Re: Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:18 pm
I do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.
That"s excellent!faos333 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:18 pm Kursk '43 save new AAR link below
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112876
McGuba wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 1:19 amI do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.
For some reason I can not create or edit a Tag, that is why I want to see a Tag example, to see the content of TagMcGuba wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 1:19 amI do not really understand what you mean by that. They can be used for various things, mainly to simplify scripting. For example a tag can be activated if a combination of several conditions (specific turn, map condition or even another tag) are met and then this new tag can be used to activate certain events. Then the designer does not need to add all these conditions every time, only the tag. For example a large number of units would only appear if certain conditions are met. In this case I would make it so in the editor that if all these conditions are met then a certain tag is added. Then these units only need to check if this certain tag exists and I would not need to add all these conditions one by one to all affected units. It can save a lot of time.
...
OK, so in the editor:
If you have an install with my Addon (2023-07 or 08), the "Kursk2.pzscn" scenario has such a tag example (to run this scenario in-game you can access it from the scenario list, but under the name "Test"):
How about, each lost convoy unit equals one less mechanised/aerial combat unit 3-6 months later, but also 0.5-1 more destroyer units 6-12 months later? So the Allies lose that material but increase their destroyer production to counter the threat. Which is historically coherent. I'd also add a Soviet conscript division for each Soviet mechanised division lost. Those conscripts aren't getting sent home because some Jeeps didn't show up at Murmansk.McGuba wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:45 pmCurrently the SU gets the historical number of Western (Lend Lease) units, in proportion to the Soviet home produced units. Increasing the number of western units would change this historical ratio to an unhistorical one, making the western units over-represented.
I think your argument is highly speculative: historically only a relatively small portion (about 25%) of the US aid to the Soviet Union was sent via the North Atlantic - Arctic Sea route. And of this only about 7% was lost, 93% arrived safely, despite German efforts to disrupt this flow. The majority of the US aid was sent via the Pacific route (50%) and the Persian corridor (25%). And these two routes could not be disrupted by the Germans.This would give a further incentive to the Axis player to actually wage the "Battle of the Atlantic".
It would also buff the Soviet Union, if the player does not conduct this trade war (which is the default among experienced players at the moment).
Rough implementation does not require more AI zones.
It could be argued that the Western Allies would have sent more help to the Eastern Front, if the supply to the UK itself would not have been contested.
German efforts, however signficant they were, could only cause partial disruption at best and only for limited time. Had these efforts were more successful, it is probably more likely that the Allies would have tried to send more aid through the other two routes.
Nevertheless, I agree that it may be beneficial to make it somewhat more worthy for the player to use the u-boats (and perhaps the Kriegsmarine) to attack the convoys instead of conserving them for D-day or a late war Sea Lion.
For example each destroyed convoy unit could result in one less Allied unit (Western or Soviet), that would otherwise appear later. This could mean not only one less Lend-Lease Soviet unit in the east, but perhaps rather one less Western air unit appearing in the UK or one less ground unit for D-day.
Also, if there are too many active German U-boats in 1944, perhaps there should be even more Allied destroyers appearing to better protect the D-day invasion and/or Sea Lion (at least in the single player version). The Allies had a fairly good intel on the actual strength of the German U-Boot Waffe, and if it had been any stronger than it was then most likely they would have provided even more escort to the invasion fleet.
My plan is that the sinking of each convoy unit in the North Atlantic would result in one or two less Allied ground or air unit later. This has to be worked out in detail.Slartibartfast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 7:48 pm How about, each lost convoy unit equals one less mechanised/aerial combat unit 3-6 months later, but also 0.5-1 more destroyer units 6-12 months later? So the Allies lose that material but increase their destroyer production to counter the threat. Which is historically coherent. I'd also add a Soviet conscript division for each Soviet mechanised division lost. Those conscripts aren't getting sent home because some Jeeps didn't show up at Murmansk.
Yes, that was the so-called "Persian corridor" I mentioned in my post - the route through Persia/Iran. It had about the same importance as the North Atlantic route, both accounting about 25% of the total amount of Lend-lease goods. But the most important route was the Pacific route through Siberia, which was also the safest route of all. Through which 50% of the goods vere delivered. However, only non-military goods could be carried there.bondjamesbond wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:43 pm In addition to Murmansk, there were also deliveries through Iran
Yes, and it is already simulated in the mod, the capture of the Caucasus reduces the amount of Western Allied units appearing in the Soviet army.So the seizure of the Caucasus is not only oil, but also the closure of Lend Lease supplies through Iran (It will be possible to arrange bomber raids on Ashgabat and Tehran))
Hopefully not.
IndeedPeteMitchell wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2024 6:00 pm I would still propose a small intro scenario about the Spanish Civil War prior to Poland![]()