Slitherine

is very interesting.
for ground attacks its direct fire doesn't get class 3 bonus/penalties against class 1 and class 0 respectivley it just fires/takes return fire. its sa and ha valuues are positive.
if you also have a positive aa value it can attack air units directly above it AND it provides defensive air cover to ground units adjacent to it despite not having range=1!
fells a bit like cheating. might make small aa (20mm) useful as a switch/multipurpose class 5 range =1 -> class 5 range = 0

on a related range=0 note, the defensive fire ability for class 4 (vs. ground attacks of adjacent ground units) works despite not having range = 2, it can be range = 0. maybe be not as useful though as it does not attack as direct fire (suppresion:kill ratio is 3:1 not 1:2) but still interesting.

if you give a class 5 or class 3 unit range = 1 and positive sa and ha values it can fire direct, 1:2 supression to kill ratio with no return fire. which is cheating - but might be useful for something.

experiment with your equipment file and try it out for youself.

Excellent observation. I am trying to modify the equipment file to better represent history. This means changing the max strength for different sized units. Tiger tank units would be much smaller than panthers as an example. Not having as many shots as the enemy means they always get to return fire which often has a 90+ value. This means a smaller strength Tiger battalion is often whittled down even by attacking infantry.

I like the concept that they can attack, if moved to class 5, a unit without receiving return fire to better represent their long range guns and better optics. Then they can be valuable while being limited in number and my games will more closely model history. They are important but not indestructible and need to be deployed with proper support.

This seems more historical to me. I remember reading an interview with a Tiger tank commander who had received the Iron Cross. He was asked if anything changed after receiving it and he said he could say “no” much more effectively. A new commander, to the unit he was attached to, might think he could deploy the Tigers where ever he wanted (without support, etc.). This man, now a legitimate war hero, could tell his superior “no, that is a very bad deployment with a lot of potential problems....maybe we should do this instead”. Smaller Tiger battalions might successfully serve as part of a larger force with this class change without needing to be 10 strength.

I might even put flak 88s in this group for the same reason. The goal is to create as complete a representation of history as possible so I am typically playing with very small numbers of those units (being overpowered is much less of an issue when there are only 1 or 2 such units on the map).

Thank you for this observation. There must be some interesting depth in these unit classes which most players will never even see. Rundakort designed something brilliant and most of us will not even see the true extent (how different rules mesh together, subtle variations in unit classes etc.).

i was also going to create a post about max strength in the equipment file but i'll put my idea here, fgiannet, as you brought it up.
PzC2 has a unit value called slots which is kinda a "weight" for units. in PzC1 all units take up one core slot king tigers and 20mm aa "cost" you the same in those terms for your core.
in my equipment file "light" units have a max strength = 11 and "heavy" units have a max strength = 9
in my view Rundakort could have expanded the game a little bit more especially in relation to class bonues/penalties seems like that aspect was a bit unfinished before he moved on the PzC2.

I modified Akkula’s Big Soviet Storm scenario to make the units more historical and to increase the challenge (I finished too quickly the 1st time I played and missed out on a lot of great history included in the scenario). I used ideas from Intenso82’s mod RAW and made the German Infantry Divisions (As well as some other countries like Finland etc.) larger and made the Soviet infantry divisions/KV-1 units much smaller (7/5 respectively). I then added historical orders of battle for the Soviets and Germans offensives up to Kursk. It was challenging, great fun, and enlightening to see the balance of power change as the war continued on (German infantry units shrink a little in 1942, and then lose a whole regiment in 1943). The KV-1s were a lot of fun at 5 strength because they were critical at defensive choke points but I could not create a wall and steam roll the map with them afterwards (historically it was very rare for them to be deployed at brigade strength). This limited my ability to wipe the map clean and required much more thinking (forcing me to spend more time in the scenario and see more of it’s brilliant history). That experience led me to believe that I can size units based on their historical sizes (with historical ROF, historical GD, etc.) and see history come to life. I play to learn and the vast depth built into the game, being highlighted by your great insights, are important in achieving that goal. Thank you.

sbpc1 wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 8:40 pm in my view Rundakort could have expanded the game a little bit more especially in relation to class bonues/penalties seems like that aspect was a bit unfinished before he moved on the PzC2.

You have just summed up a lot of my work experience in I.T. I was a government contractor and most of the work on my account was installing great new software, verifying it worked, and then moving on to the next installation without ever touching the old programs again. So much great technology installed and paid for by the government but never to be actually used (we needed permission just to access it).

I am starting to believe that Slitherine understood the market better than I thought. I no longer think most players care too much about the history or want things too difficult. It seems, to me, the majority of players want to quickly play through (often with only the best units like Tigers, KV-1s, etc.), win, and move on to the next campaign or game. The hardcore history or strategy nerd is probably a statistically insignificant part of the overall market. Rundakort is a strategy artist but most people just want something that looks right so why bother? Might as well just get started on the next new and flashy product. That is were you will make the most money (just like the money in government contracting is to always have your client buy something new).

Ha, ha, ha. Just putting a unit’s range to 1 means it can attack without receiving fire, no need to change classes, and AA already are class 5. I did not read the first post very well!

fgiannet wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 11:24 pm Ha, ha, ha. Just putting a unit’s range to 1 means it can attack without receiving fire, no need to change classes, and AA already are class 5. I did not read the first post very well!

Yes and no and there's side-effects at times:
Air units (namely fighters) with attack range:1 not only attack without retaliation, they also provoke and waste defensive fire from fighters/AA;
On the other hand, all air-to-ground attacks are limited to hex directly below the air unit no matter the attack range (game engine limitations I suppose) and still take return fire from defending fighters and AA. Little glitch here is that air units with attack range:1 cannot provide attack outcome forecast until directly over the target

Wow, thank you for that. That is very interesting and a good reminder to keep things simple (only make changes when necessary). I wonder if a night fighter should have attack range 1 then.....I see some people give them better initiative but maybe they should be able to attack without escort fighters getting involved...

Thank you, that is really interesting information.

i think air units with range 1 behave oddly from reading previous posts but i haven't tested them myself.
i have tested class 7 (fighters) with negative aa value. they can still escort bombers to provide defensive fire and still provide defensive fire as cover for ground targets.
class 7, class 4 and class 5 provide defensive fire irrespective of range value or postive/negative sa/ha/aa values.

weird infomation: any ground unit can have a positive aa value but cannot fire back at a class 9 unit that bombs it directly (it says "can't" counter" in the combat log). it can fire back at a class 8 or 7 unit.

I think that is good. Class 9 is for strategic bombers. Local anti aircraft, divisional 20mm guns for example, should not be able to fire high enough to reach them. It is interesting to think of moving the 20mm to class 4 where it will not be able to provide defensive fire against strat bombers but can still light up unsuspecting tac bombers with a high enough ROF (I am sure there would be unintended consequences like missing out on unit class bonuses). Strat bombers should require the big guns from the Luftwaffe.

Range attack = 1 is probably best left for rare and special situations. I had thought I remembered reading about night fighters attacking with impunity (when I was a very young lad) but now realize I do not know much about them at all.

Yeah, restricting range usage for air units sounds like a good idea. in Akkula's Modern Conflicts it only used for 5th gen fighters (and MiG-31) to reflect their stealth/stand-off capabilities and already cause quite a lot of balance issues.

As for non-AA vs Strats, in the realm of WWII it makes perfect sense for random tank-mounted .50 cal not being able to hurt level bomber at all =)

A party of captured Italians numbering 2,000 people wanders to the British rear, guided by a Bren Carrier light armored personnel carrier
https://warspot.ru/19293-warspot-o-nagr ... y-krokodil

Is it possible to adjust morale in the troops and so on ?

the poor performace of italy (and france) is hard to understand when you look at the equipment file and its hard to model at this level, i guess.
my only idea is to make italian units more expensive (reflecting limited industrial production capacity) and reduced fuel and ammo.
i'd like to make them more likely to retreat but you can't mod that (hardcoded?)

Vano2004 wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 6:59 am Is it possible to adjust morale in the troops and so on ?

That is an excellent idea and McGuba provides a good way to model that (in my opinion). Run a script that causes minor nations units to lose strength points during certain points (Operation Uranus, etc) or possibly reducing the strength of minor nations, noreplace trait (represent lack of reserves), every turn after have already suffered losses (to represent unmotivated soldiers deserting after seeing combat). Sbpc1 has an interesting script where units suffer suppression if they start a turn near a tank. I am sure that can be redirected towards minor nations units.

Another way to represent this is to remake the equipment file to historical levels (base ground defense for tanks off armor thickness, Italian infantry units should be smaller, etc.) and the differences should become clear. Lower movement and ROF are good options as well (Italian unit’s were very heavy with non-combatants resulting in less offensive power).

The exception may be the French (I have not changed their equipment numbers yet but they should generally be good in comparison with most German equipment). They were defeated more by a great grand strategy and better local tactics than any inherent deficiency in equipment/organization as far as I know (their loss will not be apparent in equipment file comparisons).

I tried moving the 20mm AA to class 4 hoping it would provide Air defense fire to neighboring units with its positive air attack value but there was no effect. So I guess the concept of moving it to class 4 is to provide ground support only to neighboring units (and give up air defense fire)? That is an interesting concept but also removes the main function of the unit.

It would be great if there was an extra class to enable the distinction between small caliber AA and larger guns like the 88s (one defends against strat bombers and one does not) but I think it is hard coded to be all one level of airspace.

class 5 provides aa defensive fire, class 4 provides sa/ha defensive fire, class 7 provides aa defensive fire.
all irrespective of range or positive/negative values.
class 5 range 1 with positive sa/ha does dierct fire to ground units without return fire.
classs 5 range 0 provides defensive aa fire. maybe try a switch (multipurpose) between class 4 range 1 and class 5 range 0 for small aa, such as the 20mm aa. the AI does use the switching ability in such case (although not very intelligently)

I see now....a few years ago some players were talking about giving AT guns overwatch abilities. This must have involved giving them a switch to class 4. They will not be using direct fire as class 4 but will at least have an extra use (and gain experience, as artillery, much quicker along the way). That was a clever idea in retrospect.

Some of these ideas must have been thought of before but that does not mean there is not something new/innovative to discover by revisiting them.

It seems all units with attack range = 1 attack without return fire, even infantry.

i was thinking about the "overwatch" facility which is class 4 for at guns as you have worked out. only makes sense in my mind for 75mm+ calibre guns (range in metres). should have a reduced ROF in overwatch mode. i have class 4 artillery reduced ROF switchable to class 18 fulll ROF but no defensive fire support.

Outstanding observation on class 5 providing air defense fire even when range = 0. I have set 20mm AA to range 0. It now provides air defense fire to nearby ground units but can not attack aircraft during it’s own turn. This models their historical use for air defense against tactical air strikes while also demonstrating their lack of power/range to fire on aircraft that are not flying low/close. I have lowered their air attack (to minimize their effectiveness against strat bombers), increased rate of fire, and lowered max unit size to represent their much smaller historical size compared to infantry regiments, etc. They are still effective but have a much more limited role now.

Now there is a much clearer distinction between 20mm and 37/88mm flaks (37mm flak could attack medium level bombers). Thanks Ace!

A lot smarter people than myself worked out how to provide over watch. It all comes down to the scale in my opinion. It can also substitute for not being able to stack units; just consider the overwatch unit in the same hex he is giving support to even though, graphically, it is one hex away.

You could actually make a brilliant simulator for small scale actions using overwatch. You could have a battalion’s heavy weapons company providing support to other infantry companies in the battalion with a switch function, the division’s Antitank battalion supporting an infantry regiment, etc. It could be highly detailed, educational, and historical but probably not a lot of fun for the majority of players!

Then you can change the sa and ha to positive values and the antiaircraft unit can attack ground targets without needing a switch function. It will not gain class 3 benefits but, being an antiaircraft unit, probably should not anyway (antitank crews are highly trained for and experience much more frontline combat, they have a much better understanding of where to aim among other things). This is lining up very well with history. Excellent observation.

I can also change the values for the Flak 88 class 5 making it both antitank and antiair in one unit. Change the values and class for the Flak 88 class 3 (to class 4) and it becomes Flak 88 in artillery mode. Pretty significant changes all done with a few quick changes to a spreadsheet. Thank you!

You have to play with house rules though....otherwise your AA will be able to direct fire units 3 hex’s away so.....not the best solution