The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.6)

Moderators: Order of Battle Moderators, The Artistocrats

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (under construction)

Post by GabeKnight » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm

GabeKnight wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:34 am
AlbertoC wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:51 pm
[...] Same is true for disembark: it only requires unspent attack action, which means that naval transport can move and disembark on the same turn. This makes naval landings much more flexible.
I kind of agree with that one, and was wondering if it could be achieved by giving the naval transports two action points. Has anybody tested this already, maybe? Or is there some obvious downside to it I'm not seeing at the moment?
Tested. But it has to be two steps to make it work, not action points: As long as the transport has some MP left after the move, it can disembark troops on the same turn, even works okay with the "landing craft" specs. Cool. But I'll have to test this with some scens, if the AI can handle it correctly.

This could prove quite useful? No more blocking the invasion force in multiplayer. :)

Everything works fine with the mod so far in v715 8) :mrgreen:

Screenshot 879.jpg
Screenshot 879.jpg (992.49 KiB) Viewed 899 times

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:23 pm

Although it still feels like it's taking them forever to release fixes - looking through the units.csv file today, it's incredible how many unit bugs and errors have been addressed in the past few updates. Seriously! 8) :D

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

testing: move and disembark on the same turn

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:18 am

GabeKnight wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:59 pm
But I'll have to test this with some scens, if the AI can handle it correctly.
Yes it can. This is so cool, I'm definitely keeping this change for the time being.
First tests with the US Pacific/Bataan scen were succeful, although the AI spreads the units too much and doesn't account for the supply ship. But it's always been like this. Further testing's required.

Screenshot 880.jpg
Screenshot 880.jpg (882.85 KiB) Viewed 878 times


Screenshot 881.jpg
Screenshot 881.jpg (840.51 KiB) Viewed 878 times

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:34 pm

Here are some of my recommend changes for the switchable systems that Gabe is thinking of doing

20mm Flak Vierling AT:

Hard Attack-7

Soft Attack-5

Hard Defense-11

Soft Defense-6 (unchanged)

In all of the following switches I recommend leaving the Soft Defense alone and just adding a Hard Defense to the switched mode due to the fact that the devs already did all of the historical research already and I while I like historical accuracy, I'm not a card carrying member of the History Police and am all for playability.

I went with the offensive stats of the Wirblewind, due to the fact it is the same gun system. The def stats are still better against grunts (Soft Def 6), which is good for a towed system, and the offensive stats are good due to the fact that we are talking about an ADA gun that was not really designed to be used as an offensive/defensive weapon against ground, but could be used as such in a pinch

Historically all ADA gun systems that were used by all sides preformed better in the static defensive role, against ground and air targets.

I know some people will argue that the soft attack and defense should be changed. I disagree.

I'm well aware of the Battle of Caen and how a Canadian Infantry Battalion was almost wiped out by a 12 SS Wirblewind. That situation was prefect for the defenders at the time and that gun was supported by a platoon of grunts (kind of like how Wittman pulled of his feat...he chose excellent terrain and used excellent tactics). Also the poor Canucks advanced across an open field and were victims of a well planned and excellently performed ambush. Without the supporting grunts that gun woulda been toast by being outflanked

These switches should add to the game, not change the game.

I will post more switch recommendations later
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:41 pm

Rather than post a novel for each gun switch I will just post my stat recommendations and if anybody wants to debate them I will then post my notes, which are copious .

The above being said, all of the new proposed ADA switches should be kept at their current ranges.

37mm Flak AT

Hard Attack-7

Soft Attack-3

Hard Defense-10

Soft Defense-6


SDKFZ 10/4 AT

Hard Attack-4

Soft Attack-2

Hard Defense-9

Soft Defense-6



SDKFZ 7/1 AT

Hard Attack-7

Soft Attack-5

Hard Defense-8

Soft Defense-7


SDKFZ 7/2 AT

Hard Attack-7

Soft Attack-3

Hard Defense-10

Soft Defense-7
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Jan 26, 2019 9:11 pm

Thank you very much, Bob, for all the input.
But right now, I'm just tired. Went all day through the units, effects and commanders files to pick up on all the open issues, bugs and errors reported in the various "collection" and mod threads. I'm beginning to see Excel-grids everywhere... :shock: :wink:
I'll go through it tomorrow - then the real work begins with adding all the new units, variants, changes and other experiments.

Thanks again. :D

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:11 pm

No problem Gabe..glad to help

I'll research and then post the Italian stuff tomorrow
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:00 am

Ok, now for the Italians

Here are my recommendations, as before, no notes unless somebody asks

Semevente 149/40 AT

This is the only switch that I'm going to recommend this:

AT Range of 2

Hard Attack-19

Soft Attack-20

Hard Defense-7

Soft Defense-5


Semevente 105/25 AT

Hard Attack-18

Soft Attack-5

Hard Defense-18

Soft Defense-12


Semevente 90/53 Arty

Hard Attack-8

Soft Attack-4

Hard Defense-6

Soft Defense-6


Semevente 75/46 Arty

Hard Attack-8

Soft Attack-5

Hard Defense-15

Soft Defense-11
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

terminator
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by terminator » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:43 pm

airbornemongo101 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:00 am
Ok, now for the Italians
Here are my recommendations, as before, no notes unless somebody asks
Semevente 149/40 AT
This is the only switch that I'm going to recommend this:
AT Range of 2
I do not think that it is a good idea to give Range=2 for an Antitank Unit. I tried a mod with Range = 2 for tank and antitank as it was in Panzer General 2 but the result was not conclusive.
If you increase the range it should in return decrease the efficiency :

RangeDisplay.JPG
RangeDisplay.JPG (150.52 KiB) Viewed 766 times
Range Display (John Tiller's Campaign Series) :
- Red = Hard Target
- Blue = Soft Target
Last edited by terminator on Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:43 pm

- fixed Wirbelwind, Ostwind, Sturmpanzer IV, Sturmtiger stats
- equalized Ger. mobile AA
- Italian carro armato and MC dogfighters series fix
- Ger. Ar234 changes, it's a jet-plane after all
- various minor unit stat fixes
- added the above mentioned Ger./Ital. AT switch units
- added/"unlocked" Ger. 20mm FlaK AA/AT
- added Ger. Cavalry '37-'45 (courtesy of terminator's "Forgotten Units" mod)
- renamed commanders' fictional names with Kondi's research
- changed naval transports to be able to move and disembark on the same turn
- changed firing effect for AA switch units, as I don't think the AA exposions should happen when firing on ground units

terminator wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:43 pm
I do not think that it is a good idea to give Range=2 for an Antitank Unit. I tried a mod with Range = 2 for tank and antitank as it was in Panzer General 2 but the result was not conclusive.
If you increase the range it should in return decrease the efficiency :
Fully agree. I'm never gonna give a land unit (that ain't arty, of course) a range setting. It's free direct fire without return damage. The only exception's my Armoured Train in the AT mode (range=1) setting, because otherwise it couldn't fire on hexes where it can not move onto. And I'm still not happy with this solution, way too strong this way.

airbornemongo101 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:00 am
Ok, now for the Italians
Here are my recommendations, as before, no notes unless somebody asks
Thanks! :) Balancing the stats is no easy task, I don't envy the devs in that regard. That's why I'm doing the stats of the new units in the last (testing) step.

Still, there's one question beforehand: why should the defense values of switch units change? I've seen it with some of the early US and Jap. stock units, but the reasoning behind that is not clear to me. :?:
The way I understand the mechanics, the def. values should represent the pure "armour" of my unit, right? During any combat action, the "green" def. values are to calculate the damage done to my unit only. The return damage is determined by the "red" attack values of my unit. So why should these change with switching the gun? Or am I missing something? :idea: :?:

And the Semovente 149/40 AT soft attack of "20" is also way too high. Mightier than the Sturmtiger. A mechanized unit with such stats could almost insta-kill infantry units in the open! Sure it ain't a typo?

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:53 pm

The 149/40 notes...….

We are talking about basically a 150mm cannon. The range was 25,900 yards (think about it, that is over 5 miles). I figured that it could fire at least 2 miles, given the proper sights which were in development ,but we will never know because it was a prototype only. The main gun for it was the 149/40. The Germans loved the gun and the ammo it used so much they ordered more from Ansaldo, just like the Semevente series, but only 12 more were made

The only drawback to the system was lack of any superstructure at all, leaving the gun crew totally exposed, but the designers, rightly so, stated that nothing would be able to reach it. The design so groundbreaking that the US Army designed the M110 using the 149/40 SP as a template.

I gave it a soft kill of 20 to show that the thing would be horrendous against soft targets. I still gave it a high armor kill, because this was a prototype and the Italians, along with German help, were developing high velocity shells to use for the Semenvente series. It would be only logical that they would develop high velocity shells for it also. They would still have the AP rounds to use against soft targets, but this is all conjecture and interpretation due to this being a fantasy weapon.

Again we are talking about the crew actually being able to see and hit the target, instead of firing at a grid coordinate, which is a whole different ball game.
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:01 am

The defense value notes.....

The defense value, to me, is not just about "armor", it's about whether the gun is able to be dug in , what's the crew doing..etc

If a gun system is dug in, some of the crew is not needed to service the weapon , so they are able to be used as "op's"..etc

and I know of no country that when a veh. is stopped that the crew just stands around with their thumbs up their 4th point of contact. They are suppoed to be pullomg perimeter security

Plus anything that is stationery or dug in, stopped, etc.. is harder to see, especially if it's camo'd up with foliage/nets..etc... which makes it harder to aim at and hit.
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

terminator
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Major-General - Elite Tiger I
Posts: 2692
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by terminator » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:57 am

Where is the download link of the latest version of the "Gabe-Mod" :?:

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:46 pm

terminator wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:57 am
Where is the download link of the latest version of the "Gabe-Mod" :?:
Holy cow, now there's v7.1.6 in the making. :shock:
And I'm using v7.1.5 for the mod. Good god, I hope I do NOT have to restart again... :roll:

To come back to your question... well...I don't know. Soon available, I hope. :wink:
(But at least it's not just saying "under construction" in the OP - it actually is.)
airbornemongo101 wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:53 pm
The 149/40 notes. [...]
Again we are talking about the crew actually being able to see and hit the target, instead of firing at a grid coordinate, which is a whole different ball game.
I agree with the veh. attack being quite high, maybe could even be some more, comparing it to the Lancia AT. But the inf. attack for switchable arty has to be WAY lower in this game. You've said it yourself:
airbornemongo101 wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:34 pm
These switches should add to the game, not change the game.
I fully agree with this statement. In the end, you still have to abide by the general balancing rules of the game, being it historical or military-tech-accurate or not.
That's why I'm also definitely going to change some units based on playability and not accuracy. Like changing the subs and the ranges of some arty or supply requirements and such. Even movement points with a few units maybe.
airbornemongo101 wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:01 am
The defense value notes.....
The defense value, to me, is not just about "armor", it's about whether the gun is able to be dug in , what's the crew doing..etc
OK, but bear with me on this please: I'm imagining a scenario where my position (with some mechanized AT/ART unit) is being ambushed/attacked by some enemy tank. This tank fires at my unit (and crew). Now, how is the gun elevation a factor to the damage my unit's gonna take? I'm guessing my "crew" would be inside and/or outside in either case doing about the same thing?

Sorry, I'm still not getting it. Why should the damage to the Ost-/Wirbelwind units, tanks basically, depend on the elevation of the gun? Or the Sherman Calliope, totally different def. stats with AT and ART settings. Maybe I'm just not grasping a simple military rule or tactic here. :?: Are the positions used with units in AT, AA or ART mode that different from each other when it comes to cover, crew duties and defense in general?
I mean, are AA positions always better/differently defended than ART positions, for example, and ART positions better/different from AT positions? Is that what you were saying?

FYI: Most of the stock switch units have identical def. stats. At least the mechanized/self-propelled ones.

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:52 pm

Gabe you're right about the 149/40. fell free to make the stats as you wish

I never really looked at elevation of the gun itself, in fact the higher it is the harder it would be to depress

The defense stats that I contrived were also taking in the above and how the veh was built, is the gun towed ...etc,....etc...ad nauseum



Examples below:

1) is it towed?, if it is the crew has no cover other than the concealment for the gun system, which drops the defense rating . Towed guns can be "dug in" and that would send their defense thru the roof (placed inside bunkers..etc...), but that should be reflected in the entrenchment level. The gun type will up the rating...see below

Self Propelled (this going to be long)

1) Veh profile..vehs that have a low profile tend to be harder to shoot at, now imagine that the low profile veh is in defilade and hard to see

2) Turreted? is it open or closed, a veh that has a turret is better than a veh that does not, both on defense and offense (the turret moves so veh does no have to). An opened turret is extremely hazardous to the crew, not only from shrapnel, but also from silly infantry idiots that love grenades and look at vehs as nothing but a challenging target (yes.. yours truly)

3)Is the veh armored? The SDKZ's upped their armor as the war went on, and I reflected that, however they were just an artillery prime mover that had a gun mounted on the back...so it's not really an AFV. The Wirlewind and Ostwind however were armored, granted they had open turrets, but they were still mounted on a MK.4 Panzer chassis, they had points taken off for open turrets, but they made it up in the gun type. So I agree with the devs

4)Veh construction, is the veh bolted vs. welded. Bolts are a death sentence for crews inside vehs.
Imagine the below:
Veh gets hit by shell. The armor holds, but the kinetic energy has to go somewhere, the bolts sheer and become bullets inside the veh, which needless to say that is very very bad for the tread heads inside. In contrast a weld will just break, true there might be spalling, but that is less lethal than a bolt head. Before somebody asks, the norm for AFVs for everybody was bolting , unless it was a tank, needless to say that changed as the war went on.


5) The gun system itself, was it rapid fire (20mm..etc..), if it is the defense rating goes up because the clips (5-7 per clip depending on the gun system) can be stacked/stored nearby. These guns are not machine guns. Machine Guns are fed by belts. Rapid fire cannon were fed by clips back then, which upped their rate of fire more than their larger cousins but they still did not fire as fast as a machine gun (that's why rapid fire cannon are electrically fired now). The US Army stayed with M-2's in dual and quad mounts for just that reason (high volume of fire).

6) Role being used for. A gun crew that is throwing rounds downrange via indirect fire is usally not paying attention to it's surroundings, but paying attention to throwing the rounds down range (easier to sneak up on, been there done that ). The gun also has to be braced somehow for indirect fire (arm spades, chains..etc.. I know about bracing but never did it, I wasn't a tube bunny) and for the gun to back level that bracing must be broken down. The bracing usually takes up room/space which means the setup is in an exposed area. Whereas a gun crew in a direct fire role will be waiting. With the gun pointed at the soon to be targets

7) Did veh have a secondary weapon? (ie: mounted machinge gun on top or in the hull). That should be self explanatory

The Semevente 90/53 got an extra slam against because the thing could only carry 6 rounds..so there is going to be a need to constantly resupply the thing, which makes it easier to find, unless it's dug in with ammo nearby

I told you I would do research, and I did, . The stats fluctuated with all the above factors taken in

In the end tho, it's you're mod so please feel free to amend the stats in any way you see fit. I just wanted to give you some ideas and possibly alleviate some of the time involved in making a mod
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

Erik2
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 6008
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Norway

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by Erik2 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:02 pm

I hope the devs are reading this thread and taking notes...

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:03 pm

Thanks, Bob, for the detailed explanation! :)

Creating whole new stats and understanding the impact to the game is kinda new to me - and more difficult than I've thought. Never done that before. Just correcting errors in the values and coming up with new ones is a whole different matter. I'll have to read up about it in the manual and do some more unit tests.

Work, work, work... :roll: :?

airbornemongo101
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:16 am
Location: Quakertown,PA. THE US OF A

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by airbornemongo101 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:33 pm

You're more than welcome Gabe. I hoped I helped, if even a little

That is only about half of the criteria...the list for determining that I use is quite extensive, as is the research , that's why it took me three days. I use my own library and reinforce that with some web stuff.

You should see my notes, they look like they were written by a mad math genius on meth :shock: , because of my constantly changing the stats, hell half of the time I can't even figure what I wrote down, I have to decipher my own writing :roll: :lol:

I think you get the gist and reasoning ,at least by the few I showed.

By and large, though, I agree with stats the devs made, it's when you introduce new mechanics and new units that it gets "hairy", so to speak

I made one mod and that was the Elite Units for PZC and stayed away from "new" units (fantasy prototypes and switchables,) for a reason, I was giving my self headaches.

However that being said, that doesn't mean that I won't be glady using yours :wink:
....that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.......and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.


Always remember, Never Forget:

Box 8087

5 - 5 - 5 - 5

uran21
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Panzer Corps Map Designer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:34 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by uran21 » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:22 pm

One can maximize the historical impact on the game but at the end, those numbers used need to correlate with combat formula and more than that all this has an effect on actual gameplay. This is why translating various parameters into numbers doesn't work well if the gameplay is not put into consideration right away. The simplest way to include gameplay is to introduce "periods" when the unit appears and is the most active and "tiers" within periods. Those are pure number ranges dependent on actual combat formula. Focus here is on damage done and received. Then you can confront numbers from historical research and trim them to fit gameplay category. In certain cases, some things are left out deliberately as AT had HE capability but you want them to be Anti-Tank exclusively due to rock-paper-scissors concept. Or in campaign progression of equipment is very important so in general lesser equipment at later date is not the most desirable thing.

Any way I can certainly appreciate the effort because thorough research on units benefits from concentrating on a small number of them at a certain (longer) time period but when making whole units file the one who is doing it should never lose greater picture as a whole.

GabeKnight
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The "Gabe-Mod" (v7.1.5 / beta testing)

Post by GabeKnight » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:25 am

Thanks for the input. Yeah, gameplay's really important and testing through all DLCs is necessary, that's true for sure.
But I hope to get some feedback after the release and then the mod has to be regularly tested, adjusted and updated for the best player's experience (without "damaging" my favourite wargame :wink: )

Finished creating the new units pics right now; thus I'm done with all the additional units I've wanted for my mod.
(Just waiting for the final okay from the Admiral to use his units)

Added and fully integrated new units:

- Fin. Snipers
- Fin. 75mm PAK 97/38
- Fin. 20mm ItK/35 Breda AT/AA
- Ital. 20mm Breda AT
- Ital. L3/35 Lanciafiamme - Flamethrower
- Ger. Snipers
- Ger. "Brandenburger" commandos '40-'45
- Ger. 75mm PAK 97/38
- Ger. 10.5cm leFH 18M ART/AT
- Ger. 15cm sIG 33
- Ger. SdKfz 10 Transport
- Ger. SdKfz 251/2 GrW 34 Transport with Mortar
- Ger. SdKfz 250/10 PAK 36 Transport with AT-support capability

(courtesy of Admiral's Alternate Arsenal mod)

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle : World War II - Scenario Design”