Am creating new balanced MP scenarios

[Tarrak]

Ctl+L is load game. I can't see a Hotkey listed for a pre-combat log.

To get the pre combat log target the unit you want to attack with and CTRL + left click on the unit you want to attack. If you are using two button mouse settings use CTRL + right click instead.

[the_iron_duke]

To get the pre combat log target the unit you want to attack with and CTRL + left click on the unit you want to attack. If you are using two button mouse settings use CTRL + right click instead.

Oh yes, I know and use that one (and used it a couple of posts previously)! I thought the combat log might have been something different than the combat details screen but yes, I know of Ctl+Left click for pre-combat details and L for post-combat details.

Looking again at the combat details screen, here are the percentages for the German Flak against a fighter (La-5) and a bomber (Il2-M3) according to various attack/defense modifiers.

(-0,0 is unmodified unit)
(x/x/x = Miss %/Suppress %/Kill %)

Mod.---vs La-5---vs Il2-M3

37mm

-0,0 - 70/8/22 - 80/6/14
-2,1 - 74/7/19 - 84/5/11
-3.2 - 76/7/17 - 86/5/9
-4,3 - 78/7/15 - 88/4/8

88mm

-0,0 - 50/10/40 - 72/7/21
-2,1 - 60/9/31 - 76/7/17
-3.2 - 65/9/26 - 78/7/15
-4,3 - 70/8/22 - 80/6/14

Are they 100% accurate? For example, I got an average of 4.87 for the unmodified 88mm, with an admittedly small sample, which is higher than the 40% predicted. Statistical anomaly from small sample size or are there other factors at work?

EDIT: If they are 100% accurate, then -2,1 or -3,2 look best to me. Is the defensive modifier right, in your opinion? If so, then it's probably problem solved.

[the_iron_duke]

I did another sample with forty 88mm shots against La-5s using a -2,1 modifier.

The average damage was 3.47 points per shot, as opposed to the hypothetical 3.1 (31%), so 12% higher.

These are the earlier (16 shot) samples compared with the hypothetical points damage shown in the combat details, along with the percentage difference.

Gun - Mod. - Hypothetical - Sample - % difference

37mm - -4,3 - 1.5 - 1.62 - +8%
88mm - -4,3 - 2.2 - 2.62 - +19%
37mm - -0,0 - 2.2 - 2.31 - +5%
88mm - -0,0 - 4.0 - 4.87 - +21%

So all of the sample data has indicated that the actual damage inflicted is higher than what the combat details predict, the first sample averaging at 13.25% higher and the second sample being 12% higher. (Total sample size: 104 shots)

EDIT: another sample of forty 88mm shots against La-5s at -3,2 modifier produced an average hits per shot of 2.45 which is actually less than the predicted 2.6 points, so maybe the differences are related to sample size.

[ThvN]

Sorry about my typo, I probably backspaced 'Ctrl-Left-click' (too confusing) without correcting. I'm glad you found the 'anti-hero' suggestion useful, might make things easier for you.

Attack results should be similar to the percentage predictions, but you'll need a large sample size. I've noticed what I call (freak) 'streaks' were a short series of combats suddenly all veer away from the predictions. for example, I'm making six attacks and the first four produce very low or high dice rolls on average, like there is some sort of cyclical up-down graph and I'm encountering a high or low point. I've seen it during multiplayer when my opponent couldn't destroy my battered 1-strength Soviet regular with three consecutive attacks by units with between 5 to 8 strength, each of which should have taken it out alone.

As for your tests, the ratio between attack/defense values is what matters. To explain it in more detail, you asked for a rough figure where the heavy AA would reliably inflict 2 kills (20% kill chance). When I average your hit charts, the -2 attack for the 88mm vs. GD=18 (La-5) and GD=23 (Il-2) comes at about 24% kill rate, which is quite close but at -3 the avg. kill rate is 20.5%, which is nearly spot-on. So my rough estimate seems fairly good.

But keep in mind these scores are against an average GD of 20.5 ( (18 + 23)/2=20.5 ), which is slighly higher than average (for the Soviet airplanes). For example, British airplanes average slightly over GD=20 (incl. the weak gliders and C-47), but the Soviets planes have a lower average of GD=19.6, so that's why I suggested to start with -2 attack and maybe a little more, but I hoped -2 would keep the kill average above 20%, I wasn't sure that higher numbers wouldn't lower kill chance too much.

If you know what the average GD is of the planes in your scenario, you can tailor your attack penalty to achieve the desired average kill rate. So far -2 seems about right, maybe -3 if you have a lot of planes with low GD. But I think placement and skillful use of the AA is more important than the difference between -2 or -3 attack. For a real change, instead of offsetting lower attack by increasing the defenses, you can also try adding +1 range (or +1 move, or maybe better spotting, so it can spot it's own targets), which can make a huge difference in their effectiveness.

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the detailed info.

Modding other variables like movement and spotting is an interesting idea but I want to keep the modifications from the regular game at a minimum for the time being.

Between a -2,1 modifier and a -3,2 modifier, I think I prefer the latter (-3,2).

I've done another sample of 88mm fire against La-5s. 100 shots (4 groups of 25 shots) taken at -2,1 modifier and another 100 at -3,2 modifier. Here are the results of each set of 25 shots showing the points damage done:

Sample/-2,1/-3,2
----------------------
1st 25: 55 - 48
2nd 25: 78 - 56
3rd 25: 62 - 57
4th 25: 51 - 65

Totals: 246 - 226

Here are the results compared to the combat prediction percentages:

-2,1 predicted: 31%
-2,1 recorded: 24.6%

-3,2 predicted: 26%
-3,2 recorded: 22.6%

So this time both sets of recorded results ended up being lower than the predicted results. The 200 shots only managed to achieve 82.5% of their predicted damage scores. This is contrasted with the 104 shot sample of the previous post which achieved 12/13% more damage than predicted.

The degree of randomness is quite high with individual damage scores varying from 0 to -8. There's also quite a difference between the four group sample of 25 shots, with some achieving 50% higher damage scores. In one set of samples (the 4th), the higher penalty modifier (-3,2) actually outperformed the lower one (-2,1).

A better statistical mind would, I'm sure, infer deeper conclusions.

[the_iron_duke]

I've taken some more samples (and have probably done enough sampling for now!). All are samples of 100 shots (in four groups of 25) and show the points damage done.

A) A repeat of the sample from the previous post - 88mm at -2,1 and -3,2 modifiers vs La-5s:

Sample/-2,1/-3,2
----------------------
1st 25: 55 - 50
2nd 25: 50 - 56
3rd 25: 54 - 52
4th 25: 62 - 65

Totals: 221 - 213

Here are the results compared to the combat prediction percentages:

-2,1 predicted: 31%
-2,1 recorded: 22.1%

-3,2 predicted: 26%
-3,2 recorded: 21.3%

B) Now, 88mm at -2,1 and -3,2 modifiers vs Il2-M3s:

Sample/-2,1/-3,2
----------------------
1st 25: 29 - 23
2nd 25: 23 - 28
3rd 25: 29 - 28
4th 25: 30 - 27

Totals: 111 - 106

Here are the results compared to the combat prediction percentages:

-2,1 predicted: 17%
-2,1 recorded: 11.1%

-3,2 predicted: 15%
-3,2 recorded: 10.6%

C) Unmodified 88mm v La-5s:

1st 25: 89
2nd 25: 91
3rd 25: 80
4th 25: 70

Total: 330

Predicted: 40%
Recorded: 33%

Unmodified 88mm v Il2-M3s:

1st 25: 34
2nd 25: 49
3rd 25: 52
4th 25: 40

Total: 175

Predicted: 21%
Recorded: 17.5%

It's rather bizarre that all the results end up with less than predicted damage scores, especially since the first set of samples produced higher-than-predicted
results. I've gone back to the Main Menu each time, rather than selecting 'Restart Scenario', so as to try and ensure there's a new number seed each time for the dice rolls.

I still can't decide whether -2,1 or -3,2 is better. It's partly complicated in that fighters are a lot more vulnerable to A.A. than (tactical) bombers. I'm not quite sure of the logic of this - I would have thought Close Air Support bombers and tactical bombers would have a similar A.A. vulnerablity as fighters, and historically I was under the assumption they took high losses. I'm no expert, though.

Also, is it best to have defense one lower than the attack, or have them equal (e.g. -2,2 and -3,3)?

[McGuba]

I still can't decide whether -2,1 or -3,2 is better. It's partly complicated in that fighters are a lot more vulnerable to A.A. than (tactical) bombers. I'm not quite sure of the logic of this - I would have thought Close Air Support bombers and tactical bombers would have a similar A.A. vulnerablity as fighters, and historically I was under the assumption they took high losses. I'm no expert, though.

I really advise you to take a look at deducter's mod and his changes to AA and aircraft stats. It seem that he came to a similar conclusion in the end. Common sense would dictate that fighters should not be more vulnerable to AA fire as they generally fly faster, provide a smaller target, and are much more maneuvarable than tactical bombers, thus they can make more effective evasive maneuvers when being fired by AA. I think it is another inconsistency in the e-file which should be corrected. Even though (some) tactical bombers had additional armor it was mainly effective against small arms fire and not against anything above 25mm AA. The sole exception would be the Il-2. On the other hand, larger planes can generally take more hits, but still, a critical hit e.g. one to the cabin compartment is fatal to them as well.

In deducter's e-file German fighters have typically 22-26 GD depending on their airspeed, starting with Bf-109E to Me-262. Most tactical bombers have GD 19-23, the latter being the armoured AND relatively small and maneuvarable FW-190F/G. Level bombers have the highest GD 22-27 as they mostly fly high above, invulnerable to smaller caliber AA guns. In contrast, in the vanilla e-file there is very little variation between the different types, e.g. the early war Ju-87B has the same GD 21 as the late war faster and armored FW-190G, which is rather strange, moreso, as their AD gradualy increase.

Another change he made was to reduce the ROF of the biggest 75-90mm AA guns to as low as 7 while slightly increasing their AA value. This would make them more effective against aircraft with higher GD and presubamlby less effective against low flying tactical bombers, which again makes some sense.

I have manged to dig out some data on the comparable effectiveness of the Hungarian 36M 40mm AA gun (40mm Bofors gun produced under licence) and the 29M 80mm gun (80mm Bofors gun produced under licence - the German "88" was based on this type). The book says that in a period of one month in August 1941, the 80mm guns of the Mobile Corps fighting in the USSR managed to shoot down 1 enemy aircraft with 267 shells fired (0.37%), while the 40mm guns shot down 8 enemy planes with 647 shells fired (1.23%) making the smaller gun four times more effective (with no reference to aircraft type, but most, if not all, had to be I-16 fighters). While it is not a representative sample it does give some orientation, I guess.

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks, McGuba, for your interesting comments.

I've downloaded deducter's mod. Is this the right one?

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=40391

I haven't installed it yet but am reading the manual, which looks very detailed and interesting.

I'd like to evaluate deductor's changes by creating a custom test scenario to see how the modified units fair against each other. What's the best way to do this? Shall I swap the equipment file from one of deducter's folders (e.g. GC44East) for the one in my main Panzer Corps program folder? Is the scenario editor linked to the Panzer Corps equipment file in the Data folder - for example, would unit costs in the scenario editor reflect the changes of a modded equipment file?

It's a shame deducter doesn't appear to be currently active on the boards, as it's evident he has good historical and game mechanics knowledge and I'm sure would be able to provide some valuable insight.

I feel increasingly drawn to the idea of further fine-tuning of other units' stats even though, as others have pointed out, it is a slippery slope.

One niggling feeling I've had for a while is that the Fw 190A is a bit too powerful a fighter compared to the other fighters used in the scenarios. It craps on some of the Soviet fighters like La-5s and Yak-9Ds, with figures like -8 inflicted damage being not uncommon. One Fw 190A (Cost: 583) can take out two Yak-9Ds (Cost: 504) using chess dice.

That might be fine in single-player but it presents difficulties when trying to find multiplayer balance and when trying to be historical at the same time. For example, here are three archive documents showing Soviet aircraft numbers "in the war-zone" for late 1944/early 1945 (so slightly later than my mid '44 scenarios).

[Note that there appears to be a typo on the first of the documents regarding Yak-9 numbers, unless two thousand of them suddenly appeared in the space of a month]
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/n ... 44RJAC.pdf
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/n ... 44RLAB.pdf
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/n ... 45RAAA.pdf

La-5s and Yak-9s make up the bulk of the Soviet fighters. The Soviet fighter component in my Germany vs USSR scenario is, provisionally, three La-5s, three Yak-9Ds and one Yak-3.

(Incidentally, I find differing timings for Yak-3s and La-7s entering service - I think they could just about be used in a mid '44 scenario but not more than one of each).

So I'm wondering about re-evaluating all the units in the scenarios. The scenarios' units only represent a small portion of Panzer Corps' total game units so it would not involve re-evaluating the whole game - for example, there are around 27 different German units used in the scenarios.

[the_iron_duke]

I swapped the standard equipment file for that of deducter's.

A couple of first impressions:

- 88mm predicted damage against La-5s and Il2-M3s both show -2.
- Fw 190A vs Yak-9D damage predictions go from -2/-6 to -2/-3!

I have to say that looks perfect - Merry Christmas, deducter, wherever you may be!

[the_iron_duke]

On the other hand, the armies for my large-scale Germany vs USSR scenario have changed considerably with regards to points totals. Previously, the points totals had been almost equal, with the Germans having 85 units and the Soviets having 102. Now, the points scores are 34,321 to the Germans and 25,954 for the Soviets, which is quite a big change.

So it'll take a bit more analysis to see whether it's well-balanced for multiplayer use with regards to unit costs.

EDIT: Here are the scenario's points totals with the standard equipment file and with deducter's mod.

Standard equipment file:

[AXIS] Total units: 85 (cost=26445)
[ALLIES] Total units: 102 (cost=26528)

deducter's equipment file:

[AXIS] Total units: 85 (cost=34321)
[ALLIES] Total units: 102 (cost=25954)

So it appears that it is the Germans' unit costs increasing that has been the major change.

[McGuba]

'd like to evaluate deductor's changes by creating a custom test scenario to see how the modified units fair against each other. What's the best way to do this? Shall I swap the equipment file from one of deducter's folders (e.g. GC44East) for the one in my main Panzer Corps program folder?

Yep. But, it is more "elegant" to use JSGME for modding. Much easier, and less chance (zero) for making a mistake and mixing the vanilla files with the modded ones. If you go on with modding you cannot avoid using it anyway, in the long run.

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... ilit=jsgme

Is the scenario editor linked to the Panzer Corps equipment file in the Data folder - for example, would unit costs in the scenario editor reflect the changes of a modded equipment file?

Yes, it is. The only thing you have to be aware, is that PzC only reloads the contents of the e-file between scenarios. So, for example, if you make changes to the equipment file, and then reload a saved game (scenario) the changes will not apply. You have to reload the game and restart the same scenario to do so. Same goes for the editor - you have to quit and restart the editor to get the new edited equipment stats.

I feel increasingly drawn to the idea of further fine-tuning of other units' stats even though, as others have pointed out, it is a slippery slope.

This is very, very true. Once you start editing the stats it gets harder and harder to stop, lol. You want to make it more and more "realistic" and "historically accurate" whatever it may mean in a simplistic game like PzC. My personal opinion is that, however he made many good changes, deducter took it one step further than he should have. E.g. he reduced the max ammo of Axis figthers to 3-4, while left it unchanged for the Allied ones. This would obviously unbalance your multiplayer scens, and that's why someone wrote earlier that his changes are meant to be used for the vanilla DLCs. So, in your case I would suggest not to use his e-file directly, but only those changes that you feel neccessary.

Making signicant changes from the vanilla e-file has the additional disadvantage that most players got used to certain stats, or ratios between the units and would purchase / use units without checking their new (modded) stats. This would make them unhappy if they lose a multi match because they were under the wrong assumtption of certain units stats.

One niggling feeling I've had for a while is that the Fw 190A is a bit too powerful a fighter compared to the other fighters used in the scenarios. It craps on some of the Soviet fighters like La-5s and Yak-9Ds, with figures like -8 inflicted damage being not uncommon. One Fw 190A (Cost: 583) can take out two Yak-9Ds (Cost: 504) using chess dice.

I agree, Fw 190 is bit too strong compared to the Bf 109 for instance. Again, it was taken over from Panzer General. Deducter's e-file fixes it to some extent. But, ff course, there can be endless debates on "how much better" it was, even some of the contemporary Lufwaffe pilots disagreed on this. Basically the two planes performed differently in different altitudes, which is not simulated in PzC.

That might be fine in single-player but it presents difficulties when trying to find multiplayer balance and when trying to be historical at the same time. For example, here are three archive documents showing Soviet aircraft numbers "in the war-zone" for late 1944/early 1945 (so slightly later than my mid '44 scenarios).

Thanks for posting it, it is very useful document. One of my main concerns with the vanilla scenarios is that on many occasions they have little to do with the historical numbers of the different unit types.

On the other hand, the armies for my large-scale Germany vs USSR scenario have changed considerably with regards to points totals. Previously, the points totals had been almost equal, with the Germans having 85 units and the Soviets having 102. Now, the points scores are 34,321 to the Germans and 25,954 for the Soviets, which is quite a big change.

Again, keep it in mind, that deducter never stated that he made his e-file to be used with multi scenarios, or that it is well balanced price-wise. On the contrary, he wanted to make the single player German DLCs more challanging for the players. Therefore I suspect that he increased the price of German units to increase difficulty.

As I said, you shall use some or most elements of his e-file, but not all, just like I did for my custom campaign.

All in all, it would be nice to have a well balanced and revised e-file which can be used for single player and multiplayer scenarios as well. By the way, when I asked him, which year of his e-file could be best used for the whole war he suggested 1942. It could be a good start to rebalance the price, ammunition and other possible issues and maybe also to add the new units which came with the latest patches. Or, even better, you can try to reach him somehow...

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks for the info, McGuba, including the Generic Mod Enabler.

I'm still getting to grips with deducter's in-depth modifications. One thing that does soon become clear, however, is that the units' points costs are not uniformly geared towards being a reflection of their actual battlefield capabilities. Paratroopers would be just one example of this - a Fallschirmjager costs 501 prestige points while a Soviet Para costs 162 points. Obviously, deducter's design goals are different, being geared towards the single-player Grand Campaign.

I do like the unit stats themselves, though, and my initial impressions are that they are an improvement on the standard unit stats. So an option would be to use the unit stats along the lines of a mod such as deducter's but reformulate the unit prestige points costs to be balanced. Quite how to determine balanced unit costs I'm not sure about, though. There are also a couple of other modded equipment files that have been mentioned but are yet to be seen (hint, hint ThvN and Uhu... )

Making signicant changes from the vanilla e-file has the additional disadvantage that most players got used to certain stats, or ratios between the units and would purchase / use units without checking their new (modded) stats. This would make them unhappy if they lose a multi match because they were under the wrong assumtption of certain units stats.

Well, to be honest, I make the scenarios for myself and as long as I have an experienced opponent to play them against I am happy. If other people wish to play them then that's fine too. One way to assist opponents and help them familiarise themselves with unit modifications would be to include a reference scenario where the game units are set up so they can be easily tested against each other and so their relative capabilities can be more easily understood.

One other comment on deducter's mod: unit scale. deducter proposes that an infantry unit approximates a regiment, except for specialized units like combat engineers, while other ground units approximate a battalion. This only makes sense to me in the context of the single-player campaigns as a way of boosting the tank complement to cater for the large number of tanks faced and to conform to core unit allowance limitations. I don't realistically see how four battalions of infantry (two regiments) and one battalion of engineers (technically an abteilung) becomes two infantry units and one engineer unit in the game. So I think that to accurately model a Panzerkorps, or other formation, one should consider that a battalion is a battalion (for the Germans at least).

[ThvN]

Hello, don't worry, I still read everything, it's just that I have had very little oppportunity to write out long, thoughtful posts...

Deducter made a very good mod, but he had to make some very difficult design decisions, and he focuses on playing the GC's without altering the scenarios in any way, so sometimes he had to artificially nerf/boost some units because of that. Especially the AI needed certain stats to keep the scenario working as intended. Check the availability of the Elefant AT unit: he changed it for something more historical. Also, fuel/ammo represent reliability, and a good example is the Panther tank in his mod. He changes these stats for each year, making them better each time.

This is not ment as critisism, BTW, but to explain that he chose his design criteria and applied them consistently to keep the results true to his aim. This is actually the hard part, deciding on what goals you want to achieve, coming up with a structured approach (which will need room for 'adjustments' and such) and applying in such a way that requires taking the least amount of 'shortcuts' and third-party cooperation. Deducters' aim and design criteria are very different in some ways, because the Allied units are supposed to be AI-controlled and costs represent rarity, not just ability. You have already done something similar for your army rosters, so I'm sure you are up to the job, but it will take a lot of time, and requires to learn a few new skills. And it would be a shame to try and reinvent the wheel, so I think you can certainly use some help here.

And I can certainly give some stats for units, but they will not be consistent with those made by deducter, and marrying the two will be a nightmare. That said, a lot of his stats are very good and mine are sometimes not very different. My air units and AAA are currently under round X of revision, and testing so far has revealed numerous flaws, but I can certainly try and see what you want to achieve and help out to make some nice stats. I'll get back later, I have some social activities ahead and a few hours ago a client dropped of some extra (unexpected) work, which will have to be looked at first. I'll be asking difficult questions about your modding aims, such as: would you like to have units made purely for human vs. human and have the AI handicapped during singeplayer? Do you just want to mod the units or do you want to change some game/terrain stats as well (easy job, but when modding units you must account for the limitations of the terrain, so if you change these, it's better to tackle everything at once)

[the_iron_duke]

I'll be asking difficult questions about your modding aims, such as: would you like to have units made purely for human vs. human and have the AI handicapped during singeplayer?

Well, the ideal aim would be to have an equipment file that:

a) is historically accurate. There are a few units that could be tweaked to get them more authentic. For example,

- anti-aircraft artillery is probably a bit too powerful and perhaps does too much damage to fighters and too little to tactical bombers (deducter's mod also addressed this)
- some unit stats could do with some refining, for example cost/performance of Fw 190A vs other fighters, like La-5s and Yak-9Ds (deducter's mod fixed this)
- artillery range could also be adjusted, such as increasing Soviet medium field artillery range and reducing that of some of their SU units (again in deducter mod)

b) accurately reflects a unit's cost. How much a unit cost to produce historically or its rarity is irrelevant really here as it is all about putting a price on a unit's performance on the battlefield. I think this part may be the harder part as it's quite difficult to assess. How much is an extra ammo or initiative point really worth in prestige points? As I noted earlier about the cost/performance of a Bf 109G vs a Yak-9D, there are occasions when value-for-money isn't well reflected already.

c) is focussed foremost on multiplayer. Things like experience shouldn't be much of a consideration as it is designed for one-off scenarios and both armies should start with the same experience (probably zero).

As I've said, I'm not really the person to be creating a new equipment file - not as the "brains" of the operation, anyway, as it doesn't really play to my strengths. I could, of course, help out with the groundwork - a grunt on the ground throwing grenades into foxholes and taking out enemy trenches with SMG fire and bayonet! Uhu might also be able to offer some input, although I'm not sure if he's around at the moment.

Do you just want to mod the units or do you want to change some game/terrain stats as well (easy job, but when modding units you must account for the limitations of the terrain, so if you change these, it's better to tackle everything at once)

See, this is what I mean - I'm already out of my depth!

By the way, I installed the Generic Mod Enabler. The changes in deducter's mod don't appear to work outside of the Grand Campaign. Is there a way to set things up so that the GME can enable/disable the mod for the main game and scenario editor? Or do I have to switch the equipment file manually. Not a biggie, but if anyone knows...

[the_iron_duke]

I've been testing out deducter's mod (GC44East) with my Germany vs USSR, mid '44 scenarios to see how the units fare against each other in combat.

I think it works really well in terms of game mechanics and balance. From what I've seen so far, I haven't come across anything I disagree with and it's rectified the issues that disagreed with me. Things like reduced fuel for German fighters might work well for game balance - they still have more than the Soviets but only marginally so. Diminished ammo for German planes I'm also not that concerned about and in some ways it would be an interesting way to reflect Germany's diminished air status for my scenarios' 1944 year. An extra spotting hex for recon could also be interesting.

So I might be content to use deducter's unit stats without further modification. As previously noted, it's the unit prestige point costs with deducter's mod that are the thing that would need to be revised to adapt them for multiplayer use. That's something I might be able to make some headway with as a lot of it would involve analysing and comparing the unit stats.

So that's an option. It depends on how developed your (or Uhu's) equipment files are. As I've said, I don't have the required detailed knowledge of historical unit/equipment performance or of the in-depth workings of the game mechanics (or even a brain that's very good at technical stuff!). So deciding what changes to make to unit stats is not something that I'd feel that able to do myself. If your (or Uhu's) equipment mods are ready-to-go, or not far off, then I'd like to try them too.

[McGuba]

By the way, I installed the Generic Mod Enabler. The changes in deducter's mod don't appear to work outside of the Grand Campaign. Is there a way to set things up so that the GME can enable/disable the mod for the main game and scenario editor? Or do I have to switch the equipment file manually. Not a biggie, but if anyone knows...

Do not really understand your question.
1. Install JSGME (done, I suppose)
2. Make a "MODS" folder within your Panzer Genaral folder (done as well, I guess)
3. Copy the contents of the "GC Unit Revisions v1.11.1\DLC" folder of the downloaded zip to the MODS folder. Or alternatively the contents of the "softcore" folder.
4. Then you sould see the "GC39", "GC40"... "GC45West" as available mods when you run JSGME
5. Just choose the year you want to use with the base (stock) game and activate it with the arrow.
6. This will overwrite the stock e-file with the new one as long as it is activated.

Diminished ammo for German planes I'm also not that concerned about and in some ways it would be an interesting way to reflect Germany's diminished air status for my scenarios' 1944 year.

Yeah, maybe, but in his mod German fighters have only 3-4 ammo in the earlywar scenarios, up to GC42. In the later war ones he increased it to 4-5. It is a matter of taste, of course, but I think it is a bit less than it should be. I would say 5-6 is ideal for most fighters. If there is only 3-4 it is easy to make a superior enemy fighter run out of ammo by making 1-2 suicide attacks against it with your cheapest fighters/tactical bombers and then kill it off easily when it has no more ammo left. The AI is not capable of this kind of "thinking" and that is why deducter reduced the max ammo of German planes only. In case of a multiplayer game it is a bit different, though...

[the_iron_duke]

Thanks, McGuba, for the help. I'd put the whole GC Unit Revisions v1.11.1 folder in the MODS folder, rather than the individual DLC folders within it, so I've got it working now. The Windows mode is useful as one can have two Panzer Corps applications running, one with the standard equipment file and one modded, and view them side by side.

Yes, it would probably be best to re-adjust the ammo. German and Soviet/Allied fighters have the same ammo levels in '44, but the German bombers have less and could do with some boosting.

Having had a bit more time to look more at deducter's file, the more confident I am that it would be possible to roll back the unit cost changes he made for historical production and single-player campaign reasons. The Soviet/Allied forces don't seem to have had any adjustments for those reasons and, along with the standard equipment file, offer a solid point of comparison. Comparing the unit cost changes he made between DLCs also offer some clues, along with his notes in the manual. Of course, it would be better if deducter was around but he hasn't posted on the boards for six months so one can't be sure if or when he will return.

I'm mainly concerned with the units that are used in my 1944 scenarios, for the time being - German, Soviet, British - which only represent a portion of the total Panzer Corps units, although it could be expanded to the whole game.

So it's a viable option. Thomas, how ready is your equipment file?

[ThvN]

My equipment file uses a lot of switchable units (AAA, StuG) and some custom units (Panzer 35(t)). Lately, I've also been testing some switchable aircraft and custom transports. Some stats are fairly usable, but I haven't touched most of the costs yet...

So it's not very compatible with deducters changes, but if I know what you want I can make changes to suit your needs. I think, based on what you explained, that your mod deserves a custom equipment file. If you want to base it on deducters changes, that is a good start. Although I do not agree with all the values he settled for (Marder IID/Marder III hard attack, Valentine ground defense for example) , that is mostly due to his design goals I guess, and overall it is a great piece of work, especially his manual. And I'm the sort of person that will even attempt a discussion on Belgian AT guns (seriously... ).

So it might just be that my technical knowledge gives me some different ideas from time to time, although they might not be better, just different. Anyway, if I find some time this week I'll have a look at his latest files (1.11.1) and see if I can make some suggestions for multiplayer changes. The least I can do is try to apply his tweaks to some units that were not available yet when he last updated (Allied Corps introduced new units). I'm really busy lately, unfortunately.

BTW, I think ammo/fuel can make a lot of difference during large multiplayer games, because (to echo McGuba) human players can exploit these stats better. You can attack to deplete ammo, which the AI would never do. An opponent once surrounded a fighter so it couldn't move off, trying to get its fuel down so it couldn't return to base anymore.


About the other moddable files, those have some interesting variables as well. The biggest change I have been testing is setting the initiative advantage. Normally, for each point in INI advantage, 20% of a unit may fire first, so 5 INI difference gives max result (5x20%=100%). But I've changed it to 10%, so you'll need 10 INI points more than your opponent to have maximum advantage. To compensate some effects, I've increased the 'Mass Attack' bonus and some other things. So far, it's working quite well, especially the air combats have less extreme results.

The terrain is another can of worms. I wanted to reduce a lot of tanks to movement 3, but that means they cannot enter 'Bocage' terrain anymore. So I changed the terrain properties as well. I also changed the 'Fortification' terrain and set it to 'close', so dug-in infantry will benefit, instead of being shot to pieces by the first tank that comes along.

Not of interest to you, but I've been testing modded experience bonuses as well, and it takes a lot of testing to find some values I like. I'm still looking, in fact.

Greatest challenges: making towed AT / AAA guns more useful (except the 88mm FlaK, of course), balancing infantry, and tweaking airplanes is very difficult (I've started work on switchable planes, with mixed results so far).

[the_iron_duke]

deducter's files is all I've got to work with, so basing things around them seems most feasible. Changing other game mechanics, like initiative and terrain, are beyond my realm of capability but I'm happy to implement things if they work and somebody else sorts it out. Incidentally, support attack: does it make any difference which hexes the support attackers are located in? I've sometimes thought that one should get a small extra bonus if the supporting unit is in one of the opposite rear hexes (as opposed to next to the attacker). It might be done already.

Anyway, I have started going through the aircraft of the GCUR (Grand Campaign Unit Revisions) that appear in my scenarios and am trying to work out revised prestige costs. The following list comprises the six German aircraft my scenarios use showing the stats/costs in the Standard game and in the different GCUR DLCs, along with my comments.

----------------------------------------------------------
Name Cst A F M S IN SA HA AA NA GD AD
----------------------------------------------------------

=> Bf 109G

Bf 109G 478 6 62 14 2 10 1 1 14 1 20 20 :Standard

Bf 109G 563 3 52 14 2 10 1 1 15 1 23 20 :GCUR, 1939-42
Bf 109G 507 5 52 14 2 10 1 1 15 1 23 20 :GCUR, 1943
Bf 109G 436 5 52 14 2 10 1 1 15 1 23 20 :GCUR, 1944-45

The Bf 109G is almost identical to the Yak-9D (504 points), with slightly worse air attack so I think the Standard cost of 478 would be appropriate.

----------------------------------------------------------

=> Fw 190A

Fw 190A 583 8 86 14 2 11 1 2 20 1 21 20 :Standard

Fw 190A 704 3 43 14 2 11 1 2 18 1 23 21 :GCUR, 1939-42
Fw 190A 651 5 43 14 2 11 1 2 18 1 23 21 :GCUR, 1943
Fw 190A 583 5 50 14 2 11 1 2 18 1 23 21 :GCUR, 1944-45

The Standard and GCUR, 1944-45 both have the unit cost as 583 points so that looks best.

----------------------------------------------------------

=> Me 410A

Me 410A 492 7 105 14 2 9 7 8 16 3 21 16 :Standard

Me 410A 492 4 105 14 2 8 5 5 18 3 21 18 :GCUR, 1943 & GCUR, 1944-45

The Standard and GCUR both have the unit cost as 492 points so that's easy.

----------------------------------------------------------

=> Fw 190F

Fw 190F 488 5 68 14 1 9 8 6 12 3 21 18 :Standard

Fw 190F 620 4 50 14 1 9 6 9 14 3 21 20 :GCUR, 1943
Fw 190F 564 4 50 14 1 9 6 9 14 3 21 20 :GCUR, 1944-45

In combat tests, it performs bombing fairly similarly to a Me 410A but performs a lot better at air-to-air combat so I think the 564 points of GCUR, 1944-45 would work best.

----------------------------------------------------------

=> He 111H2

He 111H2 300 6 75 12 1 2 8 4 -5 8 22 16 :Standard

He 111H2 494 5 75 12 1 2 10 4 -7 4 25 16 :GCUR

I've combat-tested it and I think the modded He 111H2 performs similarly to the unmodded one so, I think the standard 300 points is right.


----------------------------------------------------------

=> Ju 88A

Ju 88A 372 7 111 12 1 4 10 4 -6 10 22 16 :Standard

Ju 88A 600 3 91 13 1 4 14 9 -6 5 21 14 :GCUR

In combat tests, the modded Ju 88A performs better than the unmodded one and so is probably worth more than the Standard 372 points but less than the GCUR's 600.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Soviet aircraft (La-5FN, Yak-9D, Yak-3, Il-2, Il2-M3, Pe-2, Il-4) are all at the same points costs as the standard game, except for Pe-2s which have increased in price and performance. So the unit costs look good to use without alteration.

----------------------------------------------------------

The British aircraft of my other 1944 scenarios will follow in due course.

[the_iron_duke]

The British aircraft used are: Spitfire Mk.IX, Spitfire Mk.XIV, Mosquito Mk.VI, Typhoon Mk.IB, Halifax Mk.III, Lancaster Mk.III. The Spitfires and Typhoons are the same cost, so fine. The Mosquito VI has basically become a Mosquito IV - taking its ID number and unit cost, with reduced bombing capability but greater air-to-air - while retaining the Mosquito VI name. So one could go along with that. Or it could be redone along the lines of the Standard EQ file (S1 or S2). It depends on whether a Mosquito should be considered as a 539 point aircraft or a 580 or a 603 point aircraft? It was an excellent aircraft in real life.

Here are the relevant Mosquito stats:

Mosquito Mk.IV -- 539 7 111 14 2 9 9 8 14 4 22 18 :Standard
Mosquito Mk.VI S1 580 7 111 14 2 11 11 8 16 4 22 18 :Standard
Mosquito Mk.VI S2 603 8 120 14 2 12 10 10 16 4 22 18 :Standard

Mosquito Mk VI -- 539 6 111 14 1 9 5 5 17 4 23 20 :GCUR

British strategic bombers are a bit more complicated. There is only one British strategic bomber used in the GCUR - the Lancaster Mk.I - and it has been considerably boosted in performance and cost (419->524 points).

The scenarios call for a Halifax Mk.III and a Lancaster Mk.III, so the Halifax will have to be constructed. As for the Lancaster, one could take the Mk.I of the GCUR and call it a Mk.III. In which case, the Halifax would have to be even better - becoming a very potent strategic bomber unit. Or one could go along the lines of the Standard EQ file where the Halifax and Lancaster are good strategic bombers, but not near as potent as they would be by using the GCUR stats.

Here are some Lancaster and Halifax stats (the post formatting system doesn't lend itself well to tables):

Halifax Mk.III 470 9 90 12 1 3 17 12 -8 12 20 14 :Standard
Lancaster Mk.I 419 8 104 12 1 3 15 8 -8 12 22 14 :Standard
Lancaster Mk.III 443 8 110 12 1 3 16 10 -8 12 22 14 :Standard

Lancaster Mk I 524 8 180 12 1 3 18 11 -13 6 26 18 :GCUR