Locarnus Addon 2025-06a, for Battlefield Europe, Afrika Korps and Grand Campaign East

[Locarnus]

Congratulations on the update! It's really cool, it would take me a lot of time.
I ran through it quickly, but I noticed the following points:
1)KV-2 has different icons in different modes (not critical)
2) The T-90 and YAG-10 in tank mode do not have icons and new animations.

Agreed, KV-2 icon differences are a lot more noticeable when the player does the switching.
Oh, speaking of KV: I did put both KV and IS tanks in the same upgrade family, due to the gradual transition (KV-85, IS-1). Is that ok or would you like to have separate upgrade families for KV and IS?

I will replace all three (KV-2, T-90 and YaG-10) with the great icons from guille1434 in the future.
I just did not yet have time to adjust animations and so on, since I wanted to release the update as soon as possible (to fix the language issues).
Perhaps I'll even manage to finally do the same for the Bison I icons (Sturmpanzer I), though I doubt it.

3) I didn't really understand why intelligence has a reduced rate of fire, but increased in tank mode (for example, the t-70 range). That's okay, but I don't know how relevant it is (1 def - 1 rof)

tl,dr: Just providing a different configuration option for the player, since we have two unit modes anyway (tank and recon).

Long version: Back then I wanted to make a cross class upgrade option, between the early german Panzer II in tank class and the late Panzer II in recon class. So I made the recon class Panzer II switchable between tank and recon class.
Rather than having the switchability only for upgrade purposes, I tried various balancing options.

Since recon tanks are rather vulnerable, they were rarely used by players. So I tried to make them a bit less vulnerable.
The tank mode is balanced "normally", comparable to other tanks. The recon mode gives them 1 more ground defense, but at the cost of 1 rof. Not much difference, but the player can decide in which mode to use them.
Like sending them on a mission with "offensive" stance (tank mode) or "defensive" stance (recon mode).

4) How relevant would it be to switch the heavy artillery of the USSR (122-152 mm) to direct fire mode?

I'm all for direct fire mode, especially for Soviet arties.
All nations used arty in direct fire mode, but the Red Army really emphasized that (eg direct fire is also much more ammo efficient).

My concern is that the AI can not handle it well enough.
The great 76.2 mm ZiS-3 arty already has direct fire switch in the base game. In my memory it is not uncommon for the AI to switch the ZiS-3 to direct fire AT mode in situations where that is not the best idea.
So it might be necessary to make separate, switchable units for the player?
While the existing ones are kept non-switchable for the AI to use.

5) About the t-70 range (for some reason, the su-76m has a wide path, but the same t70 does not, it's rather strange). As for me, the t-60, t-70 and su-76m should obviously have wide tracks, they have very good specific pressure on the ground. and a couple more oddities by type
The ACS and t-70 ranges as a whole should be a little more attractive, and I think there are enough historical reasons for this. I'll have to think about it.

6 movement points with normal track movement (T-60, T70) has about the same mud and snow mobility as 5 movement points with wide tracks (SU-76M).
But the 6 movement points are considerably better in dry conditions, especially for clear/countryside and roads. And for recon move trait, since each stop costs only 1/6 instead of 1/5 in dry conditions.

Imho the stats of the light tanks could use a general rework.
Eg T-60 gets 5 movement, wide tracked
T-70 (double engines, but also heavier) gets 6 movement, normal tracked
new T-70M variant (with better engines) gets 6 movement, wide tracked

Speaking of movement, I also have to adjust the amphibious movement table.
Taking the wide tracked movement table as a basis, while retaining the river fording capability.
That should make the amphibious light tanks a bit more useful.

Another aspect is the fuel on many soviet units.Those values are often reduced, to keep a human Allies player in a Battlefield Europe multiplayer game from stomping the Axis player.
The AI is much less capable of using the great soviet tank mobility.
So perhaps 5-10 more fuel for many soviet units would work?

[Intenso82]

I'm all for direct fire mode, especially for Soviet arties.
All nations used arty in direct fire mode, but the Red Army really emphasized that (eg direct fire is also much more ammo efficient).

I've been wanting to add direct fire mode for a long time.
If someone can make icons in AT mode for all Soviet guns, I'll be happy to add them to my mod

By the way, a good idea with dividing units by type via unit sign!

[Anderkav]

If the Reich followed the path of using rods and Pz.4 as infantry support vehicles at an early stage, and later focusing on using them against equipment. For a number of reasons, the Soviet Union sought to create a universal tool and platform for its use. These are both T-34 series tanks and self-propelled guns based on it, and it is also worth noting the rather large number of explosives in high–explosive shells in the USSR, relative to the 3rd Reich. I will add that the Su-76m, Su-85, Su-100 and Su-122 did not have any regular machine gun, as on their German counterparts (it's even really interesting how it happened). I suggest the following characteristics below (although this is a debatable question)

Flak 88 900 grams of TNT and 5HA
The Su-85 has 740 grams of TT
, and the Su-100 has almost 1.5 kg of TNT equivalent.
The Su-122 has 3.67 kg of tt
The Su-152 has 5.86kg of tt
Stuh 42 has 1.75kg of tt
The jagdpanter has 1kg
Isu-122 3.6kg
It's all pretty arbitrary, but you can make a more interesting picture out of it. In this case, we are talking only about assault guns and towed ones.
1)up to 800 grams – 4HA
2) 800-1200 grams – 5 HA
3) 1200-1800 grams – 6 HA
4) 1800-2200 grams – 7 HA
And further
A maximum of approximately 9 kg of 9SA

Suggestions for direct fire mode
Towed guns
F-22 in direct fire mode 12HA 4SA
Zis-3 13HA (1 more than the F-22)
85mm M1939 5SA
100mm M1944 /ZIS 6SA (the problem here is that it's a towed gun, but a little SA is asking for it)

Self-propelled guns
Su-76m 13HA 9GD 2CD
The Su-76m as a whole should be a closer analogue of the Marder-2, but with slightly better armament and slightly better armor (including due to the size)
, the Su-57 should be reduced to 13HA (still, its gun is actually much inferior to the same zis-3)
Hetzer rof 9 due to cramping combat compartment (probably its main drawback)
All Marder vehicles with F-22 cannon (reduce HA to 12)
Su-85 5SA (the gun is in many ways similar to the tiger gun, but minus the turret and machine guns)
Su-100 6SA (an excellent gun used later on the t-54)
Su-122 8SA 10HA (this is very strange, the assault gun now has 15HA, with such insanely low ballistics and a problem with cumulations)

1) It is probably worth dividing the KV and IC family. It's more of a compromise between realism and game progression.
2) It's probably really worth making units to use purely AI (so that it doesn't suffer)
3) As for me, the early Soviet tanks have enough fuel (T-34 and kv), they should receive a little more after 1942. And we can talk about the rest of the tanks.

[Locarnus]

I've been wanting to add direct fire mode for a long time.
If someone can make icons in AT mode for all Soviet guns, I'll be happy to add them to my mod

By the way, a good idea with dividing units by type via unit sign!

Thank you, the unit signs are a good workaround to those UI limitations. Especially for that now huge unit roster.

Maybe Birgeria has some of those arty graphics.
I think guille1434 has one for the 152mm ML-20, will check that.

If the Reich followed the path of using rods and Pz.4 as infantry support vehicles at an early stage, and later focusing on using them against equipment. For a number of reasons, the Soviet Union sought to create a universal tool and platform for its use. These are both T-34 series tanks and self-propelled guns based on it, and it is also worth noting the rather large number of explosives in high–explosive shells in the USSR, relative to the 3rd Reich. I will add that the Su-76m, Su-85, Su-100 and Su-122 did not have any regular machine gun, as on their German counterparts (it's even really interesting how it happened). I suggest the following characteristics below (although this is a debatable question)

Agreed, the Soviet Union put more focus on platform continuation. Resulting in less retooling & retraining, as well as fewer logistic issues from supporting many different systems.
In terms of guns and shells, imho the Germans focused more on penetration, while the Soviets focused more on explosive mass. Both approaches had benefits and issues.

A 152mm shell does not need to penetrate a heavily armored tank, the squishy entities inside the tank will be out of action anyway. But firing a 152mm shell at a Panzer IV is total overkill, with a considerable reload and limited ammo.
On the other hand, a machine gun on a tank is an important crowd control equipment. I have become more strict at punishing the lack of any crowd control for the soft attack stat. See the Elefant (no MG) vs Ferdinand (with MG) on the german side. Especially for fully enclosed vehicles, since the crew of open top vehicles could at least use handguns.

Suggestions for direct fire mode
Towed guns
F-22 in direct fire mode 12HA 4SA
Zis-3 13HA (1 more than the F-22)
85mm M1939 5SA
100mm M1944 /ZIS 6SA (the problem here is that it's a towed gun, but a little SA is asking for it)

F-22 and ZiS-3 see argument below. Currently I take the T-34/43 hard attack as baseline and then deduct 1 HA point for being towed (ZiS-3).
85mm M1939, I agree will give it 5 SA instead of 4
100mm M1944, not sure if 6 SA makes it too strong against attacking enemy infantry? But current 4 SA is too low. I would go to 5 SA for the time being? It imho should get one more initiative, from current 10 to then 11.

Self-propelled guns
Su-76m 13HA 9GD 2CD
The Su-76m as a whole should be a closer analogue of the Marder-2, but with slightly better armament and slightly better armor (including due to the size)
, the Su-57 should be reduced to 13HA (still, its gun is actually much inferior to the same zis-3)
Hetzer rof 9 due to cramping combat compartment (probably its main drawback)
All Marder vehicles with F-22 cannon (reduce HA to 12)

I had some problems with the balancing approaches I tried before. Especially concerning close combat (terrain with ini limit) versus combat in terrain without initiative limit.

My current balancing attempt is based on armored tanks with turrets.
Units without turrets and towed units get -1 hard attack (since hard attack affects combat with and without initiative limit). AT mode gets initiative deductions (since that +3 ini bonus when defending against enemy tanks can not be modded). Thin skinned units get initiative deductions even when in tank mode.
For example:
(As far as I know, the Marder III uses 7.62mm guns, but rechambered for long german ammo. Resulting in similar stats to the german 7.5cm KwK L48. A bit less powerful than the 7.5cm PaK 40 on the Marder III H and M)
Panzer IV H has 9 ini, 15 HA
Marder III in tank mode has 8 ini (thin skinned), 14 HA (no turret)
Marder III in camo AT mode has 8 ini (AT mode), 14 HA (no turret)
StuG III F/8 in tank mode has 9 ini (same as Pz IV), 14 HA (no turret)
StuG III F/8 in camo AT mode has 8 ini (AT mode), 14 HA (no turret

That is my baseline, but individual units can get buffs and debuffs on top of that.

SU-76M is one of the few units where a triple switch could be necessary to account for its historic versatility.
Perhaps it should also get camo AT mode, in addition to the current tank and arty modes.

For some reason it also has 1 more ini and 1 less HA in tank mode than it would normally have. I assume that I gave it 1 more ini due to its low profile. Can't explain the 1 less HA though, will correct that.
That would give it 8 ini, 12 HA (one less than the T-34/43 due to not having a turret).
I would prefer 8 GD for now (one more than currently). I agree that the low profile of the SU-76M is a considerable advantage compared to the rather high Marders. But for some time I have been thinking about reducing the Marders GD, just could not find the time for testing so far.
I try to not go beyond 1 close defense for very open vehicles without turrets. Open top turret vehicles can go beyond, preferably with high elevation autocannon. I think T-90 would more qualify for 2 close defense.

SU-57 I have to read up on. I agree that 14 HA looks too high compared to other performances.
Hetzer rof 9 insteresting idea, I will read up on it and test it. Thejf also reported the Hetzer to be too strong.
Marder III used rechambered 76.2 mm guns, as far as I know. Which gave them much better performance against tanks.

1) It is probably worth dividing the KV and IC family. It's more of a compromise between realism and game progression.
2) It's probably really worth making units to use purely AI (so that it doesn't suffer)
3) As for me, the early Soviet tanks have enough fuel (T-34 and kv), they should receive a little more after 1942. And we can talk about the rest of the tanks.

1) I'll include a IS sign graphic and equipment file reference in the next update. Like you said in the first paragraph, one major strength of the Soviets was that they did not do major equipment changes. While the Germans introduced many new vehicles. Keeping the KV/IS as one family would emphasize that doctrine advantage.
2) and 3) Agreed, will investigate some options.

[Locarnus]

Su-85 5SA (the gun is in many ways similar to the tiger gun, but minus the turret and machine guns)
Su-100 6SA (an excellent gun used later on the t-54)
Su-122 8SA 10HA (this is very strange, the assault gun now has 15HA, with such insanely low ballistics and a problem with cumulations)

I'm very hesitant to give high soft attack values for totally enclosed vehicles without crowd control equipment and slow firing guns.
Usually the higher values are offset by lower rof.
I would prefer:
SU-85 at 4 SA, like Ferdinand
SU-100 at 5 SA, due to more high explosive, offset by rof 9
SU-122 at 6 SA, due to more high explosive, offset by rof 8
SU-152 at 7 SA, due to considerably more high explosive than SU-122, partially offset by rof 8
ISU-152 at 7 SA, due to considerably more high explosive than SU-122, partially offset by rof 8
ISU-122 at 6 SA again
ISU-122S at 9 SA, top mounted DshK

New ISU-152 late version, at 10 SA, with top mounted DshK and IS-2 (1944) based hull (better armor).

A few months ago I read up on this topic regarding the Elefant and the Brummbär. As far as I know, the Brummbär had at least some provisions (firing ports + MP 40s), then carried a mountable MG, before finally getting an integrated hull MG.
Perhaps the first Brummbär version should be nerfed to 8 SA.

About the SU-122 hard attack:
That was a difficult decision. 3.6kg of high explosive filler pops a Panzer IV just like a 7.5cm or similar gun, but the slow projectile makes it not great at range.
On the other hand, the 122mm HEAT round does not lose penetration over distance.
With both rounds available at Kursk, I went for the 15 HA. Combined with the 8 rof, it is still considerably weaker than most other units with 15 hard attack.

[Anderkav]

A quick note, the 2nd mission of the 1940 Grand Campaign
Albert Kanal, at the beginning the battle is going well and well, but by turn 12 the enemies have simply run out. Although, as I understand it, in the original they attacked and defended themselves more vigorously due to purchases of AI units.
My suggestion is to add a couple of small AI reinforcements if things are really bad for him.

[Locarnus]

It seems that I got the dates wrong for the DshK.
Both Germans and Soviets learned around Kursk that big, cumbersome armored vehicles without crowd control and AA abilities were not great. Though the SU-85 and SU-100 still did not get them.

I'm also unsure how many ISU were actually fitted with the DshK.
Same goes for the IS-2. How many were actually equipped with DshK? They are many ww2 pictures without them.

So new proposal, assuming the DshK was more widely equipped than pictures show:

SU-152 at 7 or 8 SA in may 43? I read that some had at least ports for handguns?
perhaps new SU-152+ at 10 SA some time after Kursk 43 ? Or wait for the ISU?
ISU-152 at 10 SA in december 43 and new -1 AA rating?

ISU-122 at 9 SA in may 44 and new -1 AA rating?
ISU-152+ at 10 SA, and IS-2 (1944) based hull (better armor) in october 44
ISU-122S at 9 SA, and IS-2 (1944) based hull (better armor) in october 44

[Anderkav]

The USSR heavy armoured vehicles in general had enough openings for firing from personal weapons, which included, for example, the PPS.
And anti-aircraft machine guns is an interesting question. As I understood anti-aircraft installations in the new machines were only in the Kv-1 (in the modification of the Kv-1s have not been put). That is, it was relatively massive. But at the same time on kv-1 they can be found as not often, banal is not clear how to display it. Then anti-aircraft machine guns were put from the very end of 1943, as you correctly pointed out. Su-152 probably should be left without machine gun and early is-2.

[Anderkav]

[

In general I agree it's hard to adequately map certain parameters.
Su-100 I was rather comparing with Jagdpanther which has 6sa, yes there is a directional machine gun. On the other hand su-100 has better fragmentation shell and lower rate of fire.
SU-122, here I'm more in favour of it being a more infantry oriented vehicle.
You obviously have a better understanding of the intricacies of unit customisation.
I looked at war thunder, you were right about marder, they clearly roughly correspond to pak-40

[Locarnus]

The USSR heavy armoured vehicles in general had enough openings for firing from personal weapons, which included, for example, the PPS.

In general I agree it's hard to adequately map certain parameters.
Su-100 I was rather comparing with Jagdpanther which has 6sa, yes there is a directional machine gun. On the other hand su-100 has better fragmentation shell and lower rate of fire.
SU-122, here I'm more in favour of it being a more infantry oriented vehicle.
You obviously have a better understanding of the intricacies of unit customisation.
I looked at war thunder, you were right about marder, they clearly roughly correspond to pak-40

Agreed.
I looked at more pictures of SU vehicles and read about them. It seems that there were different versions of the ports, from pistol only to PPSh, correcting shot traps and so on. And sometimes ports were removed later on? Also read about some of them explicitly carrying 2 PPSh for defensive crowd control.
So like on the Axis side with all their modifications, I will assume the configuration that gives the better in-game values.

Which works out to your initial recommendation for the SU-85 and SU-100:
Ferdinand 4 SA (no pistol ports)
SU-85 5 SA
SU-100 6 SA rof 9
SU-122 7 SA rof 8
SU-152 8 SA rof 8
(PPSh ports assumed on all SU)

The ISUs get the DShK values from the previous post, with the higher SA and the -1 AA rating. Which crucially does not consume ammo when fired defensively against attacking aircraft (special hard coded rule for the -1 AA value).



Also looked at the Hetzer.
I wrongly assumed that the loader was sitting behind the gun and fed that from the right side rack.
Driver < Gunner < Commander in one line after another, and then loader on the other vehicle side is such a common arrangement on many tanks and tank destroyers.
Also the Hetzer commander did not have any forward vision ports when the hatch was closed? WTF
Anyway, Hetzer nerfed to rof 9 as you suggested.

I still can't believe that crew configuration for a tank designed in late 1943. Even though they apparently designed it within a few weeks. Imho they should have just switched the commander and loader positions.


edit: Switzerland ordered newly produced Jagdpanzer 38(t) under the designation G13 after the war. And of course they switched the commander and loader positions and gave the commander a periscope.
Though they also removed the machine gun instead of simply moving it to the right...

I guess some lessons have to be painfully learned over and over.
Reminds me of those Tiger helicopters Germany got in the early 2000s.
Germany explicitly ordered their special variant without any machine gun or cannon turret, just the option to later install a fixed machine gun pod...

[Locarnus]

Oh, another balancing question I have been thinking about for a while:
The Soviet Guards units not only had better equipment and more manpower according to their authorized strength (roughly 13% more authorized manpower). They also had significant priority when actually replenishing their ranks.
In Panzer Corps they have better stats than normal infantry, but still considerably worse stats than late german infantry.

How about making the Guards 12 base strength instead of 10?
Like the Conscript unit has 15 base strength.
But with a corresponding prestige cost increase.
That 2 additional strength could really make a difference.

The disadvantage of 12 base strength compared to 10 is, that units with a strength setting fixed by the scenario editor are not affected. Eg when the scenario designer sets a unit to have 11 strength, then it does have 11 strength. Regardless of the base strength of the unit type.
The change of other unit type stats does not have this problem, like rof or attack values.

[Anderkav]

The military somehow often forgets its developments and achievements. In this regard, I am surprised that the USSR had excellent anti-aircraft turrets for tanks before the war.
But with the transition to new models of tanks, they were actually forgotten until 1943. That's fantastic.
And the story with Hetzer reminds the development of the same Su-152, which was designed as I remember in 43 days. Late German vehicles, also lost observation instruments and various firing and maintenance hatches. With the formal increase in performance, everything else was lost.

[Anderkav]

According to good Guards units should equal the best German units in 1944, maybe different that with a little less anti-tank attack. That is, the 1943 and 1944 version both with a force of 11 for example.
Strengthening a little bit both versions and press force 11 it will somehow strengthen them in the scenarios (although the 1944 version must be put separately, this is a minus)

[Locarnus]

According to good Guards units should equal the best German units in 1944, maybe different that with a little less anti-tank attack. That is, the 1943 and 1944 version both with a force of 11 for example.
Strengthening a little bit both versions and press force 11 it will somehow strengthen them in the scenarios (although the 1944 version must be put separately, this is a minus)

Currently there is only a 43 version for most allied infantry units, available from 1.1.1943 for Soviets and US and from 1.6.1943 for the British.
While the German and Italian infantry upgrade is split between late 43 and early 44, mostly based on new equipment (eg more rapid fire weapons becoming available in 43, significantly better AT weapons becoming available in 44).

Are there 44 or 45 rough timeframes when significantly better equipment became available to the Soviet infantry units?
I read that after december 44 the guards got more heavy equipment on paper (and regular infantry after the end of the european war), but it took a while to be actually implemented.

I'll go step by step and will start by increasing the 43 Guards base strength to 11.
This will have a rather limited effect on the grand campaign, but the 45 East scenarios already got a +100 experience buff for the Soviet side in the last update.

Oh, speaking about Guards, I made a mistake in the equipment file. I left the unit separator sign visible, but the Guards are still in the regular upgrade family.
Still not 100% sure, but the more I think about it, the more I like the concept of having fewer upgrade families for the Soviets. Especially for the infantry Soviet Guard units, who "earned" that designation in combat.
Compared to special German formations that usually had their status from the beginning (like Soviet Katyusha units who also have their separate upgrade family).

[Anderkav]

Perhaps we should rather talk about better saturation of the guards, when your units are advancing, it's good.
Better supplies, better morale, more developed body parts, more experienced fighters retain their experience and pass it on to the young.
Of the weapons it is worth noting:
The SG-43 heavy machine gun began to arrive en masse in February 1944
More massive PPSH and PPS-43, lower production costs. The development of assault infantry units with armored breastplates in the USSR, as well as the massive use of snipers (active training since 1942, as well as the active involvement of women)
From anti-tank weapons, a small number of bazookas obtained under lend-Lease (3,000 units at the end of 1942) and much more significant trophies in the form of Panzerfaustes, they were used quite actively in the Red Army.
I tried to describe everything succinctly