Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[McGuba]

I am doing another playthrough and am around turn 50. This is the first time i determined to properly siege Leningrad. Whilst the defenders health does indeed reduce after time, it takes a very long time (it seems over 1 year before it starts decreasing)

I guess you must have missed the start of the first cycle (which requires the player to start the blockade by turn 12) in order to get the first strength reduction in turn 16. Then the second cycle starts at turn 18, with a strength reduction in turn 22. The idea is that if the player is unable to start the blockade before the onset of the first winter then the Soviets manage to send enough supplies to the city so that there is no strength reduction in February '42 and then the first strength reduction will only happen in turn 22. Perhaps it should be better communicated to the player, though. I will add such a warning to the first Leningrad blockade message.

during the siege you are constantly being attacked by the artillery, coastal battery and battleship and having to repair your troops. Although i used the cheaper security infantry/minor Axis allied troops, it is still costly to have to repair them and sometimes you have to rotate them as they get too injured. I formed the opinion that it is better to forget about the siege and just attack it directly. If you bring up some of the heavy/longer range artillery, it is quite feasible. It also frees up your forces doing the siege to do other things.

In the next version the counter-battery will be a bit weaker: the Kronstadt island fortress will have only range 1 so it will not be able to bombard the blockading units. It means one less enemy artillery shooting back.

The battleship can be sunk fairly easily: with a little luck the Rudel Ju 87 unit alone can sink it in just 2 turns, and if another bomber is used as well, for example a Ju 88 or the Finnish tac bomber, then almost surely. (Historically the Battleship Marat was sunk by two Ju 87s in September 1941, one of which was piloted by Rudel.)

It also makes sense to place a 3.7 cm towed AT unit on the open countryside blockade hex so that it cannot be seen and thus attacked by the Soviet artillery. That's the most vulnerable spot

Other than that, in the next version the defending units will have slightly higher starting strength, but the the strength reduction will also be a bit higher at times, mainly during the winter cycles.

So I think it will still worth to keep the blockade, but it also depends on the other priorities.

[McGuba]

As BE v2.5 is nearly ready I am showing some of the more important changes. Those who followed the earlier multiplayer match of the 2.5 beta version may be familiar with a few of these, but I have also added quite a few new things since then.


New terrain type: Semi-arid (or dry steppe)

As the name suggests, it is basically a transition between desert and clear terrain. This terrain has little vegetation, virtually no trees and very little precipitation. It also has limited agricultural activity, which should mean low supplies for ground units in the game.

In practice it is very much like the existing clear terrain with little cover (obviously open terrain and zero base entrenchment) and no movement reduction, but with the low supply situation of the desert terrain. Mud and snow have also less negative effect on the ground speed of units due to less precipitation in these areas.

Semi-arid terrain also do not affect air units in any way, both tropicalized and non-tropicalized air units can fly over it as if it was like open sea. (It has a neutral effect on air units.)

Most notable are the huge Kazakh and Kalmyk steppes east of Stalingrad, but there some other smaller areas in Tunisia, Syria and elsewhere.


Semi-arid terrain between Stalingrad and the Caspian Sea:

semi.jpg (656.34 KiB) Viewed 2701 times

I felt it really necessary to squeeze in this new terrain type somehow since at first in the earlier versions of the mod I used desert terrain to simulate it, but then it caused all kinds of problems for both human and AI players with their non-tropicalized air units which sometimes unexpectedly ran out of fuel in this area. More so that the Soviets do not even have tropicalized units for desert use. But it also did not worth upgrading Axis air units being used in this area to tropicalized versions. So later I just reverted to using normal clear terrain here. But then in turn it did not have the low supply situation which was also not very good. And it was also heavily affected by mud and rain when in fact these should have less effect here due to being a largely dry terrain. And in Tunisia there was the same situation, although to a somewhat lesser degree. So here we go... let's see how it plays out this time.

[Vintage]

Excellent, thx. Waiting for update to come out!

[McGuba]

New or modified units, part 1.


As always, I have added a few new units to this coming release and also modified/improved quite a lot of the already existing unit icons.

For example, I had been planning to add a German railway artillery unit for quite some time, but there were several obstacles.

But in my recent multiplayer match vs. Duedman sometimes I found it a bit frustrating that I did not have a chance to attack his long range Soviet artillery units, which constantly had some overstrength after a while, making them all the more annoying. I really wanted to attack these only to reduce their overstrength and thereby reduce their effectiveness a bit, but I had no luck.

So I thought it would be fun to have just one such unit that can be used for such a purpose and perhaps also to sometimes attack other hard to reach enemy units far behind the frontline. We also know that the Wehrmacht used a few long range railway artillery and even though their overall effectiveness was somewhat questionable, they were indeed quite spectacular.

But then again, I also did not want to break the existing balance and so decided to reduce the effectiveness of the existing Karl-Gerät heavy artillery to make room for this unit. And so, in the next version the Karl-Gerät will have a reduced shooting range of 2 (from 3) and only 1 max ammo. Meaning it needs resupply after every shot. Its shorter range also makes more sense since originally its maximum shooting range was only some 6.5 km. (However, later in 1943, it will be possible to upgrade it to a longer range version by mounting a longer but smaller calibre barrel, as historically.)

The Karl mortar's max ammo count of only 1 is also justifiable by the very limited ammo production (and consumption) for this artillery type. I have the information that only 150-200 shells were fired in each year between 1942-44 by the Karl mortars (only 7 were produced and 6 of these took part in battles). Even if we assume that the actual Karl-Gerät unit in the mod also includes the other similar heavy siege artillery units, their use was rather limited compared to the normal field guns.

So in the next version there will be an additional very long range 28 cm Kanone 5 railway artillery unit from turn 1 to supplement the existing Karl-Gerät siege mortar, but the latter will have less ammo and (until mid 1943) less range than before. Also because of the reduced range of the Karl-Gerät, its price will be reduced so that it will not cost that much to replace its losses since now it has to move closer than before, making it potentially more vulnerable. (But normally the AI will still not attack it with its own artillery and even in multiplayer it requires a very lucky shot by the opponent to reduce its strength a bit. So it should be fine.)

Kanone5.jpg (658.73 KiB) Viewed 2547 times

Another thing I long wanted to do is to actually have a proper unit icon for the 7.5 cm Pak 40 towed anti-tank gun. Vanllia PzC uses the same unit graphic of the 5 cm Pak 38 for this, and thus I just made an enlarged version of the same icon many years ago, to represent the larger Pak 40. And it looks like most, if not all other mods still use that old icon I made for that purpose. But that's still not quite right, since the Pak 40 had a different gun shield. So by using elements of the Pak 40 unit of OOB, this time I finally added a more accurate looking icon for that:

Pak40.jpg (656.14 KiB) Viewed 2547 times

Yet another minor change is the addition of the different sub-types of the famous 10.5 cm leFH 18. As there were several. However, it is mostly cosmetic as these have nearly the same unit stats, but whatever...

leFH.jpg (626.65 KiB) Viewed 2547 times

And of course there are some others, like the addition of a captured French 15 cm artillery unit to the German army later in 1943 (as it was indeed used in relatively large numbers), German 12 cm mortar unit, a new Soviet Katyusha mounted on a Chevrolet truck, and probably a few more.

[McGuba]

Speaking of artillery, after having some productive conversations with Intenso82, a somewhat lesser known fact had come to my attention: while it is well known that the Soviet Red Army fielded a lot more artillery guns than Germany, interestingly they had less ammunition for them. I cross-checked this assumption with several sources like this:

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... w2.308559/

or a book on Soviet economy in WW2, which claims:

Ammunition production (in the Soviet Union) had a lower priority than weapons production in the competition for factories, steel, fuel, power, and machinery. The most serious shortages were the chemicals, cellulose and nitric acid. Chemicals for the manufacture of explosives made up a significant part of lend-lease.

Although production increased slowly during the war, the Germans made more shells than the Russians in all categories.

(The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945 by James Dunn)

So yes, due to a number of reasons which include logistical problems, different priorities and the German occupation of munitions factories and mines in the eastern part of the Soviet Union in 1941, it appears that the Soviets had fewer shells for their more numerous artillery guns.

Which is quite interesting and should be modelled in the game as well. Therefore for this next version I have decided to reduce the maximum ammunition of most Soviet artillery units and at the same time increase that of the German ones. The only exceptions being the very heavy German siege artillery units, for which few shells were produced.

Even when it comes to rocket artillery, the prominent role of the famous Katyusha is well known, it appears that it is only true for the first half of the war. German rocket artillery ammo expenditure in tonnes in 1943 was almost the same as that of the Soviet, and in 1944 was even higher. So yes, now even Katyushas have less max ammo than before and Nebelwerfers have more.

Overall, this results in a more interesting (and more balanced) gameplay in which the Soviets still have more artillery units, but they run out of ammo more often (which also means they will gain experience slower). Whereas before it was just that the Soviets had a devastating advantage in artillery. Now the Axis player can even use such a tactic to forcibly make the Soviet defensive artillery units run out of ammo before the main attack starts.

One thing that was somewhat lacking in previous versions of the mod though, was the heavy use of the Soviet 120 mm mortars. Although I added this particular unit quite some time ago, there should be more of them. Especially later in the war. It appears that in 1944 the Soviets fired twice as many 120 mm mortar shells than 122 mm field gun shells. They also produced these mortars in huge numbers. So the overall reduction of ammunition of Soviet artillery units will be somewhat compensated by them having more of these heavy mortar units than before.


Ah, and one more thing mainly concerning artillery units. I have also added an indicator so that player can see the otherwise hidden rate of fire number of units with higher or lower than "normal":

rof.jpg (570.63 KiB) Viewed 2522 times

I also attempt to better explain rate of fire in general in the in-game library. As it seems like some players still do not quite understand how it affects the units.

[Vintage]

Wow, such wide explanations. Respect.

[JimmyC]

I agree. When and how do you attack?

In previous playthroughs i mostly left Leningrad alone and focused on other theaters. I then brought in a couple of the longer range artillery pieces and slowly wore down the KV-1/engineer units before attacking them with a panther tank. Its also worth to bomb the battleship around the beginning of this attack to remove 1 of their long range units.

I am doing another playthrough and am around turn 50. This is the first time i determined to properly siege Leningrad. Whilst the defenders health does indeed reduce after time, it takes a very long time (it seems over 1 year before it starts decreasing)

I guess you must have missed the start of the first cycle (which requires the player to start the blockade by turn 12) in order to get the first strength reduction in turn 16. Then the second cycle starts at turn 18, with a strength reduction in turn 22. The idea is that if the player is unable to start the blockade before the onset of the first winter then the Soviets manage to send enough supplies to the city so that there is no strength reduction in February '42 and then the first strength reduction will only happen in turn 22. Perhaps it should be better communicated to the player, though. I will add such a warning to the first Leningrad blockade message.

during the siege you are constantly being attacked by the artillery, coastal battery and battleship and having to repair your troops. Although i used the cheaper security infantry/minor Axis allied troops, it is still costly to have to repair them and sometimes you have to rotate them as they get too injured. I formed the opinion that it is better to forget about the siege and just attack it directly. If you bring up some of the heavy/longer range artillery, it is quite feasible. It also frees up your forces doing the siege to do other things.

In the next version the counter-battery will be a bit weaker: the Kronstadt island fortress will have only range 1 so it will not be able to bombard the blockading units. It means one less enemy artillery shooting back.

The battleship can be sunk fairly easily: with a little luck the Rudel Ju 87 unit alone can sink it in just 2 turns, and if another bomber is used as well, for example a Ju 88 or the Finnish tac bomber, then almost surely. (Historically the Battleship Marat was sunk by two Ju 87s in September 1941, one of which was piloted by Rudel.)

It also makes sense to place a 3.7 cm towed AT unit on the open countryside blockade hex so that it cannot be seen and thus attacked by the Soviet artillery. That's the most vulnerable spot

Other than that, in the next version the defending units will have slightly higher starting strength, but the the strength reduction will also be a bit higher at times, mainly during the winter cycles.

So I think it will still worth to keep the blockade, but it also depends on the other priorities.

I did the "retreat in winter" move and mostly drew my troops back behind the front lines. Therefore i missed setting up the siege until around Spring of '42 (maybe a little later as i had to clear out the enemy south-east of Leningrad).

[JimmyC]

@McGuba, thanks for the update and looking forward to the new version. I'm at around turn 80 of my 2nd recent playthrough of v2.4 and am really enjoying it. I underestimated Torch and although i finally managed to hold it and retake North Africa, it was very much touch and go and i lost a lot of units totally destroyed in trying to hold Tunis. I also really struggled with breaking through the El Alamein defenses until i could get Panthers and had a lot of forces just sitting doing nothing in that theater.

Regarding the changes to v2.5 i worry that Karl Gerat will not be useful if given only 2 range as it will be so susceptible to counter battery fire. With its range 3 i use it to bombard the outer defences and put a hidden AT unit in front of it and an AA behind it. But with only 2 range the protecting unit in front would have to make contact with the enemy. And with only 1 ammo it wouldnt be able to provide defensive fire if the protecting unit is attacked. Combined with its 2 movement and high cost and i think it will become useless. I wonder most players will just keep it back until it can be upgraded to 3 range?

For artillery i already love the nebelwerfers, but they are held back a bit by low ammo. I usually stick to the 21cm as i'm not willing to sacrifice down to 3 ammo for the extra firepower of the 30cm. If all variants ammo was increased by 1, it would make it really good and i will likely purchase (or upgrade out of series) a couple more of these!

Also appreciate the RoF info. I maintain a separate list of all units RoF which i can refer to when im interested, but having a visual info in-game for it would be so much more convenient! Even though i've played all these years, im still a little confused about the interaction between RoF and overstrength units. For example, a 2 cm Flakvierling with str 10 will have 14 attacks (due to RoF 14). But if you overstrength it, how many attacks does it get? 11=15, 12=16, 13=18?

I also have another question about overstrengthening units. In my current playthrough i overstrengthed some of my AA defending the Reich. But some AA it wouldnt let me overstrength and others i could only overstrength to max 11. I thought basically all units could be increased to strength 15?

[PeteMitchell]

I tend to agree on the Karl Gerät concerns

[McGuba]

Regarding the changes to v2.5 i worry that Karl Gerat will not be useful if given only 2 range as it will be so susceptible to counter battery fire. With its range 3 i use it to bombard the outer defences and put a hidden AT unit in front of it and an AA behind it. But with only 2 range the protecting unit in front would have to make contact with the enemy.

This is supposed to be a siege gun unit. Meaning it should only be used against static fortresses. Primarily Leningrad, Sevastopol, perhaps some others like Odessa or Novorossiysk. Therefore there is no need for frontal defensive unit since the defenders cannot move out from most of these to counter-attack.

As for counter-battery fire, as I wrote above, the AI normally does not fire at it from its own fortresses due to the low hit probability. The AI rather prioritizes other easier targets, mainly infantry and towed artillery. And even in multiplayer the hit probability is only about 10% (if the Karl mortar stands in close terrain) when the heavy fortress is still at full strength, so the Allied player needs a lucky shot to achieve a hit and probably it is more profitable to fire at besieging infantry or other targets in range. In fact, it is more vulnerable to air attacks.

And with only 1 ammo it wouldnt be able to provide defensive fire if the protecting unit is attacked. Combined with its 2 movement and high cost and i think it will become useless. I wonder most players will just keep it back until it can be upgraded to 3 range?

Again, as siege artillery, it should not be expected to provide defensive fire, although (for the time being at least) it will provide a defensive fire to nearby ground units.

As for its historical usefulness, it probably wasn't very useful or cost-effective. This is from a Quora (AI bot?) reply for the question "How effective was the Karl-Gerat?"

Summary judgment

Tactically powerful but strategically marginal. The Karl-Gerät delivered unique destructive capability against extremely fortified targets, but extreme cost, limited numbers, massive logistical burden, and vulnerability made it an impractical weapon in most operational contexts.


Logistics, mobility and operational limitations

Self-propelled but extremely heavy (~124 tonnes for early variants), slow, and mechanically stressed. Movement required special preparation; transport over roads was problematic and rail transport often necessary for longer moves.
Ammunition handling and supply were challenging: shells were enormous, required cranes or special handling gear, and limited the rate of fire (minutes between rounds).

Rate of fire: low—typically a few rounds per hour under combat conditions—not suited for prolonged bombardment or flexible response.

Vulnerability: large size, slow displacement, and need for prepared firing positions made Karls vulnerable to air attack and counter-battery measures once located.

Crew and support: large crews and substantial engineering support for emplacement, concealment, and resupply.


Cost-effectiveness and strategic impact

Very high development, production, and operational cost per gun versus limited tactical returns. Only a handful were produced; the resource expenditure was disproportionate given Germany’s overall artillery needs.

Psychological and propaganda effect: significant. The sheer scale of the weapon generated fear and propaganda value, useful in specific siege operations.

Strategic utility: limited. The weapons did not change strategic outcomes; they provided local breakthroughs in a few sieges but were irrelevant to mobile, fast-paced campaigns or to supply-starved fronts.

I think that's quite fitting. It can be used to reduce the strength of some of the heavy fortresses a bit, and that's it. By all fairness, it should have even less ammo, as historically the Karl mortars were only used for short periods: for a few days June 1941 against the Brest fortress, then in June and July 1942 against Sevastopol, and then in 1944 against the Warsaw uprising. They may have also seen some action in summer 1943 at Izyum, but that's unconfirmed. There were plans to use them at Leningrad in 1942 and 1943, but it appears these were cancelled due to Soviet counter-offensives there. However, according to Isaev, the Karl mortars consumed (fired) 189 shells in 1943, so most likely they were used somewhere in that year. And shell consumption in 1942 (197) and 1944 (144) was also very low. That's about 30 shots per barrel (there were only 6 Karl mortars used in combat) per year. As a comparison, in 1941 on average a 10.5 cm field howitzer fired about 274 shells in a month and even a 21 cm heavy howitzer fired 85 in a month. Which of course would be over 1000 shots in a year for an average 21 cm mortar, and that should be compared to the 30 shots of a Karl mortar...

Possible reasons: small number of ammunition produced, problems with supply and high operational costs, as explained above. In the end, I guess it was mainly a propaganda tool. And it certainly had a negative effect on the morale of the enemy when used. But that's hard, if not impossible to measure.

For artillery i already love the nebelwerfers, but they are held back a bit by low ammo. I usually stick to the 21cm as i'm not willing to sacrifice down to 3 ammo for the extra firepower of the 30cm. If all variants ammo was increased by 1, it would make it really good and i will likely purchase (or upgrade out of series) a couple more of these!

Yes, Nebelwerfers now have +1 ammo compared to BE 2.4. Overall, these were much more cost-effective than the Karl mortars, so their use should be supported.

Even though i've played all these years, im still a little confused about the interaction between RoF and overstrength units. For example, a 2 cm Flakvierling with str 10 will have 14 attacks (due to RoF 14). But if you overstrength it, how many attacks does it get? 11=15, 12=16, 13=18?

Yes, I try to better explain that in the Library. And yes, your calculation is correct.
Overstrength 12 with RoF 14 comes like 12 x 1.4 = 16.8, but it will be rounded down (as always when it comes to rof) so it will be 16 shots and not 17. Meaning of course 16 chances (dice rolls) to reduce the strength of the enemy unit by 1 point in a single attack.

I also have another question about overstrengthening units. In my current playthrough i overstrengthed some of my AA defending the Reich. But some AA it wouldnt let me overstrength and others i could only overstrength to max 11. I thought basically all units could be increased to strength 15?

Units with with at least 100 experience points can get 1 overstrength to reach 11 strength. Units with 200 experience points can reach 12 strength with overstrength. And so on. But every additional overstrength point becomes gradually more expensive.

[McGuba]

Battle of the Atlantic rework

Following an earlier suggestion, destroyers now have 2 instead of 3 spotting. Less spotting makes is easier for U-boats to escape underwater, as it was historically. Now they can move out of the spotting range of a destroyer more easily.

On the other hand, u-boats now have 1 less ground (naval) defense at periscope depth and Western destroyers have their naval attack increased a little in two steps in '43 and '44 to represent the evolution of Allied anti-submarine warfare and technology. It also makes u-boats less able to resist the D-day landings, as some players prefer to use u-boats to block that. In addition to that, u-boats in the English Channel just north of the D-day landing area will lose some strength in each turn from turn 73 for a while, same as ground units positioned on the coastal areas.

On the plus side, each Axis naval unit on the convoy routes now results in a 50 prestige points penalty for the Allied side, to a maximum of 200. (Earlier it was 25 and 100, respectively.) This is more important in multiplayer. And of course the sinking of enemy convoy units continue to give 100 prestige points to the Axis at the beginning of the following turn.

The maximum number of Allied destroyers patrolling the convoy routes has also been reduced. So U-boat units can now survive longer, but the number of Allied destroyers still gradually increase over time. And even more so if Axis surface vessels are also used on the convoy routes.

All these are intended to make the U-boats do their job, i.e. to mainly patrol the convoy routes and attack merchant ships and occasionally capital ships, but less so enemy destroyers, and above all not being used to block D-day. In general, now it is easier to make prestige from patrolling the convoy routes and it is also more important since the additional per turn prestige allocation from turn 20 had been reduced to 50 (from 100), which can be compensated by the U-boats to some extent.

Another minor change is that the German submarine unit in the Mediterranean Sea now only appears in turn 10 (instead of being there already in turn 1). Historically the first German U-boat only broke through the Strait of Gibraltar in September 1941, and it was not until November that the first 10-15 U-boats had reached the Mediterranean. So the turn 10 starting date for this unit makes more sense.

On the other hand, if this starting u-boat unit is lost before turn 65 then an understrength replacement unit spawns near La Spezia. Astonishingly, U-boats were ordered to attempt the dangerous passage to enter the Mediterranean Sea until May 1944, despite the odds. But none could ever return due to the strong eastward current in the Strait of Gibraltar.

29th.jpg (592.57 KiB) Viewed 2306 times

Somewhat related to all this and it is not very well known but some of the French Atlantic ports were actually held by their German defenders until May 1945, isolated deep behind the Western Allied lines. I really wanted to add this for quite some time, but always failed due to a combination of poor game mechanics and the scale of the map. For example this time at first I surrounded these port cities with some newly created and insanely strong fortification units, same like the new Salpa line in Finland.

But the silly AI was just way too enthusiastic about attacking these so that it even forgot to advance towards Paris and Germany for a while, wasting a lot of time in vain. While any sane human player would have just simply bypassed them, as it happened historically. So this solution would have only been good for the multiplayer version. But of course I intend to keep these two versions more or less the same in terms of game mechanics.

So in the end I had to remove these fortification units and just changed the terrain type of these ports so that no ground or naval unit can enter them after D-day. It is not ideal, but does the job. The German flag can stay over these ports even if the war is lost, and the evil AI cannot do nothing about that.

The Atlantic port cities Lorient and Saint-Nazaire are still sporting the German flag in turn 99, even if everything else is lost and the Allies cannot capture them:

ports.jpg (731.45 KiB) Viewed 2306 times

However, at least the new Salpa line in Finland works fine, it prevents both the AI and human Allied player to easily capture all of Finland after the Finnish armistice on the Axis losing path. It was another thing I wanted to prevent for quite a while. Earlier the Soviet forces could just simply move in and capture all the empty Finnish cities and airfields, bagging some easy prestige while violating the peace agreement. But no longer:

BE 25_5.jpg (636.03 KiB) Viewed 2306 times

[McGuba]

New or modified units, part 2.


The Italians also get their share of new units with the next release.
Though not exactly a new unit, the Cannone 105/28 now has the correct gun shield so it looks cool, and it is available for purchase (or upgrade) from turn 25. Not a very good unit of course, given that being a WW1 design, and can only be moved very slowly so not really intended for offensive use. It is also more expensive than comparable German units, as it is the case with nearly all other Italian units. Nevertheless, it is available in Tripoli and thus can help to boost the defense of Tunisia, if needed.

Italian1.jpg (610.1 KiB) Viewed 2253 times

They also have a new "Autocannone", basically a truck mounted 20 mm AA gun. In fact it is the same towed Breda 20/65 AA gun but this time it can be switched to this truck mounted mode to provide AA defense to units on the move, if necessary. It looks like the Italians really liked to place all kinds of guns on trucks for mobility and since they had no dedicated self-propelled AA gun this Autocannone remained in use throughout the war.

Italian2.jpg (574.38 KiB) Viewed 2253 times

I think I wrote earlier that I also added the two older Italian battleships which spent most of the war in their home base in Taranto due to lack of fuel. It will be the same in the mod as well, but if the fuel restriction is lifted after the capture and repair of at least two oil fields then these will be activated with their max fuel vastly increased. Then, with the activation of the similarly restricted Roma battleship, these may actually change the naval balance in the Mediterranean.

Italian3.jpg (608.59 KiB) Viewed 2253 times

[Locarnus]

Battle of the Atlantic rework
[...]
The maximum number of Allied destroyers patrolling the convoy routes has also been reduced. So U-boat units can now survive longer, but the number of Allied destroyers still gradually increase over time. And even more so if Axis surface vessels are also used on the convoy routes.

All these are intended to make the U-boats do their job, i.e. to mainly patrol the convoy routes and attack merchant ships and occasionally capital ships, but less so enemy destroyers, and above all not being used to block D-day. In general, now it is easier to make prestige from patrolling the convoy routes and it is also more important since the additional per turn prestige allocation from turn 20 had been reduced to 50 (from 100), which can be compensated by the U-boats to some extent.
[...]

After feedback from eskuche (who played with my Addon), I recently split the UK destroyer force by introducing a corvette unit type (stats only, no special graphics yet).
These are weaker than the normal destroyers, but more importantly they have only half the movement (5 instead of 10).
Respresenting the fact that normal fast/fleet/combat destroyers were not well suited for convoy escort duty. Being expensive to build and operate due to machinery designed for high speed operations instead of low speed convoy babysitting and multi-purpose armament instead of having mainly anti-sub weapons.
For the British, more than 250 Flower and Castle corvettes were built, while 200? or so sloops would probably also better be represented with such a slower speed unit type than the current fast/fleet/combat destroyer swarms.
Plus a 3 digit number of US escorts built around the 20 - 24 knot design speeds (those could perhaps get movement 6 or even 7?).

I'm still not quite sure what relative numbers would work out well.
But the speed difference resulting in 1-2 fewer destroyers being able to swarm a spotted u-boat could make all the difference in terms of survival.

Somewhat related to all this and it is not very well known but some of the French Atlantic ports were actually held by their German defenders until May 1945, isolated deep behind the Western Allied lines. I really wanted to add this for quite some time, but always failed due to a combination of poor game mechanics and the scale of the map. For example this time at first I surrounded these port cities with some newly created and insanely strong fortification units, same like the new Salpa line in Finland.

But the silly AI was just way too enthusiastic about attacking these so that it even forgot to advance towards Paris and Germany for a while, wasting a lot of time in vain. While any sane human player would have just simply bypassed them, as it happened historically. So this solution would have only been good for the multiplayer version. But of course I intend to keep these two versions more or less the same in terms of game mechanics.

So in the end I had to remove these fortification units and just changed the terrain type of these ports so that no ground or naval unit can enter them after D-day. It is not ideal, but does the job. The German flag can stay over these ports even if the war is lost, and the evil AI cannot do nothing about that.

The Atlantic port cities Lorient and Saint-Nazaire are still sporting the German flag in turn 99, even if everything else is lost and the Allies cannot capture them:

Changing the terrain type at D-Day could be risky for non-historical player strategies, especially in singleplayer.
If the player keeps the German surface vessels on the west coast of France to harass the D-Day invasion, this could deprive them of resupply ports. It would feel strange, especially if the Axis is able to contain D-Day?

[JimmyC]

Thanks for the responses to my questions McGuba and also the further detail about upcoming v2.5. Noted regarding the Karl Gerat and its intended usage. It will still be substantially less useful than before, but maybe that is historically accurate.

Its also great to hear about the subs being more useful. Whilst i have always used them for commerce raiding, there is currently a strong argument to keeping them to block the channel and D-day landings. Locarnus' idea about corvette is also good. Its frustrating how fast the destroyers are at the moment.

Regarding the Allied bomber offensive, are you thinking to change the penalties to the Axis for enemy bombers over German cities or will these stay the same?

[Uhu]

These are great new or modified features!
Especially interesting are the new modifications for the Atlantic war. We worked so much on it to find the best suitable solution, maybe with this we get even closer to that goal.

Some questions, proposals:

1., "it is also more important since the additional per turn prestige allocation from turn 20 had been reduced to 50 (from 100), which can be compensated by the U-boats to some extent"
What allocations?

2., Yes, the blocking of Western France ports can be problematic and reduces the freedom to use them for Axis naval use. Maybe only that situation should be this happen, if all/most French major cities are captured.

3., 10,5 cm German old artillery - after some time (44?) there is no more possibility to upgrade them from horse carriage.

4., Several Axis units do not have tropical versions. As many late war types have it already, it would be great to have them too (for me the StuH42 is an important one) . At least the German and Italian but I do not see problems to have the Romanian and Hungarian units too. (OK, that is a lot of work, probably.) At least for common units, what the Germans have - Bf's, PzIVs, etc.

5., For me the Karl update is OK, I do not see big problems with it.

[bondjamesbond]

A Beaufighter attacks a German ship.
viewtopic.php?p=1071737#p1071737

So, when will version 2.5 be released!?

[McGuba]

After feedback from eskuche (who played with my Addon), I recently split the UK destroyer force by introducing a corvette unit type (stats only, no special graphics yet).
These are weaker than the normal destroyers, but more importantly they have only half the movement (5 instead of 10).

Until now, corvettes, frigates, sloops and the like have been considered to be part of the units named "destroyer". That's why there are so many of them. As these units of course represent a small flotilla of such escort ships anyway, let's say 8 destroyers or maybe a few more, if we include smaller vessels as well. Mainly because historically convoy escorts usually consisted of several different ship types, not only destroyers or corvettes in separate groups, it was more like a mixed bag in most cases. And then, for example the Romanians also did not have 8 destroyers, they only had 4 of them and a few other smaller vessels, a frigate, a few torpedo boats, and a few old coastal guard ships. And yet, they have a single full strength destroyer unit to represent all these, instead of having several understrength units of different types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_ ... rld_War_II

Nevertheless, adding a few corvette units may be a good idea, but speed of 5 is too low. Should be at least 6, or more like 7. But I guess these should only be used on the North Atlantic convoy routes, which is OK for the single player but in multiplayer the Allied player should be restricted to do so, which may not be ideal. There are a bit too many "artificial" restriction on the Allied side already. As far as I know corvettes were not really used in the Mediterranean, but I might be wrong about that.

Changing the terrain type at D-Day could be risky for non-historical player strategies, especially in singleplayer.
If the player keeps the German surface vessels on the west coast of France to harass the D-Day invasion, this could deprive them of resupply ports. It would feel strange, especially if the Axis is able to contain D-Day?

It is assumed that the port facilities are rendered useless by the Germans to deny their use by the Allies.

1., "it is also more important since the additional per turn prestige allocation from turn 20 had been reduced to 50 (from 100), which can be compensated by the U-boats to some extent"
What allocations?

The first extra prestige per turn allocation, which comes from turn 20, given for the German economy being geared for war production, had been halved.

2., Yes, the blocking of Western France ports can be problematic and reduces the freedom to use them for Axis naval use. Maybe only that situation should be this happen, if all/most French major cities are captured.

Yes, maybe later, if I ever decide to use the 256 AI zone version of PzC, due to lack of AI zones. For now, the northernmost (Brest) and the southernmost (Bordeaux) is unaffected and still can be used.

3., 10,5 cm German old artillery - after some time (44?) there is no more possibility to upgrade them from horse carriage.

You mean upgrade these from having a horse team to RSO, I guess? That's somewhat marginal, but, yes, can be fixed. But not in the post 1941 save games as I have already finished with them.

4., Several Axis units do not have tropical versions. As many late war types have it already, it would be great to have them too (for me the StuH42 is an important one) . At least the German and Italian but I do not see problems to have the Romanian and Hungarian units too. (OK, that is a lot of work, probably.) At least for common units, what the Germans have - Bf's, PzIVs, etc.

Yes, I can add a tropical StuH 42, but again, for now it will not be available for the pre-saved games. Having tropicalized versions of Romanian and Hungarian units would be a bit funny and not very realistic in my opinion.

Thanks for the responses to my questions McGuba and also the further detail about upcoming v2.5. Noted regarding the Karl Gerat and its intended usage. It will still be substantially less useful than before, but maybe that is historically accurate.

I think the other changes, i.e. having a railway artillery unit and more ammo for all other German artillery will be more than enough compensation for that. In fact, German artillery will be significantly stronger even with this weaker Karl mortar. On the other hand, the Allies will have some more opposition in 1941, both in the east and in Africa. So the overall balance will be more or less the same, but it will be more interesting and historical.

Regarding the Allied bomber offensive, are you thinking to change the penalties to the Axis for enemy bombers over German cities or will these stay the same?

Yes, more about that a bit later.

So, when will version 2.5 be released!?

Hopefully soon, but the more new suggestions I have to implement, the longer it will take.

[Locarnus]

After feedback from eskuche (who played with my Addon), I recently split the UK destroyer force by introducing a corvette unit type (stats only, no special graphics yet).
These are weaker than the normal destroyers, but more importantly they have only half the movement (5 instead of 10).

Until now, corvettes, frigates, sloops and the like have been considered to be part of the units named "destroyer". That's why there are so many of them. As these units of course represent a small flotilla of such escort ships anyway, let's say 8 destroyers or maybe a few more, if we include smaller vessels as well. Mainly because historically convoy escorts usually consisted of several different ship types, not only destroyers or corvettes in separate groups, it was more like a mixed bag in most cases. And then, for example the Romanians also did not have 8 destroyers, they only had 4 of them and a few other smaller vessels, a frigate, a few torpedo boats, and a few old coastal guard ships. And yet, they have a single full strength destroyer unit to represent all these, instead of having several understrength units of different types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_ ... rld_War_II

Nevertheless, adding a few corvette units may be a good idea, but speed of 5 is too low. Should be at least 6, or more like 7. But I guess these should only be used on the North Atlantic convoy routes, which is OK for the single player but in multiplayer the Allied player should be restricted to do so, which may not be ideal. There are a bit too many "artificial" restriction on the Allied side already. As far as I know corvettes were not really used in the Mediterranean, but I might be wrong about that.

I tested a bit more by making nearly all normal, anti-sub Atlantic convoy patrol destroyers into those corvettes.
I did not touch reactionary Atlantic patrol destroyers (those spawning/reacting to the presence of Axis surface ships in zone 13?) and all other destroyers elsewhere (Home Fleet, Med, Gibraltar and so on).

So far I used movement 5 for the UK "corvettes" and movement 6 for the US "corvettes". I agree that the effect might have been too strong, so I will up this to your proposed numbers of eg 6 move for the UK and 7 move for the US "corvettes".

I also introduced a British sub hunter hero on one of those corvettes in my March update. Frederic John Walker, who was a very successful u-boat hunter from late 1941 onwards.

Changing the terrain type at D-Day could be risky for non-historical player strategies, especially in singleplayer.
If the player keeps the German surface vessels on the west coast of France to harass the D-Day invasion, this could deprive them of resupply ports. It would feel strange, especially if the Axis is able to contain D-Day?

It is assumed that the port facilities are rendered useless by the Germans to deny their use by the Allies.

2., Yes, the blocking of Western France ports can be problematic and reduces the freedom to use them for Axis naval use. Maybe only that situation should be this happen, if all/most French major cities are captured.

Yes, maybe later, if I ever decide to use the 256 AI zone version of PzC, due to lack of AI zones. For now, the northernmost (Brest) and the southernmost (Bordeaux) is unaffected and still can be used.

Perhaps those conversions could be triggered by the Axis player?
Eg the trigger could be that the coastal fortification next to such a port does not exist, either due to being destroyed by the enemy or deleted by the Axis player (using a zone for that would be nice, but is not necessary). Then the specific port hex next to that destroyed/deleted coastal fortification is changed, also not requiring a zone.

It could be 5 scripts, one for each of the French Atlantic ports. Might even be interesting for multiplayer, to have those scripts run from an earlier time than D-Day. The Allied player could then actually destroy an Axis Atlantic port by focusing down such a coastal fortification? Though that would require real multiplayer testing if possible before D-Day. At least without any possibility of the Axis player repairing such damage.

[Locarnus]

New or modified units, part 2.
[...]
They also have a new "Autocannone", basically a truck mounted 20 mm AA gun. In fact it is the same towed Breda 20/65 AA gun but this time it can be switched to this truck mounted mode to provide AA defense to units on the move, if necessary. It looks like the Italians really liked to place all kinds of guns on trucks for mobility and since they had no dedicated self-propelled AA gun this Autocannone remained in use throughout the war.

Italian2.jpg (574.38 KiB) Viewed 2060 times

[...]

Just noticed that in the screenshot the right side info panel "unit_name" as well as the "unit_type" formatting is different for the selected unit and the hovered over unit. Eg for the hovered over unit the 2nd line of the "unit_type" is cut off.

I slightly increased the font size for that info panel (imho makes it a tad more readable), increased the maximum allowed unit name length (from 20 to 25, fits into 2 lines if no long word is in the middle of the unit name) and made some other minor tweaks to that info panel. Just so much that it all fit in with that unchanged background graphic and thus also worked on lower resolutions just as well as the original:
viewtopic.php?p=1044340#p1044340

Left old vs right modded main.htm (& rename.htm for 25 character in-game unit name limit):

vs

[McGuba]

Perhaps those conversions could be triggered by the Axis player?
Eg the trigger could be that the coastal fortification next to such a port does not exist, either due to being destroyed by the enemy or deleted by the Axis player (using a zone for that would be nice, but is not necessary). Then the specific port hex next to that destroyed/deleted coastal fortification is changed, also not requiring a zone.

In some cases the AI (or even a human opponent) would capture the port city BEFORE destroying the nearby fort unit. Then it is all for nothing or even worse, since it would change flag anyway AND become useless as well after that.

Just noticed that in the screenshot the right side info panel "unit_name" as well as the "unit_type" formatting is different for the selected unit and the hovered over unit. Eg for the hovered over unit the 2nd line of the "unit_type" is cut off.

Ah, yes, indeed. I wanted to fix that as well before the release. Better now?

Italian4.jpg (570.87 KiB) Viewed 2515 times

I slightly increased the font size for that info panel (imho makes it a tad more readable), increased the maximum allowed unit name length (from 20 to 25, fits into 2 lines if no long word is in the middle of the unit name) and made some other minor tweaks to that info panel.

The problem with increased font size is that of course less characters would fit in the given space. Meaning shorter unit type names. In the "old" version of your screenshot the unit name "28 cm Kanone 5 r4" fits in one line, but in the "new" it requires two lines because of the larger font size. And also less characters can fit in the right "hover" window: while in the "old" there is "MaxAmmo" and "MaxFuel" in the "new" there is only "max".