Slitherine

JimmyC wrote: I think it was because it had transport, but there is no way to disband transport unless you "upgrade" to no transport whilst in a friendly city.

Or load it to air transport.

Yrfin wrote:I doubt that AI can enough supress heaviest arty, becoz heaviest arty stand far away from front line. So, i can't see problem with move 0 for H.Arty.

The other problem is if you want to start the siege of an enemy frotress. It has range 3, so in order to move in your heavy artillery with the same range but with 0 movement, you have to do so by moving it in its land transport which typically has a very low defense. Then in the AI turn the enemy heavy fortress will decimate your heavy artillery, still in land transport mode, before it could even make a shot. If you are unlucky, the AI has another arty in range and/or some bombers, which can also attack your unlucky heavy arty in transport. In some cases it might even get totally destroyed without making a single shot. Even if not, in the next human turn you have to give it a reinforcement to make it back to full strength instead of making a shot thus giving the initiative back to the AI which will only rinse-and-repeat. Therefore, I think movement 1 is a must for all arty units in PzC due to the current mechanics, even though movement 0 would be much more accurate historically for anything above 75-100 mm.

Yes, im understand difference between ST and HT.
But what call ST or HT ?
Opel Blits - ST, but SdKfz 7 - HT. Strange, both don't have armor.
Or situation with SdKfz 250/251. Is it HT or ST ? In few modes i seen SdKfz 250/251 as ST.

I guess a half-tracked SdKfz is supposedly more sturdy than a truck. They did the same with the fully tracked Voroshilovets, added by Soviet Corps, and it also normally did not have armour.

Ceek wrote:I've just been thinking of some other ideas for continuing to improve the scenario in 1.9 and wanted to run them by you, McGuba.

1. Simulating espionage activities (and helping the "stupid AI")

It is an interesting suggestion and I am thinking about it. However, not many players have reported that they want to make the 42/43 Soviet offensive even more stronger as it is quite devastating already. Also, while one might think that the reduced visibility in bad weather generally hampers the AI, it has some positive effects as well: since it cannot see what lies ahead it will attack more boldly in a reckless manner without making any kill-to-loss calculations. And since PzC AI only attacks if it has a favourable kill-to-loss ratio (more precisely a favourable gain-to-lose unit prestige value) in some cases it can be stopped by setting up a strong defense: entrenched infantry and AT backed by arty behind, all visible to the AI. If the ratio is unfavourable to the AI it will never attempt to attack a defensive line like that. But the ratio is only an estimate and can be quite the opposite, especially if played on dice roll. So, in bad weather and with limited spotting the AI will attempt to break such a line, and in some cases will be able to break it, especially if there are multiple attempts (which may result in the defenders running out of ammo and/or slowly lose strength points even if causing innumerable losses to the AI units) or if the AI gets some lucky dice rolls. Even if not, the low visibility reckless winter offensives can create a sense of thrill that now the enemy really tries to break through no matter the human and material cost, which was exatly the case with the Red Army.

I am under the impression that the Soviet winter offensives are so feared by most players mainly because of the above recklessness and unpredictability of the AI. In the end, I think while this suggestion has some merit and might worth a try, I think I will only add some extra partisans for now.

2. A bettter Bagration

The main problem with Bagration is that I ran out of AI zones by than so I could not make it as territory specific as with Kursk, for example. Also, after three years of constant fighting, by mid 1944 the frontline in the East can be just about anywhere and again, due to the lack of AI zones it is impossible to prepare the AI for further ramdom late war scenarios. So, yes, I am aware that Bagration unfortunately lacks the same treatment as other major offensives, but I cannot really do anything about it on the strategic level. There is no way I can even slightly simulate the same amount of planning and coordination that went to it as the frontline can be really anywhere by that time. However, since it happens during the summer it could benefit from the proposed lifting of fog of war at a tactical level. But usually at that time the Soviets have quite a lot of air units on the map and they can offer the same extra spotting at a more natural way. So I think I tend to add some more scouting partisans again.

I also think these reveals would help prevent the still-present issue of mounted units driving headlong into German AT and Panzer units.

Unfortunately this is indeed a big issue and can only be fixed by removing the land transports. Which would result in them reaching the frontline much later. And sometimes causing traffic jams in the hinterland with slow moving units getting piled up and stuck by terrain or fixed unit obstacles. It happened quite often in the early versions of the mod and in the end those units never reached frontline due to the AI's non-existing path finding routine.

Also, I think the AI would move units in land transports to the very forward wheter or not it sees the enemy ahead. I will run some tests, though, to figure it out.

3. A pay-to-play option for Sealion..
...
By moving a particular unit to a trigger city (say, Kiel), 1000-2000 prestige will be deducted for an couple extra destroyers (maybe one with a special mine elimination trait, like engineers?) and a small increase to naval transports? (say, lowering the scenario default to 5 and increasing to 10 if this option is taken by the player).

Unfortunately the number of naval/rail/air transports cannot be changed during the scenario by any script or anything like that. It can only be specified for the beginning of the scenario and if the player loses some, they are gone for good.

Other than that, I understand the suggestion, there could be some more strategic options like that and I will think about it. The only problem is, the program does not check if a player has that 1000-2000 prestige or not. Thus it could be triggered even if the player has only 500 prestige - the game is told to reduce the prestige by 2000 and then the prestige will just drop to 0 as it cannot be -1500. That would be somewhat unfair. So I can only imagine it in with smaller 100-200 deductions at the beginning of each turn as normally players get 300-500 prestige at least for most of the time, especially in the early years. However, if there are partisan or strategic bomber raid penalties it can go down further. And it limits the number of such possible strategic options as players with low prestige could take benefit of all without actually paying for them.

4. Defending the Reich prestige boost

Again, the number of transports cannot be reduced by a script. However, maybe some active naval units could be traded for an additional AA gun or Fort unit. Historically, some warships (e.g. Gneisenau) were deactivated at some point with their main guns removed and built into coastal fortifications. But I am not so sure that it would be a good deal and many players would choose to do so.

Intenso82 wrote:For a unit to retreat, do you need a move greater than zero or should it be able to make a move?

If the unit has move 1 and is in a difficult terrain in winter weather. Effective move = 0. But stats move = 1.
Will he always surrender or retreat?

I think it will surrender but I am not 100% sure. Has to be tested.

JimmyC wrote:I landed some Italian artillery on the Bocage north of Cairo to bombard the enemy there. It was only after subsequently attempting to move them that i realised that the artillery was now trapped there for the rest of the game! Uber annoying. I think it was because it had transport, but there is no way to disband transport unless you "upgrade" to no transport whilst in a friendly city. And here i thought i was being clever in landing it there...

What transport it has? I can look into its movent stats.

McGuba wrote:

Ceek wrote:2. A bettter Bagration

The main problem with Bagration is that I ran out of AI zones by than so I could not make it as territory specific as with Kursk, for example. Also, after three years of constant fighting, by mid 1944 the frontline in the East can be just about anywhere and again, due to the lack of AI zones it is impossible to prepare the AI for further ramdom late war scenarios. So, yes, I am aware that Bagration unfortunately lacks the same treatment as other major offensives, but I cannot really do anything about it on the strategic level. There is no way I can even slightly simulate the same amount of planning and coordination that went to it as the frontline can be really anywhere by that time. However, since it happens during the summer it could benefit from the proposed lifting of fog of war at a tactical level. But usually at that time the Soviets have quite a lot of air units on the map and they can offer the same extra spotting at a more natural way. So I think I tend to add some more scouting partisans again.

In my current playthrough i am now approaching winter '44 and was somewhat surprised by the AI during Bagration. I expected a very strong attack from Smolensk, but instead the AI basically attacked on all fronts, but with heaviest activity emanating from Kursk and St Petersburg (my troops were basically occupying the Russian border at that time).
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77#p656177
But i understand that it is so variable where the player will be at that stage in the war that it would be very hard to accurately simulate Bagration.

JimmyC wrote:I landed some Italian artillery on the Bocage north of Cairo to bombard the enemy there. It was only after subsequently attempting to move them that i realised that the artillery was now trapped there for the rest of the game! Uber annoying. I think it was because it had transport, but there is no way to disband transport unless you "upgrade" to no transport whilst in a friendly city. And here i thought i was being clever in landing it there...

What transport it has? I can look into its movent stats.[/quote]
I will have to check this, but i believe it was the tractor style transport with movement 3 (it looks like a mini ore-moving truck). I also noticed it couldn't move over the hills/dunes east of Lebanon earlier on, which was annoying and caused be to transport it by sea to the nile river area. As i already played a couple of turns before i realised it was stuck in the Bocage, unable to escape the Nile, i just disbanded it rather than reload a save.

In my defense of France i noticed a change in the pattern of AI attack compared to v1.06 that i last played. This time the AI seems to advance more aggressively north up the coast (where it is much harder to defend) and mostly ignores the area south of the Loire River. Still heavy attacks towards Paris as per v1.06 though.

Also, it seems to me that British/US air is more aggressive. I have all units protected by AA, but the Allies just bomb the AA first (mostly suppressing it) and then go to town on the adjacent units. AI still takes damage but also causes much damage to my ground troops. I am struggling with a way to properly defend as i made the decision early on not to upgrade Bf's to Fw's and invest the money in armour instead.

JimmyC wrote:But i understand that it is so variable where the player will be at that stage in the war that it would be very hard to accurately simulate Bagration.

Yes, if you load and try the Normandy/Bagration save game that I enclosed in the zip you will find that in that case Bagration is rather well simulated as the frontline is quite accurate. By that year it really depends on how the player performs. If the frontline and/or the force distribution is different then the Soviet summer offensive will play out differetly as well.

JimmyC wrote:I will have to check this, but i believe it was the tractor style transport with movement 3 (it looks like a mini ore-moving truck).

I guess it has to be the Pavesi, then. It indeed had an anachronistic look:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavesi_P4

I have noticed the problem and will fix it for the next version. Obviously it should be able to move 1 hex in that very hard terrain in any weather. Thanks for reporting and sorry for the inconvenience.

JimmyC wrote:In my defense of France i noticed a change in the pattern of AI attack compared to v1.06 that i last played. This time the AI seems to advance more aggressively north up the coast (where it is much harder to defend) and mostly ignores the area south of the Loire River. Still heavy attacks towards Paris as per v1.06 though.

I did not really change anyting in this regard.

Also, it seems to me that British/US air is more aggressive. I have all units protected by AA, but the Allies just bomb the AA first (mostly suppressing it) and then go to town on the adjacent units. AI still takes damage but also causes much damage to my ground troops. I am struggling with a way to properly defend as i made the decision early on not to upgrade Bf's to Fw's and invest the money in armour instead.

On the one hand I feel sorry that you are struggling, but on the other hand it looks quite realistic from a historical point of view. The idea is that Northern France can only be defended in 1944 if the war in the east is won by then, and most units are transferred to the west. Pretty much the same applies to defending the east. That's why I am very curious if you will be able to stop the Allied juggernaut on both sides in your current playthrough, even if aided by the income from the oil fields.

McGuba wrote:

JimmyC wrote:I will have to check this, but i believe it was the tractor style transport with movement 3 (it looks like a mini ore-moving truck).

I guess it has to be the Pavesi, then. It indeed had an anachronistic look:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavesi_P4

I have noticed the problem and will fix it for the next version. Obviously it should be able to move 1 hex in that very hard terrain in any weather. Thanks for reporting and sorry for the inconvenience.

Yes, i checked last night and it is indeed the Pavesi. Also, thank you for teaching me a new word (anachronistic)

McGuba wrote:

JimmyC wrote:Also, it seems to me that British/US air is more aggressive. I have all units protected by AA, but the Allies just bomb the AA first (mostly suppressing it) and then go to town on the adjacent units. AI still takes damage but also causes much damage to my ground troops. I am struggling with a way to properly defend as i made the decision early on not to upgrade Bf's to Fw's and invest the money in armour instead.

On the one hand I feel sorry that you are struggling, but on the other hand it looks quite realistic from a historical point of view. The idea is that Northern France can only be defended in 1944 if the war in the east is won by then, and most units are transferred to the west. Pretty much the same applies to defending the east. That's why I am very curious if you will be able to stop the Allied juggernaut on both sides in your current playthrough, even if aided by the income from the oil fields.

I do not suggest you try to modify this - it is just my observation and caught me by surprise. In my v1.06 playthrough i went the Fw upgrade route, so the battle was somewhat different. This time round i thought i could save a lot of prestige by going for cheaper AA and invest elsewhere, but it turned out differently than expected. As a result, more and more of the Luftwaffe are being sucked into this battle (i currently have 2 Bf109(k)'s, 2 Fw190D's, 2 Ju88G's and 1 Veltro (which mostly hides in eastern Germany )

I am just approaching winter now. When the rivers freeze over i believe all hell will break loose on the eastern front, although it should give me the advantage on the western front and i may go on the offensive in that theater. Hopefully i can get in an update to my AAR tonight as i've played a few turns since the last update.

I read in your AAR that you have upgraded all towed AT to a mobile one. Even before releasing v1.8 I was thinking to add all towed ATs the camo trait as I believe AT guns are a bit mistreated in PzC, especially because it looks like most tanks in the war were destroyed by anti tank guns and not by other tanks. It would also increase the importance of ground recon units as if added the camo trait, towed ATs could not be spotted from the air (just like brandenburgers or some partisans). Historically towed ATs were best when used in ambushes and were fairly easy to conceal due to their small size and low silhouette which would nicely match the camo trait in the game. It would possibly give another nice layer of tactics and would make the 75 mm Pak more competative in 1944, when it starts to become more and more obsolete in the face of the Soviet heavies. So do you think you would keep some of these if the had the camo trait?

Obviously, it would work both ways and the AI would benefit from it as well, which would lead to some unpleasent surprises for players on the offensive...

McGuba wrote:So do you think you would keep some of these if the had the camo trait?
Obviously, it would work both ways and the AI would benefit from it as well, which would lead to some unpleasent surprises for players on the offensive...

Im doubt about AI ability used "camo" trait right way. Not tested myself yet.

It does not have to use it. It is automatic. Some partisan units already have it in my mod.

McGuba wrote:It does not have to use it. It is automatic. Some partisan units already have it in my mod.

I talk about ability AI took right place for ambush with small AT. Lonely 3.7 PaK in open field looking stupid.
And i think about ability switch tanks to "ambush" mode. It was a good tactics for Soviets tanks in 1941.

Well unit placing can be made by the scenario creator. The AI in general is not clerver enough to position its units effectively, it does not even make a difference between clear and close terrain. Thus it is irrealistic to expect it to position its units with the camo trait for proper ambushes any better.

And yet still, the camo trait would increase the survivability of towed AT units controlled by the AI and would make them more effective to stop the human player's offensives.

McGuba wrote:Well unit placing can be made by the scenario creator. The AI in general is not clerver enough to position its units effectively, it does not even make a difference between clear and close terrain. Thus it is irrealistic to expect it to position its units with the camo trait for proper ambushes any better.

And yet still, the camo trait would increase the survivability of towed AT units controlled by the AI and would make them more effective to stop the human player's offensives.

Hello McGuba,

I support camo trait for towed AT. Recall that Otto Carius expressed in the book Tigers in the Mud that the tankers biggest fear is the towed AT, not enemy tanks. This especially in the East where SU troops excelled in massing and camouflaging towed AT in ambushes.

I'm on the fence about should the towed AT be in the same upgrade family or not. Player does anyway have to pay for decent transports. On a losing track it could help players to get some affordable AT capability with resorting to horse transport. Some increase in a overall difficulty as a compensation?

Maybe they should be on the same family. AT troop training and other logistic requirements would stay the same, only the guns would change to heavier pieces. Could almost say that this is the same situation as with a tanks that get upgraded to bigger gun versions.


AA pieces should continue to be as they currently are for the sake of historical accuracy. Maybe 10/4 could have a armored late model version?




Some experiences from v1.8,

Total victory is still doable.

1st try. Starting from Barbarossa. Difficulty General. I carefully studied GeneralWerner plans (excellent AAR) for England and then modified them slightly. Main difference was allocation of 5x FW190 for invasion. Initially for beachhead protection and later for gaining air superiority as fast as possible.

England did fall as planned. Though not without casualties.

In the east I did follow usual strategy of early rush for Moscow. Which succeeded. Difference was that basically all Armor not necessary for Moscow was transported to West front. Army groups north and south had to rely only on Inf, AT and Art.

Torch. In NA I also used the usual plan of bringing decisive fight into hill country. All Mountain Inf + Fallschirmjäger + Semovente + 2x Art + 3x light AA + 2x AT + some Inf.
Here I made some mistakes and did not manage stabilize the front and Allied armor broke through north coast into open. This forced to resort to plan B, upgrade of 2x towed AT to Semovente 90mm + 1x towed Art to Semovente 75. This ate up lot of prestige which could have been used elsewhere. To make things worst these Italian armor could not be quickly transferred to other fronts after defeat of Torch invasion force.

ME oil fields. Some mistakes and few bad dice events lead to loss of couple of key units which then stalled the advance towards Egypt.

At some point realized that England was taken, SU would fall but I will not be able to reinforce ME offensive in time in order to capture oilfields before turn 99.

Decided to try again.


2nd try. Start Poland. Difficulty General. Dice chess.

Same plan, except Core Armor with heroes and both StuG's would land first. England conquered in time. Used Destroyers to open up gaps in the naval minefields. Short, fast route to move invasion forces back to East.

One FW190 moved to NA from England before Torch. This time defensive plan succeeded and landing force was destroyed in the hills with carefully rotating Mountain Inf on the front. Inf is also fast to move to other fronts when Tunis is secured.

SU and ME as usual. Total Victory on turn 96.

Feel that the Dice Chess is more relaxing experience when you try to achieve goal like Total Victory. Normally few bad dices can result a loss of important units which can easily prevent achieving your targets. In this mod every single unit has a role, purpose, time and place.


Normandy save,

1st try. Tough. Which got way more tougher after loss of Romanian oil fields. Planned for recapture, but timing surprised and troops were on their transports when Romania changed sides. Task force was annihilated basically in a one turn. Winter came. Fuel loss hit extremely hard. Lost 3x Panthers and King Tiger due to lack of fuel. Desperate fighting. Miraculously managed a Draw. Though the loss was guaranteed in next turn.

2nd try. Better, more timely continuance plan for recapturing oilfields. Lot's of Inf, Art and Flak. This succeeded in keeping Panzers rolling. Managed to keep the line at Paris and war in the east went so well that started even planning for going into offensive. Solid Draw.

Hi McGuba!

Let me ask you,

is it possible to create a mod version where we can deploy our forces or part of them before the action?

I was trying a different approach in the Russia invasion (Trying to send my main forces south, instead), but from the way the forces are inicially deployed, it is a bit hard to do it. A have to make a good turn in the north of the Pripet Marshes before turning south between Kiev and Kursk passage area, leaving Smolesnk alone.

Is it possible as well to give the Axis the option to cut the Soviet oil supply from the Caucasus by holding positions in the Volga River and/or tanking the city of Stalingrad as a alternative if they don't have a good advance in to the Caucasus oil fields area?

And, isn't Malta Island a bit too hard to get into as a objective? I mean, in my opinion, the main reason for the Axis didn't have taken that objective was more about a lack of strategic thinking than properly the difficult of a hard objective to take. The Axis were scared about invading isles after Crete, but I don't see Malta as difficult as a Crete to get into, and in the game I put the entire Italian Navy surrounding that Island and I quite much lost the battle.

Thx for your excellent work!

Best Regards,

Brontoburguer.

P210 wrote:Hello McGuba,

I support camo trait for towed AT. Recall that Otto Carius expressed in the book Tigers in the Mud that the tankers biggest fear is the towed AT, not enemy tanks. This especially in the East where SU troops excelled in massing and camouflaging towed AT in ambushes.

Yeah, sure, that's why I am thinking to try it. It would also make Axis towed AT guns more useful as I read that many players just get rid of them to free up some unit slots, which is quite unhistorical.

P210 wrote:I'm on the fence about should the towed AT be in the same upgrade family or not. Player does anyway have to pay for decent transports. On a losing track it could help players to get some affordable AT capability with resorting to horse transport. Some increase in a overall difficulty as a compensation?

Yes, currently I think towed AT guns will be back to one upgrade family. I do not plan to significantly increase difficulty in the next version. An imortant change will possibly be that Allied bombing raids will result in a double, 100 prestige penalty for each objective city in Germany (up to 300), instead of just 50/city. I do not like the fact that many players completely neglect the air defense of Germany and then use all the fighters in offensive operations. I believe this strategy should have more negative consequencies. I just cannot imagine the Germany (or any other country) doing the same in ww2. Another change will be the appearance of some more long range (4 hex) Allied towed artillery, especially in the east. As a small compensation Germany will get two understrength long range guns as well (a 10.5 cm in turn 1 and a 17 cm one in 1943) by default.

In this mod every single unit has a role, purpose, time and place.

I am very happy that more and more players are on the same opinion. It means that I managed to balance the unit stats and prices quite well in the end.

Normandy save,

1st try. Tough. Which got way more tougher after loss of Romanian oil fields. Planned for recapture, but timing surprised and troops were on their transports when Romania changed sides. Task force was annihilated basically in a one turn. Winter came. Fuel loss hit extremely hard. Lost 3x Panthers and King Tiger due to lack of fuel.

Another thing I am happy with. Even though I can imagine that it probably caused some WTF moments to you. Historically from late 1944 most German tank losses were operational losses due to lack of fuel or mechanical problems. Panthers and Tigers were superior to most Allied tanks but came too late, at a time when Germany could not use them to full effect.

Thanks for you feedback, it is always nice to read other players' strategies.

Brontoburguer wrote:Hi McGuba!

Let me ask you,

is it possible to create a mod version where we can deploy our forces or part of them before the action?

Sorry, I do not plan to make such a version as it would significantly change the balance of the mod. I would like to keep it historical until the very beginning and give full freedom after that. If you still want to experiment you can do it by loading the Panzer Corps editor, load the sceanio by locating the Kursk.pzscn file in your ...\Panzer Corps\Data\ folder and reposition all the units you want (1st: click on any unit, 2nd click replace to another hex) and then save. Then you need to restart a new scenario or campaign in the game to get the changes.

Is it possible as well to give the Axis the option to cut the Soviet oil supply from the Caucasus by holding positions in the Volga River and/or tanking the city of Stalingrad as a alternative if they don't have a good advance in to the Caucasus oil fields area?

I cannot do it due to a technical problem: I do not have enough AI zones to make it work like that. Even if I could, I think it would not be fully historically accurate as in case of being cut from the north, the Soviets might have been able to transport some (even if not much) of their oil through Iran in the south (which was under joint Soviet-British occupation in WW2) and/or across the Caspian Sea from the port city of Baku.

And, isn't Malta Island a bit too hard to get into as a objective? I mean, in my opinion, the main reason for the Axis didn't have taken that objective was more about a lack of strategic thinking than properly the difficult of a hard objective to take. The Axis were scared about invading isles after Crete, but I don't see Malta as difficult as a Crete to get into, and in the game I put the entire Italian Navy surrounding that Island and I quite much lost the battle.

The best way to destroy Malta is to transfer one or both Stuka tactical bombers to the area (with some fighter escort) and keep them there until they bomb the island to submission. Obviously at the cost of significantly weakening air presence in the east. That is the strategic thinking which is required from the players. By now I have realized that it is not communicated clearly to the players, and not everyone can figure it out, so in the next version I will give a direct hint in a message box. Historically, Malta was on the verge of collapse and capitulation on two occasions: in the spring of 1941 and 1942. On both occasions it was due to the presence of significant Luftwaffe forces, which on both occasions were transfered to the east before they could finish the job, leaving mostly Italians behind. As a result the defenders could recover due to the fact that the Italian air force was much less effective. The Italian Navy alone was unable to completely blockade or invade the island due to the Allied air and naval superiority. The Italian navy suffered some heavy losses in 1940-41 and was considered ineffective for the job for a number of reasons: lack of radar, light armour, lack of fuel, lack of air cover, etc. Therefore if players want to take the island for sure they have to transfer some serious German air units from the east and keep them there until they finish the job. However, some players reported that they could bomb it by using only Italian bombers, and with some luck it is indeed possible, but using the Luftwaffe as well is much more safe.

Oh, now I understand the Malta question. It makes much sence to me now. I'll begin a new campaign looking for the help of the German aviation. I think the message box informing this would be a good idea to help.

About the Soviet oil, isn't it possible to just weak the Soviets a little bit more if the city of Stalingrad is taken and keeped by the Axis? The Soviet certainly would manage to get some oil from the Caspian sea route or other source, but it could be managed to consider this, no? So, weakning them only on the portion of the oil that passes through the Volga.

About the editor, I don't know if I could make such things, I'm not very good at computing, you know. I almost couldn't install the Mod. I would prefer very much a deploy menu created by you to help make such things right and better. But I understand your point. But I hope in the future you could manage a way of putting this deployment options without losing the game balance.

Thanks for the answer.

My best regards, Brontoburguer.

McGuba wrote:

Yrfin wrote:I haven't seen any KV tanks in your mode with move 5. Even KV-85 have move 4

As far as I know the KV-85 had a max speed of 34-35 km/h according to most sources (22 mph) which in the game should correspond to 4 movement.

By the way, I suggest to continue this conversation in the topic of my mod and not in Intenso's as you are questioning the unit stats in my mod and not in his

Sceens from book about KV.

@McGuba - I agree that giving AT camo trait will make them more useful and that combined with making them in the same upgrade tree again, it would give the player a reason to not just disband them all or upgrade them all to SPAT (which is what i did). Even with these 2 positive changes it still wont make them too powerful as their ground defence is just so weak and in this game its all about keeping your units from being annihilated.

I also think its a good idea to up the prestige penalty from bombing of German cities as it just isn't cost effective at the moment to station significant Luftwaffe forces in the west unless you are invading England. Its just a shame that you can't turn off the penalty in bad weather, as suffering 300 prestige in rainy weather when you can't do anything to prevent it would fairly suck.

By the way, why are you given more range 4 artillery to the enemy?

@Brontoburguer - i highly recommend sending Rudel down to Malta if you want to attempt capturing it. Dont bother with the Regia Marina as they will just get shot up for little effect. You need to destroy Malta from the air.

@P210 - well done on your victories, but i suggest for true experience to play on full random dice. I am doing this on my current playthrough and experience some very frustrating moments. The worst was when a Strength 11 Guards '43 attack my strength 9 Grenadier '44 with entrench 4 and killed them outright. Also annoying things, like my strength 10 Tiger II ambushing a Russian recon unit in the snow and suffering 2 damage (the recon unit had hard attack of 2!!). Although sometimes improbable and highly frustrating it better reflects the facts of war - sometimes things just dont work out - no matter how good the odds are. It also means you have to proceed/plan more cautiously as you never know when the dice might go against you.

Brontoburguer wrote:About the Soviet oil, isn't it possible to just weak the Soviets a little bit more if the city of Stalingrad is taken and keeped by the Axis? The Soviet certainly would manage to get some oil from the Caspian sea route or other source, but it could be managed to consider this, no? So, weakning them only on the portion of the oil that passes through the Volga.

The problem is, I do not have more AI zones for Stalingrad. PzC only has 32 AI zones and I used all these for other victory objectives and game events. It is a recurring request by players to make Stalingrad more important but so far I could not do so due to this technical limitation. I will have another go if I can use an existing AI zone for Stalingrad as well, but I do not think so, and even if I can it could lead to unwanted side effects and erroneous scripts.

Brontoburguer wrote:About the editor, I don't know if I could make such things, I'm not very good at computing, you know. I almost couldn't install the Mod. I would prefer very much a deploy menu created by you to help make such things right and better. But I understand your point. But I hope in the future you could manage a way of putting this deployment options without losing the game balance.

Ah, ok, sorry. Installing complex mods like this for the game is unfortunately not very user friendly, but I am happy that you were able to do so in the end. As for the future, no promises in this regard as currently I want to add some other additional content and playing options, but it is possible that I will do it in a later version.

JimmyC wrote:I also think its a good idea to up the prestige penalty from bombing of German cities as it just isn't cost effective at the moment to station significant Luftwaffe forces in the west unless you are invading England. Its just a shame that you can't turn off the penalty in bad weather, as suffering 300 prestige in rainy weather when you can't do anything to prevent it would fairly suck.

Yes, bad weahter is a problem, but I cannot do much about it if I want to keep weather random (and I do). Scripts cannot be made weather dependent (i.e. only get triggered if certain weather conditions are met), the only solution would be to make weather fixed, with no randomness and then only add the bombing script for those turns when the weather is set for clear. But Allied bombers being able to drop their bombs in bad weather is not entirely unhistorical as they had some elementary radio navigational aids with which they could locate and attack targets with a size of a city even if all of Europe was covered with clouds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_(navigation)

The problem is, obviously, the player cannot fight back, but chances are very low that in a game there will be many turns like that. Usually during my test plays I had just a few turns in which there were 1-2 bombers above a city when raining. And I think historically there were occasions when the weather was just good enough for the bombers to deliver their payload, but not good enough for the defending fighters to locate and attack them.

Also, there were quite a few documented occasions when the Allies managed to jam and confuse Axis radars and defenses and thus enjoy an undisturbed bombing raid. For example the destruction of Hamburg was largely due to the first large scale use of chaff or "Window" (small pieces of aluminium foil dropped from the leading planes), which completely confused German radars thereby minimizing bomber losses. Then it took some time for the Germans to find a countermeasure. In the mod any undisturbed bombing raid because of the weather can also be regarded as such an incident:

Wiki:
The first aircrew trained to use Window were in 76 squadron. Twenty-four crews were briefed on how to drop the bundles of aluminised-paper strips... The results were spectacular. The radar guided master searchlights wandered aimlessly across the sky. The anti-aircraft guns fired randomly or not at all and the night fighters, their radar displays swamped with false echoes, utterly failed to find the bomber stream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

JimmyC wrote: By the way, why are you given more range 4 artillery to the enemy?

I would like to better model the superiority of Allied heavy artillery. The Soviets deployed large numbers of 122 and 152 mm guns and gun-howitzers, which outranged the standard German 15 cm sFH 18 by 5-7 km. It was a serious disadvantage and the Germans could only field a limited number of guns with a similar range.

While Soviets had the A-19 122mm (2500 produced) with a range of 20 km and the ML-20 152mm (6800 produced) with a range 17 km, the Germans could only counter these with the lighter 10.5 cm K 18 (1500 produced, 19 km range) and the excellent, but very expensive and rare 17 cm sK 18 (338 produced, 29 km range). Also, the US had the 155 mm Long Tom and the GB the 5.5 and 7.2 inch guns. These were also deployed in considerable numbers form 1944, and all outranged the German 15 cm sFH 18 which had a rather modest range of 13 km leaving German heavy artillery at a disadvantage for most of the war.

As a compensation I plan to add two understrength (a 10.5 cm from turn 1 and a 17 cm from 1943) long range gun to the German side. I expect the AI will make good use of these longer range guns (they will be able to fire from a longer distance and thus there will be a smaller chance of them running forward in kamikaze style) and players will occasionally face the historical problem of reaching these guns well behind the enemy lines. Hopefully it will lead to a more interesting and challenging gameplay.

Oh, McGuba, now I understand the matter of Stalingrad. It's a pity the game having this limitation.

If I could give you a suggestion, I don't know if it's possible to do in the current state without changing the scenario balance, is to take off the AI zone of Moscow and give it to Stalingrad, since Stalingrad was much more important strategicly than Moscow in the war.

Even if the Germans were able to take the city of Moscow it wouldn't have made much difference, as most of the historical evidence suggests that the Russians would not surrender just because of that city. The important factories that would keep the Soviet war machine alive were being transfered to behind the Ural Mountains. Stalin signed the order for the transfer as early as 41. So, by the end of 42 the Soviet had already a mass production of war equipment coming from those factories, as operation Uranos have shown.

Moscow importance in the war was more symbolic.

@JimmyC mr. Rudel is going to Malta right away!

Best Regards, Brontoburguer!

OK, so let's back to the fascinating mistery of the KV-1 subtypes!

Yrfin wrote:

McGuba wrote:

Yrfin wrote:I haven't seen any KV tanks in your mode with move 5. Even KV-85 have move 4

As far as I know the KV-85 had a max speed of 34-35 km/h according to most sources (22 mph) which in the game should correspond to 4 movement.

By the way, I suggest to continue this conversation in the topic of my mod and not in Intenso's as you are questioning the unit stats in my mod and not in his

Sceens from book about KV.

KV stats.jpg

I tend to change its speed to 5 hex based on the stats (42 km/h) posted by Yrfin, however I would like to stress that the max (road) speed of the KV-85 differs somewhat wildly between 34-46 km/h in other sources. There is only one such unit in this mod (as it was produced in small numbers) so it does not make a big difference anyway.

The supposed KV-1/42 or KV-1C subtype is much more misterious and unfortunately seemingly covered by the fog of war.

Although the original Soviet source posted by Yrfin implies there was no such model, several Western sources claim the opposite. To make things even more complicated there seem to be another subtype, the so-called KV-1E, where the E stands for ekranami ("with screens") which was in fact a 1940 model KV-1 with additional bolted armour plates, which can be clearly seen on some ww2 photos:
http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/kv_1e.php

Tanks Encyclopedia web page further claims that:

Exact number of this variant remains mysterious. Some sources speaks of 150 to 200+ units being converted in 1942. This was a response to new German tactics, hastily devised on the spot to counter the impregnable KV-1. The introduction of the new Pak-38 and Pak-40 AT guns and later some airborne weapons, like the MK 101 fielded by the Henschel 129 ground attack aircraft, urged this conversion. Total armor thickness was around 110-120 mm (4.33-4.72 in), making the KV-1 once again nearly impregnable.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/s ... t_KV-1.php

But the above posted Soviet source does not mention this subtype, either.

The fog might start to clear up a bit if we read what Steve Zaloge wrote in his book "KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939–45":

Later in 1942, the KV was further uparmoured to counter improvements in German tank and anti-tank guns... hull armour side plates were increased in thickness from 75 mm to 90 mm. The cast turret was improved by thickening it even further to 120 mm at the sides... This version is sometimes called the KV-1 Model 1942, though the Red Army never took great pains to designate subvariants.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PoG ... 42&f=false

Which nicely echoes with a similar statement in another book "World War 2 In Review: Soviet Fighting Vehicles":

The Soviets did not recognize different production models of KV-1 during the war, designations like model 1939 (M1939, Russian Obr. 1939) were introduced later in military publications. These designations, however, are not strict and describe leading changes, while other changes might be adapted earlier or later in specific production batches.

https://books.google.hu/books?id=8Iu1Dg ... nk&f=false

Despite their apparent negligence, their German adversaries did differentiate between the KV-1 models in ww2 as can be seen in a Rheinmetall-Borsig factory evaluation chart, quoted elsewhere, presumably made by using destroyed/captured KV-1 tanks:
http://henk.fox3000.com/KV.htm

Conclusion:
Available data seem to suggest that while the Soviets did not make a difference between their KV-1 production models, there were some significant changes in armour protection and turret type during the production run, and their German enemies made note of these changes which eventually found their way to post-war western publications. However, due to the apparent lack of original Soviet data there seems to be some confusion in this regard with different sources giving different changes in armour protection for the later production KV-1 tanks. It is also possible that some sources mix the KV-1E (the one with the bolted on armour) with a later production improved armour variant. However, other sources make a clear difference between these two:
http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/kv1_1942.php
http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/kv_1e.php

Not to mention that since the cyrillc letter "C" corresponds to the latin "S", the (German) designation KV-1C (given to the KV-1/42) can be read incorrectly as "KV-1S" by Russian readers.

I must add that this apparent lack of designations was not uncommon with the Germans, too. For example while the original production Panzer II Ausf. c/A/B/C type light tanks had a 14.5 mm max armour, this basic armour was later strengthened by bolting 20 mm armour plates to the front of hull, turret and superstructure of the vehicle and by 1941 all Panzer II tanks were upgraded to this new standard. And yet still, the designation remained the same, even though that a Panzer II C in 1941 had much better protection than in 1939, before the addition of the extra armour. Another example might be the Panzer IVG tank, of which some 1,700 were produced, most with a 50 mm base armour, but approximately 700 of them also recieved a 30 mm additional bolted or welded armour in the factory and despite the different armour protection all tanks of this batch had the same designation - Panzer IVG.

McGuba wrote:

JimmyC wrote: By the way, why are you given more range 4 artillery to the enemy?

I would like to better model the superiority of Allied heavy artillery. The Soviets deployed large numbers of 122 and 152 mm guns and gun-howitzers, which outranged the standard German 15 cm sFH 18 by 5-7 km. It was a serious disadvantage and the Germans could only field a limited number of guns with a similar range.

While Soviets had the A-19 122mm (2500 produced) with a range of 20 km and the ML-20 152mm (6800 produced) with a range 17 km, the Germans could only counter these with the lighter 10.5 cm K 18 (1500 produced, 19 km range) and the excellent, but very expensive and rare 17 cm sK 18 (338 produced, 29 km range). Also, the US had the 155 mm Long Tom and the GB the 5.5 and 7.2 inch guns. These were also deployed in considerable numbers form 1944, and all outranged the German 15 cm sFH 18 which had a rather modest range of 13 km leaving German heavy artillery at a disadvantage for most of the war.

As a compensation I plan to add two understrength (a 10.5 cm from turn 1 and a 17 cm from 1943) long range gun to the German side. I expect the AI will make good use of these longer range guns (they will be able to fire from a longer distance and thus there will be a smaller chance of them running forward in kamikaze style) and players will occasionally face the historical problem of reaching these guns well behind the enemy lines. Hopefully it will lead to a more interesting and challenging gameplay.

In winter '44 i am already struggling very badly against the enemy artillery, which seems incredibly strong. In 1 turn, 2 (probably overstrength) Russian artillery will take around 2-3 strength off my heavily entrenched infantry, fully suppressing them. Then the Russian tanks roll in and annihilate them. So it no longer works for me to use entrenched infantry backed by artillery as a bulwark / strongpoint on the eastern front and i am forced to rely on heavy armour to hold the line. Of course my playthrough is atypical, but i still hesitate at giving the enemy even more artillery...