Slitherine

JimmyC wrote:Regarding the timeline, is there any way to tell the date of each turn? Of course when there are major events and so on i can guess what the date is, but I was wondering if each turn represents a specific period of time? (Eg. 1 turn=2 months).

Yeah, you can hover your cursor over the turn to see the date. 1 turn = 2 weeks.

Thanks for that! I find it really interesting to compare my progress with that of history.

I was a little confused with the early game references to the Hungarian expedition. I got a warning about them around turn 10?? and then at least 1 unit (or maybe more) disappeared. I obviously missed something, but can someone explain what that's about?

Enjoying my second go at this right now. Rather than risk a long advance to the Russian oil fields, I stopped at Stavropol, and pulled almost all my forces back to Rostov and the river line. So far, it's working well. The Russian attacks are fierce, but with the snow stopping in January, I've been able to put a huge dent in their force.
Meanwhile, the 31st Infanterie Division has earned a place in the halls of German military lore. They are finally out of ammunition and will be wiped out, but they have held 5 Russian armored divisions at bay outside of Stavropol for 2 months.

00Dawg wrote: The only other odd thing I've noticed so far involved the initial Soviet winter counterattack. I took Moscow during the rain, having driven through Smolensk (along with taking Rzhev and Kalinin), and not quite having surrounded Kiev yet (I think I did that on the first snow turn). I also had driven to the gates of Leningrad (eventually seized on the 4th or 5th snow turn) by way of Tallin and Pskov.
A number of Soviet tanks and infantry appeared to the northwest of Smolensk in territory I had previously scouted/secured, and drove on the rail line. I was facing towards Bryansk, and the counterattack from there was expected and neat, but when the major force magically appeared from the northwest, there was more angst than enjoyment.
Anyway, I'm wondering if I didn't stop a reinforcement trigger in time, or if one didn't cancel correctly.

Historically there was indeed a major counterattack north of Smolensk as part of a pincer move aiming to cut off the German units approaching Moscow. Eventually it was stopped and the Rzhev bulge was created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... ensive.jpg

The problem is that you did a bit better than historically and managed to advance further than expected. Hence the units appearing in the scouted territory. Which normally should not happen and I understand the frustration that it caused. Since I do not have more AI zones to trigger this attack I can only move those units further back so they would attack from beyond the scouted territory.

I threw in the towel after turn 35. The Soviet winter counter-offensive is huge and killer, despite my having taken Moscow and Leningrad (not to mention Vologda and Novogorod). My drive southeast was stopped short of Grozny, and then to suddenly face waves of KV-1s and T-34/43s (which somehow wrecked my PZ-IVG's with more experience) was more than disheartening.

The early Pz IVG and the T-34/43 was probably more or less in the same league with the Soviet tank having better armour protection (70 mm sloped armour as opposed to the 50 mm unsloped frontal armour of the early series Pz IVG) and mobility but inferior gun and optics. However, when having numerical superiority the Russian tanks can overwhelm those German ones. I think it is in accordance with the historical events as the Germans did have a number of long barrel PzIVs at Stalingrad and in the ill-fated relief effort but German tanks still suffered heavy losses which necessitated the addition of an extra 30 mm armour welded of bolted to the front of the hull of all PzIV tanks from late 1942.

Enjoying my second go at this right now. Rather than risk a long advance to the Russian oil fields, I stopped at Stavropol, and pulled almost all my forces back to Rostov and the river line. So far, it's working well. The Russian attacks are fierce, but with the snow stopping in January, I've been able to put a huge dent in their force.

Happy to hear it. However, I think the war in the east has to be decided in 1943 - you have to take and hold the oil fields in the Caucasus and win the battle of Kursk and continue to advance to reach the eastern objectives. The USSR should be defeated by mid 1944 the latest. Otherwise you will run out of time as the Allies will arrive with large forces in the west and stopping them will require the transfer of most of those Axis units from the east.

prince_blucher wrote:After I win the Poland campaign I click the "proceed" button in the scenario, but it takes me back to the main screen, the one with the Tiger. So what do I do to load the France campaign?
Thanks

It is indeed strange. It might be an installation problem. Still you should be able to play the big scenario (Barbarossa 1941) if you start it directly.

JimmyC wrote:I was a little confused with the early game references to the Hungarian expedition. I got a warning about them around turn 10?? and then at least 1 unit (or maybe more) disappeared. I obviously missed something, but can someone explain what that's about?

Historically the Hungarian Mobile Corps was withdrawn from the Eastern Front in November 1941 as it was unprepared for the winter and also because by that time it had lost most of its motorized components and thus it was no longer mobile. Politics also played a role, as the Hungarian government tried to minimize its efforts (and losses) against the Soviets as paradoxically Hungary's main enemy in WW2 was not the USSR but its supposed ally Romania, due to the territorial dispute over Transylvania. (Tensions eventually led to a full scale war after Romania's defection and joining the Allies in August 1944.) Still, with the German losses at Moscow and with the plan to take the Caucasus, Hungary, along with the other Minor Axis nations, was "asked" (pressed) to commit more forces in 1942 to hold the flank of the German army advancing towards Stalingrad and the oil fields. So another Hungarian army will appear on the map around that time.

As for the recon units:

hs1611 wrote:

McGuba wrote:Also I am thinking about placing cavalry and motorcycles in the recon class giving them recon movement. I would like to know the players opinion of these possible changes.

I already do that in my own e-file.
I don't put them in the Recon Class, but simply give them Recon Move as trait.
It has the same effect, except that they are still Infantry and can, therefore, be upgraded from, or be upgraded to, other Infantry type units.

It's about the only reason to keep using Cavalry or Bikes throughout the entire war...

Delta66 wrote:

McGuba wrote:Also I am thinking about placing cavalry and motorcycles in the recon class giving them recon movement. I would like to know the players opinion of these possible changes

I have done this for my Mod too,
for Motorcycle, as it was their main role IMO,
for Cavalry as I think it depends on the size of the units, small sized units were certainly used for scouting, but at the larger regiment or divisional size I think it make sense to consider them as infantry. So I use them as simple inf with 5 movements points, to make them different from Motorcycle.

I also remove the 'close' and 'minekiller' for the Motorcycle,
I increase the GD of Cavalry to 6, they fought dismounted so 4 seems a bit low compared to other infantry,

So I think Motorcycle can get recon movement and bikers and cavalry should stay in the infanty class then. However, while it would make sense to remove the 'close' and 'minekiller' from the Motorcycle units, unfortunately unit traits are not displayed in the game so the majority of the players would be unaware of this change and would not understand why motorcycle infantry perform much worse in close terrain than they should. All other units in the infantry class has the 'close' trait, so motorcycles should either keep it or be moved to the recon class where close trait is not normally given.

Also I am still waiting on your opinion on increasing the movement speed of the other recon units to make them more useful and to increase their survivability. Movement speed for tanks in PG/PzC seems to be based on their real life max speed in miles divided by 5 - they seem to get 1 hex movement speed for every 5 miles per hour of max speed. Most tanks in WW2 had a max speed of around 25 mph and thus they have 5 movement speed in the game. Faster tanks like the T-34 has 6 (max speed 33 mph), slower ones like the Matilda has 3 (16 mph). So following the same principle recon vehicles like the SdKfz 222/232 series should have movement = 10 as their max speed was around 50 mph (80-85 km/h). Currently they have movement speed = 8 and since they lose one movement point every time they move some hexes, their recon ability is severly limited and unhistorical, IMO.

I'm into the spring of '43 now. A huge Soviet buildup in the vicinity of Penza is necessitating activity further north than I had hoped....I am over the Don at several spots, and trying to swing towards Stalingrad.
Meanwhile, the Soviets have been smashed near Rostov, and I'm preparing to resume the offensive there.

Meanwhile, Operation Torch is already a pain. I am inflicting losses on the American ground troops, I lost my first Luftwaffe fighter to the waves of experienced British fighters, some of which came from the massive air fleet at Malta. In response, I've stripped the Afrika Korps of their Italian air cover over Cairo, and am redirecting it west along with the Italian fleet. British subs still roam the Med, so I don't expect that the Italian fleet will last the year barring a miracle.

Meanwhile, Rommel will probe towards Jerusalem, but that is all....the surprise armored counterattack when I crossed the Suez was hard enough to handle.

The Battle of Atlantic has been a solid German victory to date. I've mixed capital ships with subs and defeated the British ships sent to stop me. There's a new wave of destroyers to deal with now, but I expect to make short work of them. I'm actually toying with the idea of sending the High Seas fleet towards Gibraltar, but I don't really want to tangle with a full British fleet near their air cover.

Before I forget, SAS troops have appeared in southern Russia.

Thanks for the answer regarding the Hungarian troops. I wasn't sure if I had done something wrong which resulted in them being withdrawn (such as the Spanish troops not being allowed to fight the western allies).

I agree with upping the movement of recon to make their scout function more useful. Regarding keeping them alive longer, i thought that you get free scouts when you lose too many of your existing ones? Certainly i recall getting a message saying that i was being given a free scout due to losses incurred.

I have a question regarding transport/supply ships. Usually you see these in the atlantic, but i have also seen them in the med and black sea. Do the allies get some benefit if these vessels reach their destination? If so, should i be actively hunting these units to stop this happening?

1/

McGuba wrote:
So I think Motorcycle can get recon movement and bikers and cavalry should stay in the infanty class then. However, while it would make sense to remove the 'close' and 'minekiller' from the Motorcycle units, unfortunately unit traits are not displayed in the game so the majority of the players would be unaware of this change and would not understand why motorcycle infantry perform much worse in close terrain than they should. All other units in the infantry class has the 'close' trait, so motorcycles should either keep it or be moved to the recon class where close trait is not normally given. .

Actually I have moved Motorcycle to the recon class to make things clearer, and I add a note in my mod manual (though players might not read it) about the traits removal.
Not related to the mod, but IMO, motorcycle are ridiculously powerful in the vanilla game with those two traits, high Movement and low price, this is clearly visible in Multi Player.

2/

McGuba wrote: Also I am still waiting on your opinion on increasing the movement speed of the other recon units to make them more useful and to increase their survivability. Movement speed for tanks in PG/PzC seems to be based on their real life max speed in miles divided by 5 - they seem to get 1 hex movement speed for every 5 miles per hour of max speed. Most tanks in WW2 had a max speed of around 25 mph and thus they have 5 movement speed in the game. Faster tanks like the T-34 has 6 (max speed 33 mph), slower ones like the Matilda has 3 (16 mph). So following the same principle recon vehicles like the SdKfz 222/232 series should have movement = 10 as their max speed was around 50 mph (80-85 km/h). Currently they have movement speed = 8 and since they lose one movement point every time they move some hexes, their recon ability is severly limited and unhistorical, IMO.

Agreed, movement point seem based on unit speed in mph. However this make little sense in a game with 2 weeks long turns. In particular the tracked recon panzer with a Movement of 6 are almost useless as recon units. Considering that a typical unit doing actual recon, will make at least one stop and move back to safer location. As it will loose one mp byt the game rules for the 'stop and go' it makes sense to increase their Movement to reflect historical operational use.

3/
You talked above about making naval mines similar to land mines. I understand that the difference in rules is currently surprising, however the in game effect of naval mine is pretty good. Giving naval mines the ability to attack adjacent hex, may seems weird rule wise, but the end effect is more natural, and cause more surprise attacks, instead of carefully mapping all minefields which should be really hard, or probabl impossible IRL. You are certainly aware of this, but as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, it would requires adding a lot of more 'static' naval mines. For examples around Leningrad if the Kriegsmarine can move one hex closer to the east, it would be much easier to shell Leningrad with battleships.
I wonder what effect on the game engine would such a large number of units increase will have (for a similar result).

4/
For my mod, I have completed the Big Unit black and white pictures database for Germans ground units, finding a different pic for every single unit variants. I you are interested to get them for your mod, just ask for it.

Delta66 wrote:3/
You talked above about making naval mines similar to land mines. I understand that the difference in rules is currently surprising, however the in game effect of naval mine is pretty good. Giving naval mines the ability to attack adjacent hex, may seems weird rule wise, but the end effect is more natural, and cause more surprise attacks, instead of carefully mapping all minefields which should be really hard, or probabl impossible IRL. You are certainly aware of this, but as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, it would requires adding a lot of more 'static' naval mines. For examples around Leningrad if the Kriegsmarine can move one hex closer to the east, it would be much easier to shell Leningrad with battleships.
I wonder what effect on the game engine would such a large number of units increase will have (for a similar result).

At the moment, naval mines are in effect submarines. They can evade attacks, are extremely difficult to clear, can reach out to touch you, and disappear when you don't have a unit adjacent to them. They also don't disappear when you take the adjacent port.

Now that I'm into 1943, a few other things are bothering me:
1. It was bad enough when short-ranged Spitfires were zooming all over central Germany and taking on my fighters (not to mention Mosquitoes that are more than a match for Messerschmitts), but when P-47s join the fray and it becomes nigh impossible to keep anything except Fw-190's alive, there probably needs to be an adjustment. I'm not sure what it would do to the computer's ability to transfer units, but I'd urge revisiting the range of a number of fighters on both sides.
2. Holy smokes, but the late-war allied strategic bombers are powerful ground unit killers, even the Russian ones. The stats are off so much that they're willingly attacking high-level AA units on a regular basis since the kill/loss ratio is in their favor. This should not be. I'm not sure what the intended effect here was, but what's happening is far from historic.
3. In the original build of Panzer Corps, prestige was also supposed to reflect the costs of maintaining more complex equipment. The Tiger is now prohibitively expensive (doubt I would ever buy or upgrade to one), and has a crippled range due to extremely low fuel capacity. I can buy the really low fuel better than I can buy the huge prestige increase. Are there more Tiger units to be delivered, or is this something that needs to be looked at, perhaps putting the Tiger in the PZ IV upgrade family (if the Panther is in the PZ III family...)?


A big kudos on the feel of the War in the Atlantic. Just when I think I have things locked down, the American fleet and air force show up to tilt the balance the other way, just as it should be. I've been once again reduced to nibbling at destroyers with my surface fleet to try and buy my subs some breathing room, all while avoiding long-range bombers.

00Dawg wrote: Now that I'm into 1943, a few other things are bothering me:
1. It was bad enough when short-ranged Spitfires were zooming all over central Germany and taking on my fighters (not to mention Mosquitoes that are more than a match for Messerschmitts), but when P-47s join the fray and it becomes nigh impossible to keep anything except Fw-190's alive, there probably needs to be an adjustment. I'm not sure what it would do to the computer's ability to transfer units, but I'd urge revisiting the range of a number of fighters on both sides.

Reading through this thread recently, and I see that this has been discussed at length, and adjusted. It still feels wrong, but at least I can see this may be the best that can be done within the limitations of the game engine.

JimmyC wrote:I agree with upping the movement of recon to make their scout function more useful. Regarding keeping them alive longer, i thought that you get free scouts when you lose too many of your existing ones? Certainly i recall getting a message saying that i was being given a free scout due to losses incurred.

Yes, it happens, and not only with recon units, but only up to 1-2 units lost. It is mainly due to the fact that the player cannot purchase new units for a while.

I have a question regarding transport/supply ships. Usually you see these in the atlantic, but i have also seen them in the med and black sea. Do the allies get some benefit if these vessels reach their destination? If so, should i be actively hunting these units to stop this happening?

It should be like that, but it would require a few more AI zones (designated hexes to tell the game what script to run under certain circumstancies) and some more work to script it properly. And I ran out of AI zones ages ago. So, basically no, however currently there is one example, if the British carriers cannot reach Malta there might be a few less fighters appearing there as reinforcements. More precisely, the more time turns those carriers spend adjacent to Malta, the higher the chance that an extra plane appears so it is best to sink them as soon a possible. Later I might add some more tricks like this, where I can. (If there is a seperate AI zone to trigger such events as Malta has its on AI zone.)

Delta66 wrote:Not related to the mod, but IMO, motorcycle are ridiculously powerful in the vanilla game with those two traits, high Movement and low price, this is clearly visible in Multi Player.

Agreed.

You talked above about making naval mines similar to land mines. I understand that the difference in rules is currently surprising, however the in game effect of naval mine is pretty good. Giving naval mines the ability to attack adjacent hex, may seems weird rule wise, but the end effect is more natural, and cause more surprise attacks, instead of carefully mapping all minefields which should be really hard, or probabl impossible IRL. You are certainly aware of this, but as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, it would requires adding a lot of more 'static' naval mines. For examples around Leningrad if the Kriegsmarine can move one hex closer to the east, it would be much easier to shell Leningrad with battleships.
I wonder what effect on the game engine would such a large number of units increase will have (for a similar result).

Hm, I think you are right with the increased number of units on the map, they might cause some problem (e.g. AI turns would be even longer), which needs testing. Actually I am still undecided.

Anyway, I found a very interesing article on British defensive naval minefields in WW2 wirtten by a RN officer.

http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Ops-Minelaying.htm

Contrary to popular belief it claims half of all the mines were deployed in the so-called Northern Barrage (92,000) and not in East Coast UK (32,000). In fact, it seems that defensive naval minefields were mostly ineffective as they only caused minimal losses, while offensive mines, especially the ones dropped into the major rivers from aircraft claimed much more casualties. So in effect defensive naval mines naval mines with no active attack should largely act like barriers, rather than invisible deadly foes which would be more in accordance with historical account IMO. My real issue is that the 'minefield' trait also removes the zone of control and I just cannot give it back. Even though I think it would make sense that moving around minefields is a slow and hazardous operation so it would be much better to have it here.

Other than that the idea would be that more and more mines would appear on the map to reflect continuous British efforts year-by-year well into 1943, and also to create an uncertainty: even if the player finds a mine free path other mines could appear at any time to represent newly deployed mines. So to make naval mines more of an annoyance than a real threat. As a compensation they would be invulnerable to air attacks. Still I am undecided a bit.

For my mod, I have completed the Big Unit black and white pictures database for Germans ground units, finding a different pic for every single unit variants. I you are interested to get them for your mod, just ask for it.

Sure, I would like it.

1. It was bad enough when short-ranged Spitfires were zooming all over central Germany and taking on my fighters (not to mention Mosquitoes that are more than a match for Messerschmitts), but when P-47s join the fray and it becomes nigh impossible to keep anything except Fw-190's alive, there probably needs to be an adjustment. I'm not sure what it would do to the computer's ability to transfer units, but I'd urge revisiting the range of a number of fighters on both sides.

I will try to further reduce the range of those allied fighters a bit as in my previous test play the AI did fairly well with the current (reduced) ranges. However, they will still have somewhat longer range than historically.

2. Holy smokes, but the late-war allied strategic bombers are powerful ground unit killers, even the Russian ones. The stats are off so much that they're willingly attacking high-level AA units on a regular basis since the kill/loss ratio is in their favor. This should not be. I'm not sure what the intended effect here was, but what's happening is far from historic.

I took all those stats from deducter's Grand Campaign Unit Revisions v1.11 mod. I really like the idea that strat bombers have higher ground defense thanks to their higher level of flight. I guess the aim was to make them more resistant to AA fire and not to make them AA killers, which must be a side effect. But, an acceptable one in my opinion. Still I did not feel that they only attack AAs during my test play. They did attack just about everything else on the ground as well, which is right.

3. In the original build of Panzer Corps, prestige was also supposed to reflect the costs of maintaining more complex equipment. The Tiger is now prohibitively expensive

Price changes are also taken from deducter's mod. Prestige itself is a very complex idea in PG/PzC and especially in this mod. Especially in this mod, I believe that prestige is not just the prestige of the player but a combination of money (funds), industrial output, available raw materials (especially oil), and the general morale of the population and the army.

When it comes to the Tiger, it was a very expensive tank, each cost 250,000 Reichmark without armament and radio, and it cost some 400,000 RM when combat ready, which is quite high when compared to the 115,000 RM cost of a Panzer III/IV. And even if we say that money was not a real concern for the Reich, the production of the Tiger required many more working hours and it was much heavier so it required more high quality steel and other strategic materials. So I think deducter was right when he nearly doubled its price.

Price of some other German equipment in Reichmarks here:

http://www.panzerworld.com/product-prices

Are there more Tiger units to be delivered, or is this something that needs to be looked at, perhaps putting the Tiger in the PZ IV upgrade family (if the Panther is in the PZ III family...)?

In this mod one tank unit represents 150-200 tanks and historically there were never more than 250 available Tiger Is at any given time on the eastern front (and most of the time there were even less), which means only one unit. I think it is right to have only one of this overpowered unit in most games as it was indeed very rare compared to the much more common Panzer IVs and Panthers.

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722

In the end for my mod I leave Cavalry and Motorcycle with the "minekiller" trait, considering that recon it can be a typical recon unit mission to clear, or at least probe and mark, a minefield for other troops. But I make the motorcycle recon unit and remove the "close" trait for them, that way they are slightly weaker for capturing defended close hexs, which feels appropriate for recon units.

For naval mines if you want to keep the ZoC effects, but have them act more like barriers than attacking mines. A possible solution, would be to have two different type of unit.
keep only a small number of active naval mines, with the same effect they currently have. and the complement with defensive naval mines, with ZoC but with no, or very low, attack value.

About Germans AFV, and heavy tanks in particular, I found this interesting interview by Steven Zaloga:
http://tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/

McGuba wrote: ... if the British carriers cannot reach Malta there might be a few less fighters appearing there as reinforcements. More precisely, the more time turns those carriers spend adjacent to Malta, the higher the chance that an extra plane appears so it is best to sink them as soon a possible. Later I might add some more tricks like this, where I can. (If there is a seperate AI zone to trigger such events as Malta has its on AI zone.)

Ah, so this is why they are behaving the way they do. I'll make efforts to sink them faster. Can Malta produce planes without a carrier adjacent?

McGuba wrote:Other than that the idea would be that more and more mines would appear on the map to reflect continuous British efforts year-by-year well into 1943, and also to create an uncertainty: even if the player finds a mine free path other mines could appear at any time to represent newly deployed mines. So to make naval mines more of an annoyance than a real threat. As a compensation they would be invulnerable to air attacks. Still I am undecided a bit.

I have to say I like this. One of the most annoying things is having to rediscover minefields again and again. Even if there were more, as long as I know where they are once I've collided with them, I won't have to send out scouting units just to properly use the pathfinding AI for moving subs and capital ships.

McGuba wrote:I will try to further reduce the range of those allied fighters a bit as in my previous test play the AI did fairly well with the current (reduced) ranges. However, they will still have somewhat longer range than historically.

It's really just the "feel" of certain details that's bothersome. P-47s weren't escort fighters, but that seems to be the role the AI uses them in. Similar issue with the Mosquito. Again, you've already made some efforts in this area, and if this is one of my biggest complaints, you should take it as a compliment to how good your work is.

McGuba wrote:I took all those stats from deducter's Grand Campaign Unit Revisions v1.11 mod. I really like the idea that strat bombers have higher ground defense thanks to their higher level of flight. I guess the aim was to make them more resistant to AA fire and not to make them AA killers, which must be a side effect. But, an acceptable one in my opinion. Still I did not feel that they only attack AAs during my test play. They did attack just about everything else on the ground as well, which is right.

It's not their higher ground defense; that's a great idea. It's their ground attack values being so high.

McGuba wrote: Prestige itself is a very complex idea in PG/PzC and especially in this mod. Especially in this mod, I believe that prestige is not just the prestige of the player but a combination of money (funds), industrial output, available raw materials (especially oil), and the general morale of the population and the army.

Yes, I understand that. It's the much higher prestige cost coupled with the cut in the available fuel level. At this point you have a very expensive unit that you can only use for 75% of turns during the spring, and less than 50% of turns during the snow periods.

McGuba wrote: In this mod one tank unit represents 150-200 tanks and historically there were never more than 250 available Tiger Is at any given time on the eastern front (and most of the time there were even less), which means only one unit. I think it is right to have only one of this overpowered unit in most games as it was indeed very rare compared to the much more common Panzer IVs and Panthers.

But there were Tiger I's on both fronts. Anyway, it's not a huge sore point...we're talking about a unit or two in a massive scenario.


A couple of other things I noticed late in the war:
1. No plain Italian infantry for purchase/upgrade in late '44. I've ejected the Allies from North Africa, so Italy remains a viable ally.
2. No upgrade paths for Finnish tanks or bombers.

00Dawg wrote:Ah, so this is why they are behaving the way they do. I'll make efforts to sink them faster. Can Malta produce planes without a carrier adjacent?

Yes, it can. Historically many aircraft were flown there from the carriers which only came close, but not too close to the island. Others were transported by merchant ships.

Hm... So I might try to simulate the latter one as well. In general, the struggle for Malta was probably more about destroying the ships carrying vital supplies to the island than about direct attacks against it. As Malta has its own AI zone in the mod I should be able to add more ships "carrying" aircraft to the island.

P-47s weren't escort fighters, but that seems to be the role the AI uses them in.

P-47s were actually used as escort fighters, but were soon replaced by the P-51 due to the longer range of the latter. P-47s with drop tanks could only reach Western Germany, but it included cities like Bremen, Cologne or Hannover - most of the Ruhr valley. However, they could not escort bombers all the way to Berlin or Schweinfurt. The range of the P-47 was coninuously increased with more and bigger drop tanks added and it is already simulated in the mod, but I agree that I was still a bit too generous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of ... es_WW2.jpg

Similar issue with the Mosquito.

Radar equipped Mosquitoes were used by the British to escort their night bombers and defend them from German night fighters with great effect. Obviously there are no night turns in the game, though, so night and day bombers and fighters are displayed at the same time. I believe it represents more of an operational range/area than the real actual situation in the air at any given time.

It's not their higher ground defense; that's a great idea. It's their ground attack values being so high.

OK, I will look into it.

1. No plain Italian infantry for purchase/upgrade in late '44. I've ejected the Allies from North Africa, so Italy remains a viable ally.

It will be fixed in the next version. With Uhu's help I made new late war infantry icons for a couple of nations including Italy.

2. No upgrade paths for Finnish tanks or bombers.

I see your point here as well. I will add them the Ju-88 as they given some and the Pz.IV too.

However, in the next version Finland would quit the war (disband its units) from mid 44 if certain conditions are met.

McGuba wrote:while it would make sense to remove the 'close' and 'minekiller' from the Motorcycle

I would not remove 'close' - if a single partisan, or replacement unit have it, than they should have too. They are still inf's. Minekiller...I don't know - this feature is used anyway rarely.
When we take into consideration, that recon battalions of the divison where used many times as ordinary fighting forces, than this makes the pro 'close' trait stronger.

I'm a bit confused with upgrading. It seems to be that i can't upgrade units in certain cities, even though i should be able to. Is it at all influenzed by the nationality that captures the city (eg. if Italian unit captures it then only Italian units can upgrade in it)?

Or is there a certain number of turns you have to wait after capturing a city before you can upgrade units in it (sorry, i only played the vanilla game before and never found the need to upgrade during missions as they are much shorter)?

I also want to complement you on the quality of the game. Its my first playthrough and i'm only in summer of '42, but i'm absolutely loving it. I especially like the way you've allowed for strategic encirclements during certain parts of the game!

Yes, in the 2nd turn, after the town's capture can you upgrade your units. And no enemy allowed to stay next to the town hex. There are no nationality limitations with upgrade. But you can buy only from that nationality's arsenal, which captured it.

JimmyC wrote:I'm a bit confused with upgrading. It seems to be that i can't upgrade units in certain cities, even though i should be able to. Is it at all influenzed by the nationality that captures the city (eg. if Italian unit captures it then only Italian units can upgrade in it)?

Thanks for that. Interesting about only being able to buy units of the nationality that captured the city. I will take more care from now on who i capture cities with.

I was having a lot of trouble upgrading troops in North Africa. I think the reason is that there is an enemy minefield next to the city where i am trying to upgrade my troops.

Maybe Mcguba can introduce a minesweeper unit for the next patch, so that we can get rid of all those super annoying mines!