Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

A forum to discuss custom scenarios, campaigns and modding in general.

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

monkspider wrote:Well, I finally finished 1945. I suppose I take some measure of pride in being the only person I have seen post who managed to complete an entire campaign using your mod Herr Deducter. 1945 was not a good year for the Wehrmacht however, while I still managed to use elite replacements a majority of the time in '44, by 1945, it was clear that I could no longer make good my losses. I had to use normal replacements more and more. Moreover, I had more and more units destroyed outright. I tended to use Volksturm/7.5 artillery to fill in the gaps in my core, but they were generally little more than speedbumps for the Russians. One of my greatest victories was getting both of the prototype "mice", but by the start of the Berlin two of my divisions, the 40th Infantry and 9th Panzer were hollow shells of what they once were. The 9th Panzer was pretty much a panzer division with scarcely any remaining panzers (only one panzer unit remained) and my 40th Infantry was pretty much only a division on paper, consisting of 1 infantry unit, an anti-tank gun, and a single artillery. My 1st SS division still remained largely intact and largely managed to avoid the quality dilution that my other units did. My strategy in Berlin was to try to create a strong defensive line that would exhaust the Soviets and then go on the offensive to retake lost ground. This proved too much for my core however, and as my losses mounted, including even some of my most crack units, I had to fallback further and further. By turn 29 I only had maybe 12-15 units left, and decided that further resistance was futile, signing the formal surrender papers with an endscn 2.

Overall, a very satisfying and realistic end to the campaign. This time my core may not have been strong enough to stop the Soviet steamroller but perhaps next time I will prevail. Thanks for your awesome work with this mod Deducter, I look forward to starting another playthrough soon!
Awesome accomplishment! This is pretty much exactly as I intended. You got the historical result, but changing history isn't completely impossible. However, I am working on a new version which should make the later war years somewhat easier. My current plans are:

GreenReplacementsExp 30 to 50
CamEReplaceCost will be 25 higher than ScnEReplaceCost in 1939-1942 and 15 higher in 1943-1945

This will make it more viable to reach for both normal and elite reinforcements mid-battle in the late war. The choice of whether to reinforce during battle or deployment will now be more interesting, and it shouldn't default to just withdrawing all damaged units off the line and elite reinforcing during deployment. Both of these changes should help keep the player's experience levels higher while still maintaining an extremely high cost for overstrength.

Again, due to the large number of changes in the new version, progress has been much slower than expected.
JWoods
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:25 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by JWoods »

Hi
Just a quick question will most of your new changes take place in late war I.e.43-45? Reason I am asking is now i am mid 42 and do not really want to go farther if you are changing a lot of things early war..

Regards

Jw
4kEY
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:57 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by 4kEY »

You can always keep a savegame at the end of Kursk, JWoods.

I'm somewhat looking forward to my army being decimated...if I could only free up more playtime - I haven't even reached Russia yet :evil:
monkspider
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:22 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by monkspider »

1945 is really something special with Deducter's mod. It really feels like you are struggling against an absolute steamroller and it takes an exemplary performance even to survive to Berlin with a halfway respectable core. I think to get a decisive victory in Berlin takes a nye-miraclous performance, as it should.

Right now I am doing a playthrough of Afrika Korps on Rommel, my first ever Rommel playthrough. It is really a different and interesting experience. I look forward to seeing what Deducter Korps is like on this difficulty!
ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by ThvN »

deducter wrote:Due to the large number of changes and my limited time, progress on this mod has been delayed. No promises, but I really do hope to come out with v1.9 in another few days.
Hello, I was wondering if you need any more info/feedback on anything, just let me know in case you do. I have recently spent some research time on the Allied airplanes myselves because I am busy trying to tweak the anti-aircraft units. I couldn't resist giving my opinions, and first of all, it looks very nice. Some observations/comments:
The P-38G Lightning is the first Allied long-ranged fighter, although its dogfighting capabilities are somewhat lacking.
Agreed, as a comment, it was a very good gun platform and carried all its guns (incl. a 20mm) on the centerline, so you can safely up the SA and/or AA if needed.
The P-40E Kittyhawk is heavily armed, but slow and vulnerable.
Looks OK, but you can safely up the AD a little if they perish too quickly, they were quite tough.
The P-51B Mustang is a potent Allied long-range fighter. Its firepower is somewhat lacking, but it more than makes up for that with its superior speed and survivability. The P-47 Thunderbolt has superb firepower and excellent survivability, in addition to very good ground-attack capabilities. However, its range is nowhere near as impressive as that of the Mustang. These fighters are deadly foes and caution should be used when engaging them.
A remark, you have the GD of the Mustang higher than the P-47, I got the impression that Mustangs were relatively vulnerable to ground fire and the P-47 was better than almost any Allied fighter?
The upgraded Spitfires remain deadly foes into 1942 and beyond.
The Spitfire Mk IX (and Mk XIV) had slighty better firepower than the Mk VB, about 8% in raw firepower if my calculations are correct. Doesn't necessarily translate to a higher AA, but you can up it a bit for those versions compared to the Mk VB if they need a little boost.
The Typhoon Mk. IB is a good anti-soft ground attack plane, while the Hurricane Mk. IID is a good anti-hard ground attack plane. Most of the Allied TAC bombers, with the exception of the Mosquito, are vulnerable to fighter interception.
I was very dissapointed with the vulnerability of the Typhoon in the stock game, so I'm glad that you have boosted it quite a bit. A Typhoon without rockets or bombs at low level would be a very deadly adversary, but it would have been vulnerable to interception if it was loaded down, so I suppose that is why you made it vulnerable to fighter interception? If so, it looks very nice right now. Oh, BTW, I'm glad you didn't make them into Tiger-killers, the rocket Typhoons in reality did very little against heavily armored targets.

I'm collecting a lot of info about relevant performance figures and try to sift it down into excel sheets as inspiration for usable stats. Of course, it's nowhere near finished, but if you need anything else I'll be happy to help.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

Re: ThvN

The P-38 and P-40 will get upgrades in 1944, so their values are a bit lower in 1943.

The Mustang vs the Thunderbolt is a tricky thing to model. Mustangs were first as a long-range escort, then as a fighter-hunter. They were extremely successful in their role of shooting down Luftwaffe interceptors and basically finished off the Jagdwaffe in 1944 (albeit one that was weakened from 4 previous years of attrition). I don't think many of them were brought down by FlaK because, unlike the P-47, they didn't conduct many missions near ground levels. Hence, I gave it superior GD because I assume they were flying higher, even if the P-47 had better armor. However, I'm not too knowledgeable about this, and if anyone knows otherwise I'd be happy to readjust it.

The Typhoon is meant to be a sort of Fw 190F equivalent. It already has good INI (10 means at each star it gets one additional INI, a big boost), so I don't think it needs more AD.

More data on air units is always welcomed.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

Preview of standardization of Western Allies guns
QF 2 pounder INI = 5 HA = 8
QF 6 pounder INI = 8 HA = 14
QF 17 pounder INI = 11 HA = 20
77mm HV INI = 11 HA = 18
37mm INI = 5 HA = 7
57mm INI = 8 HA = 14
3-inch M5 INI = 7 HA = 15
75mm L40 (43) INI = 8 HA = 11
75mm L40 (44) INI = 8 HA = 13
76mm L52 (44) INI = 10 HA = 16
76mm L52 (45) INI = 10 HA = 17
90mm L53 INI = 11 HA = 19
90mm L73 INI = 13 HA = 23 (not modeled in game, added purely as reference)

For comparison:

7.5 cm L48 INI = 9 HA = 16
8.8 cm L56 INI = 11 HA = 19
7.5 cm L70 INI = 12 HA = 20

Soviet 85mm INI = 10 HA = 17

Other comments:

1. I'm basically doing all of the Western Allies equipment in one go, which is why this is taking so long. The good news is, once this is out, 1944-1945 will basically also be done too.
2. There will be some minor changes for the Soviets. T60/T70 will be adjusted to have more realistic armor values. The Soviets will correctly have the M4A2 Shermans, with a 75mm gun in 1942-1943 and a 76mm gun in 1944-1945.
3. Regarding the INI for AT guns, in theory it's interesting to give the smaller caliber guns like the 3.7 cm PaK no INI penalty. In practice, this makes the early war years a headache for infantry. You'll find these AT guns holding up your infantry in the open with no problems, since they will have INI = 5 vs the INI = 2 or 3 of the German infantry. Furthermore, they will do undue amounts of damage to the German tanks since they won't have low INI when attacking. In general, I think it's best to make the INI of AT units about 3 less than tanks/turreted units. This gives a clear incentive to use tanks. A few exceptions will apply. For instance, the M18 and the M10 have no INI penalty in the stock eqp file and won't have any in my file either, since the American doctrine was to use TDs to engage German armor.
4. *High HA values for the Western Allies units, like HA = 19 or HA = 22 is not defensible for the purposes of this mod. It's balanced well for MP play, but it'd be a disaster for SP. The Soviets are tough enough when their units have HA = 17 for the T34/85 or HA = 19 for the IS-2. The Western Allies will easily overrun anything short of King Tigers if they have even higher HA values. Also, I think for the purposes of balancing a game like this, the relative performance is more important. For instance, was the 17 pounder inferior, superior, or roughly equivalent to the 75mm L70? I've made it slightly inferior in HA. Keep in mind that I've reduced the GD of most heavy armor.

*Only if these values were typical. If they are rare, meaning about 10-15% of the Allied tanks, that would be acceptable.

Edit: changed the value for various tank guns
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

More previews

2. American AFV Summary
i. Stats
M3 Lee
ammo = 8 fuel = 52 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 9 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
M4 Sherman
ammo = 10 fuel = 59 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 11 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M4A1
ammo = 10 fuel = 59 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 11 GD = 13 AD = 11 CD = 3
M4A1(76)W
ammo = 10 fuel = 59 speed = 4 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 13 AD = 11 CD = 3
M4A2 (Sov)
ammo = 10 fuel = 74 speed = 5 INI = 8 SA = 9 HA = 11 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M4A2(76) (Sov)
ammo = 10 fuel = 74 speed = 5 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M4A3
ammo = 10 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 8 SA = 9 HA = 11 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M4A3(76)W
ammo = 10 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M4A3E2
ammo = 10 fuel = 42 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 9 HA = 11 GD = 22 AD = 16 CD = 5
M4A3E2(76)
ammo = 10 fuel = 42 speed = 4 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 22 AD = 16 CD = 5
M4A3(105)
ammo = 7 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 5 SA = 11 HA = 9 GD = 14 AD = 12 CD = 3
M26 Pershing
ammo = 5 fuel = 24 speed = 5 INI = 11 SA = 9 HA = 19 GD = 21 AD = 16 CD = 4
M10A1 Wolverine
ammo = 8 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 9 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 11 AD = 10 CD = 1
M18 Hellcat
ammo = 8 fuel = 49 speed = 7 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 16 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 1
M36 Jackson
ammo = 8 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 10 SA = 6 HA = 19 GD = 11 AD = 10 CD = 1

ii. The M3 Lee (named Grant when in British service) was an early American medium tank that first saw combat as Lend-Lease tanks in Africa in 1941. They were equipped with the 75mm gun and had good firepower against soft targets, but proved lacking against armored targets. They are not a threat to any contemporary German AFVs.

The M4 Sherman was the mainstay of the American armored forces and had many variants. The M4 (Sherman I) was equipped with a 75mm gun that was highly effective against soft targets. It was slightly more effective against enemy tanks than the M3 Lee. Its armor was good for 1942, but by 1943 it did not provide sufficient protection against the standard German 7.5 cm L43 and L48 guns. Its armor and firepower against German AFVs was lacking, although this was remedied in part with the introduction of better armor-piercing (AP) rounds as the war progressed.

The M4A1 had a cast hull, and while this made it cheaper to produce, its defenses were slightly worse than the welded hulls of the M4, M4A2, and M4A3. The M4A1(76)W was equipped with the 76mm L52 gun, which was much more effective against hard targets but less so against soft targets.

The M4A2 was the given to the Soviets via Lend-Lease. It had a diesel engine and superior range compared with other M4 models. An up-gunned version is introduced in 1944.

The M4A3 had a superior engine than the M4A1 and a welded hull. The M4A3(76) was up-gunned and more effective against tanks. The M4A3E2 and its up-gunned version the M4A3E2(76) were significantly up-armored Shermans that were used in direct assaults. These Shermans, sometimes called the “Jumbo” or “Cobra” are very tough to knock out. The M4A3(105) is the assault mode of the Sherman equipped with the 105mm Howitzer. This is the best Allied tank against soft targets, and in addition it can switch to artillery mode.

The M26 Pershing was introduced very late in the war and only a few saw combat in Europe in 1945. Heavily armed and armored compared with most contemporary Allied tanks, it can engage most German medium tanks including the Panther with good results. It nevertheless remained inferior to the best German heavy tanks like the Tiger II.

The M10A1 Wolverine was a tank destroyer built on the M4A3 Sherman chassis. It was equipped with the 76mm L52 but had much less armor. It has only a -1 INI penalty despite being a SPAT due to the American doctrine of using tank destroyers to engage enemy tanks. The M18 Hellcat was a specially designed tank destroyer that was the fastest tracked vehicle produced in the Second World War. It had very thin armor (only 25 mm in the front), so it survived by using its superior speed to out-maneuver German tanks. Because of its high speed, its defenses are higher than what its armor alone would suggest and it has no INI penalty for being a SPAT. Its high GD is also necessary to prevent it from being too vulnerable to infantry in clear terrain. The M36 Jackson was similar to the M10A1 Wolverine except it was equipped with the superior 90mm L53 gun. It also has only a -1 INI penalty. All American tank destroyers had an open top that made them very vulnerable in close terrain to infantry. They were used frequently in direct fire support, hence their relatively high SA value of 6. This also makes them more effective to infantry in clear terrain.

All American AFVs equipped with the 75mm L40 will receive +2 HA in 1944. All AFVs equipped with the 76 mm L52 will receive +1 HA in 1945. This simulates the introduction of better armor-piercing ammunition.

3. British AFV Summary

Crusader I
ammo = 4 fuel = 23 speed = 6 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 9 AD = 9 CD = 2
Crusader II
ammo = 5 fuel = 31 speed = 6 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
Crusader III
ammo = 7 fuel = 52 speed = 6 INI = 7 SA = 5 HA = 14 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
Valentine II
ammo = 9 fuel = 44 speed = 4 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 11 AD = 10 CD = 2
Valentine III
ammo = 9 fuel = 44 speed = 4 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
Valentine IV
ammo = 9 fuel = 54 speed = 4 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
Valentine IX (Sov)
ammo = 9 fuel = 44 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 4 HA = 14 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 2
M3A5 Grant
ammo = 8 fuel = 59 speed = 5 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 9 GD = 11 AD = 10 CD = 2
Churchill II
ammo = 4 fuel = 15 speed = 3 INI = 5 SA = 4 HA = 8 GD = 21 AD = 14 CD = 4
Churchill IV
ammo = 6 fuel = 25 speed = 3 INI = 8 SA = 5 HA = 14 GD = 21 AD = 14 CD = 4
Churchill VI
ammo = 8 fuel = 33 speed = 3 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 11 GD = 21 AD = 14 CD = 4
Churchill VII
ammo = 8 fuel = 36 speed = 3 INI = 8 SA = 5 HA = 11 GD = 24 AD = 16 CD = 5
Cromwell IV
ammo = 10 fuel = 66 speed = 6 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 11 GD = 15 AD = 12 CD = 2
Cromwell VII
ammo = 10 fuel = 68 speed = 6 INI = 8 SA = 8 HA = 11 GD = 18 AD = 13 CD = 2
Sherman Firefly
ammo = 8 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 11 SA = 6 HA = 20 GD = 15 AD = 12 CD = 3
Challenger
ammo = 8 fuel = 65 speed = 6 INI = 11 SA = 6 HA = 20 GD = 18 AD = 13 CD = 2
Comet I
ammo = 7 fuel = 41 speed = 5 INI = 11 SA = 6 HA = 18 GD = 18 AD = 13 CD = 2
Achilles
ammo = 8 fuel = 52 speed = 5 INI = 8 SA = 4 HA = 20 GD = 12 AD = 11 CD = 1
Archer
ammo = 8 fuel = 54 speed = 4 INI = 8 SA = 4 HA = 20 GD = 10 AD = 10 CD = 1

ii. The Crusader I was a fast lightly armored tank equipped with the 2 pounder. It had some reliability problems. The Crusader II had improved reliability and slightly better armor. The Crusader III was up-gunned to the 6 pounder and had markedly improved reliability.

The Valentine series was the most produced British tanks of the Second World War. While they were cheap and reliable, their combat performance was unimpressive. The Valentine II-IV are equipped with the 2 pounder. The Valentine IX is up-gunned to the 6 pounder and shipped as Lend-Lease to the Soviets starting in 1943.

The M3A5 Grant was the British version of the American M3 Lee tank. The Grant was faster and slightly better armored.

The Churchill II had armor approaching that of a Tiger tank, but it was very slow and equipped with the 2 pounder, so while it may be difficult to destroy, it is a threat to most German tanks. The Churchill IV was up-gunned to the 6 pounder and is especially dangerous to lightly armored German AFVs like the Marders. The Churchill VI was equipped with the QF 75mm gun and dangerous to soft targets. The Churchill VII has the most armor of any Allied tank, although it is equipped with the same gun as the Mk. VI.

The Cromwell IV was a fast British tank equipped with the QF 75mm. It has a good combination of armor, mobility, and firepower against soft targets, although its performance against German AFVs is lacking. The Cromwell VII has even better armor than the Cromwell IV.

The Sherman Firefly tanks were M4s converted by the British to house the powerful 17 pounder. It has enough firepower to take on any contemporary German tank, including the Tiger and Panther. While the 17 pounder is potent against hard targets, it is markedly less effective against soft targets when compared with the QF 75mm. Also, the Firefly’s defenses are no better than the average Sherman. The Challenger was a Cromwell tank equipped with a QF 17 pounder. It was fast and well-armored, but produced in small quantities. The Comet was equipped with the 77mm HV gun that was less effective than the 17 pounder but still dangerous to all German tanks. The Achilles was a M10 chassis mounted with a 17 pounder, and the Archer was a Valentine tank chassis mounted with the same gun. These tank destroyers are very dangerous to German AFVs. Their drawbacks are their open tops and relatively thin armor, making them very vulnerable to infantry in close terrain. The British used their tank destroyers in a more defensive role, as opposed to the Americans who used their tank destroyers to actively hunt German armor. Hence, they do not get any INI or SA bonuses.

I still have to adjust the Allied artillery and recon units, but those should be fast. The various light tanks like the M3/M5 Stuart and Vickers will be moved to the recon class. After that, I'll take a look at the Italians, and things should be set.

Feedback on the air units and the AFVs is the most important. The overhual for these units is significant and took me a long time to think about. Relatively minor adjustments are needed for the other unit classes.
Last edited by deducter on Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Razz1
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 3308
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 am
Location: USA

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by Razz1 »

Your settings are way too low for Allied units.

As a player will never be able to kill a tank.

The highest HA value is an 8!

That can not even penetrate any German tank on a one v one.
El_Condoro
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 2119
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:32 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by El_Condoro »

I think you are looking at SA, Razz - more than 1/2 the Allied tanks have >8 HA (many with 11-20).
ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by ThvN »

Razz1 wrote:Your settings are way too low for Allied units.

As a player will never be able to kill a tank.

The highest HA value is an 8!

That can not even penetrate any German tank on a one v one.
:?: Ermm, Razz1, I think you might be misreading deducter's posts, I see HA values of 18, 19, 20. It might be due to the formatting/character spacing?


deducter, I took a quick look at your latest proposals, looks good. Thanks for taking the time to provide comments on how you balanced some of the values, makes it easier to understand what you are trying to achieve. A small question which popped up while I browsed through your statistics: I see the M18 Hellcat has movement = 5, I was expecting it to be 6? Is this so it won't outrun supporting units and end up on its own? I will sift through your data a bit more thorough later, but that was the only thing that I noticed so far.

And for something completely different, while reading your notes about re-adjusting some Soviet units, I suddenly rembered something silly. I recently looked into a request for Allied prototype units and stumbled across a 'replacement' for the (fictional) KV-5. I vaguely remember you wanted to replace the KV-5 by a more historically correct unit? Or am I confusing something here? If so, my apologies for the derailment.

Anyway, this is a real vehicle most commonly called the SU-100Y. It was based on the experimental T-100 tank, after trials in Finland a T-100 was modified with a fixed superstructure housing a 130mm B-13 naval gun (for bunker-busting). It was called upon for the defense of Moscow (no combat record though) and it survives until today in the Kubinka tank museum. It superficially resembles the KV-5, so basically just a namechange in the equipment file will already improve historical accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-100Y_Self-Propelled_Gun

http://english.battlefield.ru/su-100y.html

Thread with some good pictures:

http://www.palba.cz/viewtopic.php?t=3927

I'm not sure if this is of any use to you, but you can decide for yourself, of course. I just thought I'd introduce this thing to you.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

I changed the formatting for the tanks, I hope it should be clearer now. Many Allied tanks have HA = 16 to 20. The ones with HA = 11 will be upgraded to 13 in 1944.

I might up the INI of the QF 6 pounder from 8 to 9.

I decided to give the Wolverine and Jackson an INI penalty of -1 instead of -3. The Hellcat has no INI penalty. It also has speed = 7 (previous speed = 5 was a typo, the stock eqp file has speed = 7), making it the fastest TD in the game.

As for the KV-5, it shows up in a number of scenarios, and for now changing it is a low priority. The SU-100Y seems interesting, but at this point I'm not going to be changing the KV-5 to it.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

The one thing that I've been thinking about though is the Soviet assault gun switch mode. Currently, I've left everything as is, and the AI generally makes decent decisions regarding its assault guns. However, I'm not too familiar with Soviet assault gun doctrine, except that I know the vast majority of the time they were used in a direct fire support role. I think all of the assault guns can in theory switch to SPART, but how often it was actually done, especially when on the move, I don't know. I would be okay with removing the ability to switch for some of the models even if it makes things easier.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

Other changes

Game rules
GreenReplacementsExp up to 40 in 1942 and 50 in 1943-1945 purely as balance changes.
ScnEReplaceCost now always 25 higher than CamEReplaceCost
This should make using both normal and elite reinforcements in battle and during deployment viable while keeping overstrength costs very high. Using normal reinforcements should save you prestige while not crippling your experience levels too much, while using limited elite reinforcements in battle during late war is affordable. No longer should elite reinforcing at the deployment stage feel like the only viable choice. In fact, I don't think there'll be any obvious choices with regards to reinforcement/overstrength now for all unit classes. For instance overstrengthing artillery was for the longest time the best use of prestige, but now, due to the presence of substantial Allied air power/artillery and the high cost of overstrength, this should no longer be the case. It'll be up to the player to decide what to do.

M2A4, M3/M5 Stuart, and Vickers moved to recon class.

American AT guns have different images now.

155mm Long Tom and 155mm M12 GMC has range = 4 but ROF = 7

M7 defenses upped to the same as the M3 Lee

M16 MGMC has AA = 12 and ROF = 12

LRDG renamed SAS Mobility Group, INI and SA improved.

QF 25 Pounder Mk I for 1939-1941, has range = 3, SA = 8, HA = 6, ROF = 11, Mk II for 1942-1945 has SA = 9, making It the best medium artillery in the game.

Most British artillery (the exception is the obsolete BL 6 inch) have 1 greater ROF than their equivalents in other nations. This represents their superb fire control system, arguably the best of any nation in WWII.

All other Allied equipment have been examined with many minor changes. Some examples:
-Daimler Dingo has much better defenses to reflects it superior armor
-Humber AC correctly equipped with only a machine gun
-British M14 MGMC is now updated to the M16 MGMC as its graphics shows. This weapon (for all Americans and Soviets too) also has ROF = 12 and is similar to the German 2 cm Flakvierling 38.

Yak-3, Yak-9D, Yak-9U INI all adjusted down by 1.

Yak-1 upgraded to the Yak-1B in 1943, stats adjusted.

Italian troops adjusted. Highlights include:
-Italian Infantry have 15 strength but 7 ROF. In game terms, they have extra hit points but very little offensive combat potential.
-Bersaglieri has move = 4.
-Alpini upgraded to 43 variant.
-The cost for most non-infantry units are reduced by 33% to make them cheaper to reinforce.
-G.55 Centauro’s defenses very significantly increased.
-Most Italian armor are still of poor quality.

Opportunity to buy captured French equipment in the first five mission of 1942West at a low price.

Some German equipment will be delayed in their introduction during the fighting in 1942-1943 on the Western Front. For instance, the Panther was not available in Italy until 1944.

Various adjustments to German units. Some examples:
-Panther costs reduced by 5% in 1944
-half-track mounted mobile FlaK cost reduced
-17 cm ROF 6 to 7, 21 cm artillery attack slightly lowered

I think 1942-1943 can be enjoyed really well with the stock core that comes with it. Note the super Fallschirmjäger with the +3D +3I hero. That unit, once upgraded to the 43 variant, are like the legendary defenders of Monte Cassino.
Waffenamt
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:43 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by Waffenamt »

deducter wrote:The one thing that I've been thinking about though is the Soviet assault gun switch mode. Currently, I've left everything as is, and the AI generally makes decent decisions regarding its assault guns. However, I'm not too familiar with Soviet assault gun doctrine, except that I know the vast majority of the time they were used in a direct fire support role. I think all of the assault guns can in theory switch to SPART, but how often it was actually done, especially when on the move, I don't know. I would be okay with removing the ability to switch for some of the models even if it makes things easier.
Hi Deducter,
This goes along with your thoughts - From the Red Army Handbook, 1939-45:
"The summer 1943 fighting also saw the first large-scale use of assault guns by the Red Army. Assault guns were patterned after the German StuG III Sturmgeschutz. Although often misidentified as selfpropelled artillery, they were in reality direct-fire weapons manned by tank troops. The main attraction of assault guns was that they could carry a heavier weapon than their tank counterpart and were cheaper to manufacture."
Regards
monkspider
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1254
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:22 am

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by monkspider »

Amazing work Deducter! Your proposed changes sound excellent. Do you have any intention of doing an equipment file for Afrika Korps based on these values?
Razz1
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 3308
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:49 am
Location: USA

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by Razz1 »

Much better, Sorry for the alarm.
I have been using 10 initiative and 21 HA and it has been working well
ThvN
Panzer Corps Moderator
Panzer Corps Moderator
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by ThvN »

deducter wrote:The one thing that I've been thinking about though is the Soviet assault gun switch mode. Currently, I've left everything as is, and the AI generally makes decent decisions regarding its assault guns. However, I'm not too familiar with Soviet assault gun doctrine, except that I know the vast majority of the time they were used in a direct fire support role. I think all of the assault guns can in theory switch to SPART, but how often it was actually done, especially when on the move, I don't know. I would be okay with removing the ability to switch for some of the models even if it makes things easier.
I can post one of my over-elaborate answers with a truckload of statistics if you want, but you are already quite well informed, so to keep it simple:

The ISU-122 was almost exclusively used in the direct fire role, and the SU-122, SU-152 and ISU-152 only rarely used anything but direct fire. These units could all fire in the 'indirect' mode, as they were equipped with artillery sights. In practice they sometimes used semi-indirect firing, but their (limited) gun elevation and sights were not very suitable for it, nor did the Soviets have a good tactical system in place to use this capability. Also, they were very slow-firing, 2-3 rounds per minute tops, and carried very little ammo (20-40 rounds), and to replenish their ammo supply the heavy shells had to be handled through small openings, which took a long time. They were much, much better used as heavy assault guns against point targets in the frontline.

They would usually follow a few hundred metres behind tanks, or move up together with infantry, as purely offensive weapons to engage targets directly. I just found some telling data while reading: the sights for the ISU-152 could be used to target point targets (vehicles, bunkers) out to a range of 900 metres, and the artillery sight allowed (indirect) aiming up to 3500 metres. For the ISU-122, it had a higher muzzle velocity, and could sight point targets out to 1500 metres, and could theoretically engage targets indirectly up to 5000 metres. These are very short ranges, and the Soviets used mostly prepatory artillery bombardments, not called-in fire support during combat enagements. Even their direct fire ranges seem quite short, to my surprise.

The SU-76 is a slighly different story, this was open-topped and allowed the gun to elevate properly, and the claims vary but a maximum range of between 11 and 13km sounds achievable. It was used as both an assault gun and a self-propelled artillery gun. It's role was a sort of cross between the German Marder and Wespe, if that helps to paint the picture. It wasn't very good at both roles; the projectile was rather light for artillery work, and it didn't have the armor or accuracy to engage tanks at long ranges, but they were very useful nonetheless.
deducter
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by deducter »

ThvN wrote: I can post one of my over-elaborate answers with a truckload of statistics if you want, but you are already quite well informed, so to keep it simple:

The ISU-122 was almost exclusively used in the direct fire role, and the SU-122, SU-152 and ISU-152 only rarely used anything but direct fire. These units could all fire in the 'indirect' mode, as they were equipped with artillery sights. In practice they sometimes used semi-indirect firing, but their (limited) gun elevation and sights were not very suitable for it, nor did the Soviets have a good tactical system in place to use this capability. Also, they were very slow-firing, 2-3 rounds per minute tops, and carried very little ammo (20-40 rounds), and to replenish their ammo supply the heavy shells had to be handled through small openings, which took a long time. They were much, much better used as heavy assault guns against point targets in the frontline.

They would usually follow a few hundred metres behind tanks, or move up together with infantry, as purely offensive weapons to engage targets directly. I just found some telling data while reading: the sights for the ISU-152 could be used to target point targets (vehicles, bunkers) out to a range of 900 metres, and the artillery sight allowed (indirect) aiming up to 3500 metres. For the ISU-122, it had a higher muzzle velocity, and could sight point targets out to 1500 metres, and could theoretically engage targets indirectly up to 5000 metres. These are very short ranges, and the Soviets used mostly prepatory artillery bombardments, not called-in fire support during combat enagements. Even their direct fire ranges seem quite short, to my surprise.

The SU-76 is a slighly different story, this was open-topped and allowed the gun to elevate properly, and the claims vary but a maximum range of between 11 and 13km sounds achievable. It was used as both an assault gun and a self-propelled artillery gun. It's role was a sort of cross between the German Marder and Wespe, if that helps to paint the picture. It wasn't very good at both roles; the projectile was rather light for artillery work, and it didn't have the armor or accuracy to engage tanks at long ranges, but they were very useful nonetheless.
This is more or less what I thought. You'll note that I do have the INI for the the ISU-152 at 6 and the ISU-122 at 8 to be quite low. So I'm quite happy with how their direct fire mode is modeled. The obvious change is to make sure the ISU-122 can't be switched, and to reduce the range of most Soviet assault guns in ART mode to 2, except the SU-76 which will remain at 3.

My personal feeling is that a good blend between balance and history is to let the SU-76 and the SU-122 to switch, but remove the ability to switch for all other assault guns. However, there are quite a few preplaced SU-152 and ISU-152 in ART mode. I can go further and simply change their entries to their direct fire mode, but I'm not too sure about this change.
Koz_333
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:46 pm

Re: Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for PzC v1.10

Post by Koz_333 »

Hi deducter,

I recently started a playthrough with your equipment file with -75% prestige. And so far I like it. I like it a lot. I had little difficulties in obtaining DVs during the 39` and 40` campaigns. My air force rained supreme on all fronts, but I had to be very careful with the positioning of my panzers. Out of my combat units, my infantry were always the ones to suffer the most casualties. Your equipment file changes contributed to a much more historical feel of the DLCs. I will post my core composition and and a brief overview of my experiences for `39 and `40 some other time, but I wanted to comment on the upcoming changes for the Allied units that you are contemplating.

I think that the INI on the US tanks is higher than history would warrant. Althought, the US had such generals like Patton at the Corps and Army level, who did well in realizing the potential of armored vehicles, at the battalion and company level, the US commanders often misused their tanks. While the Germans were big proponents of MISSION COMMAND doctrine, the US commanders still stuck to the ORDERS COMMAND doctrine. The basic difference between the two types of command structure is this. When a German company of Panzers encountered US tanks, the German company commander often ordered a LEFT or a RIGHT flank. Thus he would split his company into two elements (a fire base and an assault/maneuver formation). Thus the Fire Base would keep the enemy tanks occupied long enough for the assault base to move to the vulnerable flanks and destroy the enemy. Often times, a company of Tigers and Panthers would shred though numerically superior enemy Armour formations in a matter of minutes. In addition, the company or battalion panzer commanders rarely gave individual fire orders. Once he decided on the course of action, he let his subordinates do the fighting. Thus individual panzer commanders selected their own targets. This greatly contributed to the rise of Panzer Aces like Michael Wittmann who would have upwards of 100 kills. And with experienced formations, the company and battalion commander rarely had to give orders at all. His men had done this a thousand times by 1944 and knew what to do instinctively. This made the German panzer formations extremely fluid and fast acting. You can think of it as a very successful "no hut offense in football".

The US company and battalion tank commanders on the other hand relied heavily on the ORDERS COMMAND doctrine. Once confronted with an enemy Armour formation, the US company commander would assign individual targets to every single tank under his command. Battalion commanders tended to do the same. This left the individual tank crews with very little room for initiative or maneuver. In addition, the individual tanks were often prohibited from breaking the company or battalion formations. Thus, they would often stay static or move in predictable patterns, making them easy targets for experienced panzer gunners. Chaos would often ensue when the company commander's vehicle got hit and the chain of command broke down.

The US military learned its lessons once reports of 30-40 Shermans being destroyed in directed engagements with German panzers became all too frequent. But, this change to the Mission Command tactical doctrine did not take until the beginning of 1945.

And even in 1945, when the Germans were on the verge of total collapse, their German panzers rarely lost direct engagements with allied tanks. Most German panzers were destroyed by US tac bombers and artillery.

What is personally interesting to me is that the British and Canadian tank crews exercised MISSION COMMAND from the very start of the war, but their US counter parts were slow to catch on.

In anyway, I think that this warrants the reduction of INI of most of the US tanks by at least 1.
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Scenario Design”