were only the ones which were already in service by June 1941.

- Quite a few strat bomber types should have a very low naval attack, IMHO adding dedicated naval attack types would make sense and make it harder to deal with all those AI battleships. A Condor should NOT be able to kill a battleship with two hits, but a torpedo-armed Ju88 or He111 is another matter, a late-war Fritz X armed bomber should be devastating.

I tend to agree with the Condor, but the problem is, as historically, most of the strat bombers are either Ju 88 or He 111. A possible solution might be to add subtypes to these so that to have fewer strat bombers with higher naval attack. However, I have to look into it in depth, I do not really know if "plain" Ju 88s were used against naval targets, and how often (I guess not only the torpedo-armed ones were effective), were all pilots trained to do so, if not what propotion of the whole Ju 88 fleet was used in such a way, etc. etc. I would stick to historical accuracy even at the cost of gameplay.

- More Russian infantry! There should be staggering amounts of basic russian inf everywhere, all the time.

There will be some more, but despite popular belief Soviet infantry was not that numerous compared to German. Usually they outnumbered the Germans by factor 2-3. I think in most cases it is something like that in the mod as well. The problem lies in the weak AI, unfortunately.

For an excellent reference on German-Soviet manpower strength you can check this: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.u ... front.html

For my personal game, I'm adding severe limitations on beach landings, and simulating supplying units overseas - I'm forcing myself to have 1 unit afloat per 5 units supplied overseas(unit must be with 3 hexes of nearest port receiving supplies). Doubt this is moddable in any way.... Should make Tunis interesting!

Actually, it could be scripted, but again, only if I had more AI zones. In this case one more for each "nearest port" and one more for each "overseas" area.

P210 wrote:Hi McGuba,

Changes in 1.7 seem very good.

The vehicle mobility issue has indeed been a bit annoying as during the bad weather halftracks bog down but Opel’s just keep on going

Yes, it is silly, thus I tried to fix it and hopefully I could, at least to some extent. The only drawback is the game seems to save the movement values once you start a new campaign, so to get all the changes you will need to start a new campaign for v1.7 and cannot continue your v1.6 save game.

How does the change effect truck movement in desert?

I changed those as well a bit, but it is not really noticable. For now I was mainly unhappy with the winter/muddy speed of those units. I think desert movements are quite good in the game. I might change it later, though.


Unit stats.

I am always open to discuss unit stats. But any of these changes can only happen in a later v1.8 as I have already closed v1.7. However, in some cases I already made similar changes to your suggestions.

- Bf 110 C/D/F attack values could be higher considering standard centreline armament is 2 x 20 mm + 4 x 7.9 mm. Maybe AA15 would be more representative.

Yeah, maybe, but here not only the armament matters, but also speed, maneuverability, climb speed, etc. And the early Bf 110 was not an effective interceptor and they suffered heavy losses when facing early Hurricanes and Spitfires in BoB, which had relatively inferior armament (no cannons) and currently these have AA 15. Still, a slight increase might be possible as these have higher Ini and AD.

- Bf 110 initiative values seem fair. Bit lower on night fighter G version is understandable due to added drag and weight of radar and other equipment.

I tend to agree. But it does not really matter here as enemy fighters have way higher ini, anyway. And enemy heavy bombers lower, so it would not really change anything.

- Me 410 initiative and attack seem too high. Standard armament on bomber version is 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 or 13 mm. Not much difference to Bf 110 F. Also the 410 is generally perceived little faster than 110 but maybe even less agile. So initiative 9 is maybe too high. 8?

Tend to agree, its ini is indeed a bit too high. However, its attack should be higher than the early Bf 110 as it could carry rockets and underwing cannon and stuff. Maybe current 18 is a bit too high, though.

- Fw 190 F8 (most produced version) initiative 9 is OK due to added armour weight. Armament is typically 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm. Only missing mid wing cannons. AA15? Representative bomb load 2 x 250 kg + 1 x 250 or 500 kg? GA?

In v1.7 I already further reduced its AA to 14. Due to bomb load, armour, less guns, pilots mainly trained for ground attack and not fighter role. And its HA will be only 7 instead of 9/10. SA stays 6 for now.

- Fw 190 G long range bomber. Armament reduced to 2 x 20 mm but no extra armour. AA13?

In v1.7 I have already reduced its AA to 12. Could be 13, or maybe 14, similarily to F, due to less armour.

Initiative – Without drop tanks and bombs it’s actually lighter than fighter 190. Initiative 10?

True, but it is normally loaded with bombs and mainly being used in a ground attack role, flown by ex-Stuka and bomber pilots or recruites and not by fighter pilots. That's why it has lower ini than the fighter verisons of the Fw 190.

And as drop tanks are the defining feature on G model the range should be some 40% longer than standard 190. Typical bomb load 1x 250 or 500 kg. GA? http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2 ... 190_02.htm

In v1.7 it will have fuel 63 (G) compared to 42 (F). GA will be slightly lower, when in fact it should be even lower. Even then it does not really worth buying this one. The longer range not really compensate for the lower attack in this mod, I guess.

In general, I was mostly happy with the revised ground attack Fw 190 in my test play. I could easily upgrade all my ground attack planes to these and overally they fared better (requiring less escort, at the cost of being less effective tank destroyers) when air superiority was lost on both fronts. Just as historically.

- StuG III A. In my view the single most useful vehicle of the war. I have modified the availability so that the A version is available before Fall Gelb. Considering it played noticeable role despite low numbers and as the sIG 33 is available and was used at the time in similarly low numbers. (Though I think player is justified have absolute max. 1 x sIG 33 and the same applies to early StuG’s.)

Actually there were nearly 400 StuG III available at the start of Barbarossa, so there will be an additional one on the map in turn 1. And their number remained high for a while for in July 1942 there were more than 600 combat ready StuG III A-E according the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WW2. Sure, you can modify its availability for earlier, but I did not do so due to the small numbers produced prior to mid 1940.

- StuG III B – E. According to Osprey New Vanguard book “Sturmgeschütz III Assault Gun 1940-42” by Hillary Doyle the StuG’s did use hollow charge AT ammunition in quantities already in beginning of operation Barbarossa. One account states that some 1500 x HL were used in Leningrad area. Hard attack in AT mode to 9?

Need to be consiedered carefully. If the HA of this unit is increased, the HA of the Pz.IVE/F should be increased accordingly as they also had to have access to HEAT rounds at around the same time. Also, while HEAT rounds have better penetration, not affected by distance, they have worse accuracy due to lower speed and no spinning, especially at longer distances.

Additionally, currently the Pz.III G-J have HA 9. I believe in general these were more effective tank hunters in 1941 than than Pz.IV E/F or early StuGs. Pz.III was originally anti-tank, while Pz.IV more anti-infantry. So if the latter gets HA 9, the HA of the former should be increased further. Thus the whole relative balance of tanks in the mod could break.

McGuba wrote:

- More Russian infantry! There should be staggering amounts of basic russian inf everywhere, all the time.

There will be some more, but despite popular belief Soviet infantry was not that numerous compared to German. Usually they outnumbered the Germans by factor 2-3. I think in most cases it is something like that in the mod as well. The problem lies in the weak AI, unfortunately.

What unit count ratio for USSR between tank/infantry/aircraft?

Ahhh, hard to say, maybe around 1 each? But then you have the SPGs and arty and SPAAs and recon and stuff as well.

McGuba wrote:
The problem lies in the weak AI, unfortunately.

And how AI generally works?
If there is a lot of weak infantry, he won't attack her stronger units having a superiority in number? aka suicide attacks.

Unfortunately it only seems to attack if there is a favourable prestige (?) loss in the battle outcome prediction. Which in fact means it will attack a more expensive unit with a less expensive one, even if the less expensive one would lose more strenght point. However, the exact woriking of the AI is a well protected secret by the developer(s).

Probably that's why there is not a clear explanation what AI level 0/1/2 exactly means, other than that 2 is better than 1.

It seems, 2 more aggressive and risky, 1 more careful.

Interesting, i.e. theoretically to make that the weak infantry attacked the tank, it is possible by reduction of its cost.

Certainly. That's why those cheap partisan units in the mod are so enthusiastic to attack just about anything that moves, no matter their losses. And Soviet infantry is comparably cheap, at least the early ones. Maybe a further reduction in their price would be justifiable. (However, overdoing it would not be necessarily good, as the AI would just sacrifice its infantry in senseless attacks and it would in fact reduce difficulty.)

Also, expensive units such as the Tiger I or ships are favourite targets for the AI for the same reason.

McGuba wrote:
I am always open to discuss unit stats. But any of these changes can only happen in a later v1.8 as I have already closed v1.7. However, in some cases I already made similar changes to your suggestions.

- Bf 110 C/D/F attack values could be higher considering standard centreline armament is 2 x 20 mm + 4 x 7.9 mm. Maybe AA15 would be more representative.

Yeah, maybe, but here not only the armament matters, but also speed, maneuverability, climb speed, etc. And the early Bf 110 was not an effective interceptor and they suffered heavy losses when facing early Hurricanes and Spitfires in BoB, which had relatively inferior armament (no cannons) and currently these have AA 15. Still, a slight increase might be possible as these have higher Ini and AD.

- Bf 110 initiative values seem fair. Bit lower on night fighter G version is understandable due to added drag and weight of radar and other equipment.

I tend to agree. But it does not really matter here as enemy fighters have way higher ini, anyway. And enemy heavy bombers lower, so it would not really change anything.

- Me 410 initiative and attack seem too high. Standard armament on bomber version is 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 7.9 or 13 mm. Not much difference to Bf 110 F. Also the 410 is generally perceived little faster than 110 but maybe even less agile. So initiative 9 is maybe too high. 8?

Tend to agree, its ini is indeed a bit too high. However, its attack should be higher than the early Bf 110 as it could carry rockets and underwing cannon and stuff. Maybe current 18 is a bit too high, though.

- Fw 190 F8 (most produced version) initiative 9 is OK due to added armour weight. Armament is typically 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 13 mm. Only missing mid wing cannons. AA15? Representative bomb load 2 x 250 kg + 1 x 250 or 500 kg? GA?

In v1.7 I already further reduced its AA to 14. Due to bomb load, armour, less guns, pilots mainly trained for ground attack and not fighter role. And its HA will be only 7 instead of 9/10. SA stays 6 for now.

- Fw 190 G long range bomber. Armament reduced to 2 x 20 mm but no extra armour. AA13?

In v1.7 I have already reduced its AA to 12. Could be 13, or maybe 14, similarily to F, due to less armour.

Initiative – Without drop tanks and bombs it’s actually lighter than fighter 190. Initiative 10?

True, but it is normally loaded with bombs and mainly being used in a ground attack role, flown by ex-Stuka and bomber pilots or recruites and not by fighter pilots. That's why it has lower ini than the fighter verisons of the Fw 190.

And as drop tanks are the defining feature on G model the range should be some 40% longer than standard 190. Typical bomb load 1x 250 or 500 kg. GA? http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2 ... 190_02.htm

In v1.7 it will have fuel 63 (G) compared to 42 (F). GA will be slightly lower, when in fact it should be even lower. Even then it does not really worth buying this one. The longer range not really compensate for the lower attack in this mod, I guess.

In general, I was mostly happy with the revised ground attack Fw 190 in my test play. I could easily upgrade all my ground attack planes to these and overally they fared better (requiring less escort, at the cost of being less effective tank destroyers) when air superiority was lost on both fronts. Just as historically.

- StuG III A. In my view the single most useful vehicle of the war. I have modified the availability so that the A version is available before Fall Gelb. Considering it played noticeable role despite low numbers and as the sIG 33 is available and was used at the time in similarly low numbers. (Though I think player is justified have absolute max. 1 x sIG 33 and the same applies to early StuG’s.)

Actually there were nearly 400 StuG III available at the start of Barbarossa, so there will be an additional one on the map in turn 1. And their number remained high for a while for in July 1942 there were more than 600 combat ready StuG III A-E according the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WW2. Sure, you can modify its availability for earlier, but I did not do so due to the small numbers produced prior to mid 1940.

- StuG III B – E. According to Osprey New Vanguard book “Sturmgeschütz III Assault Gun 1940-42” by Hillary Doyle the StuG’s did use hollow charge AT ammunition in quantities already in beginning of operation Barbarossa. One account states that some 1500 x HL were used in Leningrad area. Hard attack in AT mode to 9?

Need to be consiedered carefully. If the HA of this unit is increased, the HA of the Pz.IVE/F should be increased accordingly as they also had to have access to HEAT rounds at around the same time. Also, while HEAT rounds have better penetration, not affected by distance, they have worse accuracy due to lower speed and no spinning, especially at longer distances.

Additionally, currently the Pz.III G-J have HA 9. I believe in general these were more effective tank hunters in 1941 than than Pz.IV E/F or early StuGs. Pz.III was originally anti-tank, while Pz.IV more anti-infantry. So if the latter gets HA 9, the HA of the former should be increased further. Thus the whole relative balance of tanks in the mod could break.

[/quote]

Aircraft stats

Stats are quite good already and I am only aiming to fine tune for historical accuracy.

What is bothering me is that Zerstörer are currently almost useless even against bombers, until heavily armed NJG Bf 110 G's arrive. I think they should have decent change to damage bombers, but on the other hand should be in deep trouble with single engine fighters. Thus increase in AA might be good and with low ini they cannot clash with single engine fighters without severe losses. Also tactical bombers do not benefit from exp. in air combat. No ini or AA bonus only +1 AD per star.

FW 190 F/G. We seem to be well in line with these.
Extra range is indeed pretty useless in the game. I have actually thought about the usefulness of G version in WW2. Was it really worth the expense to haul single 500 kg bomb a bit further. Maybe it was the only way to strike back when enemy has air superiority. Unescorted med bombers just would not survive in that environment.

StuG III. On a second thought you are right. HA 9 would distort the game balance, which is very good at the moment. Especially considering AT units get big +2 HA bonus per exp. star. Also the poor accuracy and low muzzle velocity of HL is a fact and therefore HL are more useful for self defense not so much for offensive use. PzKw III N should still have HA 9. It's a nice touch and also historically accurate.

One reason why I usually have one core StuG is that I felt there should be 2 StuG units at the start of Barbarossa.

P210 wrote:What is bothering me is that Zerstörer are currently almost useless even against bombers, until heavily armed NJG Bf 110 G's arrive. I think they should have decent change to damage bombers, but on the other hand should be in deep trouble with single engine fighters. Thus increase in AA might be good and with low ini they cannot clash with single engine fighters without severe losses. Also tactical bombers do not benefit from exp. in air combat. No ini or AA bonus only +1 AD per star.

Yeah, I see your point here, and I also felt that the C-D-F versions could be a little stronger. However,

- Bf 110 C/D/F attack values could be higher considering standard centreline armament is 2 x 20 mm + 4 x 7.9 mm. Maybe AA15 would be more representative.

I would make a differnce between the F and the earlier ones as the F had the stronger DB 605 engine (993 kW) in contrast to the earlier DB 601 (809 kW) engine of the C/D. So it could be AA 14 or 15 for C/D and 15 or 16 for the F.

On the other hand the comparable Beaufighter currently has only AA 14 even though it has supposedly heavier armament (4 x 20 mm guns) and a higher AD (18) and higher Ini by vanilla PzC stats, even though it is somewhat slower. It might need some change as well. Maybe AA 16 and AD 16 would be better for this one.

FW 190 F/G. We seem to be well in line with these.
Extra range is indeed pretty useless in the game. I have actually thought about the usefulness of G version in WW2. Was it really worth the expense to haul single 500 kg bomb a bit further. Maybe it was the only way to strike back when enemy has air superiority. Unescorted med bombers just would not survive in that environment.

Sure, and in this regard I am happy with the changes in v1.7 as the Fw 190F/G has a good chance to survive even without escort on the eastern front until late 1944 - early 1945. When unescorted medium bombers just fail from as early as 1942/43.

StuG III. On a second thought you are right. HA 9 would distort the game balance, which is very good at the moment. Especially considering AT units get big +2 HA bonus per exp. star. Also the poor accuracy and low muzzle velocity of HL is a fact and therefore HL are more useful for self defense not so much for offensive use. PzKw III N should still have HA 9. It's a nice touch and also historically accurate.

On top of that AT units get bonus on defense making the StuG.IIIB/E in AT mode even better for defending compared to tanks.

And yes, Pz.IIIN should have HA 9 due to much improved 7,5 cm Gr. 38 HL/C available by then and both for balance reasons. Even then the Pz.IIIN is largely ineffective against tanks in 1943.

One reason why I usually have one core StuG is that I felt there should be 2 StuG units at the start of Barbarossa.

I further anylised the book "Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis", regarding Axis unit types and numbers in June 1941, so in this regard v1.7 will be even more precise with a few more changes as well.

My two cents: The Beaufighter is a tough bird and one that I avoid engaging early on in the scenario if I can avoid it. There seem to be a fair amount beyond the proportion and use (anti-nightfighting) for which they were historical deployed. But this is a minor point.

Regarding the Zerstörer, I actually find it to be quite well represented in the mod. I avoid using them in the West as the AI will use 2-3 Spitfires to fight through the escort screen of a fighter to chew it up and possibly kill it in a single turn. They fare much better if transferred to the East where they face inferior competition in the early years. I believe this was historically the case, too. I make sure to upgrade them to the Me410 as soon as possible and am usually able to finish the scenario with at least a couple still in service. The F variant works as a competent complement to fighter sorties (so long as they are employed in effective gang-up tactics that neutralize the opponent's initiative). With escort, the F can still effectively fulfill a tactical bomber role when needed.

(Meanwhile I continue chewing my fingernails in anticipation of 1.7...)

Ceek wrote:Regarding the Zerstörer, I actually find it to be quite well represented in the mod. I avoid using them in the West as the AI will use 2-3 Spitfires to fight through the escort screen of a fighter to chew it up and possibly kill it in a single turn. They fare much better if transferred to the East where they face inferior competition in the early years. I believe this was historically the case, too.

Actually it seems most Bf 110 were transfered to the west from 1942 to be used in the bomber destroyer role:

The number of Bf 110s on the Eastern Front declined further during and after 1942. Most units that operated the 110 did so for reconnaissance. Most machines were withdrawn to Germany for the Defense of the Reich operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messersch ... al_history

And with the current low AA they are not very well suited for bomber destroyer role even though the night fighter units were equipped with this type from 1941 and thus it would be better to have at least one in the west in the mod as well. And I guess even with a bit higher AA they would be relatively easy prey for Spits especially if unescorted due to their low Ini and AD. Currently the Spit V.B has AA 17 which is still higher than the planned AA 15/16 of the 110, so even if escorted by fighters the AI would probably still attack them at times.

When is the 1.7 finished??
I want to try something out: early invasion of England + Destroying the Torch-fleet - how does it effects the overall war events?

oladelmar wrote:It has cost me back pain, sore eyes, sleep deprivations and has had a severe impact on my social life

Welcome to he club, pal...!
On which difficulty do you play? I assume, beyond Rommel...try Rommel and you will no more complain about the weak AI... If you find the mod still easy, try to achive a DV (Rommel) on no more than 50 turns. Probably, it will be no more possible with v.1.7... Or, if you want to have even harder, try to make DV's from the Stalingrad and Kursk pre-saves (of course on Rommel). Let's meet again in ...3-4 months.

McGuba wrote: I have already reduced the max number of Axis sea transports from 14 to 8 and the rail transports from 14 to 10. Even that might be a bit too generous, but I do not want to make huge changes in one release. Historically the Germans were struggling to gather enough ferries for Sealion and on top of that the British kept attacking the French ports and destroyed many of those.

Well...the problem is, with these and several other restrictions, that it looks only the start of the war and the historical events and do not consider the other possibilities: that, if the war goes well for the Axis, there are enough resources to build more transport vehicles.

By the way, I think, that the -1 point/turn at the siege of Leningrad do not reflects the reality: I know, that about 1 million people perished to starvation. But the soldiers and the workers related producing war materials, always got priority at the food rations. The rest was anyway no interest for Stalin... I do not made research, but I think, the perished ones were mostly not among the fighters.

I saw the "Axis loose 1 point because of freezing" message. I hope, that effects only the soldiers in Russia and only the Inf units. I know, the vehicles also suffered from the frost, but I think it was temporally (not get the engines started), not permanently.

Uhu wrote:

McGuba wrote: I have already reduced the max number of Axis sea transports from 14 to 8 and the rail transports from 14 to 10. Even that might be a bit too generous, but I do not want to make huge changes in one release. Historically the Germans were struggling to gather enough ferries for Sealion and on top of that the British kept attacking the French ports and destroyed many of those.

Well...the problem is, with these and several other restrictions, that it looks only the start of the war and the historical events and do not consider the other possibilities: that, if the war goes well for the Axis, there are enough resources to build more transport vehicles.

Sure, but it is not possible to add more transports during a sceanrio and players cannot purchase new ones either. And having 14 or so sea transports in turn 1 is way too generous. With this amount it is possible to make a naval invasion against England AND the Middle East simultaneously, which would be very very unhistorical IMO. Even the Allies could not do it as they could only make one large scale invasion at the same time. And they had a lot more resources. Not to mention that regardless of their air and naval superiority they still had serious supply problems in France until they could take port city of Antwerp. That's why it was the main goal of the Ardennes offensive.

There is no doubt that in this way the mod will be definitely harder, especially to make a DV. But there are still the 3 air transports which can also be used to speed up the trasfer of units.

By the way, I think, that the -1 point/turn at the siege of Leningrad do not reflects the reality: I know, that about 1 million people perished to starvation. But the soldiers and the workers related producing war materials, always got priority at the food rations. The rest was anyway no interest for Stalin... I do not made research, but I think, the perished ones were mostly not among the fighters.

It will not be -1 strength point per turn, but rather -1 strength point per every 6-10 turns of the encirclement. And while the workers indeed got more food than the non-workers it was still a very small amount at times and I am pretty sure that the soldiers suffered, too.

Civilians in the city suffered from extreme starvation, especially in the winter of 1941-42. From November 1941 to February 1942 the only food available to the citizen was 125 grams of bread per day, of which 50-60% consisted of sawdust and other inedible admixtures. For about two weeks at the beginning of January 1942, even this food was available only for workers and military personnel.

The long siege is not compulsory, however. Players can still attempt to storm the city, but to do so more units need to be transfered to the area.

I saw the "Axis loose 1 point because of freezing" message. I hope, that effects only the soldiers in Russia and only the Inf units. I know, the vehicles also suffered from the frost, but I think it was temporally (not get the engines started), not permanently.

It will only affect Axis units in USSR and only once. I believe everyone suffered from the cold, not just the infantry. Artillerymen, AA and AT gunners also did not have shelter and winter clothing. I believe that tankers also had problems even though there was supposed to be some heating in their tanks, they could not spend all their time sitting and sleeping in their tanks and those tanks needed fuel as well, which was also on short supply. And yes, they could not start the engine of many vehicles which in turn could not move and had to be left behind during a retreat.

v1.7 is out.

Changes in v1.7

- Reported issues of v1.6 are fixed
- More random German hero portraits and names added from danijocker90's set for more variation and less clones
- Naval invasions significantly harder: max naval transports reduced to 8 (from 14), England is better defended
- Air reconnaissance units added
- Number of Soviet units increased, but they have less overall experience
- A few new or modified units added, especially more Land Lease units and new units from the PzC v1.25 patch
- Map extended to include Basra and a part of the Arab Gulf in the Middle East
- Map of declared minefields around England added to the Library
- AA units are rebalanced:
- Many light AA units are now AA/AT multipurpose
- AA units are no longer in the same upgrade family
- Number of AA units is rebalanced, the 2cm one being by far the most numerous in 1941
- Some more heavy AA units are added later during the scenario to counter the Allied air offensive, but only if England is not captured by the player
- Female historical heroes (heroines) added to the Soviets
- The long siege of Leningrad is added as an option
- Movement values revised, especially during winter
- More movement and attack sounds are added from VPaulus' RSM mod
- Players can now start the big scenario at later stages by installing some save game files. In these I tried to recreate the overall historical situation as much as possible. These are mainly for those who got bored of achieving the "easy" victory starting in June 1941. The stages are:

...Moscow/Crusader, 1941
...Stalingrad/El Alamein, 1942
...Kursk/Sicily, 1943
...Normandy/Bagration, 1944

The game difficulty is set at General. Obviously, the later you start the scenario the harder it is to achieve any kind of victory and in the final one(s) a draw is the only realistic aim.

In order to get them you have to copy the save game files in the zip to your ...\Documents\My Games\Panzer Corps\Save\ folder, where the game keeps the save games and just load them.

.......

King George VI would never leave the Buckingham Palace. Even as the Panzergrenadiers are storming the building he broadcasts a final desperate radio message ordering his Nation to fight the Geman invaders.


More than 800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces in WW2, 89 of them eventually recieved the highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. Finally it was time to fix my previous unacceptable ignorance and add a few historical female Soviet heroes (heroines) to the mod.


Download the latest version from here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sjm51gsq3x9iq ... 7.zip?dl=0

WARNING! This mod can be hihgly addictive! Only start to play it if you are sure that you will not neglect your family and work commitments as a result of the "just one more turn" feeling.

IMPORTANT! To get all the changes in v1.7 you MUST start a new campaign after installing it. Loading and continueing a campaign started in any previous version will result in having erroneous movements for some units.

McGuba wrote:v1.7 is out.

Thank you very much (or not...see the warnings...! )!
I'm curious, how will affect the overall gameplay - there are quite a big changes!
Of course I will modify a few stats of the armored vehicles, as I see them more realistic, but that's all, probably.