Slitherine

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:00 pm I think I will increase the mortars ROF to 12 and reduce the cost from 90 to 80.

It is interesting that the Zis-3 is repeatedly listed as having a rate of fire up to 25 rounds per minute (rpm). Even if the average crew’s rpm is lower, maybe only the best crews can achieve 25 rpm, they most likely have a much higher rate of fire than comparable German Artillery and 120mm Soviet Mortars. At 20 rounds per minute, if those numbers are based on a direct fire role, it would fire 25% faster than the 7.5cm PAK 40 but never seems to receive significant ROF bonuses. I understand having 120mm mortars fire faster for gameplay reasons but your mod typically keeps much closer to historical facts....although I am probably forgetting something.....

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:24 pm I think max ammo 3 is a great restriction for an artillery unit and if it is like that I don't think I would purchase or upgrade many such units. Perhaps only 10-20% of my arty units or even less. It means that if it provides defensive fire to more than one adjacent friendly unit it likely runs out of ammo in every turn when these are attacked by the enemy repeatedly. On top of that if there is an enemy unit next (or above?) it can only get 2 (or just 1?) ammo when pressing the resupply button. And terrain (and bad weather?) can also affect it negatively. And then the noupgrade trait is yet another punch in the face for such a weak unit. So I think it would not be my favourite unit of choice.

And for the other two, I think the 76mm gun has only marginally more ammo than the 122mm one. 5 vs. 4 ammo is not a great difference and thus I would only buy or upgrade some of the 76mm gun, perhaps like 20-30% and then most would be the 122mm one. Even if it means that I have to wait more to get enough prestige to upgrade to it and I would be forced to use the understrength obsolete arty units longer. I think the 76mm gun should have 6 ammo at least to make it competative to the 122mm one.

The M1942 76mm gun looks nicer because of the AT mode, but again, it should have at least 6 ammo to compete the 122mm howitzer with 4 ammo.

My version.
In 1941, several units were upgraded to 122mm M-30.

In 1942
If there is enough prestige for this:
Mortars - 10%
Leave the old arty - 20%
76mm Zis3 + AT - 35%
120mm M-30 - 35%

Maybe I'll add 6 Ammo for 76mm Zis3.
Although then there will be a big difference between the Zis3 and 152mm artillery with 3 Ammo.
In general, 6 ammo is more suitable for sides that did not have any problems with logistics.

Germany produced twice as many shells as the Soviets. This had a profound effect.

fgiannet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:16 am

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:00 pm I think I will increase the mortars ROF to 12 and reduce the cost from 90 to 80.

It is interesting that the Zis-3 is repeatedly listed as having a rate of fire up to 25 rounds per minute (rpm). Even if the average crew’s rpm is lower, maybe only the best crews can achieve 25 rpm, they most likely have a much higher rate of fire than comparable German Artillery and 120mm Soviet Mortars. At 20 rounds per minute, if those numbers are based on a direct fire role, it would fire 25% faster than the 7.5cm PAK 40 but never seems to receive significant ROF bonuses. I understand having 120mm mortars fire faster for gameplay reasons but your mod typically keeps much closer to historical facts....although I am probably forgetting something.....

One accurate hit is better than 25 rounds per minute.

Checked the number of T-34 replenishment units in 1941.
Now in mod 1 free unit + 3 upgrades from medium tanks - BT-series (2,5,7), T-28 + 1 upgrade to the guards T-34.
Total: 5 units.
5x10 = 50pts

I think to increase this number for the T-34-41, but with a lower maximum strength = 7.
For a smoother production and a number of other reasons.
1 free unit + 4 upgrades to T-34-41 [Strength 7] + 2 upgrades to Guards T-34 (up to full strength 10).
There are 7 units in total.
2x10 + 5x7 = 20 + 35 = 55pts
More points, but more difficult to find a medium tank to upgrade.

I think that guards tanks should be in a separate class, perhaps not differing in characteristics, but having an earlier availability of new equipment and not having restrictions on maximum strength.

What will you choose 5 units with full strength or 7 units (of which 2 with full strength and 5 with maximum strength 7)?

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:37 pm What will you choose 5 units with full strength or 7 units (of which 2 with full strength and 5 with maximum strength 7)?

Imho changing unit strength is a very drastic tool to rebalance units, especially when going below 10.
The game mechanics are so tiered towards unit survival (reinforcement costs, experience and so on), that losing a unit is a disproportionately serious blow. And PzC is a 1 unit per tile game.
Which is the main reason for the horrible balancing between beginner and expert players experience, which in turn leads to the official campaigns essentially drowning the player in prestige to make the game not unplayable for beginners, which in turn leads to unrealistically overpowered core compositions...

For that reason, I generally strongly prefer to nerf units with other stats and with the strength stat last if at all.
The rate of fire stat is imho an excellent way to nerf offensive power without reducing staying power, especially for the early T-34, which was overall a really bad tank despite good armor, mobility and gun caliber.
For some strange reason the hiding of the rof stat from the player was never fixed.

Though there is some appeal to use 7 max strength units to simulate throwaway or historically improperly used units. Like T-34 masses or French tank doctrine.

Imho the 2x10 guards and 5x7 normal units vs 5x10 units is a very interesting idea, since each low strength unit is weaker than the sum of the numbers would imply. Simulating the high numbers but low effectiveness of early Soviet T-34s.
I would say try it, I'll consider that as well for my BE addon. Great idea!

Hi All!
So much time, ha

There was an idea to add the factor of the New-Old border of the USSR to the mod.
This zone includes the Baltic States (with the exception of the zone of Tallinn), Western Belarus and Ukraine, Bessorabia and Northern Bukovina.

Which would simulate the loss of Command and Control in the first weeks of the war.
Also some other things. For example, many new conscripts were local. Many of them preferred to simply dissolve into the night...

Thus, each turn the following penalties for unit in zone between New-Old border:
For Infantry -1 strength.
For Tanks (Recon) -1 strength, -1 fuel.

Maybe not every turn, but once every two turns.

I was thinking about artillery, but the engine can't separate stationary artillery and artillery when moving.
Penalties are more logical to apply only to artillery when moving.

Also, because of the new penalties, it might be worth removing from Regular Infantry`41 hard limit max strength=8.
It will now make more logical)

Such changes can make the player think about whether to defend the border stubbornly or retreat to the old border.

Air Unit Experience.

As you know, the experience of Soviet air units was different.
I tried to evaluate and calculate it, for each air division of the Soviets))

Everything is quite complex, given that some of the pilots had experience in the Finnish War and the conflict in Spain and some of the pilots were just studying for new aircraft.

There are several categories:
Piloting during the day = 0 Exp.
Piloting at night = +25 Exp.
Piloting in difficult weather conditions = +50 Exp.

Pilot training only = -25 Exp.

Also had to take into account the mixed composition of the division.
For example, when 66% of pilots are able to fly during the day and 33% in difficult weather conditions.
Then the unit gets only +25 experience.

Most often -25 experience will be received by units with new types of aircraft for which pilots have not yet had time to learn, such as MiG-3, some Su-2, Yak-2, Pe-2, Yak-1.

Also, the Leningrad Military District turned out to be the most prepared, due to the experience gained during the Finnish War.

Although most units have experience = 0, because a lot of new pilots entered service in 40-41.
Which greatly diluted the number of experienced pilots.

Will this project ever reach the finish line ?

bondjamesbond wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 9:47 pm Will this project ever reach the finish line ?

There are no deadlines. When ideas come up, I add them.
But a lot of work is needed for icons, animations, sound and polish.

Future plans are to improve the map.
More forests and swamps in the north and more clear and countryside in the south.

Also right now I'm trying to find a good formula for calculating Air Attack, Defense, Initiative for fighters.

Previously, for example, Attack was mainly calculated from the weapons of the fighter + some additional bonuses.

Now I would like to take into account speed, rate of climb, the mass of a minute volley of weapons and other parameters such as visibility from the cockpit, the quality of radio communications, etc.

So if there are resources with calculated speeds at the same height and rate of climb, you can share)

For example, studying the rate of climb on Soviet fighters allows us to conclude that the old fighters were not so bad (I-16 latest series) and the new types (such as Lagg-3) are not so good.

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:07 pm Future plans are to improve the map.
More forests and swamps in the north and more clear and countryside in the south.

Hm, do you think it also applies to the Battlefield: Europe map? I mean, do you think I should also add more close terrain in the northern part of the USSR and more countryside in the south? However, I think currently the south is already mostly clear, and having even more close terrain in the north would make it even less usable for tanks at the scale of the BE map.

Previously, for example, Attack was mainly calculated from the weapons of the fighter + some additional bonuses.

Now I would like to take into account speed, rate of climb, the mass of a minute volley of weapons and other parameters such as visibility from the cockpit, the quality of radio communications, etc.

I agree. Firepower is important, but should not be the only or perhaps not even the main factor in the equation. Although some of these should also affect the initiative and defense values as well. Like having better radio and visibility should result in better initiative, I guess. And better speed, especially dive speed, should result in better defense value. And potentially there should be even more like having a radial or an inline engine: fighters with inline engines (like Bf 109 or Yak-9) should be more vulnerable since even a single bullet can damage its liquid cooling system whereas radials (like Fw 190 or La-5) are air cooled making them more resistant to battle damage.

I tried to take all these into account when I last revisited these values some time ago. Problem is the stats in the game are too simplistic, only a single number really, so it is not really possible to make small differences.

So if there are resources with calculated speeds at the same height and rate of climb, you can share)

The other problem is that basically all sources give different values to these, and hard to find a "reliable" source that have values for all the needed sub-types in the game. As all the major powers had their own system to measure the parameters of their planes and it is hard to compare these systems.

So I just ended up collecting all the values from the game Warthunder, which may be questionable as a reliable source, I know, but at least it has most of the subtypes that I needed for my mod. Also I tried to compare these values to that of other sources to double check them wherever I could and wherever it felt necessary. And tried to read detailed comparisons of certain types, like this:

Yak - 9 compared with German fighters
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=126619

But it takes a lot of time and effort, of course... and you cannot make everyone happy, there will always be endless debates one way or another...

Anyway, here are my charts:

PzC aircraft balancing is imho pretty hard.

From my experience, one of the most important realizations is, that direct translation of any real world stats to the 3 relevant PzC stats does not work out. At least it did not work out for me when I tried.
I now balance initiative and defense around the attack value, by comparing expected results between units, for different experience levels. Using a spreadsheet with formulas to somewhat recreate in-game battle mechanics.

The second most important aspect is imho that the experience boni screw up the normal balancing a lot.
Each experience level gives 0.5 initiative, 2 attack and 1 defense for fighters. This is a really big issue. It makes engagements between more experienced fighters much more deadly.
If you do a rebalancing from the ground up, I strongly suggest to start by changing those experience boni to eg 0.5 ini, 1 attack and 1 defense. I should have done so long ago, yet I'm still dancing around this fundamental design issue instead of fixing it for good (coincidentally still doing rebalancing around it in the next patch...).

For actual info on the planes themselves, I agree with McGuba. WarThunder is a flawed source, but it is probably the best accessible one we have. I used that one as a basis for my work as well, with lots of other info on top of that (where available and not too contradictory).
WarThunder also provides a good (and available) basis for one vs one dogfight comparisons. Of course ideally that should only be one aspect when comparing the weapon systems from a tactical or even strategic perspective.

And yeah, I also agree with McGuba that it is impossible to account for everything with those 3 game stats and you can not make everyone happy.

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:07 pm

bondjamesbond wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2023 9:47 pm Will this project ever reach the finish line ?

There are no deadlines. When ideas come up, I add them.
But a lot of work is needed for icons, animations, sound and polish.

Future plans are to improve the map.
More forests and swamps in the north and more clear and countryside in the south.



photo_2023-06-26_16-59-06.jpg

It 's good that the mod is being updated , albeit at a snail's pace (2017-2023) I wish you good luck and patience !
http://militarylib.com/ww2/ww2-aviation-book/
https://wwii.space/topics/вооружение/авиация/
https://airpages.ru/
http://www.wio.ru/ww2a.htm
http://www.airaces.ru/plane/

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:11 pm

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:07 pm Future plans are to improve the map.
More forests and swamps in the north and more clear and countryside in the south.

Hm, do you think it also applies to the Battlefield: Europe map? I mean, do you think I should also add more close terrain in the northern part of the USSR and more countryside in the south? However, I think currently the south is already mostly clear, and having even more close terrain in the north would make it even less usable for tanks at the scale of the BE map.

I think BE map already balanced,
in the north there are enough forests and swamps.

On the map of RaW 1941, I see that there are not enough of them, I also wanted to be more consistent with the real area.
Given that the scale of the map is more detailed.

I looked at some wargames on the eastern front, but was not satisfied with the quality of the map even there )

In general, it is quite difficult, although there is a map, but there are too many hexes.
Perhaps I will gradually improve some important areas.
Leningrad, Moscow, Kyiv, Crimea, Donbass.

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:11 pm I agree. Firepower is important, but should not be the only or perhaps not even the main factor in the equation. Although some of these should also affect the initiative and defense values as well. Like having better radio and visibility should result in better initiative, I guess. And better speed, especially dive speed, should result in better defense value. And potentially there should be even more like having a radial or an inline engine: fighters with inline engines (like Bf 109 or Yak-9) should be more vulnerable since even a single bullet can damage its liquid cooling system whereas radials (like Fw 190 or La-5) are air cooled making them more resistant to battle damage.

Approximately such a distribution by type can be:
Air Attack: Horizontal Speed x2, Climb, Weapon
Air Defence: Horizontal speed + Climb, Hull materials (+ armored backs, protected gas tanks, etc.)
Initiative: visibility, radio, tactics, etc.

As for water and air cooling, I have no idea which is better.
Water makes the plane faster. Which increases attack.
Air probably increases defense by 1. Both come out to compensate for each other.

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:11 pm The other problem is that basically all sources give different values to these, and hard to find a "reliable" source that have values for all the needed sub-types in the game. As all the major powers had their own system to measure the parameters of their planes and it is hard to compare these systems.

Yes, this is a problem.
Often compared performance on pre-production machines.
Or with other options.
On serial machines, the performance was worse.

Also, the horizontal speed at different heights is different.
And the rate of climb in m/s .. looks very inaccurate.
It seems it is not linear and depends on the height.
For example, Soviet sources use the time of ascent to a height of 5000 meters in minutes.
This is very logical, allows you to see the average time.
But it is difficult to compare these data with others, because they do not exist)

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 5:11 pm So I just ended up collecting all the values from the game Warthunder, which may be questionable as a reliable source, I know, but at least it has most of the subtypes that I needed for my mod. Also I tried to compare these values to that of other sources to double check them wherever I could and wherever it felt necessary. And tried to read detailed comparisons of certain types, like this:

Warthunder is a good source.
There is a characteristic One second burst Mass. Although the caliber is also important.
In general, we can make a rating of fighters.
Air Attack, Defense parameters show the Battle rating, ranking more than real data, in my mod)

But I have questions about the rate of climb data.
Some plane are too good.

What I watched, I-153 is not so bad.
The I-16-5 was actually worse.
This is understandable, I-16-5 was in 1935, I-153 - in1939.

It is also clear from the rate of climb that the Lagg-3 was not so good. At least until the appearance of La-5F.

The German Messerschmits were greatly superior in Climb rate, which allows us to conclude that this was a very important parameter.

Locarnus wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:00 pm The second most important aspect is imho that the experience boni screw up the normal balancing a lot.
Each experience level gives 0.5 initiative, 2 attack and 1 defense for fighters. This is a really big issue. It makes engagements between more experienced fighters much more deadly.
If you do a rebalancing from the ground up, I strongly suggest to start by changing those experience boni to eg 0.5 ini, 1 attack and 1 defense. I should have done so long ago, yet I'm still dancing around this fundamental design issue instead of fixing it for good (coincidentally still doing rebalancing around it in the next patch...).

Yes, I agree, perhaps it is worth applying the formula I-A-D = 1-1-1.

As for the numerous characteristics of the aircraft, it is possible that we can only make the Combat Rating of the aircraft in the PZC.
But don't want to miss out on the fact that some of the old planes weren't as bad and some of the new ones weren't so good.
At least for the Soviets.

bondjamesbond wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:50 pm It 's good that the mod is being updated , albeit at a snail's pace (2017-2023) I wish you good luck and patience !
http://militarylib.com/ww2/ww2-aviation-book/
https://wwii.space/topics/вооружение/авиация/
https://airpages.ru/
http://www.wio.ru/ww2a.htm
http://www.airaces.ru/plane/

Tnx.
I am looking for the production of air bombs by caliber.
It is known that most Soviet air bombs were no more than 100kg.
I think it also greatly influenced the efficiency of aviation.
In addition to the fact that basically the bombing attacks were horizontal and not from a dive.

It is interesting to compare the Soviet and German consumption of air bombs by caliber and by year.
I haven't found such a source yet.

In general, I think that the effectiveness of aviation in the PZC is too high
But this does not cancel the suppression effect.

bondjamesbond wrote: ↑Mon Jun 26, 2023 9:50 pm It 's good that the mod is being updated , albeit at a snail's pace (2017-2023) I wish you good luck and patience !
http://militarylib.com/ww2/ww2-aviation-book/
https://wwii.space/topics/вооружение/авиация/
https://airpages.ru/
http://www.wio.ru/ww2a.htm
http://www.airaces.ru/plane/


Tnx.
I am looking for the production of air bombs by caliber.
It is known that most Soviet air bombs were no more than 100kg.
I think it also greatly influenced the efficiency of aviation.
In addition to the fact that basically the bombing attacks were horizontal and not from a dive.

It is interesting to compare the Soviet and German consumption of air bombs by caliber and by year.
I haven't found such a source yet.

In general, I think that the effectiveness of aviation in the PZC is too high
But this does not cancel the suppression effect.

https://airpages.ru/ru/abr.shtml
For 6 years , you can find a lot of information ) Aviation is like from heaven)))
https://wwii.space/авиационные-боеприпасы-ссср/

Hello, will there be a new update for 1941?
The defense against the German invaders is very difficult.
I enjoy going through this scenario periodically (thanks to the author of the mod).
You can make 1942 in detail according to the events, I think it should also appeal to all of us players.

Кэп wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 7:36 pm Hello, will there be a new update for 1941?
The defense against the German invaders is very difficult.
I enjoy going through this scenario periodically (thanks to the author of the mod).
You can make 1942 in detail according to the events, I think it should also appeal to all of us players.

Hello!
I'm glad that players are still playing the mod

Unfortunately, due to the situation, there is no time frame for updating the mod.

But when/if the update comes out:
First of all, this will be an improvement of the 1941 scenario.
(much has been added, much has not been implemented, but much more time is needed for polishing and testing)
Maybe I should remove the complex mechanics and simplify them, otherwise there will never be a release)

Secondly, I would like to add some pre-1941 scenarios from 1939 year.

And only after all this, 1942.
Way too long

As for the Red Army, I believe many things were modeled accurately.
Fragility of tanks, weak infantry, importance of artillery, logistical limitations (ammunition, fuel).

All this applies even to current realities...

Great! We will wait for the 1941 update with scenarios from 1939))
They correctly noted the importance of artillery for the initial period of the war in the Soviet Army.
I don’t quite agree with the fragility of the infantry, since in the border battles it was the infantrymen who showed heroism and tenacity (and the remaining aviation, the great Pokryshkin fought on the Mig3 before moving to the Airacobra), which made it possible to delay the blitzkrieg for the Wehrmacht and prepare and equip the Siberian and other Soviet units, which in turn defeated the Nazis in the Battle of Moscow.

Add more units to the update;
Border guards and partisans.

why cant download beta

I'm in shock !
550 core Units - it's unbefuckinlieveble ...