Order of Battle: Burma Road - The new units!

[WarHomer]

I dont think it´s just you.

I was also quite disappointed with the specialisations in this DLC and didn´t see no firefly.

[kondi754]

But there wasn't single Firefly in Burma.
The best allied tanks are Grants and the early Shermans versions.

[WarHomer]

Well, there were no Tigers tanks either and in plenty of other DLC´s and the original game we have achieved what the belligerent parties was unable to, ie. I won at Midway with the japanese.

It´s a game not a history book

[kondi754]

Well, there were no Tigers tanks either and in plenty of other DLC´s and the original game we have achieved what the belligerent parties was unable to, ie. I won at Midway with the japanese.

It´s a game not a history book

Yes, I know it.
And I'm very sorry to see, there is no greater compatibility with the historical realities.
You captured Brisbane with Japanese or crossed the Euphrates river with Rommel's tanks - ok, but Tiger tank in Burma or Japanese jet fighters over Rangoon - no way!!!

[bru888]

Well, there were no Tigers tanks either and in plenty of other DLC´s and the original game we have achieved what the belligerent parties was unable to, ie. I won at Midway with the japanese.

It´s a game not a history book

Yes, I know it.
And I'm very sorry to see, there is no greater compatibility with the historical realities.
You captured Brisbane with Japanese or crossed the Euphrates river with Rommel's tanks - ok, but Tiger tank in Burma or Japanese jet fighters over Rangoon - no way!!!

I find myself agreeing with you, kondi, but agreeing with WH as well. What a wishy-washy wimp I am, eh?

It's just this: I don't mind a bit of diversion from strict historical facts, especially late in a campaign (remember the battle for Tokyo scenario in U.S. Pacific? Never happened, of course, but I treasure it). But, when designing my own nonsense, I always strive for plausibility, a very important concept in my opinion. My two scenarios are entirely fictional but I busted / am busting my rear end to make sure that, if the war had taken these turns, that these events could have happened in this manner given the realities at the time.

[kondi754]

Tokyo scn is ok for me.
It is 1946 and there is no problem for me jet fighters or Japanese heavy vehicles, because we don't know what prototypes would be produced in 1946.
But we know exactly there wasn't single Japanese jet fighter before the date of surrender of Nippon on September 2, 1945

[bru888]

Tokyo scn is ok for me.
It is 1946 and there is no problem for me jet fighters or Japanese heavy vehicles, because we don't know what prototypes would be produced in 1946.
But we know exactly there wasn't single Japanese jet fighter before the date of surrender of Nippon on September 2, 1945

Yes and that is the type of fact-checking I would do if I were doing the last scenario of Burma Road and the last scenario of U.S. Pacific. No Japanese jet fighters in Burma but, by 1946, if Japan held out that long, you might have seen a few jet fighters in battle over Tokyo.

[Erik2]

I'm all for historical plauability, but I would not mind seeing advanced Japanese unit types with the Burma campaign ending with a fictional scenario where the Allies assault Bangkok.

[kondi754]

I'm all for historical plauability, but I would not mind seeing advanced Japanese unit types with the Burma campaign ending with a fictional scenario where the Allies assault Bangkok.

It's a very good idea.

[Ichthyic]

the two hobart units are SUPPOSED to be modifications of ultra heavy Churchill tanks that actually were used in WWII, but there were several abilities left out, and some bugs thrown in for good measure (was supposed to be "heavyTreaded" but had "heavyThreaded", and the available dates were later than they should be).

1. AVRE version: short range mortar designed to destroy fortifications (historically). Though really the shell weight was actually too small, I think the idea in game was to have something to compete with the German "Karl Gerat", if on a slightly smaller scale. I modded it in my game to shoot a range 2 mortar that does around 12 infantry damage, 10 mechanized damage, with 30 shock and 8 fortification removal. Also combined this with the minesweeper capability (use the mortar to blow up mines in front of tank). Ideally, I wanted to make this as the tank really was; it could shoot normally using a standard tank barrel, or flip 180 degrees, and use the mortar barrel, which took some time to reload (so 2 turns to reload). I thought making it like the "Big gun shot" on a battleship would work for the mortar alternative shot, but it would require an actual animation and separate file entry. FWIW, I tested in the Burma campaign (starting on mission 8 ), and it works fine as is (the mortar), and minesweeping ability also works with the "metal detector" specialization.

2. Crocodile version: This was supposed to be a heavy long range flamethrower unit (historically). You already get a flamethrower in the Burma campaign (it's a fast light tank version that is very fragile), but this one is heavier and more durable if not as fast. Again, I gave it a range of 2, and damage 20 infantry, 5 mechanized. It's very expensive, but it was the best flame tank out there in WWII; could even shoot unlit pressurized fuel, then follow that by a regular lit version. Plus it had REALLY thick armor even a Tiger would have problems with. Nasty.

note: range 2 means you cannot auto-advance into a square of an enemy you destroyed, even if you are right next to them; it's like short range artillery.

easy enough to make a mod of this if someone wants it. I did the above modifications and fixed the bugs.

historical reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill ... Engineers)

[steevodeevo]

Hi Ichthyic, May I ask out of curiosity, did you mod the official campaign to fix this issue for authenticity or make an alternative player scenario? I ask as I understand that modding the unit file for existing units is a permanent change, which is fine when there's an issue with an existing unit. I'm just curious as I seem to be getting unhealthily interested in modding..

[Ichthyic]

it's a change to the main csv file, so you would need to either make the same changes yourself, or make a backup csv file and use mine.

not like it's terribly complicated; if you are interested in modding it yourself, go to:

C:\Program Files (x86)\Slitherine Ltd\Order of Battle World War II Panzerkrieg\64-bit\Order of Battle - WW2_64_Data\Content\Data

and find the "units.csv" file.

this can be edited by any standard text editor. I recommend notepad++

the values for the units are defined at the top of the file, and so long as you make sure to follow that order, you should have no problems!

...make a backup first, and put it in a different directory.