[DEV] Historical Content Representation - Pilot Projects

[Lettos]

OK i see what you mean, but AI won't be able to "blow up" its bridges / disband the fort-bridges either. It's just too stupid for that.

Bridges can be blown up by agreement between two players. But it doesn't matter.
In the game against AI, you don't have to blow up bridges, leaving them as an additional easy obstacle.
But it is possible to blow up a bridge belonging to the AI.
Maybe even the AI will someday destroy the bridge on the player's territory.
Better at least such options than none.

[Lettos]

Ok, it's rather well known "around here" that I'm a H2H play guy.

Now I would venture to suggest you play in H2H mod one my scenario, it's a Low Countries. Low Countries should win independently of who of us will play for Wehrmacht.
Another very provocative scenario is Barbarossa. Independently that sides players will choose Soviet Union should loose.
It will be an excellent testing of Scenarios. I'm ready to play for any of sides no using any cheat codes sure.
Now, thanks to the available scientific research, I plan to further strengthen the Wehrmacht with AAG and field artillery in Barbarossa.
And also to made some little geographical changes in Low Countries in Ardennes region.
Can we try after upgrading?

[Lettos]

1) What kind of H2H play mode do you have in mind, PBEM or Online ? If it's PBEM, you may want to look here:
PBEM Mode
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=211#p1138
I never play PGF online.

I have in mind PBEM.

2) Right now I'm heavily involved in formally documenting quite a bit of technical information. The discussions re: "innovations" are a side show (but fun, nevertheless ) Let's revisit things down the line, ok ?

Sure! I am currently planning to work on 2-3 new scripts. We can return to the topic of the game H2H even after a few months.

3) Are you shooting for dual-purpose scenarios (i.e., either H2H or against the AI) ? Moreover, is your design aiming at play symmetry or not ? You may want to look here:
Modding: A Personal Opinion
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100#p7657

I'll explain my vision of problem on example of OoB Low Countries Scenario.
H(Axis) vs AI(Allied). PG and I hope PGF too sumptuously emulates an average actions of average generals. With the same mistakes as it was in historical reality.
H(Allied) vs AI(Axis). No chances for Axis. Because AI is very far from historical very talented Heer commanders.
H2H - if Allied will continue the same strategy what General Prioux have started at the battles of Hannut and Gembloux, Allied should won. And WWII will be stopped in May'1940.
I'have checked all three modes. And only playing mode H2H begs the question: "Was I objective when playing both sides? Maybe I consciously and unconsciously helped one of the sides?"

4) Since you've recently approached PGF coming from PG1-DOS's "direction", you may also want to take a look here:
PG1-DOS... Twisted (PGF)
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=213#p6978

Thanks! I read it. These changes have a very little or no effect on my main, "large" Scenarios.

[Kas Narayda]

I liked the fact that after completing the next scenario at the beginning of the next one, the strength of the units does not automatically rise to 10 points. Thus, the player himself needs to replenish the units and spend prestige points. How did you do it?

[Lettos]

I liked the fact that after completing the next scenario at the beginning of the next one, the strength of the units does not automatically rise to 10 points. Thus, the player himself needs to replenish the units and spend prestige points. How did you do it?

Thanking to Community it was very easy to do it.
Open pg.pgcam file in Notepad.
Go to section:
# Entry points
# Name Label in campaign path Description Side Nation Free elite replacements
1939 Poland Germany launches a series of blitzkrieg attacks in Europe, beginning with Poland. 0 8 0

I'm not tested whole Campaign in this "No Free elite replacements mode" and planning to do it ASAP.
If You see what Elite replacements are too expensive and not enough Prestige to provide them, especially in starting Scenarios, just edit the pg.pgcam file replacing "0" with "1". Good luck!

[HexCode]

I'll explain my vision of problem on example of OoB Low Countries Scenario.
H(Axis) vs AI(Allied). PG and I hope PGF too sumptuously emulates an average actions of average generals. With the same mistakes as it was in historical reality.
H(Allied) vs AI(Axis). No chances for Axis. Because AI is very far from historical very talented Heer commanders.
H2H - if Allied will continue the same strategy what General Prioux have started at the battles of Hannut and Gembloux, Allied should won. And WWII will be stopped in May'1940.
I'have checked all three modes. And only playing mode H2H begs the question: "Was I objective when playing both sides? Maybe I consciously and unconsciously helped one of the sides?"

Look, sooner or later you'll have to take a clear position in regards to the "big picture". Here're the overarching issues:

SPECULATIVE OR COUNTERFACTUAL ?

Some hobbyists are willing to entertain notions of "alternative history", provided certain "safeguards" are in place. Thus, as long as a wargame provides "assurances" that play will by necessity generate speculative (i.e., "historically plausible") outcomes, such hobbyists are willing to "tolerate" such "deviations". Otherwise, the wargame title just amounts to a... toy that generates "plainly" counterfactual outcomes. Such outcomes, some hobbyists contend, are, well, ... rubbish.

PLAY BALANCE IS IRRELEVANT

Some hobbyists consider a wargame's play balance issues to be detrimental to "historicity". Basically, they say, one is either "into history" or he just plays, psychologically egged on by some form of "historical connection". In fact, many such hobbyists claim, no "historical connection" at all is better than "hybrid monstrosities" which are responsible for serious "historical misconceptions"...

So, when it comes to your mod, are we talking about historical recreation ? If so, what's the purpose of "playing" ? If, on the other hand, you allow for the possibility of historically counterfactual, yet plausible, outcomes, how do you control a campaign which, the longer it runs, the more likely it is that it'll generate "unacceptable", historically counterfactual outcomes. I know of no "grognard" approach which has ever found a satisfactory solution to the foregoing. In any case, whatever "necessary compromises" you'll eventually adopt, you'll have to live with them and their practical consequences, for better or worse. Cheer up, though; it's only a game.

[Lettos]

So, when it comes to your mod, are we talking about historical recreation ? If so, what's the purpose of "playing" ?

1) Recreate the battlefield environment in which the battle(scenario) took place.
2) Give the opportunity to see everything yourself, through the eyes of the "player". This is the X2AI mode. When I speak of a "player," I mean something more serious. The ability to go through such a historical scenario and a complete understanding of what happened during the "game" gives the "player" the full right to apply for a diploma after completing a short historical training.
3) Give an opportunity to seriously interfere with the game in the H2H mode.
For many generals of the period 1939-42, such entertainment could be offered so that they do not practice on the battlefield, wastefully wasting hundreds of thousands of lives ...
Perhaps today's future lieutenants will find it useful to play a little.
And for the player who won the mode, the rank of a junior officer and a graduate of historical military courses can also be offered as a bonus.

If, on the other hand, you allow for the possibility of historically counterfactual, yet plausible, outcomes, how do you control a campaign which, the longer it runs, the more likely it is that it'll generate "unacceptable", historically counterfactual outcomes. I know of no "grognard" approach which has ever found a satisfactory solution to the foregoing. In any case, whatever "necessary compromises" you'll eventually adopt, you'll have to live with them and their practical consequences, for better or worse. Cheer up, though; it's only a game.

Fully moderated historical model. External intervention at the end of each scenario: PP award, Victory Hexes in next scenario, price for new units etc.
Time boundaries should not go beyond the boundaries of the military concepts built into this wargame. Now I've tried to understand these concepts with some experimentation in one primitive sandbox scenario, and something has cleared up. I don't think that this AI should be used to simulate some kind of modern military conflict. In general, it shouldn't. Although ... modern conflicts are different.

[Lettos]

Let's continue on the reserves, replenishments and the state of the Wehrmacht tank units in 1942.
There is nothing wrong with opening a book:
Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front, 1941-1942. Schwerpunkt. Robert A.Forczyk. 2013.

From pages 215-216:
"By 1 January 1942, the nineteen German panzer divisions on the Eastern Front were in a very sorry state. The Germans had kept attacking until their panzer divisions were totally spent and then the retreats had cost them dearly. Panzer-
Regiment 203 - which had only arrived in Heeresgruppe Nord on 17 December - was the strongest German armoured formation left on the Eastern Front, with about sixty operational tanks at the beginning of January. Otherwise, most of the
panzer divisions were reduced to five to fifteen tanks each, for a grand total of perhaps 300 operational tanks spread across the entire Eastern Front. The Schiitzen-Regiment in most of the panzer divisions were gutted, with personnel
losses between 50 and 80 per cent and vehicle losses even higher. More than half of the trucks and prime movers had been lost in the 1941 campaign, which severely reduced the mobility and logistical sustainability of many units, particularly the motorized infantry divisions. Some examples of the very limited combat effectiveness of the panzer-divisionen at the start of 1942 include:
* The 1.Panzer-Division had five operational tanks and less than two battalions of infantry.
* The 3.Panzer-Division had fifteen operational tanks in I/Pz.Regt 6 (one Pz.II, eleven Pz.IIl, two Pz.IV, one Pz.Bef).
* The 4.Panzer-Division had one company with ten tanks, which was increased to two companies with a total of sixteen tanks by 21 January.
* The 6.Panzer-Division had no operational tanks and had lost 80 per cent of its infantry and most of its prime movers. The only combat-effective element was Kampfgruppe Zollenkopf, equivalent to a reinforced rifle battalion.
* The 7.Panzer-Division had five operational tanks (four Pz.38(t) and one Pz.IV).
* The 8.Panzer-Division had a mixed panzer kampfgruppe with twelve tanks (eleven Pz.38(t) and one Pz.IV) and about 15 per cent of its infantry remaining.
* The 11.Panzer-Division withdrew its remaining tanks to the rear at Gzhatsk. It is not clear how many were operational, but no more than ten to fifteen.
* The 18.Panzer-Division had a small number of Pz.III and Pz.IV operational.

Von Kleist’s 1.Panzerarmee reported in mid-January that it still had 458 tanks, but only 166 were operational (twenty-two Pz.II, 111 Pz.III, thirty-three Pz.IV), plus fifteen StuG III assault guns - making his command the only Panzerarmee still worthy of the name on the Eastern Front. While this might sound like a combat effective force, he also reported that there was only 0.25 V.S. of fuel with the front-line units - barely enough to turn the engines over a few times a day. Von Kleist did benefit from the fact that after his defeat at Rostov he did not retreat far - so little equipment was abandoned - and that the Red Army left his forces relatively unmolested for the rest of the winter. Elsewhere along the Eastern Front, most panzer regiments formed a mixed company or two with the remaining tanks, while the other panzer companies were disbanded and the personnel assigned to alarm units to deal with enemy partisans or raids. A few ‘unhorsed’ panzer crews were sent back to the Ersatz-Abteilungen (replacement battalions) in their home Wehrkreis, but most were pressed into the line as ad hoc infantrymen.
The remaining tanks were used strictly in the infantry support role, stiffening the hard-pressed German infantry at key points. A few assault guns remained in service too, but not many. German supply services all but collapsed for a time
during the winter of 1941-42, with the railroad system almost paralyzed when most German-made trains proved unable to withstand the cold in Russia and the roads blocked by snow that could be one meter or more in depth.

Although there was no major armoured combat during the winter months, German tank losses remained heavy during January-February 1942 as tanks were abandoned due to retreats and lack of recovery vehicles. Deliveries of new tanks did not begin in earnest until February 1942, by which time the Soviet Winter Counter-offensive was beginning to run out of momentum. The German Werkstatt units were finally able to start repairing some tanks and vehicles as well, but throughout the winter the Germans had no appreciable mobile reserves on the Eastern Front."

As we know, Wermacht started Barbarossa with 17 Panzer divisions and a lot of special companies and battalions with 4500 tanks and got more than 2000 as replacements till 31 December 1941.
As we see, in February 1942, only 5-15 tanks remained in the divisions!
These are definitely units EXP = 599 and STR=...1? But Moscow'41 is finished with no-victory or Minor Victory. All fronts are frozen.
And if in next scenario Player at start will get a very significant of PP amount, all these units including divisions sended to home will get the elite replacements? I'm not sure about it. I'll moderate PP amount to something less than amount needed for victory on Ural and Baku in 1942. Hard tuning

[Lettos]

Studying the events of June-July 1941, in relation to the creation of the Barbarossa scenario, a paradoxical question arises at first glance: are we sure that Barbarossa should not be an "offensive" scenario in PGF for the Allied (Red Army)? Now the scenario is "defensive" because "they" attacked and "those" were attacked. This is historical truth.
But, if you think about it ... the actions of the Red Army were mostly not classically defensive, but almost always unsuccessfully organized counter-offensive, which the PGF engine more faithfully emulates in an offensive scenario for Allied.

[Radoye]

You can do that, and sometimes the scenarios "play" better like that, but you will have to find a way to keep some of the AI units defending their victory hexes.
The trouble with an AI set to offense is that it pushes all its units forward and cares not for protecting any of its cities, which often results in an easy win for the human player. With the PGF AI the trouble is to find the balance between being too passive (defensive AI) or too aggressive (offensive AI). In either case you need to be creative to get the scenario to play ~just right~

[HexCode]

The trouble with an AI set to offense is that it pushes all its units forward

I believe that technical solutions can be found here. The key aim should be to ensure that the AI isn't able to mount too too many units and rush them forward willy-nilly. Basically, let numerous Soviet tank formations rush forward and "attack" while everybody else moves forward at a much slower pace. There's the air war, of course...

As usual, give the AI a few "things" that it can "practically use" and forget about dual-purpose scenario design (i.e., a modder's "Holy Grail") or even switching sides...

By the way, Library says:

From an intended play quality perspective, it is very important . . . to clearly indicate whether their custom content should be viewed as playable:

1) In single- or dual- purpose fashion. Single-purpose play should either be H2H or H2AI / AI2H but not both; dual-purpose play can entail both.

2) Against PGF's AI module and, if so, whether in single- or dual-sided fashion. Single-sided play should either be H2AI or AI2H but not both; dual-sided play can entail both.

Finally, quite a bit of "interventionist", technical know-how is required in order for one to successfully utilize 5-star-like wargames in conducting retrograde, historical Kriegsspiel exercises. The software simply were never programmed to do such "specialized things"...

[Radoye]

My point exactly - it might not be possible to design a scenario in such a way while still adhering to the high standards regarding historicity (completely accurate OOBs on day 1 / turn 1) etc. You need to use some creative scenario building techniques to pull it off.

[Lettos]

Thanks for answers, Hexcode and Radoye!

you will have to find a way to keep some of the AI units defending their victory hexes.

There's "publicly" accessible documentation galore on this very topic, "anchors" and all !

Yes, first of all some "anchored" FORT units. And probably not only INF but ATY, ATG and AD too. In reality, some units of 1941 were formed in this way: they managed to receive guns, but did not manage to receive trucks and tractors, and even horses. From the point of view of PGF, these are FORT units.

I believe that technical solutions can be found here as well. The key aim should be to ensure that the AI isn't able to mount too too many units and rush them forward willy-nilly.

It mean cut AI PP to zero and place a "Batman Black hole HQ" made from Level Bomber unit with EXP=0. Some destroyable Allied bridges can help to AXIS to create a "pocket".
And one more consideration. Most of the destroyed tanks of the Red Army were destroyed not by panzers, not by aircraft, but by the anti-tank artillery of the Wehrmacht. If Allied (Red Army) has only defensive scenarios, then the Axis player does not need anti-tank artillery. At least in PG1, all these PAKs were completely unnecessary AUX junk. But in case of "Offensive" Allied Scenario may be Player really will need to have some 88mm ATG in Core units.

Basically, let numerous Soviet tank formations rush forward and "attack" while everybody else moves forward at a much slower pace.

AI will have available only units deployed at the start of Scenario. Units deployed in cities in the rear mainly will be "anchored". Available reinforcements will have STR=1 and wait for PP "Injection" Event.

There's the air war, of course...

Just an air war does not cause any difficulties. In reality, intense battles took place for 3-4 days, after which the Soviet Air Force was left practically without fighters. The Luftwaffe has secured a "clear sky". The Soviet Air Force continued to strike with bombers alone, suffering huge losses. The bombers also ran out quickly. No replacements. No new "units".

As usual, give the AI a few "things" that it can "practically use" and forget about dual-purpose scenario design (i.e., a modder's "Holy Grail") or even switching sides...

I am a pragmatist and not a supporter of "fanatical heresies"! Moreover, the difference in the two AI tactics is already quite well understood.

My point exactly - it might not be possible to design a scenario in such a way while still adhering to the high standards regarding historicity (completely accurate OOBs on day 1 / turn 1) etc. You need to use some creative scenario building techniques to pull it off.

Absolutely agree! The task looks really creative!
(And by the way, here is Kursk 1943 ... this is also not a defensive scenario for the Soviet Army. During 7-8 turns Wehrmacht should attack Soviet Army's "anchored" units, and than here should be an Event activating counter-offensive...)

[HexCode]

I'm thinking Retrograde Kriegsspiel here, not SSI !

# Lettos #, there're two more tools potentially at your disposal which might help you micromanage your Campaign so that it is in line with historical realities as much as technically possible:

1) You can use various Cheat Codes to instantaneously modify some of the Human side's realities, in-game.

2) You can hex-edit any Game-State snapshot to instantaneously modify some of the AI side's latest available realities, in-game.

[Lettos]

I'm thinking Retrograde Kriegsspiel here, not SSI !

# Lettos #, there're two more tools potentially at your disposal which might help you micromanage your Campaign so that it is in line with historical realities as much as technically possible:

1) You can use various Cheat Codes to instantaneously modify some of the Human side's realities, in-game.

I considered your valuable idea!
In Kriegsspiel these codes will be useful for Player in H2AI and for both Players in H2H modes:

1) Geography section:

weather #N
Sets current atmospheric conditions (0=Clear, 1=Overcast, 2=Rain, 3=Snow).
ground #N
Sets current ground condition (0=Dry, 1=Muddy, 2=Frozen).

I suppose that in the scenario Moscow'41 may be somewhat cloudy, rainy, dirtier and more snowy than in the classic one from PG 1. In general, the weather conditions in PG1 are implemented more or less acceptable only for summer, and not for autumn-winter in Eastern Europe ...

2) Unit's section:

fuel #N
Sets the selected unit's current, remaining fuel to #N.
ammo #N
Sets the selected unit's current, remaining ammo to #N.
exp #N
Sets the selected unit's current experience to #N.
str #N
Sets the selected unit's current strength to #N.

In Scenario without replacements these codes allows to transfer Strength, Ammo and Fuel between units. If Strengths were transferred there is possibility to adjust EXP of "increased" unit after transfer.

prestige #N
Adds #N to current prestige points. #N can be negative.

- Probably each transfer can cost some PP "penalty"?
- And sure, an Event without "black hole".

2) You can hex-edit any Game-State snapshot to instantaneously modify some of the AI side's latest available realities, in-game. The most important sections and segments of a Game-State file's format will become "publicly" accessible shortly...

Waiting for it!!!

[Lettos]

8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41

The most effective weapon in role of "killer" of tanks and planes.
The question is - did anyone keep such a unit in the core?
(I never bought this anti-tank and air-defense rubbish in the core).

Since PG1 in this VERY IMPORTANT UNIT, "God of war on battlefields in 1940-42", the "soft" has been separated from the "salty". Where it was not necessary, PG1 developers mixed two different substances, but where it was necessary - no. But it would be nice to mix and see what happens.

I tested unit with such parameters:

Class = 5 (Anti-aircraft!)
Soft Attack = 4
Hard Attack = 18
Air Attack = 15
Naval Attack = 8 (? Should be something equal to Destroyer)
Ground Defense = 4
Air Defense = 6
Close Defense = 0
Movement type = 2 (Wheeled!)
Initiative = 12
Range = 2 (? or may be only 1. Need to be discussed)
Spotting = 1
Target Type = 0 (Soft!)
Movement = 2
Max Fuel = 0 (? or 40-50? Need to be discussed)
Max Ammo = 8

By first testing in sandbox unit looks as extremely good ATG weapon with relatively good mobility on battlefield.
"The versatile carriage allowed the 8.8 cm Flak to be fired in a limited anti-tank mode when still on its wheels;[4] it could be completely emplaced in only two and a half minutes."(Wiki)
And unit can be used against aircrafts too but unfortunately not as AD but only as AA.
I'm sure such unit must be very expensive. May be even twice as expensive as the most expensive tank in 1940-1941.
I am not suggesting that such a unit ideally emulates its historical standard. But this unit is much closer to the benchmark than what has been in the standard kit so far. Perhaps someone in their fashion has already done something similar or even better.
But it is very clear that in any scenario of the period from May 1940 to the first half of 1942 (before PzIVF2 arrived to front), the Wehrmacht has no historical right to defeat the Allied tank forces using only the Pz III.

GE AA 8.8cm 18/36/37/41 - I think I'll take a couple of these to the core

[HexCode]

Since PG1 in this VERY IMPORTANT UNIT, "God of war on battlefields in 1940-42", the "soft" has been separated from the "salty". Where it was not necessary, PG1 developers mixed two different substances, but where it was necessary - no. But it would be nice to mix and see what happens.

Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives:

1) Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".

2) Create a dual-mode, composite unit type where one of its manifestations technically appears as transport.

In the particular case you're "researching", a dual-mode, composite unit would be AT (or, even, TNK ?) class with an AA class organic transport or vice versa, right ?

[Lettos]

Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives:
1) Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".

How can a class be created? I did not know about such a possibility. Are there any materials on the topic somewhere?

2) Create a dual-purpose unit type where one of its manifestations technically appears as transport.
In the particular case you're "researching", a dual purpose unit would be AT (or, even, TNK ?) class with an AA class organic transport or vice versa, right ?

In this case, I am using a unit class that already contains a dual purpose. Unit class is Anti-aircraft, but all ground parameters adjusted as for powerful ATG or ... may be we can call it as strange tank which can attack tanks and almost can't be attacked by tanks with good results for tanks.
And this AA 8.8 Flak / ATG can be transported by half-tracked transport such as Sdkfz 7, with no good air and ground defense when transported. And will be attacked by enemy as usual transported unit.

[HexCode]

Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives: ... Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".

How can a class be created? I did not know about such a possibility. Are there any materials on the topic somewhere?

I was misunderstood. I wasn't talking about coming up with a new unit class; just a new unit type. That's exactly what you've already done. Instead of creating a dual-mode, composite unit based on transport, you've designed a self-contained unit the stats of which adequately meet your criteria.

[Radoye]

Since PG1 campaign is generally concerned with being on the offensive, purely defensive weapons such as the 88 towed AT/AD are at a distinct disadvantage. Such scenarios favor mobility and while towed ATY still has some advantages (mainly range) the AT and AD roles are equally well covered by tanks, fighters and/or self propelled AT and AD units neither of which suffers from the same mobility problems towed AT and AD does.

If someone would set up a mainly defensive campaign where core unit slots are plenty but prestige is tight and rather than trying to chase after enemy victory hexes as quickly as possible the player has to sit back and defend, then the towed 88 would suddenly become more interesting, as it was in real life for the same reasons.

I find myself buying 88s and other towed AT or AD when defending Berlin for example. They are quite useful and more cost effective than fighters, which are usually cleared from the skies by overwhelming Allied air superiority anyway. And they can still hold their own against tanks too, if backed up by ATY.

[Lettos]

Depending on a scenario's / campaign's particularities, the designer must always choose between two alternatives: ... Create a self-contained unit type sporting some stats "hybridization".

How can a class be created? I did not know about such a possibility. Are there any materials on the topic somewhere?

I was misunderstood. I wasn't talking about coming up with a new unit class; just a new unit type. That's exactly what you've already done. Instead of creating a dual-purpose unit based on transport, you've designed a self-contained unit the stats of which adequately meet your criteria.

I believe in your abilities so much that I decided that I had missed the information about creating a new class somewhere.
I understood you. Yes, the existing class for the new unit type came up here. I only needed one such unit - but very important

[Lettos]

Since PG1 campaign is generally concerned with being on the offensive, purely defensive weapons such as the 88 towed AT/AD are at a distinct disadvantage. Such scenarios favor mobility and while towed ATY still has some advantages (mainly range) the AT and AD roles are equally well covered by tanks, fighters and/or self propelled AT and AD units neither of which suffers from the same mobility problems towed AT and AD does.

If someone would set up a mainly defensive campaign where core unit slots are plenty but prestige is tight and rather than trying to chase after enemy victory hexes as quickly as possible the player has to sit back and defend, then the towed 88 would suddenly become more interesting, as it was in real life for the same reasons.

I find myself buying 88s and other towed AT or AD when defending Berlin for example. They are quite useful and more cost effective than fighters, which are usually cleared from the skies by overwhelming Allied air superiority anyway. And they can still hold their own against tanks too, if backed up by ATY.

I'm assuming we're talking about the same thing? In 1941 and 1942 Wehrmacht used these guns for strategical offensive actions. There are were some tactical defense actions but not for defense purposes. It is a very difficult situation in simulating. If we talking about battalion-level model the 8.8cm guns are defense weapon only. In case if scale is one inf. division on hex or two hexes for panzer division, 8.8cm ATG are unique Offensive weapon.

From "Tank Warfare on the Eastern front, 1941-1942. Schwerpunkt". By Robert A.Forczyk. Pages 56-57

Oddly, the 6.Panzer-Division was not expecting a major Soviet armoured counterattack, even though reconnaissance aircraft from Panzergruppe 4 had spotted tanks approaching from Kedainiai. Thus the Germans were doubly shocked on the morning of 24 June, when not only were they attacked by a large Soviet armoured group, but also by three different types of tanks that they did not even know existed. Solyankin directed his main effort - two tank regiments and part of a motor rifle regiment - against Kampfgruppe Seckendorff. The Soviet tanks attacked in waves, with the light BT and T-26 types out front, followed by T-34s and then the KV heavy tanks. Although shocked by the appearance of T-34, KV-I and KV-II tanks, the German panzerjager followed doctrine and did not engage with their 3.7cm and 5cm Pak until the Soviet tanks were within 200 meters. The German AP rounds simply bounced off and then the Soviet heavy tanks overran the panzerjagers and part of Kradschiitzen-Abteilung 6. No German infantry had yet been overrun by enemy tanks in the Second World War and this was terrifying. After bashing their way through Kampfgruppe Seckendorff, three KV heavy tanks led by Major Dmitry I. Osadchy forded the Dubysa River and attacked part of Schtitzen-Regiment 114. The KV tanks managed to overrun part of a German artillery battery before being engaged by direct fire from 15cm howitzers. Although the howitzers could not penetrate the KV’s thick armour, they managed to blow off the tracks, immobilizing them.

The 6.Panzer-Division was shocked by the violence of this attack. Most histories of the Battle of Raseiniai depend upon Erhard Raus’ account, even though he was only lightly engaged in this action.’ Raus’ account focuses on his efforts to destroy a single KV-2 that managed to get behind his kampfgruppen and sever his supply line, but says little about the decimation of Kampfgruppe Seckendorff. The Soviet attack subsided when the commander of the 3rd Tank Regiment was killed by shell splinters and his tanks ran low on fuel and ammunition. The Soviet pause granted the Germans a short reprieve. Due to constant Soviet bomber attacks on the German supply columns crossing the Lithuanian border, Panzergruppe 4 had kept its available 8.8cm flak batteries in the rear and none were available near the front at Raseiniai. Reinhardt quickly ordered a flak battery to move forward to support 6.Panzer-Division and, in the meantime, Landgraf was on his own against Solyankin’s tanks. Oberst Richard Koll, commander of Panzer-Regiment 11, led a counterattack with his diminutive Pz.35(t) light tanks and a handful of Pz.IV against the Soviet tanks pounding on Schtitzen-Regiment 114, but this was a hopeless gesture and Koll broke off the attack after suffering significant losses.
Another odd thing about the Battle of Raseiniai is the absence of the Luftwaffe; the arrival of Stukas might have tipped the balance, but they were nowhere in sight.

Solyankin launched six separate attacks on 24 June, which considerably upset the Germans, but Soviet armour power waned as fuel and ammunition were exhausted. Soviet combat logistics fell apart. Most of the T-26 and BT-7 light tanks, as well as the motorized infantry, were lost early in the battle, leaving the remaining KV and T-34 tanks unsupported. The Soviet heavy tanks made one last effort to break through to Raseiniai late in the day, but by this point an 8.8cm flak battery and a 10cm heavy howitzer battery had arrived and they succeeded in immobilizing several tanks, causing the attack to falter.

Another example from North Africa battles in 1942. Would Rommel have gone far if he hadn't used Acht-acht as heavy breakthrough tanks?

[Radoye]

I'm assuming we're talking about the same thing? In 1941 and 1942 Wehrmacht used these guns for strategical offensive actions.

Everything you wrote is correct; however i'm not discussing history here but PG gameplay. There is no way to make towed 88s more useful than tanks and/or fighter planes in the context of the game.

Well, one thing you could try is to add them Range = 1 in AT role (so they wouldn't suffer return fire when attacking) but still it wouldn't solve the problem when on the move / mounted onto transport where they would be just as useless as now. And in AD role a fighter plane will always be a better purchase because it can reach farther and do more things.

[Lettos]

There is no way to make towed 88s more useful than tanks

I offered not towed but wheeled MVT=2. At least something closer to reality

Well, one thing you could try is to add them Range = 1 in AT role (so they wouldn't suffer return fire when attacking) but still it wouldn't solve the problem when on the move / mounted onto transport where they would be just as useless as now.

You are right! This uber-unit must to have some weak places. And this unit can be successfully attacked by enemy artillery, infantry and during transportation. But.. thinking about transportation... Acht-Acht's readiness to fire from wheeled position in 1-2 minutes... is it equal to any tank's readiness to engage in combat? Commonly yes. And what happens if we'll create very expensive transportation unit (as purchasable unit during Campaign!) with average Hard Attack (about 7-8-9)? Can we use for it something like Sdkfz.7 adding 8.8 gun icon? If Player will decide to upgrade any Inf unit's transport to this type of transport what Player will get as a result? Better and safer unit's transportation to front line? It's not bad result! But where from this result?
Now we are investigated true motorized division of Wehrmacht. Predcestor of '43 Panzer-grenadier's divisions. A lot of half-tracked transporters served not only to transport infantry on mud roads but directly on battlefields, attacking almost together with tanks. All artillery "inside" this divisional unit were provided with mech.transports, not horses as in usual Inf.divisions. Some additional artillery and ATG's, increased mobility and readiness to be engaged in combat. Why do we look at transport only as transport? It was very cool - traveling with an eight-ton cannon on a trailer, wasn't it? Can we think in this direction?

Since PG1 campaign is generally concerned with being on the offensive <...>

Yes. But those who have done these campaigns in the distant past have put a huge imbalance in the game. For playability.
German tanks from 1940-1942 are overvalued, Allied tanks are underestimated. Seems the principle was as follows - add three stars to unit and PzIIIG will destroy any KV-1 or Matilda II. This is ... a big mistake.

But this is a game. In which the players killed millions of soldiers ... can I add my two cents here? Why not launch a missile or a nuclear bomb? It is possible that someone has already pressed the red button. I don't know... but:
Place any Capital Ship class unit on map. With HA=2000, Soft Attack=2000 or something like these terrible digits. Fuel = 1. MA=0. Icon - any suitable for V-2 launching position.
Range = 20-30-40.
Ammo = 1 to 5?
Locate any suitable target and destroy it... terrible war.

I'll go to play in World at War 3.4 now! I wanted to take a break and I really want to see this Campaign!

[Lettos]

Refers to: Scale Consistency & Scalability. 2. Divisional level.
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=516#p8692

The MVT parameter has practically no restrictions at the battalion and company levels. All restrictions are not related to the technical parameters of the historical unit, but only and solely with the logic of the scenario.
But in the historical scenario of a divisional (and sometimes battalion) scale, 1 hex = 8-10, much less often 11-13, and very rarely 15 km. Why does a tank unit move on average 5-6 hexes per turn? an average of 50 km? Is it because PG said so? And the main question is - why do heavy tanks move at the same speed as medium and light ones?
The answer: "because they have the same speed on a 5-kilometer test site in good weather" is about 90 years old.

1) On the PGF map on a scale of 1 hex = 10 km, many small rivers are missed between the rivers drawn by the map designer. The further east you are from Marseille, the fewer stone bridges left by the ancient Romans, and the more wooden bridges, built by talented peasant carpenters. The carrying capacity of these wooden bridges is no more than 10-12 tons (occasionally 15-16). But basically - 8 tons. Heavier tanks must wait for bridge engineers to reinforce this weak bridge. And this is the time and decrease in MVT.
2) The load on the undercarriage of heavy tanks was very high compared to light tanks. It is known that Soviet medium and heavy tanks 1941-42 had a very weak chassis. By 1943, these problems were more or less solved.
Well, and in 1943-44 German heavy and super-heavy tanks did not break because they were German tanks? I understand correctly, right?

Soviet generals in 1940 were not too backward in theory. Still, joint exercises with Guderian could not pass without a trace.
And since 1934, they themselves have created something in terms of theory. There was a complete disaster with practice. But in 1944 they already mastered the practice.

And now it is interesting to read what they wrote in 1940 in the theory about the movement of tank forces:

Kuznetsov T.P. Tank troops tactics. Published in Moscow, USSR, 1940.
Source in Russian: http://militera.lib.ru/science/kuznetsov_tp/08.html
Translated from Russian by Google-translate.

Moving in a marching order, observing the appropriate rules of combat and material-technical support according to the degree of constant readiness for battle, is the only way for tank forces to move on the battlefield and when approaching it. At the same time, a tank unit or formation covers an average of 80-100 km in one day, spending 8 hours on movement and 2 hours on halts, retaining the ability to conduct combat, and in three days - up to 400 km, followed (if the situation allows) a break for the rest of the personnel and putting in order the material part.

The average daily speed of movement of a unit or compound of medium (heavy) tanks in marching order is 60-80 km.

Such a speed of movement in a marching order provides the ability to move entire tank formations from the depths to the front and cast them from the area of ​​one army to the area of ​​another within 24 hours. The ability of tank troops to move under their own power at the speed indicated above makes them independent of vehicles (road, rail and water) under conditions of a front operation and allows them to be concentrated in the required number on the decisive direction of the front during the time allotted for preparing an offensive operation.

The military theorist here is talking about the maximum possible theoretical distance in practical terrain. In reality, this distance should be reduced by at least a third, or even twice.
German military theorists and excellent practitioners who knew how to defeat Soviet theorists confirm:

"In 15 hours, 150 kilometers were covered. As it was proudly noted in the daily summary of the 36th Tank Regiment, "it was a daily march, which until now has not been possible for any tank regiment in Russia." But as a result, the fuel ran out! Our tanks were deeply wedged into the gaping gap formed in the enemy front, and now they could not budge!"

Full citation here: viewtopic.php?f=10&p=9172#p9172

So 15 hexes = 150 km is too much in 1942 even for extremely durable Panzers III and very good PzIV (until overloaded in latest versions).

On Divisional Scale level I'm thinking now about to increase MVT for light tanks and reduce for heavy.

[HexCode]

The Campaign feature lies at the heart of the 5 Star General play system paradigm. Aside from the past, empirically confirmed market appeal, the feature "simplifies" matters by utilizing a one-size-fits-all equipment type roster throughout a particular Campaign. To boot, geographical scale remains "indeterminate" as one moves from one scenario map onto the next one. As for OoB, well, we've already discussed this at length...

Interestingly enough, the very same critique has been leveled at the aforesaid play system paradigm for an entirely different reason. Namely, high quality H2H play was conceived as Standalone Scenario play where each such scenario would be chock-full of particularities. Technically, each such scenario would be a wargame in and by itself. The conceptual connection with traditional tabletop board wargames should be rather obvious.

So, whether we're talking historical fidelity or high quality H2H play, the Campaign feature kind of falls short on both counts.

Practically speaking, given your professed interests, you may consider shying away from designing Campaigns and focusing on particular "battles", ... particularities and all.

[Lettos]

The Campaign feature lies at the heart of the 5 Star General play system paradigm. Aside from the past, empirically confirmed market appeal, the feature "simplifies" matters by utilizing a one-size-fits-all equipment type roster throughout a particular Campaign. To boot, geographical scale remains "indeterminate" as one moves from one scenario map onto the next one. As for OoB, well, we've already discussed this at length...

So, the first problem is to decide on the scale and not change it during the campaign. The solution is simple - the scale does not really need to be changed.

The principle of a 5-star campaign isn't all that bad. The second problem here is different. Let me explain using the example of the German army 1939-1945. The first part of the "game", 1939-1942 was played according to one principles of army organization, and 1943-1945 - according to different principles. From a game point of view, it was very attractive to give the player the opportunity to go through the entire war of 1939-1945 without restructuring the army.
I am not making a commercial product. From my point of view, there should be two campaigns here: 1939 - July 1943 and August 1943-1945.
Yes, simple and tough - if the player could not take Moscow 41, or Stalingrad + Baku, or Kursk, Game is over.
Since the days of PG, the player has been given a huge number of hidden bonuses in the game, which the player did not see directly, but which greatly influenced the result. And the result is the Washington scenario. Wow!
Hidden bonuses included:
- too tank accessible terrain. That is, clearly incomplete maps that did not prevent tanks from rolling around the map anywhere.
- too high combat parameters of some especially important tanks. The tank as a universal means of breaking through a deeply echeloned defense ... tell the Model about Kursk about this.
- too high parameters of mobility of tanks
- the underestimated cost of many units, which are very difficult to develop, manufacture and operate.
- inflated PP bonuses for victory and for the destruction of enemy units.

Serious conversation about all of these things in relation to OoB has not yet begun. There were only some sketches of ideas and notes .

Interestingly enough, the very same critique has been leveled at the aforesaid play system paradigm for an entirely different reason. Namely, high quality H2H play was conceived as Standalone Scenario play where each such scenario would be chock-full of particularities. Technically, each such scenario would be a wargame in and by itself. The conceptual connection with traditional tabletop board wargames should be rather obvious.

I'm all for it"! The creation of a Campaign does not interfere with the creation of separate scenarios for the H2H mode. We have already talked about this in relation to the Low Countries scenario. Of all the scenarios I have worked with, this scenario is the only one promising for the H2H game. The only scenario where I still don't understand who should have won if played correctly ...

So, whether we're talking historical fidelity or high quality H2H play, the Campaign feature kind of falls short on both counts.

I will express my preliminary thoughts on the "Campaign", which can be both historical and very interesting and difficult for the player at the same time.
1) Very limited amount of P.
2) Highly increased Player's units cost comparing with enemy units cost. In such case it makes extremely important for Player not to loss any own unit. Otherwise enemy will gain too much very useful Prestige.
3) There are no automatic replacements between scenarios.
4) EXP Cap in some scenarios.
5) All maps in one scale.
6) And, quite a heretical thought. Scenarios in which the Player must inevitably lose some of his elite units.

About the last point 6.
We took Moscow41 and went to London (MAJ) or Sevastopol (MIN)? And if, in any case, a counterattack of Soviet troops follows, of DIFFERENT strength depending on MAJ or MIN, which the player must stop with the available units without automatic reinforcements between scenarios, and only then, in the event of a successful defensive battle in January-February 1942, will there be Sevastopol?
Or Kursk. First, there will be an offensive scenario for 10 move-days. And also, depending on the victory won, the subsequent scenario will be a counter-strike of the Soviet armies from the flanks. In this case, the player's VH will be not just conquered Kursk, but, say, Kiev and more. Deployment hexes will be located near Kursk and near Warsaw. And let the player choose the strategy for the further war:
- Leave Kursk and retain only Kiev. Then the next scenario will be defensive and will not lead to any global victory.
- try to keep some other VH besides Kiev. This allows the next scenario to be offensive ... but what is the player going to be offensive with? This is already a difficult game task.

At least from the above, it is clear that we have the means for NON-LINEAR development of the campaign tree.
So far, we have played LINEAR campaigns, where even in defensive scenarios, the player's army was so much stronger than the attacking army that I often wondered - why did they even decide to attack superior forces?

About one Scenario-trick from SSI.

Have you ever wondered why SSI included three strange scenarios in the 1939 Campaign: Norway, Crete and Sevastopol?
SSI very elegantly solved one big problem they faced - historicity. The historicity is not of military operational and tactical movements, but of a completely different kind: economic and military training.

Norway is an opportunity for the player to carry out a quality upgrade of his army. In reality, from October 1939 to May 1940, the German army was modernized and reorganized. But how to give such an opportunity to the Player if he is transferred from Poland directly to France?
Crete - while the player conquers the ancient Minoan island, his task is completely different - upgrade and preparation for Barbarossa.
Sevastopol is a hidden emulation of the rearmament process of the German army after the catastrophe of December 1941.

These three scenarios are stub scenarios.

Taking a more historical approach to these scenarios, the player's army shouldn't have appeared on the battlefield at all. Or show up in a remote Supply Center without affecting anything. The fighting was to be conducted by AUX units. And the player had to spend the obtained starting prestige calmly and unhurriedly on the upgrade.

Practically speaking, given your professed interests, you may consider shying away from designing Campaigns and focusing on particular "battles", ... particularities and all.

Both. And as much as possible. But with one good principle in mind:
Aut non tentaris aut perfice

[Lettos]

read various literature on weapons, strategy, tactics. Sometimes very interesting quotes come across.

Before publishing a small quote, I want to say a short introduction.
I recently spent three weeks playing PGF with specific research goals. According to the results of many games in the scenarios of 1936-1941, it turned out that it is very good to forget about tanks as a striking force for now, and, above all, to acquire as much good artillery as possible.
Well, it's a strange strategy, you never know who and what they used in the game before me. But this strategy proved to be very effective!
But we're playing ... a tank general, a blitzkrieg? What does artillery have to do with it?

The games are over, I returned to reading and working on the most difficult scenario of Barbarossa.
I am reading the diary of Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the Ground Forces (OKH) of Germany in 1938-1942. I think readers know that the person in this position knew better than you and me about the blitzkrieg concept.

Now the promised quote from Franz Halder's diary on July 19, 1941:

"c) GHq troops: Artillery: We shall still have to put up a fight to retain a substantial GHq Artillery, incl.Observ.Bns. and Corps Artillery Hqs, to facilitate exercise of control over operations. The argument that modern war is waged no longer with Artillery, but with tanks, is fallacious. "

[Lettos]

Continuing the theme of artillery:

U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison Written By: William G. Dennis
https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- ... omparison/

General George S. Patton, commander of Third Army, also praised the artillery, stating, “I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know. The artillery did.”

[HexCode]

The Soviet Army (and Josef Stalin himself) apparently coined the expression "God of War" in reference to artillery.

Just focusing on Campaign Play, when it comes to the use of artillery, there're two design sides to the content under current development:

1) Should the Third Reich Core consist of "more" artillery units ? What about Axis Aux artillery units ? Also, should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?

2) The issues raised immediately above under point (1) should be relevant to the Soviet side as well, right ? However, the thorny problem of making the AI put the "God of War" to good use still remains, right ?

[Lettos]

The Soviet Army (and Josef Stalin himself) apparently coined the expression "God of War" in reference to artillery.

Just focusing on Campaign Play, when it comes to the use of artillery, there're two design sides to the content under current development:

1) Should the Third Reich Core consist of "more" artillery units ? What about Axis Aux artillery units ? Also, should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?

2) The issues raised immediately above under point (1) should be relevant to the Soviet side as well, right ? However, the thorny problem of making the AI put the "God of War" to good use still remains, right ?

The topic of artillery is really huge. You have asked good questions, which I will try to answer in the very near future in great detail.

[Lettos]

The Soviet Army (and Josef Stalin himself) apparently coined the expression "God of War" in reference to artillery.

Naturally, this expression was invented. But not from scratch. It is believed that this expression appeared after November 19, 1942.
The army holiday "Day of Artillery" in the USSR was also celebrated on November 19.
The legend is based on the beginning of Operation Uranus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus

"At 07:20 Moscow time (05:20 German time) Soviet artillery commanders received the codeword "Siren ", prompting an 80-minute artillery bombardment directed almost entirely against the non-German Axis units protecting the German flanks. At 7:30 , the Katyusha rocket-launchers fired the first salvos and were soon joined in by the 3,500 guns and mortars stretching along the few breakthrough sectors in front ".

Approximately 3700 guns on front sectors with total lenght about 40-50 km.
These are at least 70, or even 90 guns per 1 kilometer of the front.
For comparison, let's look at the amount of artillery in the Wehrmacht on June 22, 1941.
In fact, on June 1, 1941, there were 13,000 field guns and mortairs in the entire Reich. And some of them were definitely not on the Eastern Front. Let's assume that the Wehrmacht placed 11-12 thousand guns at the beginning of Barbarossa. I do not have more accurate data now, but this is not so important in this case.
Not more than 12000 guns were deployed on at least 1000 km long front from Memel to Uzhgorod. Or not more than 12 guns per 1 kilometer.

70-90 : 12 = The insidious Soviet troops deployed at least six, or even more than seven times as many guns per kilometer of front as the self-confident Germans at the beginning of Barbarossa.

The artillery strike was so powerful that even communist atheistic propaganda adopted the term "God (?!) Of War"!

[Lettos]

However, the thorny problem of making the AI put the "God of War" to good use still remains, right ?

In the current version, the AI will not change either its purchase priorities or the sequence of attacking unit classes. There is nothing to even think about here - as he was a reflective idiot, he will remain so until he is improved. The question is whether the player will see something different, more "interesting" in the aggregate of the AI reflexes. In my opinion, it is unlikely that anything will change, but it is still possible.

[Lettos]

Just focusing on Campaign Play, when it comes to the use of artillery, there're two design sides to the content under current development:

1) Should the Third Reich Core consist of "more" artillery units ? What about Axis Aux artillery units ? Also, should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?

2) The issues raised immediately above under point (1) should be relevant to the Soviet side as well, right ?

All answers here will logically follow from a very detailed answer to the main question:

should artillery units' stats be significantly modified ?

Yes. Must be modified. For almost all unit classes.

My view of the problem, in general.

SSI created a system of unit classes, parameters and their values.
The parameters do not reflect the entire complexity of combat operations, but somehow they still work. Here at the moment, practically nothing can be changed, except for the creation of "mixed" units of two classes and a combination of the parameters of these mixed classes.
The parameter values ​​in the SSI version did not suit anyone. But these values ​​allowed the system to somehow function and produce a completely playable, and very well-sold result. Which from the point of view of strategy and tactics during the campaign can be called "Buy a bigger sledgehammer and hit harder than the enemy in the forehead." Many versions of the EQP file have emerged. The sledgehammer has become more diverse in shape, weight, color, cost, but the strategic principle remains the same. I also made one such tuned and rather finely tuned file, which suits me within the framework of a standard game. Great, a precarious balance is more or less observed. But the picture of the game, compared to the one that has already become the "standard" since PG1, has NOT CHANGED.

Now I want to step aside from the general line that SSI has defined. And try to enter into the system not tuned, but very strongly changed parameter values. Those that are more logical from the point of view of reality. No restrictions or thoughts "what will happen to the game balance". That is, I deliberately want to bring the system out of the state of its unstable equilibrium. And to see what this system is worth with the real values ​​of the parameters, and what happens on the playing field. For example, will the player have an urgent need to start thinking about a maneuver, bypassing all strong cities from the rear, or will the player start buying fewer tanks and replace them with artillery and infantry, etc. An experiment out of curiosity

I do not predict or guarantee anything. Moreover, my experiment may turn out to be completely unsuccessful and I will get nothing as a result for PGF. In this case, I'll just go back to my file, which is already working successfully.
But, in any case, for myself, I learn a lot of interesting historical information about weapons and military operations.

[HexCode]

Now I want to step aside from the general line that SSI has defined. And try to enter into the system not tuned, but very strongly changed parameter values. Those that are more logical from the point of view of reality. No restrictions or thoughts "what will happen to the game balance". That is, I deliberately want to bring the system out of the state of its unstable equilibrium. And to see what this system is worth with the real values ​​of the parameters, and what happens on the playing field. For example, will the player have an urgent need to start thinking about a maneuver, bypassing all strong cities from the rear, or will the player start buying fewer tanks and replace them with artillery and infantry, etc. An experiment out of curiosity.

It's been something like 25 years since SSI released PG1-DOS. It stands to reason, then, that a minority of wargamers would want to really experiment with the... outer limits ! Personally, I keep on referring to the present exercise as a Kriegsspiel. Why ? Because, for the purposes of experimentation, one has to really set the SSI "tradition" aside.

My current visualization of the Kriegsspiel under development entails the following critical aspects:

1) Forget about glorious generalship and the like.

2) Forget about PGF's AI module.

3) Both sides should be "played" by one or two humans. A gazillion "house rules" should be specified and religiously adhered to.

4) The player(s) should be collaborating in recreating battlefield history. H2H competition should be subordinated to history's recreation.

In the distant past, board wargamers were no strangers to utilizing play systems to collaboratively recreate military history. Ironically, computerized wargames have made such exercises significantly more difficult. The underlying code has its own "ideas", always...

[Lettos]

My current visualization of the Kriegsspiel under development entails the following critical aspects:

1) Forget about glorious generalship and the like.

Glorious generalship can be a byproduct of experimentation. I don't think about it now. Here, so far, there is only a goal to play at least one serious scenario.

2) Forget about PGF's AI module.

3) Both sides should be "played" by one or two humans. A gazillion "house rules" should be specified and religiously adhered to.

4) The player(s) should be collaborating in recreating battlefield history. H2H competition should be subordinated to history's recreation.

I've written before that I've tested all OoB scenarios in Player versus AI, Player versus Player (by myself). So the testing mode is clear for me

[HexCode]

I guess I'm still not clear about the overall experimentation focus here.

Are we talking "retrograde walk-through" (i.e., strict historical recreation) or not ? If strict historical recreation is, indeed, the intended aim, how can PGF's AI Module be "forced to collaborate" ?

If, on the other hand, the experimentation's aim is to actually "play" while at the same time ensuring that various modeled content components reflect a high degree of realism, well then, it's strictly up to you, the content designer, to pursue your own interests and satisfy (or not) your curiosity.

[Lettos]

I guess I'm still not clear about the overall experimentation focus here.

Are we talking "retrograde walk-through" (i.e., strict historical recreation) or not ? If strict historical recreation is, indeed, the intended aim, how can PGF's AI Module be "forced to collaborate" ?

If, on the other hand, the experimentation's aim is to actually "play" while at the same time ensuring that various modeled content components reflect a high degree of realism, well then, it's strictly up to you, the content designer, to pursue your own interests and satisfy (or not) your curiosity.

Something in between, with a bias in one direction or the other, depending on the results obtained.
It makes no sense at all to speak of complete historicity within the PGF model: unlimited mobilization potential, unlimited production capacity, free fuel, shells, spare parts, lack of logistics, unlimited opportunities for elite replacements, etc.
All these restrictions can be partially implemented only in the H2H game using specially stipulated rules and specially stipulated use of cheat codes.
Therefore, yes, first step is prepare some starting conditions in the game against AI, i.e. limited partial historicity: correct map, Order of Battle, Replacements between Scenarios = OFF, very limited PP during scenario, adjusted PP as awards, corrected combat parameters of units, corrected units prices, some "events" in scenarios.
And sometimes allowance of cheat codes using by Player: take STR, AMMO, FUEL from one unit and give it to another. Or even in some cases "selling" experienced units, adding PP and purchasing experienced unit in another class (example: disband 3-star recon and purchase 2-star tank instead of). Purchasing captured units almost free of charge too.

"Napoleon's motto was, 'On s'engage partout, et puis l'on voit,' which must not be taken to mean that he began a battle without any definite plan at all, but rather that his system of fighting was so elastic that it could bend itself to suit the altered circumstances of any particular case."
https://history.stackexchange.com/quest ... is-on-voit

[Lettos]

Artillery (ATY)

In the PGF game model, there are absolutely no concepts such as the composition of the gun ammunition by type of shells, the presence of certain types of shells for a specific type of weapon in general, adjustment of fire, the weight of the gun and its mobility, artillery sights, the angle of guidance along the horizontal (traverse) and vertical ( elevation). It makes no difference for a weapon whether it attacks a tank through one or two hexes or in an adjacent hex. Etc.
Shooting accuracy at individual targets. Dispersion of shells at maximum firing distance. Rate of Fire - maximum, average and very specific in different conditions. Etc.
There are no mixed types of cannons that are equally effective as cannons and anti-tank weapons. Or is it Cannon or Mortair? Etc.

There is a huge amount of reference literature on these topics online.

All this can be added to the wish list for PGF 2100.

Now we need to work with the capabilities of the model that are available.

Soft Attack (SA)

The SA parameter caused the least doubt about its more or less correct values. But just in case, I decided to check.

Artillery SA is the amount of explosives sent by the projectiles at the soft target. Using the most common High Explosive shells as an example (all data are approximately average, but taken from real Wehrmacht, Soviet and some US WW2 guns) :

Caliber: Rate of Fire, in rounds per minute * High Explosive (HE) Shell filler weight, kg = Total kg per min / (Average Total kg per min)

75-76 mm : 10-12 * 0.5-0.8 = 5-9.6 kg / (7)
105-107 mm : 6-7-8 * 1.4-2.0 = 8.4-16 kg / (12)
122 mm : 4-6 * 3.7-4.3 = 14.8-25.8 kg / (20)
140-152 mm : 3-4 * 5.3-5.8 = 15.9-23.2 kg / (20)
172-183 mm : 2-3 * 6-7.3 = 12-21.9 kg / (17)
203-210 mm : 0.5 * 16 = 8 kg / (8)

Looks very similar to PG1 "common" parameters: 11, 15, 19 for 75,105 and 120-150 mm guns!

I think that the formula is quite suitable for determining the SA of each specific type of gun. We need just simplify and unify HE filler weight for each caliber and use individual Rate of Fire for each defined gun.

Guns with a caliber of 170mm and above are a very specific type of artillery. This is especially true for artillery with a caliber of more than 210mm. SSI was well aware that super-heavy artillery could not reasonably be reflected in the PG1. The purpose of this artillery is to destroy with special extremely heavy projectiles stationary fortified positions and objects. (FORT ATTACK parameter can be added to wish list 2100).
But now... a 210mm sledgehammer is not suitable as a tool to hang a small photo on the wall. And in the role of a 75-105 mm field howitzer, this monster is also not suitable. Rate of fire 1 round in two minutes ... how far can a tank or a running infantry move in two minutes?

Another very serious SA parameter's problem is the scale of the unit. We must remember that, for example, 12 batteries (4 guns in each) with a caliber of 75-105 mm in one place / hex (in different armies called a brigade, division) is a completely common thing. 48 150 mm guns in one hex - less often. But 48 guns 170-210 mm in one hex in 1939-1941 were never used, or in 1942-1945 - almost never.
But we calculate the SA formula based on the same number of guns in a unit! That is, if we compare 48 75mm guns with 12 170mm guns:
75 mm unit (48 guns) has SA = 7-10
170mm unit (12 guns) has SA = 17: 4 = 4 ... this is the mathematical truth. The only meaning of the presence of such a unit on the game map is the firing range ...

To be continued with next parameter: Movement

[Lettos]

Artillery

Movement

To start talking about the mobility of guns, one picture.

The Germans did not read the Internet and therefore do not know that the Soviet 122 mm M-30 howitzer was "too heavy for horse towing."

All guns divided into two broad categories:
1) not requiring disassembly before transportation
2) disassembly of the gun is required for transportation
The border between the categories is on the calibers 170-210 mm.

Guns that do not require disassembly, that is, firing literally from the position in which it is disconnected from the towing vehicle, are divided into two large categories.
1a) during the combat, the cannon can be moved by soldiers (or soldiers + horse towing)
1b) to move the cannon during the combat, a special mechanical transport is required
The boundary between the categories is based on the weight of the gun, 3 tons (approximately).

In terms of MVT Type and MVT parameters, there cannot be a common equipment file for campaigns in different geographic areas.
This is my personal opinion, which has a very serious argument.
And I am now talking about the MVT theme only in relation to the East European landscape.

In Mud weather, in forests, in swamps, without bridges there is no room for illusions about wheeled vehicles. Either a horse or a partly or fully tracked vehicle.







MVT: to be continued in next post ...

[Radoye]

(FORT ATTACK parameter can be added to wish list 2100)

Yes! There needs to be a distinction between target types for stationary forts and armored vehicles. Both are today "hard targets" but that just breaks down with regards to artillery - the same gun that is good in killing tanks isn't necessarily enough to kill a bunker, and the one which is good at killing bunkers likely can't hit a moving tank.

Other similar issues - different target/attack types for high and low flying aircraft - 20-40mm AA guns were great at offering support against fast flying strafing fighters and ground attack planes but were useless against strategic bombers, where big guns (like the 88 and larger) were incapable of tracking low flying planes but were the only ones capable reaching the high flying ones.

Or a distinction between surface naval attack and submarine naval attack.

[Lettos]

"The mobility of American artillery was a sharp contrast to Germany’s situation. R. L. Dinardo’s excellent book, Mechanized Juggernaut or Military Anachronism? Horses in the German Army of World War II, covers the topic quite well. The relative lack of mobility of Germany’s artillery was caused by the limitations of the German economy, desultory planning, and the initiation of hostilities long before the planned expansion of the Wehrmacht was complete. The reliance on horses caused substantial problems in terms of speed of movement, low cargo capacity, short radius of action, and the disproportionate number of men needed to care for the animals. German horse-drawn artillery could only move at a rate of perhaps twenty-five miles a day for several days before the horses needed to rest."
U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison Written By: William G. Dennis
https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- ... omparison/

The problem here is that a half-track vehicle in the Russian mud would gobble up all the synthetic gasoline in Germany. And if the Germans decided to acquire a sufficient number of powerful tracked transports, then a lone infantry would go on the attack in 1943 on the Kursk Bulge.
The Germans weren't idiots and saved fuel wherever possible.
The truck cannot provide towed movement in Russia over rough terrain even in dry weather. Any ditch, small river several meters wide will be an obstacle. But this obstacle is overcome by horses and half- and tracked transporters.

Rule for the Eastern Campaign: wheeled vehicles cannot transport artillery for almost 10 months of the year. (Will be implemented in PGF 2100).
Moderated rule for the AXIS player: Please do not buy for artillery trucks. Either horses or half-track vehicles. Moderated (cheated) upgrade of core ATY's transport is necessary before to start Barbarossa. It mean disband unit, add PP, buy new unit with new organic transport, add EXP and STR if exists.

ATY MVT: To be continued...

[Lettos]

(FORT ATTACK parameter can be added to wish list 2100)

Yes! There needs to be a distinction between target types for stationary forts and armored vehicles. Both are today "hard targets" but that just breaks down with regards to artillery - the same gun that is good in killing tanks isn't necessarily enough to kill a bunker, and the one which is good at killing bunkers likely can't hit a moving tank.

I am thinking now to assign Target type = Soft for FORTS. Significantly increase Ground Defense.
At the very least, this will make tank and anti-tank artillery attacks less effective. The player should have a need to shoot the forts with super-heavy artillery.

Other similar issues - different target/attack types for high and low flying aircraft - 20-40mm AA guns were great at offering support against fast flying strafing fighters and ground attack planes but were useless against strategic bombers, where big guns (like the 88 and larger) were incapable of tracking low flying planes but were the only ones capable reaching the high flying ones.

I see a partial solution to the problem in the following steps:
- Increased Ground Defense for Level and Tactical non-diving Bombers.
- General reduction in Air Attack for all anti-aircraft guns. They are now overrated. Seven strikes of one Soviet 85mm anti-aircraft gun of 1941 in one move will destroy as many Luftwaffe aircraft as Germany has not lost in a month of aerial combat and bombing on the entire Eastern Front.
- the relative increase in Air Attack for large caliber antiaircraft guns compared to small caliber. All these 20-37 mm were effective only when applied in one place at once and in huge quantities.
- Airplanes should always have more initiative than anti-aircraft guns. The initiative belongs to the one who decided to attack competently, and not to the one who fired first. Do not forget that anti-aircraft artillery, with its first shots, partially or completely unmasks its positions. The same is largely true of field and anti-tank artillery.
- moderated cheating. After an attack on a small-caliber anti-aircraft gun from a high altitude (Level and Tactical non-diving Bombers), or after an attack on a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun from a low altitude (Tactical Dive Bombers or Fighters), the player has to return all losses to the aircraft. If there was a pair of anti-aircraft guns of different calibers, then try to remember the losses inflicted by the "wrong" anti-aircraft gun, and compensate for them.
But during the next half of the turn, the enemy will fire again from the weakened wrong anti-aircraft gun, and the fighters can attack the weakened player's unit and destroy it.
So all the proposed solutions, once again, are only partial.

The overall challenge is to think about a possible solution. With or without cheats, it doesn't matter. If only to change something for the better.

Or a distinction between surface naval attack and submarine naval attack.

Yes! I know ... as outraged as you are! To my design luck, cruisers do not float through forests and swamps . So for now, I ignore the problems of the fleet. I would like to deal with the ground forces

[Lettos]

Rule for the Eastern Campaign: wheeled vehicles cannot transport artillery for almost 10 months of the year. (Will be implemented in PGF 2100).
Moderated rule for the AXIS player: Please do not buy for artillery trucks. Either horses or half-track vehicles. Moderated (cheated) upgrade of core ATY's transport is necessary before to start Barbarossa. It mean disband unit, add PP, buy new unit with new organic transport, add EXP and STR if exists.

The next rule for the player is not to buy horses for guns heavier than 3 tons (or for guns with caliber over 122 mm).

It becomes logical to revisit the traditional MVT Type = 04 (Towed).
I don't understand this type of movement at all. How can a gun with wheeled vehicles move through swamps, mountains, and, moreover, regardless of weather conditions?

More logical for ATY with horses or half- or full-track transport is MVT Type = 03 (Leg).

And MVT values:
Calibers 65-122 mm if weight less than 3 tonns: MVT = 2
Calibers more than 122 mm and less than 170 mm: MVT = 1
Calibers 170 mm and more: MVT = 0, except guns and howitzers with tracked carriage which should have MVT=1.

[HexCode]

With respect to Movement Types' specs,

Movement Point Expenditure Table
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9044

documents the... gory technical details at the hexadecimal level.

And while we're at it:

[EPH] The Next Evolutionary Step
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=174&start=100#p9719

[Radoye]

I am thinking now to assign Target type = Soft for FORTS. Significantly increase Ground Defense.

Was thinking the same.

- Increased Ground Defense for Level and Tactical non-diving Bombers.

Unfortunately, while this could fix the issue of small caliber guns firing on high flying planes it doesn't solve the issue of large caliber guns not being effective against low flying planes.

[Lettos]

With respect to Movement Types' specs,

Movement Point Expenditure Table
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9044

documents the... gory technical details at the hexadecimal level.

I know of no poster other than myself who has ever "publicly" admitted to have committed the penultimate... unforgivable sin of having actually hex-edited PGF's executable ! No doubt, in the afterlife, I'll find myself in the august company of Judas, Brutus and Cassius (courtesy of good ol' Dante).

Not such a bad company compared to those who did nothing at all. There, Dante also wrote about such people - they seemed to be not even allowed into hell .

How can we specifically and practically use your deep raid on the rear of the exe file? Can we create a new type of MVT by modifying an existing one?

[Lettos]

I am thinking now to assign Target type = Soft for FORTS. Significantly increase Ground Defense.

Was thinking the same.

Excellent!

- Increased Ground Defense for Level and Tactical non-diving Bombers.

Unfortunately, while this could fix the issue of small caliber guns firing on high flying planes it doesn't solve the issue of large caliber guns not being effective against low flying planes.

Exactly. It's only partial solution...

[Lettos]

More logical for ATY with horses or half- or full-track transport is MVT Type = 03 (Leg).

And MVT values:
Calibers 65-122 mm if weight less than 3 tonns: MVT = 2
Calibers more than 122 mm and less than 170 mm: MVT = 1
Calibers 170 mm and more: MVT = 0, except guns and howitzers with tracked carriage which should have MVT=1.

And if we understand that in a combat position the gun moves across the battlefield by its artillerymen and at the same time organic transport, then it is even more logical to accept the type for 150mm MVT guns as half-tracked or tracked, and for 122mm and less - leg.
I repeat - this is all for Eastern Europe only. In North Africa, horses will die of hunger and thirst ... replace them there at least with Opel

[Lettos]

Artillery

Hard Attack(HA)

The PGF engine does not understand the difference in HA between firing artillery through one or two hexes and firing nearby, into an adjacent hex, when an artillery unit is attacked by some external evil.
What can I suggest? Almost nothing. Unoptimistic. But until PGF engine learns to understand the differences between direct fire and plunging fire, I can't change much.
Another problem is that in PGF there is no concept of a unit represented in two classes of weapons at the same time. There is no place for a gun and anti-tank gun simultaneously.

I can't do everything in artillery as it should be right now. But I can try to remove what is completely illogical.

Let me give you one very clear example:

Take a look to traverse of German field gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_FK_16_nA
Traverse (on carriage, i.e. horizontal shooting angle without rotating whole gun) is 4(!) degrees.

After this figure, I am not surprised by the fact that the main field weapon for fighting Soviet tanks was not 75, but 105 mm, 10.5 cm leFH 18.
By the way, find the difference between 10.5 cm leFH 18 and 10.5 cm leFH 16. Range - yes, a couple of kilometers more. Weight - yes, less. Projectile speed - yes, much more. But the main difference is traverse. The guns inherited from the period of the First World War practically did not turn on their carriage. 4 degrees of traverse is unlikely to help aim the gun at a tank moving to the side of the gun.

Returning to the gun 7.5cm FK 16 nA... In the competition for the most primitive weapon of the Second World War in terms of anti-tank shooting, the German 75mm field gun can be considered a deserved winner.
Forgot about 7.5 cm FK 18 or 7.5 cm FK 38 because only 100 / 144 pieces were manufactured.
From an Internet article about 7.5cm FK 16 nA in Russian: "The disadvantage was a wooden carriage, as a result of which it was impossible to deliver such a weapon using motorized means."
Again, damn horses as transport ... this is all probably written from a cunning Slavic malice, not otherwise.
And how many of these most massive 75mm guns were there in general?
The article in German does not help to clarify the question at all - how many of these guns were there on the Eastern Front?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,5-cm-Feldkanone_16nA
No info... Unknown. May be 10 thousands, may be even more ...

Compare this museum exhibit of Wehrmacht artillery with the most common field (also classified as division's gun) gun of the Soviet army ZIS-3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_div ... 42_(ZiS-3)
Number built: 103 THOUSANDS
The cunning Slavs came up with some very good field gun, which was also a good anti-tank gun. Traverse of ZIS-3 is 54 degrees.

Clever subjects of the Crown went their own way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_25-pounder
Traverse = 4° Left & Right (top traverse) / 360° (platform)

US looked at the hostilities in Europe, thought that they generally did not really need this 75mm caliber, but in any case they made a good howitzer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_howitzer Traverse 45 degrees.

Of course, if you put one gun of the 1916 model of the year in an ideal field, and direct a tank at it along a perfectly straight trajectory, then this gun will show its anti-tank capabilities. But hardly such an ideal training ground was often possible in the Second World War.

Conclusion: all guns with traverse about some degrees were obsolete in Hard Attacks in WW2. Hard Attack for such guns must be reduced.

Talking about plunging fire... The impact of HE shells on light tanks cannot be underestimated. But one cannot overestimate the firing of high-explosive shells at well-armored tanks.

In general, I want to slightly reduce the Hard Attack for artillery up to 170mm. Up to a ratio of SA : HA = 2 : 1
For some particularly successful cannons / anti-tank weapons, weaken this ratio slightly to 2 : 1.5. That is, something in between firing a high-explosive projectile at a remote distance and effective direct fire. Everything is very subjective, there is room for thought and imagination.
But for museum exhibits, the HA parameter should be absolutely minimal, approximately in the proportion SA : HA = 4 (or 5) : 1
And for super-heavy ATY with rate of Fire 1 round per 1-2 minutes HA should be about zero.

ATY:HA will be continued with info about Ammunition availability for guns (HE and Anti-tank projectiles in one-day ammunition set per gun)