Battlefield: Europe MOD v2.4

[empedocles]

Quick but very important question. for a victory against russia, do I have to take the oil fields including Bakú? Or can I skip them and control only victory objectves north of Rostov-Astrakhan?
thanks!

[JimmyC]

You don't have to capture the oilfields.

[empedocles]

You don't have to capture the oilfields.

my whole life has been a lie..... I spent hours...days... weeks... thinking I had to get to Baku....

thanks for the answer!

[Slimak81]

Playing it normal difficulty - 45 year Berlin captured by English Churchil. Soviet's did not reach even Warsaw.

Playing it light - turn 20 Moscow and Leningrad are surrunded , minimal losses , Africa is stable. Good chances for a draw.

When Soviet eddition is to be expected??

ps Best mod ever, best replayability. Very epich

[hugh2711]

You certainly dont have to take the oil fields However if you dont; you just dont have enough prestige to keep everything in good shape AND the russians have a ridiculous amount of units (as historical), hint; there are other ways to get the oilfields other than directly oer southern russia.

[Slimak81]

Hurricane MkII
Spitfire Mk II
and other brits ufo air damage set to 15-16 while Bf-109F is set to 13. Wtf ? Early spit is better then Bf-109f? No way

On the other side Mig3 s and Lags 3 air damage is about 11-12 is way too small

[McGuba]

Does the author of the Battle in Asia or the middle East ?

Such conflicts as the War in Korea 1950-53 , the Arab-Israeli war 1947-1949 years, Suez crisis 1956, the six day war 1967 , the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and so on .

McGuba this mod is a master piece!!!. What about third world war with the same map but totally new events and de CCCP attacking the NATO countries?
Regards

Yes, it is a great idea, but the problem is it would require tons of new unit icons which I am unable to create on my own. And also it would take a lot of time and thinking to make it so maybe I will only have enough time for these projects when I retire, lol, since at the moment I have a full time job.

When Soviet eddition is to be expected??

I do not think that the AI as the Axis would be able to conduct complex offensive operations on this map. Indeed it is a great challange even for most human players. And PzC AI is much less capable than human brain. So I do not think that this mod is good for a human Allied vs. AI Axis gameplay. However, you can check out Intenso82's Russia at War mod or the Soviet Storm mod by Akkula. Both have their merits.

Hurricane MkII
Spitfire Mk II
and other brits ufo air damage set to 15-16 while Bf-109F is set to 13. Wtf ? Early spit is better then Bf-109f? No way

Spitfire II is not better than Bf 109F in this mod, they are about the same:

sample21.jpg (277.65 KiB) Viewed 5421 times

While having the same air defense, the Spit II has indeed 2 points better air attack (heavier armament), but the Bf 109F has 4 points better initiative (better rate of climb and fuel injection) and these two stats create a balanced fight in theory if the two have the same experience and no heroes (as shown by the -2 -2 battle outcome prediction). But of course a lot depends on the dice rolls and the level of randomness. And also on mass attacks or the presence of ground radars in the area. For example over British airspace the initiative advantage of the Messerschmitt is largely negeted by the British Home Chain radar system and the superior ground control as it happened during the Battle of Britain historically.

As far as I know most historians and veterans seemed to agree that the Spit and the Bf 109 were more or less the same but of course it also depends on the subtype. Here is a very detailed comparison of the earlier Spit I and Bf 109E:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

And the final verdict is something like this:

Hugh Dundas thought the antagonists to be evenly matched:

There is no doubt, that Goering and his commanders overrated the effectiveness of their fighters in relation to our own. In fact the Messerschmitt 109 and the Spitfire were extraordinarily evenly matched. Their duel for supremacy lasted throughout the war, as each plane was constantly improved and given increased power and performance. At times the Germans, by rushing out a new version before our own next improvement was ready, would get one jump ahead. At other times the advantage would be to the RAF. But on balance the Spitfire was, I believe, slightly the better aircraft. And so it was in 1940. In particular, such advantages as it enjoyed over the ME 109 at the time were enhanced by the circumstances of the battle.

And it is exactly like that in this mod. The Spit II came out a bit earlier and the results were:

The Spitfire I had reached maturity by the outset of the Battle of Britain and began to be replaced by the Spitfire II in August. This improved variant first entered service with No. 611 Squadron, 135 eventually equipping over a third of the Spitfire squadrons by the end of the Battle. Oberleutnant Ulrich Steinhilper of III/JG 52 flew a Me 109 E-1, armed with 4 MG 17 machine guns, until 15 September 1940, whereupon he received a cannon equipped Me 109 E-4. 136 A month later he wrote home:

The British have, in part, a new engine in their Spitfires and our Me can hardly keep up with it. We have also made improvements and have also some new engines, but there is no more talk of absolute superiority. The other day (12 October) we tangled with these newer Spitfires and had three losses against one success. I got into deep trouble myself and my Rottenhund (Sigi Voss) was shot down. I ended up against two Spitfires with all weapons jammed. There was no alternative but to get the hell out of it. 137

And so it seems that the Bf 109F only reset the balance but then came the Spit V which was again better, thereby forcing the Luftwaffe to deploy all available new Fw 190s to the West which was in turn clearly superior to the Spit V, forcing the Brits to improve it and introduce the Spit IX. And so it went on.

[Slimak81]

Spit MkI, MkII = BF109E , same clinb almost same turn time, Bf109E has better arnament 2x 20mm cannon + 2 mgs vs 4 mgs spit so actually messer E should have better air attack while spit MkI -II should have better initiative
Spit MkVb = Bf 109F almost same, but here spit has better arnament where Bf has much better top speed + better climb, same as first variant but on the contrary
Spit MkVc = BF 109G2-G-14 see before
Spit MKIX = BF 109G6 where spit has better climb and much better turn time where BF has better top speed and 30mm cannon + 2x 20mm cannons on wings
Spit MkXVIc = Bf 109K4 where spit outperform messer in dogfight but has much less arnament plus K-4 has around 850mkh dive speed can easily escape any battle
Tempest Mk1 = almost same as Fw109A-5
Tempest MkII= almost same as Fw109D9 with a slight advantage on top speed tp Tempest

Here is what we get in wiki and warthunder )

[uzbek2012]

Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt Bf 109
https://corporalfrisk.com/2015/04/11/sp ... tt-bf-109/

P.s.
German aces probably in coffins, make a loop and barrel rolls )))
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/s199.html
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft20307.htm

[McGuba]

Spit MkI, MkII = BF109E , same clinb almost same turn time, Bf109E has better arnament 2x 20mm cannon + 2 mgs vs 4 mgs spit so actually messer E should have better air attack while spit MkI -II should have better initiative

Actually the Spit I and II had 8 (light) 7.7 mm machine guns and not just 4. And the Bf 109E had indeed 2 similar caliber (7.9 mm) light machine guns and 2x 20mm cannons. Which I think gives a firepower advantage to the early Spitfires in most circumstances. That's why the Spit I is slightly better than the Bf 109E in this mod (Ini 7, AA 15 AD 18 vs. Ini 7, AA 14 AD 18), which is in accordance with the above mentioned research. But this minimum difference can be hardly recognized in game and in practise what really matters is experience, and the presence of heroes, radars or AA guns, mass attack, and most importantly, pure luck.

However, it is somewhat difficult to make a difference between cannons and machine guns in this simplified game mechanic as cannons are usually believed to be more effective against bombers or heavily armoured ground attack planes (more destructive power but lower rate of fire) and machine guns should be better against figthers where a high rate of fire is more important to achieve some hits on a nimble but rather fragile aircraft. But of course in PzC there is only one air attack value against all kinds of enemy air units and we have to live with it.

[tactical22]

Hi McGuba,
If I conquer the caucasus oil fields by turn 50 how many or in which proportion are soviet reinforcements reduced?
Thanks for a gorgeous mod!

[Yrfin]

Spit MkI, MkII = BF109E , same clinb almost same turn time, Bf109E has better arnament 2x 20mm cannon + 2 mgs vs 4 mgs spit so actually messer E should have better air attack while spit MkI -II should have better initiative

Actually the Spit I and II had 8 (light) 7.7 mm machine guns and not just 4. And the Bf 109E had indeed 2 similar caliber (7.9 mm) light machine guns and 2x 20mm cannons. Which I think gives a firepower advantage to the early Spitfires in most circumstances. That's why the Spit I is slightly better than the Bf 109E in this mod (Ini 7, AA 15 AD 18 vs. Ini 7, AA 14 AD 18), which is in accordance with the above mentioned research. But this minimum difference can be hardly recognized in game and in practise what really matters is experience, and the presence of heroes, radars or AA guns, mass attack, and most importantly, pure luck.

However, it is somewhat difficult to make a difference between cannons and machine guns in this simplified game mechanic as cannons are usually believed to be more effective against bombers or heavily armoured ground attack planes (more destructive power but lower rate of fire) and machine guns should be better against figthers where a high rate of fire is more important to achieve some hits on a nimble but rather fragile aircraft. But of course in PzC there is only one air attack value against all kinds of enemy air units and we have to live with it.

Weight of volley of weapon.

Bf 109E (2xMG-17+2xMG-FF): 2463 gramm/sec
Spitfire Mk IA (8xMG-40/II): 1760 gramm/sec.
Spitfire Mk VB/C (4xMG-40/II+2xHS.404/20): 3697 gramm/sec

[McGuba]

Hi McGuba,
If I conquer the caucasus oil fields by turn 50 how many or in which proportion are soviet reinforcements reduced?
Thanks for a gorgeous mod!

It is hard to say, but it should be around 25%, or maybe 30% depending on the time. Certainly affects dozens of units. But for best effect the player has to conquer Moscow and/or Leningrad as well. Then up to 50% or even more Soviet units would not appear from that time. But those which are on their way already will not disappear so it takes some time to feel its effect, depending on the distance of the frontline from spawn points in the Ural mountains. Also note that the Caucasus oil fields mainly (but not only!) affect tanks and air units, which use a lot of fuel, and the population centers mainly affect infantry and artillery units. On the other hand, whenever a major objective like these is taken by the Axis, the Soviets get a (relatively small) number of new units with which the AI tries to retake it, further extending the time from when the positive effect can be felt.

Furthermore, since one of the main Soviet unit assembly areas is around Moscow (most new units appearing in the Ural first go to these assembly points and after reaching it are ordered to attack the nearest Axis held victory objective at certain times), if the Sovet capital is taken by the player, it feels that the Soviets continuously send forces to recapture it (which, I think, would have been quite plausible, if it happenned), when in fact the AI just keeps sending its forces to the Moscow assembly area for further offensives, wheter or not it is captured by the Axis.

Weight of volley of weapon.

Bf 109E (2xMG-17+2xMG-FF): 2463 gramm/sec
Spitfire Mk IA (8xMG-40/II): 1760 gramm/sec.
Spitfire Mk VB/C (4xMG-40/II+2xHS.404/20): 3697 gramm/sec

Yes, it is interesting to compare the weight of projectiles fired in a second by different fighter planes, but it is only one part of the equation. The Bf 109 could indeed fire a heavier load with more destructive power, but it only matters if all rounds hit the target. The Spitfire fired a lot more smaller rounds: each of the 0.303 Browning (7.7mm) machine guns fired 20 rounds in a second and there were 8 of them in the early Spit and Hurricane. Which gives us 160 rounds per second. In contrast the 7.9mm MG 17 of the Bf 109 had about the same rate of fire but there were only 2 of them and also 2 MG FF 20mm cannons with a rate of fire of about 8 rounds per second. Which gives us 56 rounds per second for the Messerschmitt. Now when it comes to fighting small, fragile and fast moving fighters with minimal or non-existing armour one would need as many rounds as possible in a second for best chance of hitting the target with some of them.

Oblt Hans Schmoller-Haldy of JG 54 commented:

...
For fighter-versus-fighter combat, I thought the Spitfire was better armed than the Me 109. The cannon fitted to the 109 were not much use against enemy fighters, and the machine guns on top of the engine often suffered stoppages. The cannon were good if they hit; but their rate of fire was very low.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

To make things worse, the MG FF had only 60 rounds, which only allowed 7 seconds of continuous firing and after that the Bf 109 could only rely on the two light machine guns. In contrast, the Spitfire could fire with all 8 machine guns for 15 seconds, which is twice as long.

I think the real solution would be to have two different air attack values as in OoB, one against fighters and another against bombers. But since we do not have it in PzC it is nearly impossible to settle this debate.

[empedocles]

hint; there are other ways to get the oilfields other than directly oer southern russia.

Which one should I attack first? Grozni or Baku?
Thanks

[JimmyC]

I’ve written up a brief AAR (really just a summary of my playthrough) which I posted here:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 96#p694895

It has spoilers, but is a useful read to get some ideas on tactics. I also included a summary of what worked and what didn’t.

For my next playthrough (yes, I’m going to have another shot at it), I’ve decided to invade England from winter of ’41 and limit my attacks on the Russians early on (avoiding victory objectives so that they don’t counterattack much). Does anyone know how long the Russians will go soft on me? The intro doesn’t give much guidance on this. Hopefully I can still close the Briansk pocket without enraging the Russians, as I don’t think you need to capture any victory objectives to do this. At what point will the Russians commence attacking in force anyway (ie. at what time should I start capturing Russian victory objectives)?

[hugh2711]

empedocles: (from a previous post)
There appears to be three ways to get the oilfields without going over southern russia:
1) get poti, the black sea coast port by sneaking (without being seen) two units across immediately at start with a fighter bomber and strat bomber to take out the sub and ship in the way. then just get and units strike southeast on the road, take out the first city, keep going, the next one is empty, keep going a bit and take the next city (occupied). then get enough units to go for the first oifield, you will need enough to take out a sherman, a t34 and a light tank. while you are doing that arty and infantry (mountain troops) can get the first oilfield, i think it is grozny. then i usually split the force the mountain troops go north with all the arty and get the next one (is it markop?). the tanks i usually use to go south and get the first british one (with some support) and subsequently go souht again and get the one on the persian gulf. The difficulty I find is having enough open slots to get new units as you cant import them.
2) take your parachutist from the med on your first go otherwise he will be stuck there for a while. During the first winter sneak him across the black sea and land him in the unoccupied city on the above route then follow the above path.
3) [havent actually tried this one myself] take (is it?) crete. launch an amphibious attack on the coast of north syria, then take over the middle east. Looking at the map I would say the british ones are much easier to take from the east rather than this method. The advantage of this method however is you are not reliant on having open slots.


jimmy c: If you go easy on the russians and hence you do not close the kiev pocket the first big steamroller attack is in the area lower than the kiev pocket, it happens just after stug 3's become available and you just get your first (understrength in v1.9 and free) tiger. I find that if you take and pre-man the fortified positions just west of kiev with some german infantry backed up with arty you can very cheaply get a load of prestige from surrenders as they flood forward. Also just to the east of that I hold them at a line formed between kremenchuk and nikolaiyev. and with stugs can get more surrenders specially when the thaw comes and they are trapped against the river. Presuming you have the crimea by this time it is easily defendable with one stug/tank backed up with arty. I take a few points off the mass tank attack by placing disposable satellite nation cheap infantry units in some of the towns east of that line. the tanks attack them regardless, a good trade!
I agreee with your assessment "marders suck" Most of my little towed anti-tank i.e.the ones that have any experience I take out of the battle from the beginning to preserve experience untill after they can be directly converted to stug 3's. likewise with the panzer 1 & 2's that have two stars. I take them out of the battle at the beginning preserving thier experience untill I can convert them to a serious tank like a tiger which is pretty hot with two stars.

[JimmyC]

...
3) [havent actually tried this one myself] take (is it?) crete. launch an amphibious attack on the coast of north syria, then take over the middle east. Looking at the map I would say the british ones are much easier to take from the east rather than this method. The advantage of this method however is you are not reliant on having open slots.

Yes, take #Cyprus with 2 infantry units supported by the Regia Marina as artillery. This gives you the airfield on Crete and hides your transports until they are right next to the Syrian coast. Remember that there is no port in Crete, so don’t land anything that can’t be air lifted out. You should land on the Syrian coast sometime during the first winter, taking advantage of the bad weather to remain hidden.

You have a few decisions to make when planning your landing:
1. Strike directly to the oilfields trying to reach them as quickly as possible; Or
2. Capture at least some of the cities and ports south (Lebanon)
3. Leave some troops to defend the Syrian coast from the eventual counterattack (see below).

I generally go with option 2. as it gives you a port to refuel your vessels. Its also relatively easy to capture the first few cities and ports as far as Jerusalem with the help of the Regia Marina.

Be aware though that landing on the Syrian coast will trigger a counterattack from the Persian Gulf. This counterattack takes time to develop and you can reach and capture the 2 cities on the Euphrates before it hits you, depending on how fast you are. Even if not, you can still defeat it as long as you have sufficient armour (helped by air power if available).

The other thing to be aware of is the Suez Canal counterattack in winter ‘42. If you have captured any of the cities on the Syrian Coast or Middle East then the Allied counterattack will split into 2 forces. About half the enemy force will go up the Syrian Coast and recapture all the cities, ports, airfields etc. and then head across the desert to the oilfields. The other half will attack towards Tobruk. This makes it easier to repel the attack on Tobruk, but you have to decide if you want to garrison the Syrian Coast or instead defend at the Euphrates/Tigris Rivers. I generally go with the latter, as it’s a perfect barrier and the counterattacking armour will get badly mauled if you catch them trying to cross the river or assaulting your cities directly.

[oladelmar]

...Cyprus, you mean.

Well done, I always found this option scary as it means putting lots of transports in the water before air/naval spremacy is achieved. How big is your Syria Korps? I suppose you hunt down the subs aggressively from the get-go?

[lennis29]

@ McGuba. Excellent work, congratulations.
A humble request, it could be possible to create a version to play grand campaign.
Thank you.

[doctorwillow]

Merry christmas to all moders and brave virtual warriors!