Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

[scypion]

Very good and wanted mod witch show realities of world war II. Very good Deducter play show us how use superior tactic over super units and win.

what I miss are Henschel Hs 129 tank killer witch was used with very good effect against russian tanks, Brummbar and Sturmtiger but we can easly add this units


great work Deducter I personally thank you for this

[Chris10]

what I miss are Henschel Hs 129 tank killer witch was used with very good effect against russian tanks, Brummbar and Sturmtiger but we can easly add this units

they will be added to the game with the release of Afrika Korps...
so you can upgrade to their equipment

[scypion]

they will be added to the game with the release of Afrika Korps...
so you can upgrade to their equipment

glad to hear

[deducter]

Incorporating various units from the Afrika expansion will take some thought. For instance, the role of the tank killing TAC is already served by the Ju 87G, and the Fw 190F and Fw 190G are both quite good too. I'm not sure how to make the Hs 129 distinct from the Ju 87G for instance.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the AI doesn't get new units for the DLCs, and the current playthrough is balanced around the assumption of existing units. Adding more units could make the game easier than I'd like. I think there's already a huge variety of units for the player to choose from, and they all have distinct roles already. I don't really know of many niches that are currently unfilled in the Unit Revisions eqp file.

That said, I'll probably add various new units, but it'll probably take me a bit of time to decide how to do it. I'll also continue to make various tweaks. One thing I'd probably change, for instance, is the Panzer II to recon in 1942. Another might be the flamethrower tank as a unit "close" hard unit, which could be interesting.

[scypion]

Incorporating various units from the Afrika expansion will take some thought. For instance, the role of the tank killing TAC is already served by the Ju 87G, and the Fw 190F and Fw 190G are both quite good too. I'm not sure how to make the Hs 129 distinct from the Ju 87G for instance.

main diffrence between Hs 129 and Ju 87 G is that Hs 129 is far more sturdy and armored, poor version of IL-2 I think

[Chris10]

main diffrence between Hs 129 and Ju 87 G is that Hs 129 is far more sturdy and armored, poor version of IL-2 I think

well..Iam not sure about this...
the HS 129 is the first real close support ground attack aircraft and the godfather of the A-10...
while the Ju-87 was already obsolete in 1943 the Hs 129 never has been developed to its full potential
the Hs129-D was planned to be fitted with 2x Junkers Jumo 211 with 1100 HP each or even with 2x BMW-801 engines with 1700 HP each...
this brutal motorization (original 2x 710 HP Gnôme et Rhône 14M) would have given the Hs129 a lot more velocity,stability and carryweight ability not to mention the new ability to armor the plane to death..
the Hs129 B-3/Wa with the 7,5cm gun was instable due to the guns recoil but with the additional power it would have been the deadliest ground attack plane to fly around for the next 30 years..as well it was planned to fit another gunplatform with a double Mk-103 machine cannon...

anyway since the Hs129 B-2/Wa the Hs 129 outgunned any IL-2 vastly...not to mention the very poor altitude of the IL-2 which was max 5000m while the Hs 129 could go to 10000m with a lot more firepower and same velocity...the only great advantage of the IL-2 was that it was produced in the tens of thousands..so shooting thousands down didnt matter at all

Another might be the flamethrower tank as a unit "close" hard unit, which could be interesting.

true...I think its sort of obvious since flametanks were close combat machines and hard targets...unsupported infantry was as good as dead when flametanks rolled in...

[deducter]

But how can the Hs 129 stats be reflected? I most certainly will not make the Hs 129 some sort of invincible super tank killer, a plane better than the Il-2. A defensively tough TAC that is too good at killing tanks trivializes a lot of the content in 44/45. The question is what stats would be an appropriate balance between gameplay and history? It sounds like giving it good HA along with decent AD and GD is the way to go, along with a significantly higher cost than the Ju 87G to balance the improved survivability.

You could argue that the Hs 129 can be made really good as long as the player doesn't field more than 1 or 2, because it wasn't produced in large quantities. However, keep in mind there's no way to impose a unit cap in this game, and I don't expect the player to impose his own rules so he only buys 2 Tigers in 1943, for instance. The player is still free to buy all Tigers in 1943 if he wants. But that shouldn't be the best strategy anymore, due to the many drawbacks of using Tigers. If I make the Hs 129 a super unit that saves prestige, then everyone will just buy that and ignore all the other TAC, and that's poor game design. If I make the Hs 129 a super unit but way too expensive, then no one will ever buy it. So it's tricky to strike the correct balance. Generally, I don't like to have super units, as that makes game play boring.

And I really think the Germans are too overconfident about the superiority of their equipment. For example, sure, the Tiger was great, except the Germans ended up blowing up most of them to stop them from falling into enemy hands. As far as I'm concerned, indirect losses are still losses, no better than combat losses. By contrast, Soviet equipment was always effective when used correctly. The Soviets didn't need super units to stop the Germans at the gates of Moscow or for Operation Uranus, just as the German super units did nothing for their fortunes after 1942.

[scypion]

well..Iam not sure about this...
the HS 129 is the first real close support ground attack aircraft and the godfather of the A-10...
while the Ju-87 was already obsolete in 1943 the Hs 129 never has been developed to its full potential
the Hs129-D was planned to be fitted with 2x Junkers Jumo 211 with 1100 HP each or even with 2x BMW-801 engines with 1700 HP each...
this brutal motorization (original 2x 710 HP Gnôme et Rhône 14M) would have given the Hs129 a lot more velocity,stability and carryweight ability not to mention the new ability to armor the plane to death..
the Hs129 B-3/Wa with the 7,5cm gun was instable due to the guns recoil but with the additional power it would have been the deadliest ground attack plane to fly around for the next 30 years..as well it was planned to fit another gunplatform with a double Mk-103 machine cannon...

anyway since the Hs129 B-2/Wa the Hs 129 outgunned any IL-2 vastly...not to mention the very poor altitude of the IL-2 which was max 5000m while the Hs 129 could go to 10000m with a lot more firepower and same velocity...the only great advantage of the IL-2 was that it was produced in the tens of thousands..so shooting thousands down didnt matter at all

well Chris IL-2 was the best close support aircraft in WW II and the best armored, IL-2 can mount 2 x 37mm gun Hs 129 only 1 x 37mm gun or like you said 1 x 75mm gun but with that gun they practicly can't fly effective, Il-2 can mount up to 8 rocket Hs129 none, and Il-2 was faster than HS 129, HS 129B was slowwer than Ju 87
IL-2 in every aspect was better aicraft than HS 129, but pilots of IL-2 had wrong tactic, they fly and attack at very low attlitude and was constatly under FLAk fire, they change tactic later, for close support aircraft was importent armor and ground attack power and IL-2 has it all in vast number, they was called "flaying tank"

and I don't know enything about Hs 129 D, HS 129 C was pllaned to be fitted with italian engine (840 KM) but we know what italian did and project was abbadoned

Deducter HS 129 was't supper unit, that was normal unit with very good tank killing capabilities and more armor than Ju 87 but weeker than IL-2

[Chris10]

You could argue that the Hs 129 can be made really good as long as the player doesn't field more than 1 or 2, because it wasn't produced in large quantities.

865 build in total...the 129-B3/wa was certainly a big punch even if it was unstable...

well Chris IL-2 was the best close support aircraft in WW II and the best armored, IL-2 can mount 2 x 37mm gun Hs 129 only 1 x 37mm gun or like you said 1 x 75mm gun but with that gun they practicly can't fly effective, Il-2 can mount up to 8 rocket Hs129 none, and Il-2 was faster than HS 129, HS 129B was slowwer than Ju 87
IL-2 in every aspect was better aicraft than HS 129, but pilots of IL-2 had wrong tactic, they fly and attack at very low attlitude and was constatly under FLAk fire, they change tactic later, for close support aircraft was importent armor and ground attack power and IL-2 has it all in vast number, they was called "flaying tank"

the Il-2 had most certainly the better armor but the plane itself was cheesy to say at least...it had marginal stability and terrible handling characteristics..the german wehrmacht captured 200 IL-2 and after testing them german pilots were forbidden to fly these planes as they didnt even met the lowest security standards required by the german air command...

as per guns mounting..the regular armament of the Il-2/3M (and Il-10) was 2x27mm and not 37mm and in velocity both planes were literally equal unless you consider a 5-10 km advantage for the IL-2 as important on the other hand the Hs-129 had a max altitude of 10.000m while the Il-2 was a low altitude plane with a max alt. of 4500m which made it easy prey for FLAK no matter the tactic..Il-2 losses were the highest among any soviet aircraft...over 10.700 got shot down despite the truly well designed armored cell...

just as a little effectiveness math
about 2300 german tracked AFV were lost due to direct Il-2 /Il-10 attacks while from June22nd 1941 to end of hostilities over 23.800 Il-2 /Il-10 got destroyed in the eastern campaign...this makes 20 planes for 1 fully tracked german AFV..not very effective if you ask me.
The Il-2 was a very bad ground attack aircraft cause of the very poor accuracy in its attacks...if Hs-129 or Ju-87G were going for their targets they usually hit them and not because of better pilots but cause they were better planes (better means better planning,execution,technical concept , optical devices etc)...

anyway...comparing both planes directly may not be appropiate due to the fact that the Hs-129 was a twin engine plane and a completely different design and filosofy...

[scypion]

The Il-2 was a very bad ground attack aircraft cause of the very poor accuracy in its attacks...

I don't belive that you said that. Experts statement is that IL-2 was the best ground attack aircraft od WW II.

Hs-129 had a max altitude of 10.000m while the Il-2 was a low altitude plane with a max alt. of 4500m

Chris what matter is altitude for ground attack aircraft?? Ground attack aircraft is low attack plane, if attack must be precise they must attack on low attlitude

easy prey for FLAK no matter the tactic

tactic is the most importent, tactic in most cases win over all odss in history

about 2300 german tracked AFV were lost due to direct Il-2 /Il-10 attacks while from June22nd 1941 to end of hostilities over 23.800 Il-2 /Il-10 got destroyed in the eastern campaign...this makes 20 planes for 1 fully tracked german AFV..not very effective if you ask me.

wrong, germany production is not sufficent to win war on multiple fronts, every lost tank count, and you wrote

10.700 got shot down despite the truly well designed armored cell

then 23.800 lost or 10.700 ?? the second one is proper number

you are right about IL-2 accuracy it was poor but they can hit hard when used properly

One with many combat raports Kursk 1943

"Engagement of aircraft in battles under 7 july 1943 year where 70 tanks from 9.German Panzer Division become destryed by IL-2 within 20 minutes."

[Tarrak]

The Il-2 was a very bad ground attack aircraft cause of the very poor accuracy in its attacks...

I don't belive that you said that. Experts statement is that IL-2 was the best ground attack aircraft od WW II.

I am not a military expert so i can not really comment on this but remember there is a saying that "History is written by the victors". Especially the Russian was quite good at propaganda too and they liked to over glorify their vehicles, heroes and achievements after the war. The T34 is an example another imho absolutely over glorified piece of equipment. Yes it was a fine tank, easy to mass produce and it did certainly win the war but not due to it's superb quality but due to simple quantity, kind of like the U.S. Sherman did. Interesting read about this topic here: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters2.html.

[Chris10]

The Il-2 was a very bad ground attack aircraft cause of the very poor accuracy in its attacks...

I don't belive that you said that. Experts statement is that IL-2 was the best ground attack aircraft od WW II.

I am not a military expert so i can not really comment on this but remember there is a saying that "History is written by the victors". Especially the Russian was quite good at propaganda too and they liked to over glorify their vehicles, heroes and achievements after the war. The T34 is an example another imho absolutely over glorified piece of equipment. Yes it was a fine tank, easy to mass produce and it did certainly win the war but not due to it's superb quality but due to simple quantity, kind of like the U.S. Sherman did. Interesting read about this topic here: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters2.html.

true this...Il-2 was a bad plane (in technical termns) but made a huge impact due to its sheer numbers...same as T-34....Tigers and Panther usually knocked half dozen or more of T-34 in no time...
In Daugavpils, July 1944 5 Tiger tanks of the sPzAbt 502 in only 10 minutes wiped the floor with 16 IS-2 tanks without taking a single loss (source: Wilbeck: Sledgehammers. S. 110.)

then 23.800 lost or 10.700 ?? the second one is proper number

there are various ways a plane can get lost you know ...shot down...crash...technical failure...pilot failure...there is a few reasons
so no...23.800 got lost and 10.700 have been reported to be shot down...the other 13.100 are those who make the Il-2 a terrible design...
In 1943, one loss corresponded to 26 Sturmovik sorties. About half of those lost were shot down by fighters, the rest falling to anti-aircraft fire
I dunno about the experts you refer to but the Il-2 performance was overall pretty bad... ...no offense to mother russia though

One with many combat raports Kursk 1943
"Engagement of aircraft in battles under 7 july 1943 year where 70 tanks from 9.German Panzer Division become destryed by IL-2 within 20 minutes."

sry, these reports have been prooven vastly over-exaggerated and propaganda driven to not say they were straight lies ( —Glantz and Orenstein 1999, p. 260.) so they mean ---nothing.

As well soviets claimed onJuly,11th,1943 270 tanks of 3rd Panzer-Division destroyed by Il-2 in only few hours where 3rd Panzer-Division had only 90 tanks and armored vehicles in their motor pool and still fighting with tanks long after July 11th...so...yeah----soviet reports---nice laugh
on the other hand on July 11th,1943 waves of Ju-87s and Hs-129s inflicted so much damage to the soviets 69th Army and 5th Guards Army that they had to stop advance and instead of counterattacking had to switch to defensive mode due to the massive loss of AFVs.

[deducter]

The Il-2 was a very bad ground attack aircraft cause of the very poor accuracy in its attacks...

I don't belive that you said that. Experts statement is that IL-2 was the best ground attack aircraft od WW II.

I am not a military expert so i can not really comment on this but remember there is a saying that "History is written by the victors". Especially the Russian was quite good at propaganda too and they liked to over glorify their vehicles, heroes and achievements after the war. The T34 is an example another imho absolutely over glorified piece of equipment. Yes it was a fine tank, easy to mass produce and it did certainly win the war but not due to it's superb quality but due to simple quantity, kind of like the U.S. Sherman did. Interesting read about this topic here: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters2.html.

Actually, history in the West is written by westerners, who generally have a very low opinion of the Russians. There's no enough credit given to the Russian strategy of continuous, massive attacks, ruthless though this is. Too often people look at the losses and conclude whoever lost more was obviously the inferior opponent. But keep in mind the Russians lost 20,000 tanks, an equal number of aircraft, 6 million men in the first 6 months of the war and still came back to win. Any other country would've disintegrated.

The best analogy I can think of is Rome vs Carthage. During Cannae 50,000 Romans were killed in one day. I believe the total Romanian male population, including all of its Allies, was only something like 600,000. Yet ultimately the Romans won the war, through unwavering conviction and a strategy of attrition. Tactics can only get you so far.

In 1940 the Allies had the best tanks in greater quantities than the Germans, yet the Germans won their greatest victory. By 1944 the Germans had the best tanks, but there was no chance for victory. Equipment plays too great a role in PzC in the stock equipment file. The side with the superior equipment has an easier time, which is most certainly not the case historically. To make the game more challenging, it's inevitable that the AI has to be buffed up a bit.

The other question is, assuming you were in charge of Russian military planning, what would you do? Order a halt to Il-2/T-34 production while waiting to finish designing a better plane/tank? That doesn't work in wartime. The Germans found this out the hard way, trying to make all sorts of super units that did absolutely nothing for their fortunes. It's was a good thing for the Germans that Guderian continued production of the Panzer IV despite the introduction of the Tiger/Panther. I'd wager that the war would've ended much faster had the Germans stopped PzIV production in 1943 as originally planned.

There are a few scattered accounts of a Tiger taking out dozens of T-34s at once, I believe there was a story like this at Kursk. But it wasn't as if every Tiger built was doing that every day for 3 years. Those are very, very rare occurrences. Panthers at Kursk were another fiasco, most of them broke down in a few days due to mechanical troubles. Most tank kills were racked up by medium AFVs or infantry AT weapons. Surely chris, someone as knowledgeable as you must know what the fate of most Tigers was: blown up by their own crew.That's as bad as getting blown up by the enemy. Combat performance means squat if a weapon doesn't actually fight. Even today, you have the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced fighter ever designed, but completely useless ATM because its pilots black out due to oxygen problems. It's a good thing the USAF didn't retire the good old F-16 just because the F-22 entered service. It's very difficult to model these "reliability" factors in a wargame.

To get back on topic, the T-34 is modeled very well in PzC in my mod. During 1941 and 1942 it's a good piece of equipment that suffers from serious misuses (INI penalty), and it is easily destroyed by bombers, the 88 gun, or infantry in close terrain. In 1943 the Germans have access to good medium tanks that can defeat the T-34 handily, not to mention the various heavy tanks that wipe the floor with the T-34. By now the T-34 is getting obsolete, and even the T-34/85 upgrade in 1944 doesn't make it the equal of Panthers or Tigers. But given the many T-34s the Russians field, the player will inevitably lose strength points, and a weakened unit might fall prey to an overwhelming attack by multiple T-34s. So the T-34 may not have been technically a great tank, certainly not after 1943, but it cannot be denied that it is one of the most important tanks of the war even if only because it was fielded in such large numbers. By contrast, the Tiger was an impressive tank technically, but I'd argue it was an unimportant tank for the war, since it was never pivotal to any battle. The StuG IIIG is a much more important AFV for the Germans since it was actually built in large quantities and did an admirable job as a tank destroyer. The Panther was also fielded in decently large quantities that I'd argue it was a much more important tank than the Tiger.

The Il-2 is also modeled well. It has very high AD, but if you use experienced fighters, especially the Fw 190A, you have little difficulty of shooting it down. FlaK also works fairly well. You'll end up shooting down many, many of these Il-2 during a GC playthrough, despite the arguably overinflated defense stats that the unit has. Given the experience of the German ground units, the Il-2 also doesn't really do that much damage. I'm tempted to up the SA and HA of the Il-2 just because I don't feel I'm taking enough damage from the AI's air attacks. So the poor tactics of the AI seems to correspond to the poor tactics of the VVS. Keep this in mind before you assign the AI's units stats.

My question to you chris is, what stats would you give the Hs 129 in this game? I'd give it the same HA as the Ju 87G and improved AD and GD (probably 18ish for both), along with a significantly higher cost to compensate for the improved defenses.

[Chris10]

There are a few scattered accounts of a Tiger taking out dozens of T-34s at once, I believe there was a story like this at Kursk. But it wasn't as if every Tiger built was doing that every day for 3 years. Those are very, very rare occurrences.

since Tigers were only bundled in independent heavy tank regiments (of 45 vehicles nominal strength) and regiments attached to few SS-divisions and Division Grossdeutschland this was not as rare as you think.
I add table of the heavy tank regiments tank killing performance
You see the combat kill-loss ratio is very high and the total number of enemy tanks destroyed in battle is astronomic while the losses due to self destruct are nearly equalling the combat losses and togehter with other losses even surpass vehicles really destroyed by enemy interaction ...
to this you have to add that almost never all issued Tigers were in action but mostly only between 15-25 (out of 45 per regiment) were combat ready all the time...sometimes less...so this makes these numbers even more impressive when additionally bearing in mind the overall days of real combat action where Tigers have been fielded since they were no "every day tanks" and since the loss of the romanian oil fields often german heavy tanks could not deploy as needed due to lack of fuel...

My question to you chris is, what stats would you give the Hs 129 in this game? I'd give it the same HA as the Ju 87G and improved AD and GD (probably 18ish for both), along with a significantly higher cost to compensate for the improved defenses.

that souns reasonable to me

[scypion]

In tank production importent was not only great armor and great gun but easy production, histry of WW II prove that. Tiger tank was very good tank but germany never could produce it in large numbers, yes they can kill 4 T-34 before been destroyed but Russian have produced over 80.000 T-34 !!! (sic) How many Tiger was produced ??? over 1300 only

after the war experts said tha germny could better build more Pz IV witch was very good tank

then whay T-34 was named by meny as best WW II tank ?? he has no tank killing power poor 76.2 gun L/31 nad L/42 later 85 L/55 mutch better gun compare with 75 L/48 but slighty poorer, they was destoyed in large numbers, gun 76.2 can't penetrate Tiger armor I think, 85 mm gun can in close, curves armor was good in 1941 but when gun 75mm was introduced destroy T-34 easly but T-34 was easy to produce in large numbers like Sherman and that is win 1 Tiger in statistic could destry 4 T-34 but number of production was stunning 1300 Tigers vs 80.000 T-34

Panther have week armor on sides and back, Tigers have good armor on sides and back that decide that Tiger can survive lots of attack with all sides and statistic say, what we see, that lots of Tigers was destroyed by his crew, Panther can be outmanuver by mass T-34 attack and destroyed by side shot or back shot, front armor have better than Tiger I think

[deducter]

I'm thinking of introducing a new component to simulate the manpower shortages the Germans faced after 1941. While the equipment costs are reasonable, one problem is that carrying a full core through from 1939 the player will tend to end up with all 4-5 star units as early as 1943. The fact was that as the war progressed the average quality of German panzer divisions continued to drop. It also makes elite reinforcing at the deployment stage a nobrainer for the most part.

My thoughts are this
1. Elite reinforcement costs during the deployment stage go up by:
1942 50 -> 60
1943 50 -> 75
1944 50 -> 100
2. Elite reinforcement costs in battle
1942 100 -> 120
1943 100 -> 150
1944 100 -> 200
3. Overstrength cost as a percent of elite reinforcement cost
1942 200 -> 250
1943 200 -> 300
1944 200 -> 400

This way, the player should be forced to choose which units to elite reinforce/overstrength, which won't be so simple. Artillery/Bombers are very expensive and very vulnerable, but if used correctly will minimize the losses of ground units. Infantry and medium AFVs are cheap and plenty effective when overstrengthed. Tigers/Panthers will be as invincible as ever, but the lost of strength should hurt a lot more.

[Chris10]

then whay T-34 was named by meny as best WW II tank ??

It wasnt even close to be and who is this many ?...no idea where that myth comes from..maybe from crackerbarrels wannabe strategists but a combined allied committee after the war named the Panther G clearly the best medium tank of WWII...

Tiger was a heavy tank anyway and not comparable to T-34 or Panther

The best heavy tank was obviously Tiger II ...the french army had a lot of confiscated Tiger II in service until the 50s

I'm thinking of introducing a new component to simulate the manpower shortages the Germans faced after 1941. While the equipment costs are reasonable, one problem is that carrying a full core through from 1939 the player will tend to end up with all 4-5 star units as early as 1943. The fact was that as the war progressed the average quality of German panzer divisions continued to drop. It also makes elite reinforcing at the deployment stage a nobrainer for the most part.

My thoughts are this
1. Elite reinforcement costs during the deployment stage go up by:
1942 50 -> 60
1943 50 -> 75
1944 50 -> 100
2. Elite reinforcement costs in battle
1942 100 -> 120
1943 100 -> 150
1944 100 -> 200
3. Overstrength cost as a percent of elite reinforcement cost
1942 200 -> 250
1943 200 -> 300
1944 200 -> 400

This way, the player should be forced to choose which units to elite reinforce/overstrength, which won't be so simple. Artillery/Bombers are very expensive and very vulnerable, but if used correctly will minimize the losses of ground units. Infantry and medium AFVs are cheap and plenty effective when overstrengthed. Tigers/Panthers will be as invincible as ever, but the lost of strength should hurt a lot more.

Nice...for a scenario basesd campaign this is a very good approach...a pity there is no way to call different gamerules.pzdat during a scenario

[ivanov]

My question to you chris is, what stats would you give the Hs 129 in this game? I'd give it the same HA as the Ju 87G and improved AD and GD (probably 18ish for both), along with a significantly higher cost to compensate for the improved defenses.

Interesting discussion I have missed here. Just for the gameplay reasons, I'd limit the amo of Hs 129 in comparison to the the Ju 87G ( it would reflect the technical unreliability of the plane ). I agree with improving of it's AD and GD but I would make it slightly less powerfull in the attack, than the well proven Stukas. In that way, the choice between the two planes would be less obvious for the players.

[scypion]

I’m sorry that I continue subject Chris you are right about numbers destroyed IL’s

In time of WW II produced 37.000 IL including 1077 IL-10, it lose from it from different reasons about 25.000:
- 2.000 by the reason of defects during flights from factories
- 807 from marine aviation
- 2557 shot down by enemy planes
- 4679 shot down by FLAK
- 109 destroyed on airfields
- 3414 not return form mission

Together 10759 + 807 (form book W. Pierow, O. Rastrienin “Sturmovik IL-2”)

Chris have right about poor performance by Il-2 too, but Il-2 was produced in large numbers and in time of need they do what must be done, terrorize German armor pincers. Stalin give him priority in produce and use on fronts. German pilots don’t want fight him, FLAK was better solution.

[scypion]

I'm thinking of introducing a new component to simulate the manpower shortages the Germans faced after 1941. While the equipment costs are reasonable, one problem is that carrying a full core through from 1939 the player will tend to end up with all 4-5 star units as early as 1943. The fact was that as the war progressed the average quality of German panzer divisions continued to drop. It also makes elite reinforcing at the deployment stage a nobrainer for the most part.

My thoughts are this
1. Elite reinforcement costs during the deployment stage go up by:
1942 50 -> 60
1943 50 -> 75
1944 50 -> 100
2. Elite reinforcement costs in battle
1942 100 -> 120
1943 100 -> 150
1944 100 -> 200
3. Overstrength cost as a percent of elite reinforcement cost
1942 200 -> 250
1943 200 -> 300
1944 200 -> 400

This way, the player should be forced to choose which units to elite reinforce/overstrength, which won't be so simple. Artillery/Bombers are very expensive and very vulnerable, but if used correctly will minimize the losses of ground units. Infantry and medium AFVs are cheap and plenty effective when overstrengthed. Tigers/Panthers will be as invincible as ever, but the lost of strength should hurt a lot more.

The harder the better but seriusly you are right about dropping in quality of German Panzer Divisions, but with exclusion of Elite SS Panzer Divisions