PzC Unit Box and Leader Mod – Version 2

[2-81 Armor]

I plan a Bulge mod. I'm going to use F'40 new map. Do you think that new map is historical enough? it looks to me but I have not dive deep enough into the game yet

I've experimented with the same idea (F40 map for Bulge) and I do believe the map is good enough. When I was experimenting, I edited the map so that Antwerp was present,and enough of the Netherlands so that British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army would all be on map. There is a problem in that only 1940 can be used as the year when setting dates. Any of the existing Bulge OOBs and unit graphic sets will work or new ones can of course be created. You probably know all of this anyway.

I wish you good luck with your idea, and hope you carry it further than I did. We really do need a new Bulge title with a larger and better map, along with improved OOBs.

I'm aware, however David did his magic and the map can work under B'44.
It won't encompass British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army definitely.
Slightly larger map than the B'44 original one (Hürtgenwald, Liêge plains and west of Namur)

I thought Brian Jennings map for Herbstnebel was enough to show the battle. Possibly if it went further south and allowed Luxemburg city to appear on the map would be nice to give the US player a bit more flexibility to bring his reinforcements on to the map? Might be enough to show all of the 4th Division?



The front line in the map above might be a bit rough but its just to give an idea of where it was.

The OOB for the game I guess depends on the players. If they want an easy and quick game I think the standard alt game makes a decent attempt using Bulge '44_Alt7-McNamara.oob. 
Brian Jennings oob Wacht am Rhein (Herbstnebel).oob is more detailed and is tailored for his campaign game.

The bit I'm interested in is showing the actual terrain and road network possibly a bit better? PzC has 3 types of roads. Primary/Secondary/Trail. I see Trails in eastern front titles which I understand. I've read enough abough Barbarossa to know how bad the Russian road network was.

I don't see Trails in Bulge? When I look at iconic pictures of the Bulge  I see King Tigers negotiating 'roads' which I would call woodland/forest paths? These look like Trails?

Now I thought a PzC Trail was a 'path' which allowed Foot units to move a bit quicker? But when I look at the pdt file I see that motorised units can use Trails almost as easy as Secondary roads? Mmmh?

I'm guessing the original map makers decided not to show every 'path/trail' on the map and they possibly showed woodland trails as secondary just to keep things simple? I don't know? 

All that I know is that is that when I look at the Bulge map I don't get the feel I'm in the Ardennes....

Sorry for havering....

I think the map size you advocate is just about right. I agree that it probably should extend further south to just below Luxembourg city, and maybe in the north to just above Aachen. This way we could have the entire 4th ID on map as you say, and get the US Ninth Army on map (along with most of the German 15th) so that the Allied player can see where all of those northern reinforcements are coming from. A few variations where 15th Army plays a bigger role would also be possible. My earlier desire to have Antwerp on map is (in retrospect) really too much. The Germans had no real possibility logistically or otherwise of ever getting there, regardless of what the madman in Berlin thought.

I don't know either, but I suspect you're right when talking about why trails aren't depicted on the Bulge map. I do know the pdt's are pretty restrictive, and probably substitute in a way for the limited road net not being shown?

If David (Freer?) did his magic on the new France '40 map, so it can be used in Bulge '44, I wonder where it is, who has it, and for what purpose?

As far as OOB's and the amount of detail and "drilling down" in them go, I'm lately more in favor of the simpler the better approach. I didn't always feel this way, but the older I get the more I value playability over excessive detail.

I really do hope someone is working on an improved Bulge '44. It's really needed (at least as a Bulge fan I think so) and needs to be IMHO more than just a wish. I'd be willing to help with such a project myself, and I'm pretty sure there are others.

[Indragnir]

I plan a Bulge mod. I'm going to use F'40 new map. Do you think that new map is historical enough? it looks to me but I have not dive deep enough into the game yet

I've experimented with the same idea (F40 map for Bulge) and I do believe the map is good enough. When I was experimenting, I edited the map so that Antwerp was present,and enough of the Netherlands so that British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army would all be on map. There is a problem in that only 1940 can be used as the year when setting dates. Any of the existing Bulge OOBs and unit graphic sets will work or new ones can of course be created. You probably know all of this anyway.

I wish you good luck with your idea, and hope you carry it further than I did. We really do need a new Bulge title with a larger and better map, along with improved OOBs.

I'm aware, however David did his magic and the map can work under B'44.
It won't encompass British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army definitely.
Slightly larger map than the B'44 original one (Hürtgenwald, Liêge plains and west of Namur)

I thought Brian Jennings map for Herbstnebel was enough to show the battle. Possibly if it went further south and allowed Luxemburg city to appear on the map would be nice to give the US player a bit more flexibility to bring his reinforcements on to the map? Might be enough to show all of the 4th Division?



The front line in the map above might be a bit rough but its just to give an idea of where it was.

The OOB for the game I guess depends on the players. If they want an easy and quick game I think the standard alt game makes a decent attempt using Bulge '44_Alt7-McNamara.oob. 
Brian Jennings oob Wacht am Rhein (Herbstnebel).oob is more detailed and is tailored for his campaign game.

The bit I'm interested in is showing the actual terrain and road network possibly a bit better? PzC has 3 types of roads. Primary/Secondary/Trail. I see Trails in eastern front titles which I understand. I've read enough abough Barbarossa to know how bad the Russian road network was.

I don't see Trails in Bulge? When I look at iconic pictures of the Bulge  I see King Tigers negotiating 'roads' which I would call woodland/forest paths? These look like Trails?

Now I thought a PzC Trail was a 'path' which allowed Foot units to move a bit quicker? But when I look at the pdt file I see that motorised units can use Trails almost as easy as Secondary roads? Mmmh?

I'm guessing the original map makers decided not to show every 'path/trail' on the map and they possibly showed woodland trails as secondary just to keep things simple? I don't know? 

All that I know is that is that when I look at the Bulge map I don't get the feel I'm in the Ardennes....

Sorry for havering....

I think the map size you advocate is just about right. I agree that it probably should extend further south to just below Luxembourg city, and maybe in the north to just above Aachen. This way we could have the entire 4th ID on map as you say, and get the US Ninth Army on map (along with most of the German 15th) so that the Allied player can see where all of those northern reinforcements are coming from. A few variations where 15th Army plays a bigger role would also be possible. My earlier desire to have Antwerp on map is (in retrospect) really too much. The Germans had no real possibility logistically or otherwise of ever getting there, regardless of what the madman in Berlin thought.

I don't know either, but I suspect you're right when talking about why trails aren't depicted on the Bulge map. I do know the pdt's are pretty restrictive, and probably substitute in a way for the limited road net not being shown?

If David (Freer?) did his magic on the new France '40 map, so it can be used in Bulge '44, I wonder where it is, who has it, and for what purpose?

As far as OOB's and the amount of detail and "drilling down" in them go, I'm lately more in favor of the simpler the better approach. I didn't always feel this way, but the older I get the more I value playability over excessive detail.

I really do hope someone is working on an improved Bulge '44. It's really needed (at least as a Bulge fan I think so) and needs to be IMHO more than just a wish. I'd be willing to help with such a project myself, and I'm pretty sure there are others.

@Ian:
PDT can be used to simulate this: just increase movement for secondary for motorized/tracked and increase snow condition effect. Also elevantion MP mod.

@2-81 Armor

New map based on France'40 reaches Luxemburg city (bottom) and up to Hürtgenwald area but not Aachen. I want a historcial battle (though rebalanced). No attack by AOK.15 just sending reinforcements, no big attack from 9th Army (all offensive plans canceled at nigth of the first day.)
That answer also your questions: David Freer did a map for me since I'm starting the preliminary work of my Variant for Bulge.

Regarding OOB:
A)-I don't plan to use Kampfgruppen, not even those present in _alt or stock scenarios. Those formation don't help the german play in the long run. KG are, usualy, usefull when the map is not cramped and/or formation are separated by many hexes or have very different releases and arrivals. I will use increased HQ radius and some new Btl HQ (Aufk btls and for those that were detached)
B)-I plan to integrate small units into bigger units. For example anything below 6 is too small. I can cope with 6 gun artillery or recon vehicles, it's fine but not 5 AT guns, mortars, tanks or tan destroyers, they are almost useless because of engine limitations. No AT guns at Btl level for example (unless they had 6 or more.) Same will be applied to less than 100 men formations that are not Engineers. It's likely regimental assets like recon companies (German) will be integrated into Aufk btl. (as an additional company likely) or factorized into the infantry btls. Same for AT guns into the AT btl.
C)-No different movements for the same btl, all btl would be combimable, each one with their Speed values based on the predominant compoment (for example 2 motorized companies and 1 bicycle company, thus uncombinable, would be a 3 combinable companies reduced movement [moto(-)]

All of the above will help in the big picture regarding rebalancing the scenario.

So despite it's going to be the most historical OOB regarding TO&E and real strength (I gathered a lot of data since 2012) it won't be very complex or heavy.

Work on the OoB I will start soon, first I must update Budapest after new sources (Mr Nash book vol II and playtest)

[2-81 Armor]

I've experimented with the same idea (F40 map for Bulge) and I do believe the map is good enough. When I was experimenting, I edited the map so that Antwerp was present,and enough of the Netherlands so that British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army would all be on map. There is a problem in that only 1940 can be used as the year when setting dates. Any of the existing Bulge OOBs and unit graphic sets will work or new ones can of course be created. You probably know all of this anyway.

I wish you good luck with your idea, and hope you carry it further than I did. We really do need a new Bulge title with a larger and better map, along with improved OOBs.

I'm aware, however David did his magic and the map can work under B'44.
It won't encompass British 21 AG, US Ninth Army, and German 15th and 1st FJ Army definitely.
Slightly larger map than the B'44 original one (Hürtgenwald, Liêge plains and west of Namur)

I thought Brian Jennings map for Herbstnebel was enough to show the battle. Possibly if it went further south and allowed Luxemburg city to appear on the map would be nice to give the US player a bit more flexibility to bring his reinforcements on to the map? Might be enough to show all of the 4th Division?



The front line in the map above might be a bit rough but its just to give an idea of where it was.

The OOB for the game I guess depends on the players. If they want an easy and quick game I think the standard alt game makes a decent attempt using Bulge '44_Alt7-McNamara.oob. 
Brian Jennings oob Wacht am Rhein (Herbstnebel).oob is more detailed and is tailored for his campaign game.

The bit I'm interested in is showing the actual terrain and road network possibly a bit better? PzC has 3 types of roads. Primary/Secondary/Trail. I see Trails in eastern front titles which I understand. I've read enough abough Barbarossa to know how bad the Russian road network was.

I don't see Trails in Bulge? When I look at iconic pictures of the Bulge  I see King Tigers negotiating 'roads' which I would call woodland/forest paths? These look like Trails?

Now I thought a PzC Trail was a 'path' which allowed Foot units to move a bit quicker? But when I look at the pdt file I see that motorised units can use Trails almost as easy as Secondary roads? Mmmh?

I'm guessing the original map makers decided not to show every 'path/trail' on the map and they possibly showed woodland trails as secondary just to keep things simple? I don't know? 

All that I know is that is that when I look at the Bulge map I don't get the feel I'm in the Ardennes....

Sorry for havering....

I think the map size you advocate is just about right. I agree that it probably should extend further south to just below Luxembourg city, and maybe in the north to just above Aachen. This way we could have the entire 4th ID on map as you say, and get the US Ninth Army on map (along with most of the German 15th) so that the Allied player can see where all of those northern reinforcements are coming from. A few variations where 15th Army plays a bigger role would also be possible. My earlier desire to have Antwerp on map is (in retrospect) really too much. The Germans had no real possibility logistically or otherwise of ever getting there, regardless of what the madman in Berlin thought.

I don't know either, but I suspect you're right when talking about why trails aren't depicted on the Bulge map. I do know the pdt's are pretty restrictive, and probably substitute in a way for the limited road net not being shown?

If David (Freer?) did his magic on the new France '40 map, so it can be used in Bulge '44, I wonder where it is, who has it, and for what purpose?

As far as OOB's and the amount of detail and "drilling down" in them go, I'm lately more in favor of the simpler the better approach. I didn't always feel this way, but the older I get the more I value playability over excessive detail.

I really do hope someone is working on an improved Bulge '44. It's really needed (at least as a Bulge fan I think so) and needs to be IMHO more than just a wish. I'd be willing to help with such a project myself, and I'm pretty sure there are others.

@Ian:
PDT can be used to simulate this: just increase movement for secondary for motorized/tracked and increase snow condition effect. Also elevantion MP mod.

@2-81 Armor

New map based on France'40 reaches Luxemburg city (bottom) and up to Hürtgenwald area but not Aachen. I want a historcial battle (though rebalanced). No attack by AOK.15 just sending reinforcements, no big attack from 9th Army (all offensive plans canceled at nigth of the first day.)
That answer also your questions: David Freer did a map for me since I'm starting the preliminary work of my Variant for Bulge.

Regarding OOB:
A)-I don't plan to use Kampfgruppen, not even those present in _alt or stock scenarios. Those formation don't help the german play in the long run. KG are, usualy, usefull when the map is not cramped and/or formation are separated by many hexes or have very different releases and arrivals. I will use increased HQ radius and some new Btl HQ (Aufk btls and for those that were detached)
B)-I plan to integrate small units into bigger units. For example anything below 6 is too small. I can cope with 6 gun artillery or recon vehicles, it's fine but not 5 AT guns, mortars, tanks or tan destroyers, they are almost useless because of engine limitations. No AT guns at Btl level for example (unless they had 6 or more.) Same will be applied to less than 100 men formations that are not Engineers. It's likely regimental assets like recon companies (German) will be integrated into Aufk btl. (as an additional company likely) or factorized into the infantry btls. Same for AT guns into the AT btl.
C)-No different movements for the same btl, all btl would be combimable, each one with their Speed values based on the predominant compoment (for example 2 motorized companies and 1 bicycle company, thus uncombinable, would be a 3 combinable companies reduced movement [moto(-)]

All of the above will help in the big picture regarding rebalancing the scenario.

So despite it's going to be the most historical OOB regarding TO&E and real strength (I gathered a lot of data since 2012) it won't be very complex or heavy.

Work on the OoB I will start soon, first I must update Budapest after new sources (Mr Nash book vol II and playtest)

I'm glad to hear David helped you out with the map. He's a really good guy, and did something like that for me when I was putting together an expanded Campaign Gettysburg scenario. (That scenario never did make it for a variety of reasons, and to this day I feel just a bit like I let David down, but that's another story.)

My comments about Ninth Army and AOK 15 were more intended for inclusiveness rather than what-if type scenarios. My thinking was put everyone in their historical positions as of 15 or dawn 16 December and let the Players decide what to do. However, that might lead to some chain of command problems for both sides. Probably better just to leave well enough alone.

I really like what you've got planned for the support units. It sounds like a really good compromise. I also like what you say about Kampfgruppen and unit breakdown/recombining.

If you want any assistance with the OOB US naming conventions I'm happy to help. Examples: US uses "Co" as the abbreviation for "Company" and not "Coy". Infantry was never "lorried" but is motorized. US battalions are either shown as 2/81 or 2-81 depending on whether or not they are organic/integral to a regiment or not.  Engineer Battalions in WW2 were termed "Engineer Combat" and not "Combat Engineer" which is the modern term. Paratroops were called "Parachute Infantry", and not "Airborne". There are a others, but since the USMC is not involved we don't have contend with a unit being named "2nd Marine Regiment" instead of 2nd Marines.

I think you've got the makings of a winner here, and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!

[Plain Ian]

I really like what you've got planned for the support units. It sounds like a really good compromise. I also like what you say about Kampfgruppen and unit breakdown/recombining.

If you want any assistance with the OOB US naming conventions I'm happy to help. Examples: US uses "Co" as the abbreviation for "Company" and not "Coy". Infantry was never "lorried" but is motorized. US battalions are either shown as 2/81 or 2-81 depending on whether or not they are organic/integral to a regiment or not.  Engineer Battalions in WW2 were termed "Engineer Combat" and not "Combat Engineer" which is the modern term. Paratroops were called "Parachute Infantry", and not "Airborne". There are a others, but since the USMC is not involved we don't have contend with a unit being named "2nd Marine Regiment" instead of 2nd Marines.

I think you've got the makings of a winner here, and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!

Yes I like the sound of the OOB changes as well. Still a lot of work to do once the OOB is resolved. Unit placement and reinforcement scheduling. Then fine tuning all the prepared defenses.

I can see why Brian Jennings became 'burned out' on this subject.

I assume the intent is to make the scenario play under standard Alt options so Alternative Assault on but Alternative Indirect Fire/Direct Fire off. 

I guess Alternative Indirect/Direct Fires are unique to certain OOB's/situations like Normandy? I've always like the idea of the alternative Fire rules. It cuts out a lot of micromanaging stuff, and adds a bit more unpredictability. 

Unfortunately as John (Green) has pointed out the formula used for calculating losses is a bit flawed and needs tweaking. Still playable in PzC Normandy....just watch your stacking levels though! <g>

[Indragnir]

I really like what you've got planned for the support units. It sounds like a really good compromise. I also like what you say about Kampfgruppen and unit breakdown/recombining.

If you want any assistance with the OOB US naming conventions I'm happy to help. Examples: US uses "Co" as the abbreviation for "Company" and not "Coy". Infantry was never "lorried" but is motorized. US battalions are either shown as 2/81 or 2-81 depending on whether or not they are organic/integral to a regiment or not.  Engineer Battalions in WW2 were termed "Engineer Combat" and not "Combat Engineer" which is the modern term. Paratroops were called "Parachute Infantry", and not "Airborne". There are a others, but since the USMC is not involved we don't have contend with a unit being named "2nd Marine Regiment" instead of 2nd Marines.

I think you've got the makings of a winner here, and I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product!

Yes I like the sound of the OOB changes as well. Still a lot of work to do once the OOB is resolved. Unit placement and reinforcement scheduling. Then fine tuning all the prepared defenses.

I can see why Brian Jennings became 'burned out' on this subject.

I assume the intent is to make the scenario play under standard Alt options so Alternative Assault on but Alternative Indirect Fire/Direct Fire off. 

I guess Alternative Indirect/Direct Fires are unique to certain OOB's/situations like Normandy? I've always like the idea of the alternative Fire rules. It cuts out a lot of micromanaging stuff, and adds a bit more unpredictability. 

Unfortunately as John (Green) has pointed out the formula used for calculating losses is a bit flawed and needs tweaking. Still playable in PzC Normandy....just watch your stacking levels though! <g>

Gentlemen,

I think we can continue this thread on my own thread to keep this one free of non-topic matters.

I will reply you there.

[Green]

Mediterranean

Mods for the Mediterranean titles added to the downloads.

[The_General]

Thanks John, as always great work!

[Compass Rose]

Thank you John for finishing and covering the whole series as it is greatly appreciated and they look great!

Thanks Again!

[Green]

Alex/Chad,

Thanks guys. Your support is appreciated. Good to have this 'finished'. There is more to be done, but for now, unless there are problems to be fixed, I will leave it at that.

I should have mentioned that I have removed the files that added the Low Reliability symbol from all my downloads. If you have a mod that includes any of these files, you should delete them manually or re-download the Leader Mod for that game. The affected titles are Normandy '44, Kursk '43, Kiev '43 and France '40. An improved version of the symbol is included as standard in the soon to be released updates for these games.

Also I have not included Naval unit files for the Mediterranean titles as these are now included as standard. 

Cheers, John

[Compass Rose]

Thanks John for all of the extra info as I just re-downloaded the leaders zip for those titles that you mentioned.

Greatly appreciate your hard work and time on doing the whole entire series as they look top-notch!