Slitherine

Locarnus wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2026 11:20 pm

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 4:59 pm

Locarnus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2026 5:33 pm Imho Baku and Soviet Union are the primary objectives for a total victory, regardless of BE version or variant (Addon).

The Soviet Union can be defeated without capturing Baku first (or any of the Caucasus objectives really). So I don't know, it may even be better to go straight for objectives on the Volga river to achieve a quick victory in the east and only after turn south. I think there was some AAR like that earlier. But then the player has to wait longer for the prestige from the oil fields, so...

Ah, yes. I now remember that it is not the first time I made this error. You are of course right, Baku is not needed to collapse the Soviet Union. I even put * symbols before and after city names, to distinguish primary and secondary objectives for the Soviet Union.

Speaking of additional objectives, I recently watched HerzogSieg on youtube also playing Strategic Command, where mines can be captured for additional income.
Imho Donetsk/Stalino would qualify for being added to the 40 prestige per turn $ locations (like Narvik and Tunis). Giving the player a historically valid incentive to defend along the Mius river, in order to preserve the raw material output of the area between the Mius river and the Dnepr.
It could partially replace the income bonus that the player gets from 1942 onwards?

McGuba wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 4:59 pm

Without house rules, the game mechanics can be massively exploited for the Western bomber war.
Those exploits basically remove all challenge from that theater.

As I wrote earlier, one of the main aims of this release is to reduce possible exploits in general. Experience shows that if there is an exploit, players will use it, "'cos why not?" People are people and not everyone is thinking like you.

Indeed, and there is already so much for players to keep track of (and hardly any visible Panzer Corps youtube tutorials).


Ah, two more things:

I'm currently using
color:#a0c0ff;
for the suppression number, since youtube makes a mess out of #ff0000 on that dark background.
Hoping that youtube compression will be more kind to that light blue, but I'm unable to test.


And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?
Still looks strange, not seeing that connection on the map in 1941. And it poses a challenge for the number of bridge units.

Judging by the photo, Soviet troops were advancing across pontoon bridges! Don’t forget to include the Soviet partisans!!!
https://mir24.tv/articles/16318943/bitv ... nyh-faktov

And there were bridges there, but the Germans destroyed them as they retreated!

The surviving units of the Wehrmacht were forced to retreat to the right bank, where they took up positions in pre-prepared defences, leaving garrisons on some of the islands. For example, on the island of ‘Akula’, the Germans left an infantry platoon reinforced with three machine guns and two mortars. As they withdrew, the Nazis burned down most of the houses in the villages they were leaving behind and blew up both railway bridges across the Dnieper near Dnipropetrovsk. However, the Germans did not manage to completely destroy or transfer all available crossing equipment to the right bank.
https://nashemisto.dp.ua/ru/2018/08/10/ ... acii-foto/
https://pobeda.elar.ru/issues/osvobozhd ... vyy-bereg/

Uhu wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 6:25 pm Well in that regard I do not see the justification of Luftwaffe inf units

I think there is no continuity conflict here: maybe the new leader of the Luftwaffe would do the same and would also strongly support the creation of a Luftwaffe infantry - we cannot know for sure since it is a kind of "what if" scenario anyway, so might as well be like that. What we know is Luftwaffe infantry was regarded to be of generally poor quality, at least initially, due to not getting too much infantry training. So probably it also made sense to send them to the frontline as they were, lead by their own officers and so on, keeping unit cohesion and higher morale, than sending them out in small groups to regular infantry divisions as cannon fodder.

JimmyC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2026 2:14 am I would be heavily against any chemical weapons in this mod from a moral perspective as it is a very slippery slope.

No, I do not plan to add these.

Locarnus wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2026 11:20 pm Imho Donetsk/Stalino would qualify for being added to the 40 prestige per turn $ locations (like Narvik and Tunis). Giving the player a historically valid incentive to defend along the Mius river, in order to preserve the raw material output of the area between the Mius river and the Dnepr.
It could partially replace the income bonus that the player gets from 1942 onwards?

Maybe. But I don't know how much these mines were actually utilized by the Germans. I guess they were mostly destroyed by the retreating Soviets, just like the factories. And it is not so easy to re-open a destroyed, collapsed mine, as far as I know. I would assume it is even harder than repairing a destroyed oil field, but I might be wrong about that.

And second, it seems like there was no bridge at all across the Dnepr until late 1943 (neither road nor railway)?
Still looks strange, not seeing that connection on the map in 1941. And it poses a challenge for the number of bridge units.

There were several bridges over the Dnieper river in 1941, and though many, if not all were destroyed when the Germans reached that river, in most cases there was some kind of pontoon bridge or at least a ferry service in operation in pretty much every larger city.

...


Now I am just making some last minute changes: for example I have just realized that the early machine gun only version of the Bf 109 was still quite common until late 1940 - it looks like about a third of the Messerschmitt fighters lost in the Battle of Britain were of the E-1 version, which had only 4 rifle caliber machine guns and no cannons. Which means that this E-1 version must have been used widely in the earlier invasion of France as well. So I have changed that and now there are some weaker E-1 versions in that scenario (earlier there were only the better E-3s).

It may also helps to understand why the Luftwaffe suffered so high losses in France: 1,129 German aircraft were lost due to enemy action (overall losses were about one third of the original strength in just 6 weeks), while corresponding French losses were 574 aircraft lost in the air (of which 174 were lost to Flak). RAF losses were 959 aircraft (of which 477 were fighters and 381 bombers), but only about 75 Hurricanes were lost in air combat, most were lost on the ground or were abandoned.

So the invasion of France was not an easy ride for the Luftwaffe, and since many of the Bf 109s were only equipped with 4 machine guns, while the Hurricanes had 8 similar guns, and many French fighters had one or two 20 mm cannons, it seems that the Bf 109E-1 was severely undergunned compared to most Allied fighters, even if it had better performance.

What is even more interesting is that it looks like while most of the cannon armed E-3s were quickly upgraded to the E-4 standard by mid 1940 (which also had two 20 mm cannons in the wings, but different ones which could fire the more effective "mine shell"), most of the E-1s did not get this upgrade and were used until late 1940 or longer. It was because upgrading an E-1 to an E-3 or E-4 was not so easy: the MG 17 machine guns in the wings of the E-1 had a complicated ammunition feed system that ran the whole length of the wing, over a roller, and back again. That feed system had to be removed from an E-1 wing converted to use cannons. So it wasn't just like simply replacing the machine gun with a cannon. Perhaps it was easier to replace the whole wing for that. It looks like it was just too much fuss and therefore they just continued to use the machine gun only Messers for much longer than they should have. Which probably was a mistake since even the British fighter pilots were unhappy with their 8 machine guns in their early Hurricanes and Spitfires, claiming these did not have enough destructive power, especially against bombers.

For that reason I will give the "noupgrade" trait to the auxiliary unit Bf 109 E-1s in the France scenario so that the player has to use these throughout this scenario and cannot upgrade them to the better E-3. But the core unit E-1(s) from Poland can still be upgraded to an E-3 before this scenario.

Ignoring Caucasus, interesting approach, not sure...