Slitherine

I play the Panzer Corps version 1.31 with the MOD Battlefield 1.9. The game just says goodbye and my desktop image appears. Sometimes it ends surprisingly at round 28 or now 31 or yesterday 44 - even after rebooting the game ends abruptly-please who can help me, I could play the MOD 1.6 until lap 99, but 1.9 does not work.

Kraxler wrote:It's going to be crazy, now I have the PC version 1.31 on it with the MOD Battlefield 1.9 and in round 44 the game says goodbye
Now I do not know how to continue, should I omit the 4gb patch? No idea, modded the MOD with the JSGME ....
Ask for help, I never had this problem with Battlefield 1.6

I play the Panzer Corps version 1.31 with the MOD Battlefield 1.9. The game just says goodbye and my desktop image appears. Sometimes it ends surprisingly at round 28 or now 31 or yesterday 44 - even after rebooting the game ends abruptly-please who can help me, I could play the MOD 1.6 until lap 99, but 1.9 does not work.

Sorry, I have no idea what it can be. No one else has reported such a problem so far and hundreds, if not more players must have downloaded the last update since September. If you could make it to turn 44 I cannot see why you could not do it any further. All I know is each new version is bigger than the previous ones, with more and more new graphics, sounds, animations, units, etc. etc. added and becuase of all these the mod is getting more and more demanding meaning that it needs more memory and stuff. Even then, if used with a clean and updated install of PzC v1.30 or v1.31 it should work fine given that you have a moderately decent computer. You can try to save and restart after each turn or maybe upload a latest savegeme from which you could continue the scenario to some file sharing host like dropbox and then we can download it and see if we can replicate the issue. Like I said, if everything is installed correctly and the "/nocache" parameter is added to the panzercorps.exe file then the mod should work correctly as well.

Uhu wrote:Because of withdrawal symptoms I started to play with the 1.9 again.
Now, with Kursk pre-save. Rommel difficulty, of course, with manual calculated prestige income.

Also playing the Finns historically - this means, until the capture of Leningrad, they do not goes south, neither with land, or with airforce - but they can andvance towards Arhangelsk.

Well yes, if I had a few more free AI zones I would probably make sure that the Finnish units cannot be used unhistorically outside of Finland - maybe they should not even be used for the capture of Leningrad as historically they simply refused to do so and they did not even allow German units to attack the city from the north. But then in the end, it would probably reduce one of the biggest advantages of this mod: (almost) total freedom to decide how the Axis forces can be used to win the war.

I did not played Kursk since 1.7-1.8 (?), because there is no more a chance to make a DV - with earlier versions, it was possible, although it was extreme hard.

I think no serious historian would say that Germany had the slightest chance to change the tide and win the war after Kursk so I think it should be like this, or maybe it is still too easy if we try to approach it realistically.

I must say, it is DEFINITELY harder, than the earlier versions! It really show up, what McGuba referred and edited, that the Allied power got massive stronger from 1943. I feel it, especially with the Red Airforce. It's brutal. My plan is no more destroying the Red Air force units - because I simply do not have the power for that, while also protecting partly my land troops. My new strategy is to weaken them: so, when they fly home for resupply, they will loose another 1-2 turn to replace the losses too.

Historically the Luftwaffe had between 800-1000 serviceable single seat fighters for most of the war in all theaters which was only increased to about 1.500 by 1944/45 (by which time they mostly ran out of fuel and trained pilots to fly them) and the total number of aircraft had only risen from some 3.500 to 5.000 between 1941 and 1944: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe ... 2%80%9345)

As a comparison both the Soviets and the Western Allies could significantly increase the strength of their airforces and at the end of the same period they had several times more airplanes than in the beginning. And then of course the Luftwaffe had to distribute its limited strength between the main theatres: the east, the west and the Mediterranean, whereas the Soviets could concentrate all their planes against the Germans. In the east the Luftwafffe deployed around half or even less of its total fighter strength for most of the war and by 1944/45 the Soviet air force could deploy 14-16(!) times more single seat fighters:

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... h-and.html

The most interesting thing is that even against such odds the Luftwaffe could achieve a favourable kill-to-loss ratio in the east, even though it suffered huge losses in the west against the Mustangs and Thunderbolts which ultimately led to its downfall. Some sources claim that Luftwaffe fighters suffered 80% of their losses in the west in 1944. Which is seemingly better simulated in this version of this mod:

- The Anglo-American air power, especially the fighter force is simply a terror! So many times had I reload and find out another solution to avoid my fighters butchered, while also protecting somehow my invasion force and the rest of my navy.

And if anyone thinks that the Western Allies did not have that many aircraft and that the mod is too hard, I have bad news. In 1944 the USAAF had 5.000 fighters in the European and Mediterranean theaters (http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/ ... igest.html) and to this number we need to add over one thousand British fighters, too. Meaning that the Western Allies also had at least 8-10 times more fighters than the Luftwaffe, and as opposed to the Soviets, their pilots were generally much better trained than the Germans, and their planes were at least as good as the German ones, especially at higher altitudes.

So yes, again I think it has to be like this, or maybe even harder to remain historical.

That's all very nice, BUT! I forgot about the Finns! SPOILER!

1., I do not remember exactly but around Sept 1944, if Leningrad will be not taken, they quit. What is really problematic, if I want to take Archangelsk, because the small Finnish army is good enough to take the city "from behind". After I cleared the area east of Moscow, I did not had the time to take Leningrad timely. So - reload many turns earlier...

Actually, Finland only quits if at least a part of Moscow and Leningrad are BOTH controlled by the Soviets. Which means it is enough to completely capture and hold one of them to avoid this trigger and to convince the Finnish that the war is still going relatively well for the Axis and then they would continue to fight on. (Which is of course hypthetical, but I think plausible.)

McGuba wrote:Actually, Finland only quits if at least a part of Moscow and Leningrad are BOTH controlled by the Soviets.

Thanks for the info! Oh yes, I was not sure, some day we already mentioned this, but I did not have the mood to search back in the topic. That's good news, than I can still clear the area east of Moscow and can siege Leningrad in the winter, when it's rude, 4-range gun is "blind". Still, I had to make the long reload process, because of the sudden 2nd Sicily-invasion.

McGuba wrote:it is still too easy if we try to approach it realistically.

Do not forget, that we do not play realistically in the manner, that not the Allied, but the Axis knows all the moves of the enemy - a super-intelligence force we have. Plus the time machine (load-save) is also there. If these two factors wouldn't be there, Probably the war would be even more faster end for the Axis in the game.

Hmm, a strange thing happened: at turn 78, Allied turn, I got the message, that Budapest was bombed and I loose 100 prestige. Beside the thing, that it was raining (I know, so OK...), but there was no Allied bomber over it! Plus I think, there should be some warning messages, also for the Romanian oil fields, that the player would have the chance to prepare for it. They are no base German cities, which are marked to know about their importance, so a warning message and maybe another symbol to show, they must protected would be useful. On the other hand, I don't think, it is correct to take prestige without a real bombing.

Yeah, sorry for that, I just wanted to simulate the bombing of Hungary, just as I did with Romania (to put a bit more emphasis on the fact that the Allies did not only bomb Germany) but then I forgot about the possible warning message as I did it in the last minute. Also due to the lack of AI zones I could not do it 100% as Budapest does not have its own AI zone so I used two other AI zones for that which are used for other things, but then there is of course a small chance that if US bombers are standing on both of those two other zones at the same time than this event will be triggered unjustly. So just give back the lost prestige with the prestige cheat and try to ignore that. And finally I have to accept that it is not possible to add more events like this to the mod and I have no other choice but to remove this from the next version as a result of the game engine limitations.

By the way I made something similar with the bombing of the Romanian oil field well (as it also does not have its own AI zone), but for that I could use 3 zones so the chance for such an unjustified event is even smaller, but still not zero. Nevertheless I would like to keep that one at least in the single player scenario as the bombing of the Ploiesti oil fields was really significant and thus it worth the risk of bad game behaviour. But I will further reduce the possibility of a wrong event trigger in that case to hopefully under 1% by adding one more additional AI zone to it (primary zone) so that it will be even less likely that it gets triggered when it should not.

As for the rain, I think we already discussed that, and again weather state cannot be used to trigger scripts, unless it is made non-dynamic but in the next version I would like to make weather a bit more dynamic than in this current version so it might lead to even more "unfair" bombing raids by the Allies. However, there were several documented cases when the Allies could do the bombing through the overcast cloud cover thanks to their radio navigation equipment and the German fighters could not attack them due to the weather. And there were some other cases when the Allies used new radar jamming techniques like dropping chaff and thereby they could blind the German radars and make the bombing run without suffering losses to the enemy fighters. So these seemingly "unfair" bombing raids did happen occasionally, but only because the Allies had a lot of bombers and the technology to do so. In order to avoid or to minimize the chance of it, the player has to keep the number of enemy bombers reasonably low by attacking and destroying them whenever the weather permits. If there are no or just a few enemy bombers alive, even if the bad weather comes, they will not be able to find and attack the cities, but if there are lots of Allied bomber running all over the map, the chance that they will be able attack some cities in bad weather is also higher.

Hi is there a way to add zoom levels to the Barbarossa game map? I noticed the in the scenario editor there are 4 zoom levels (25%-100%) however only 2 are available when playing.
25% zoom would be very handy given the size of the map.

Thanks

I have an airplane in an aerodrome captured recently with the advance of the ground forces. The plane started the stage with 10 strength points, now it has 6 and I can not repair it (there are no adjacent enemy units at the moment) ... is it a bug or is it an intentional limitation of the game?
--- On the other hand the planes that start the stage with 8 or 6 points of force I can never repair them to 10, this is also correct?

Look in the editor, some units like reconnaissance planes can not be upgraded or completed

Regards

Yves

Pill wrote:Hi is there a way to add zoom levels to the Barbarossa game map? I noticed the in the scenario editor there are 4 zoom levels (25%-100%) however only 2 are available when playing.
25% zoom would be very handy given the size of the map.

Thanks

Hi,

As far as I know there are only two zoom levels in the game - normal and the zoomed out one. All I can suggest is to try to get a bigger monitor with higher resolution, if you can. And maybe use the strategic map more often.

ESPADATXI wrote:I have an airplane in an aerodrome captured recently with the advance of the ground forces. The plane started the stage with 10 strength points, now it has 6 and I can not repair it (there are no adjacent enemy units at the moment) ... is it a bug or is it an intentional limitation of the game?
--- On the other hand the planes that start the stage with 8 or 6 points of force I can never repair them to 10, this is also correct?

Hi,

I guess it must be the Hs 126 recon plane. It cannot get replacements as its production ended in early 1941 with only 5 planes made in that year. And it was produced in rather limited numbers so there were not many in reserve to replace losses. Furthermore, it was retired from active service in 1942 and had been replaced with the Fw 189 - which is simulated in the mod as well. (However, a few surviving examples were reactivated as nuisance night bombers starting from 1943.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_126

There are some other units which start the scenario understrength. For example one of the tank units equipped with captured French tanks near Paris. Again, these cannot be replaced to full strength due to the end of their production following the defeat of France. And then there is the "KG 40" named unit equipped with the Fw 200 Condor - this one cannot be replaced to full strength due to the limited production of that plane (only 276 produced throughout the war) and due to the fact that historically KG 40 was always understrength and never really had more than 20-30 Condors. Even though this unit represents the whole KG 40 which also had other types like the Do 217 and He 177 as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_Condor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgeschwader_40

So yes, these are all intentional limitations to better represent the historically available numbers of certain types.

I don't know if anybody mentioned, experienced that the AI see also the deep submerged U-Boats too. I think, it's good to knowing this.

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]
http://union.4bb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=971&p=18

Yes, Romanian oil fields "scenario" is worth and realistic to keep. But give some warning messages. On the other hand, I could make the trick in the Kursk save, that I sent the 1 str weak Italian bomber over the oil field and so I had time to destroy the approaching US bomber calmly. Yes, I'm the realism-fanatic and this is like cheating, but I needed the other fighters elsewhere and the 200 prestige loss would be a loss in that situation. With the Budapest-bombing penalty I'm a little skeptic, Hungary made not such a big part in the overall Axis industry, in that way, Italy should have also it's bombing penalty. Bombing in rain penalty is absolute cheat-need to get back the the prestige, so I do not discuss that. I use also recon planes at the start of Barbarossa to not let Soviet airplanes to take off, until they get destroyed. Maybe that is not so cheaty, because the German planes intimidate the Soviet pilots enough to take off.

You will make the weather more random? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

When we are at realism: I want to create a mod for 1.9, where I implement more complex the Oil War/Axis Oil Crisis elements.
- I plan to start the crisis already at turn 10 (as in reality), with 20 fuel rations for ALL Axis capital ships at turn 14.
- I would also implement 25% lower fuel capacity for all Axis planes.
- Plus the "normal" -4 fuel/turn for all Axis motorized land units.
This would end only if the 2 additional oil fields are captured. That means realistically Grozny and Baku, as the Middle East oil fields are even further... (on the other hand, there are information, that in the Middle East were not so much oil extraction capacity as now, or as the mod suggest, but that's no problem, because the player can anyway first get to Baku.) Even, when Grozny's and Baku's oil fields are captured, there will be another year, until the oil can be extracted, because the Soviets (would have) destroyed the wells and equipment - as they did at Maikop historically. While in theory, the Maikop-Grozny oil fields would be enough to fill the need for the Axis, I calculate also in the mod, that in 1 year, not so big percent of the overall destroyed wells could be repaired. So, if everything goes well, the player can capture Baku around turn 25-30 (?). Another year passes, until all the fuel problems will gone. Oh, not to forget: because of the dire fuel situation, newbie Axis pilots have less time in the air, therefore they got less trainig - that means, all Axis air units loose 30 prestige at the start of 1943, 70 prestige in 1944 and another 50 in 1945.
I could not make yet test this version, but I'm curios about it, because all my earlier "turn 50 goal" target will to be cancelled, early Moscow capture cancelled, England invasion post noted at least for 1943 and so on... Is there anybody else besides me, who want to pain himself with such a (realistic) version?

McGuba wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:47 pm Nevertheless I would like to keep that one at least in the single player scenario as the bombing of the Ploiesti oil fields was really significant and thus it worth the risk of bad game behaviour. But I will further reduce the possibility of a wrong event trigger in that case to hopefully under 1% by adding one more additional AI zone to it (primary zone) so that it will be even less likely that it gets triggered when it should not.

Uhu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:26 am I don't know if anybody mentioned, experienced that the AI see also the deep submerged U-Boats too. I think, it's good to knowing this.

Yes, unfortunatly the camo trait does not seem to work for submarine type units, I also noticed it some time ago.
So I will remove these in the next version as they are useless. Submarine type units can be detected in the same way (50% chance for each unit whithin spotting range), wheter or not they have the camo trait, which is sad. Therefore in the next version I will try another way to make submarines a bit more useful.

Uhu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:22 am Yes, Romanian oil fields "scenario" is worth and realistic to keep. But give some warning messages.

If I remember well there is a hint after the loss of Tunis that the Allied bombers can now reach the Romanian oil fields.

Bombing in rain penalty is absolute cheat-need to get back the the prestige, so I do not discuss that. I use also recon planes at the start of Barbarossa to not let Soviet airplanes to take off, until they get destroyed. Maybe that is not so cheaty, because the German planes intimidate the Soviet pilots enough to take off.

Ah, yes, of course, I get it. If some unfortunate game mechanic favours the enemy then it is a big cheat, but if another favours me it is fair enough and I can live with it.

When we are at realism: I want to create a mod for 1.9, where I implement more complex the Oil War/Axis Oil Crisis elements.

Interesting idea, but maybe you would want to wait for the next version as it will change many things, as always.

- I would also implement 25% lower fuel capacity for all Axis planes.

For example the range of many air units will be reduced, for both Axis and Allied side, to better represent their actual range. But most air units will still have about 50% more range than what they should have at the current scale of the map.

on the other hand, there are information, that in the Middle East were not so much oil extraction capacity as now, or as the mod suggest, but that's no problem, because the player can anyway first get to Baku.

Yes, it is true, and I am aware of it. Moreso, there should be a distinction between Baku and the other Soviet oil field as Baku was by far the main oil source. But again, the AI zone limitation is a problem as there is only one AI zone for all the oil fields so they worth the same. Maybe there could be more oil field hexes at Baku - realistically there should be like 4-5 instead of just one to represent its real value. But then it should be made harder to take it. Probably it will be harder to take it anyway, as there will be more naval activity and Soviet presence in the Black Sea in the next version (HINT). The other issue with making Baku too valuable is that it would make the scenario more limited: there would be no real alternative to capturing the Baku oil fields, when I believe that the Mediterranean strategy, proposed by Erich Raeder in 1940, was a real alternative and I think it is more interesting to have several equally tempting winning strategies then just one.

Oh, not to forget: because of the dire fuel situation, newbie Axis pilots have less time in the air, therefore they got less trainig - that means, all Axis air units loose 30 prestige at the start of 1943, 70 prestige in 1944 and another 50 in 1945.

I was planning to add something like this as default. The only problem is, as opposed to prestige, experience can go down to negative levels if ordered by scripts, and even though units with negative experience seem to act like units with zero experience, no matter how negative it is, it takes time to regain their experience to zero level and then gain postive. The other problem is more cosmetic, if experience goes negative a strange symbol appears at the place of the experince star:


Still, I think I could live with these negative side-effects as the postive side of being more accurate historically compensates for it. But players will surely hate it and will start moaning, lol.

However, if there is a warning message in the beginning that pilot training will eventually deteriorate unless at least one oil field is captured than players can plan accordingly.

EDIT:

The other problem with negative experience is that if using the more expensive elite replacements the negative experience level does not change, but when using the cheaper green replacements it will improve (in this example from -410 to -389):










So now I am not so sure if it is a good idea to change experience with scripts.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pm If I remember well there is a hint after the loss of Tunis that the Allied bombers can now reach the Romanian oil fields.

Maybe, but I did not encounter it: Tunis is lost for me only in the Kursk save and in the Kursk save, the player do not get this message, because Tunis was already earlier captured. Maybe a second message could do the thing.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pmIf some unfortunate game mechanic favours the enemy then it is a big cheat, but if another favours me it is fair enough and I can live with it.

OK, I hear you. True: when I try to play as realistically, as possible (Finns, Fallschrimjägers, given core army, now also when landing than supply only if an airport/harbor is captured, heavy arms reinforcement only if harbor is captured, etc.), than I should do not use these "overflying" tricks either.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pm Interesting idea, but maybe you would want to wait for the next version as it will change many things, as always.

Good, that you say it! When? Oh, by the way, let the heavy cruisers, battleships 4 range fight capability in single player, it makes naval battles more realistic. Will be there changes also in the 4 pre-scenarios?

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pm Yes, it is true, and I am aware of it. Moreso, there should be a distinction between Baku and the other Soviet oil field as Baku was by far the main oil source.

Maybe there is a solution, that you decrease the prestige/oil fields to 50, while adding 2 more oil fields for Baku. That would simulate both Baku's higher and Middle East's lower oil capability. Sure, the fuel crisis limits the possibility, what the player can do for victory, but it is the only more realistic way and you are always crying for more reality (besides me of course) . On the other hand, while Baku would be a must have action, there is still a lot of possibility, what the player do in the meantime (trying capture Moscow in 1941, trying invade England already in the winter of 41/42, etc.) and the possibilities after Baku are again total free. Plus the player do not need to capture Baku - but than need to wear the consequences. This oil crisis of the Axis is so hidden for everybody, while it made such a big impact, that I think, it would be great to implement it in the game. On the other hand, maybe capturing Baku could have more, stronger effects too: giving more gift-prestige (while lowering the other), giving the Soviets more penalties for it (TIK says in the video, that capturing Baku and holding Ukraine would have depraved the Soviets so much from food and fuel,that the capability of the Red Army would have collapsed eventually - I think, even the land-lease program would not have been enough to compensate that.)

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pm I believe that the Mediterranean strategy, proposed by Erich Raeder in 1940, was a real alternative and I think it is more interesting to have several equally tempting winning strategies then just one.

Well, that's a great idea, but for me, it seems, that goes beyond the capabilities of PzC - diplomacy. Because in that situation, no need would be to attack the Soviets in 1941 (they would still give oil, so no fuel starvation would happen either). Also it is very likely possible, that loosing Gibraltar, Malta and Egypt, Britain would have sued for peace.
Hmm, there is a possibility: you give the player the choice to choose between Barbarossa, or the Mediterranean strategy - an an option, between scenarios, as we know. And there would be still an option to attack the Soviets later by capturing given objectives in the east.
But than you have to create a whole new Battlefield. Are you read for that?? But no: the lack of additional zones prevent also this. Maybe we should make a petition for the developers to implement this tiny extra as a patch? On the other hand, I would so much see an improved supply, reinforcement system, that for that a new game engine would be needed...

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 2:56 pm The only problem is, as opposed to prestige, experience can go down to negative levels if ordered by scripts, and even though units with negative experience seem to act like units with zero experience, no matter how negative it is, it takes time to regain their experience to zero level and then gain postive.

Well, I think, earning prestige from zero to 30 is an easy thing, so not much airplane should be in that situation at the start of 1943. With 70 xp penalty in 1944 is a stronger effect, but still, I think, even the first 100 prestige is relative easy to get. UPDATE: who would want to give elite reinforcements to a negative-xp air unit? Anyway, this information could be delivered, that this is a glitch, when the xp decrease occur.

Dear all,

Thanks to McGuba’s encouragement and all the inspiring AARs/tips on this forum I am now also thinking of sharing my experiences with Battlefield Europe v1.9:
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=86481

PeteMitchell wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:43 pm Dear all,

Thanks to McGuba’s encouragement and all the inspiring AARs/tips on this forum I am now also thinking of sharing my experiences with Battlefield Europe v1.9:
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=86481

Awesome! The more AARs are made the better I can make this mod so in the end it is good for everyone.

Uhu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:37 pm Oh, by the way, let the heavy cruisers, battleships 4 range fight capability in single player, it makes naval battles more realistic.

I am not so sure now. I would like to make the next version(s?) suitable for both single and multiplayer games and I would like to have only one equipment file for both for a number of reasons. And while testing it in multi those range 4 capital ships somehow did not feel right. Also, in the next version I plan to add coastal batteries (in artillery class) with range 3 and if battleships have range 4 they can easily eliminate them from a distance. So coastal batteries should have range 4, too, but then it would be too much especially in the English Channel area. Finally, range 4 capital ships can shoot too far inland, they can nearly shoot all over Italy, which is far from being realistic. Obviously range 3 in this regard is also too much, but still somewhat better. Anyway, I would like to see how it works with range 3. In the end it has to be a compromise.

By now I have realized that the AI mostly needs spotting range and not shooting range. If it can see a good opportunity, it will move in to attack with whatever it has in the area. In the original equipment file it is quite the opposite: for whatever reason capital ships have good shooting range but low spotting. But when the AI moves its naval units it always moves the capital ships first which run forward blind, followed by the destroyers which have better spotting range, but 0 shooting range. But after the destroyers are moved the capital ships does not get another chance to shoot, even if the destroyers could spot some targets for them. It does not make any sense and that's why the AI is so dumb with the original equipment file in naval battles.

Will be there changes also in the 4 pre-scenarios?

Yes, but mainly cosmetic with some smaller gameplay changes, too.

aybe there is a solution, that you decrease the prestige/oil fields to 50, while adding 2 more oil fields for Baku. That would simulate both Baku's higher and Middle East's lower oil capability.

Actually, I like this idea. Currently the Allies have 4 oil fields for 100 prestige each. If their value goes down to 50 there should be 8 to keep the current prestige system. The following source gives these figures for oil production by country in 1940 in million tons:

USA 182.657 Mt
USSR 29.700 Mt
Venezuela 27.443 Mt
Iran 10.426 Mt
Indonesia 7.939 Mt
Mexico 6.721 Mt
Romania 5.764 Mt
Columbia 3.636 Mt
Iraq 3.438 Mt
Argentina 2.871 Mt
Trinidad 2.844 Mt
Peru 1.776 Mt
Burma 1.088 Mt
Canada 1.082 Mt
Egypt 0.929 Mt

https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... ach-nation

According to this data Iraq (Baghdad) could have 1 oil field and Iran (which is not on the map, but if the player takes Basra and reaches the Arab Gulf it is assumed that the nearby Iranian oilfields are taken as well) could have 2. Then the USSR could get 5, with 4 at Baku and a 1 at Tbilisi.

But then what about Romania? Should it get two or just one oil field? One would make more sense, but then its loss would not be so vital. So maybe two, just to keep the current balance. And then again, a lot of things would need to be checked as many units and events are triggered by the original number of oil fields. Doubling their numbers could lead to some unwanted side-effects in some scripts. Now there are hundreds of scripts in the mod and I do not remember each and every trigger so in the end it could cause more harm than good. And of course all this would significantly postpone the release of the next version.

This oil crisis of the Axis is so hidden for everybody, while it made such a big impact, that I think, it would be great to implement it in the game.

It is implemented to some extent, but no doubt that this effect could be increased.

Well, I think, earning prestige from zero to 30 is an easy thing, so not much airplane should be in that situation at the start of 1943. With 70 xp penalty in 1944 is a stronger effect, but still, I think, even the first 100 prestige is relative easy to get.

It is not about earning, it is more about losing the exp by a script. In the next version there will be a reworked reinforcement system, based on historical production and serviceability numbers, and new replacement units would appear with less and less experience. Most new air units that appear in 1944 has close to zero experience and these can easily go to negative if there is such a script. Still, I think I could live with it, but not so sure that most players would like to see lots of units with negative experience.

UPDATE: who would want to give elite reinforcements to a negative-xp air unit?

Some players would think that elite replacements would make it through faster from negative experience (also because it costs more), when in fact the opposite is true. So it is certainly confusing.

Uhu, I'm really interested about your oil crisis concept, but I also really, really dislike the -4 fuel/per turn script
For example, in Normandy save in the winter in close terrain you can't do anything except to try to refuel every single motorized unit on every turn and still end up first with immobilized and then quickly annihilated army. And heaven forbid if you forgot to refuel and the fuel goes to minus side and then it is almost impossible to recover.
McGuba and Uhu, Therefore I suggest using the same system for land units as for the capital ships - A fixed fuel cap for all units in the class. For example, most armored units have fuel capacity around 40 or so. That could be nicely capped to 20 for all. There are some exceptions like the Tiger I unit, but that is likely the highest priority unit in the whole army and therefore likely has the highest priority for fuel.

P210 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:31 am really dislike the -4 fuel/per turn script

I can understand that... Well, IMHO the -4 fuel/turn simulates more, what happened that after 1941, many times, the panzer columns got stuck, because of the lack of fuel (and sometimes logistical problems). On the other hand, having this in Kursk, or Normandy save would be a catastrophe. I would say, only in the full scenario is it playable, other way, that guarantied frustration level would be much higher, than the enjoyment level.

Uhu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:37 pm But no: the lack of additional zones prevent also this. Maybe we should make a petition for the developers to implement this tiny extra as a patch? On the other hand, I would so much see an improved supply, reinforcement system, that for that a new game engine would be needed...

Perhaps there is a correlation between the number of AI zones and the time of the AI turn, but this is only an assumption.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:29 pm By now I have realized that the AI mostly needs spotting range and not shooting range. If it can see a good opportunity, it will move in to attack with whatever it has in the area. In the original equipment file it is quite the opposite: for whatever reason capital ships have good shooting range but low spotting. But when the AI moves its naval units it always moves the capital ships first which run forward blind, followed by the destroyers which have better spotting range, but 0 shooting range. But after the destroyers are moved the capital ships does not get another chance to shoot, even if the destroyers could spot some targets for them. It does not make any sense and that's why the AI is so dumb with the original equipment file in naval battles.

If stick to the strategy Detection - Main Strike - Finishing Strike.
It would be good for AI to go first with light reconnaissance ships.
Then heavy capital ships.
And then ships like destroyers.

This can be tried by adding small ships to the recon class.
Or in the class of capital ships, but I guess that in one class ships with a smaller ID number move first.
If some units are placed with a smaller ID, then they will walk first than with a high ID, just an idea

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:29 pm Actually, I like this idea. Currently the Allies have 4 oil fields for 100 prestige each. If their value goes down to 50 there should be 8 to keep the current prestige system. The following source gives these figures for oil production by country in 1940 in million tons:

USSR 29.700 Mt

https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... ach-nation

According to this data Iraq (Baghdad) could have 1 oil field and Iran (which is not on the map, but if the player takes Basra and reaches the Arab Gulf it is assumed that the nearby Iranian oilfields are taken as well) could have 2. Then the USSR could get 5, with 4 at Baku and a 1 at Tbilisi.

Some data on oil production in the USSR by years:
40 - 31.1 Mt
41 - 33 Mt (23.5Mt Baku)
42 - 21.9 Mt (15.7Mt Baku)
43 - 17.9 Mt (12.7Mt Baku)
44 - 18.2 Mt (11.8Mt Baku)
45 - 19.4 Mt=(11.5Mt Baku) + 3Mt Baku-2 (Volga-Ural) + 2Mt Caucasus (Grozny + Maykop + Dagestan) + 3Mt (Middle Asia, Kazakhstan, Far East).

We see that after the Battle for the Caucasus the total amount of oil production declined and did not recover until the end of the war.
Although Baku was not captured, production in Baku fell by almost 2 times.
But in fact USSR was equal to the pre-war level only in 1949.

The share of Baku oil was about 2/3 of all oil produced.

This may mean that the seizure of southern oil fields would not bring additional fuel to the Germans,
since the entire infrastructure would have been destroyed. And its full restoration would take several years.
But it would also deprive the Soviet side of this oil.
This would be more of a negative option for the Soviets than a positive one for Germany.

Although in the event of the loss of southern oil fields the Soviets would intensify the commissioning of new oil fields in Kazakhstan, the Volga-Urals region (Baku-2) and Central Asia.
LL supplies could also increase.
But it is not known how much it would compensate for the losses.

Interesting fact. The Soviets had almost no high-octane gasoline for aviation.
Considering the supplies for LL their importance for high-octane gasoline for aviation was approaching 50% of all USSR used aviation fuel.
The share of shipments of petroleum products by LL increased to 20% of all supplies by 44 years.

It is seen that in addition to Baku, there were oil fields in the Volga-Urals region, the so-called Baku-2.
Also in addition to Baku in the Caucasus were the Groznensky oil area and Maikop (but more small).
Therefore, it is probably better to leave oil hex in the area of ​​Grozny instead of Tbilisi.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:29 pm

Uhu wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:29 pm This oil crisis of the Axis is so hidden for everybody, while it made such a big impact, that I think, it would be great to implement it in the game.

It is implemented to some extent, but no doubt that this effect could be increased.

Probably the system of strategic bombing of Germany in a single version is not subject to such a feature.
But in the case of the multiplayer version, when the Allies seize the cities of Germany available for strategic bombardment
is it possible to bomb them further and get a penalty on the prestige for the Axis?

Can add 4 pcs. or more unit - a Plant for the production of synthetic fuels for Germany.
At the destruction of which, the German side, could receive some penalty for units to fuel. (Track each unit-plant by name in scripts.)
Moreover, individual penalty values for each class of units for each destroyed plant, just an idea.