[DEV] Historical Content Representation - Pilot Projects

[HexCode]

Lettos,

AI Heavy ARTY without switching to transport mode will not be able to get replacements on all terrain types except city(port) and airfield

Refer to:

[ADV] Structure Class Units: Replacement Restrictions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&start=50#p15217

Specifically:

Such Unit Types CANNOT take Strength Factor (SF) Replacements of any kind unless they are located on friendly, NON-NAVAL CITY hexes. It's very important to note that Port Cities / Facilities and Embarkation Cities simply won't do. They HAVE to be Non-Naval Cities or else..

Moreover, PGF's programming does not allow Airfields to resupply / replace land units. PG1's most certainly does, on the other hand ! Ah, details, details...

[Lettos]

AI Heavy ARTY without switching to transport mode will not be able to get replacements on all terrain types except city(port) and airfield

Refer to:

[ADV] Structure Class Units: Replacement Restrictions
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=470&start=50#p15217

Specifically:

Such Unit Types CANNOT take Strength Factor (SF) Replacements of any kind unless they are located on friendly, NON-NAVAL CITY hexes. It's very important to note that Port Cities / Facilities and Embarkation Cities simply won't do. They HAVE to be Non-Naval Cities or else..

Moreover, PGF's programming does not allow Airfields to resupply / replace land units. PG1's most certainly does, on the other hand ! Ah, details, details...

You are correct in that FORT unloaded from transportation can only get replacements in the City. I was wrong about Port and Airfield. I have corrected my post, thank you!

But as for FORT that is Loaded on transport - it gets replacements on all allowed hexes. Including Airfield.
I checked now - a regular Land unit also gets replacements on Airfield.

Seems here is very important for Fort to have attached land transport which is primary comparing to Fort.

[HexCode]

Lettos,

... as for FORT that is Loaded on transport - it gets replacements on all allowed hexes. Including Airfield. I checked now - a regular Land unit also gets replacements on Airfield.

My reference to Airfield terrain was not about Replacements feasibility. Under PGF, Airfield terrain behaves as Clear Terrain as far as land / ground units are concerned; nothing special. However, under PG1-DOS, ground units on Airfield Terrain hexes enjoy the very same Resupply / Replacement advantages normally associated with Urban Hex Terrain (i.e., Non-Naval City, Embarkation City, Port, Port Facility Terrain).

Seems here is very important for Fort to have attached land transport which is primary comparing to Fort.

Resupply / Replacement details pertaining to Dual Mode Composite Units (DMCUs) have not been formally documented yet... We shall see !

[Lettos]

Create Air recon AI units to let him look at you from sky! The Aerial Reconnaissance aircraft must be in Tac Bomber Class, and have the lowest MVT value of any Tac Bombers the AI has on the map. Air Recon will move first of all the AI Air units.

I misspelled "Level bombers" in the initial text. Corrected.

As a result of tests it turned out that Tac Bomber Class Recon must still have minimum values of SA and (or) HA for any effective attack (from the AI point of view). Otherwise, this unit flies into the player's territory and doesn't move anymore, and therefore doesn't fulfil the Air Recon function.
In general, this unit is the same hopelessly outdated aircraft (often a biplane) of the 30s.

[Radoye]

In general, this unit is the same hopelessly outdated aircraft (often a biplane) of the 30s.

Even stuff like the Fieseler Storch, Taylorcraft Auster AOP, Stinson Sentinel or the Piper Grasshopper would fit nicely into this role...

[Lettos]

In general, this unit is the same hopelessly outdated aircraft (often a biplane) of the 30s.

Even stuff like the Fieseler Storch, Taylorcraft Auster AOP, Stinson Sentinel or the Piper Grasshopper would fit nicely into this role...

My thought was this:

The player knows how to scout using his units.
Of course, sometimes you can give the player some extra AUX small bomber planes (e.g. Hs-126), which will perfectly fulfil the role of an aerial recon unit.

Similar aircraft in the role of TacBombers will be effective recon aircraft and AI-controlled.

But there are also lower class aircraft, Light Aircrafts (you correctly pointed out several aircraft from this class).
The player doesn't need them. If you give such units to AI, the air war map in the scenario will be in complete chaos.
This crap from the point of view of carrying out some attacks will interfere with the player's air units - block movement, close AI ground units.

I am currently thinking of two ways to show light aircrafts in PGF. Both ways are related to airfields controlled by AI.
There were many different aircraft based at the airfields. Including all sorts of light aviation. Basically, an airfield is a point of increased Spotting. But we can't assign a Spotting option to any terrain tile.

I have to create new units.

One unit of Light aircrafts is a ground unit, the other is an air unit. Both units have Spotting = 4-5-6. More than normal units. This emulates some sort of flight radius of Light aircrafts.

On the icons, the units look like this:



There are two of them only because sometimes in a scenario there is no space on the ground near the airfield, or all hexes there must be occupied by more important ground units. Then AIR Light aircrafts are used.

Sometimes the airfield is very important as a re-supply point (when the player has captured it). And you can't wait one turn for an enemy air unit to disappear from the map by itself. Then Land Light aircrafts are used.

Unit parameters:
SA, HA, AA, NA, GD, CD, INI = 0
AD = 99 (They cannot be destroyed by Player's air unit)
AI Land Light Aircrafts (if it has EXP=-500) will be destroyed by any attack by one or two of the player's ground units.
AI AIR Light Aircrafts have MVT=large and FUEL=1. This unit will disappear by itself one turn after capturing an airfield.

Both units in a way emulate some of the time and effort the invader has spent reorganizing the airfield and deploying its technical services.

Maybe some "devilish details" will emerge in practice, but so far, according to the test results, the practical products of this idea look quite ready for use.

[Lettos]

The topic of the aircraft carrier is still very relevant to me.

I can count at least five major tasks performed by the carrier and its air group:
1) Reconnaissance
2) Bomb and torpedo strikes against enemy ships and submarines
3) Bombing attacks on land targets
4) Fighter escort of friendly bombers.
5) Fighter defense of the carrier itself and surrounding ships of the squadron

It is possible that the task list is not complete

At the moment in PGF, an AI-controlled aircraft carrier does not perform any of these tasks. As has already been discussed many times - AI aircraft carriers are useless.
Trying to solve the problem by creating a Dual-purpose unit results in one problem being somehow half-solved, but generates two new ones.
Also, it's very difficult to get an airplane to move over the ocean. It requires additional terrain tiles, spotting - otherwise the airplane refuses to fly the route to land.

But I need an AI aircraft carrier to escort a squadron of ships on the high seas! Otherwise they're completely defenseless against air attacks!

I'm forgetting about the Air Carrier as it exists in PGF.

Can't accomplish all five basic tasks? Or rather, can't perform any of them at all? Let it do at least two of them, Reconnaissance and Air Defense
At the moment I'm thinking of a unit like this:
Class = Aircraft
Target Type = Naval
Movement Type = Ocean
Spotting = 6
Range = 6
Air attack = For the earliest and oldest aircraft carriers, not very large.
Naval attack = some very minimal values.
SA/HA = almost zero
GD/AD = very small values. You have to distinguish between "sinking" an aircraft carrier (which is sometimes a long process) and "making it unsuitable for a mission" (damage of flight deck, damaged elevators, semi-submerged, deck roll, fire etc.). That is, an aircraft carrier is out of the game fairly quickly when attacked.

Unfortunately, a dived submarine in PGF won't be able to sink such a pseudo aircraft carrier. Nor will it be able to sink an AA Cruiser.... That's a disadvantage.

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
MOVEMENT POINT EXPENDITURE TABLE (by HexCode)
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9044

Refers to:
MVT TYPES (by Lettos)
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=956#p17398

It's a working version now, for testing purposes only (not final).

Observations and preliminary thoughts.

The game is now all mechanical units with motors depicting warfare ... crocodiles and varanas. You can go into the mountains, into the swamps, you can cross a river anywhere on a heavy tank.
Movement types display logic that is understandable to the gamer such as "It has tracks," "It has wheels," "It has wheels and tracks - half-tracked, then!"
Or, speaking of wheeled trucks "It could go almost anywhere! (All-Terrain).

Yes, if trucks in war moved without payloads and without attached guns and other two or four wheeled trailers, many of the trucks of the war years could have participated in an off-road rally. Only in war they usually and most often did not carry a box of matches or three commandos in their back...

And how did heavy and medium tanks cross rivers without bridges or Bridge Engineers? In reality, heavy tanks could not even cross the temporary bridges because of their weight! (but this cannot be emulated in PGF).

I'm comparing two types of movement that are very important to the Panzer General (Forever) game. It's not "Crocodile General" after all! It's not much different:

---DRY-------------MUDDY----------FROZEN

Tracked MT
----------- 02 00 00 00 --- 01 00 00 00 -- Clear
04 00 00 00 ----------- ----------- ----Bocage
--------------- 03 00 00 00 --- 02 00 00 00 --- Rough

Half-Tracked MT
----------- 03 00 00 00 - 02 00 00 00 --- Clear
9C FF FF FF ----------- ---------- --- Bocage
---------------- 04 00 00 00 --- 03 00 00 00 ----Rough

And the Pz.VI Tiger tank, and the Pz.I, and the Bren Carrier, and the Matilda II, and the FT-17 - all they have tracks!
And SdkfZ.251 and other "garbage" with wheels and tracks are not tanks! They move worse in Muddy and Frozen on Clear and Rough!
What's not to understand?

If you look at the photos, there is a lot of confusion.

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
MOVEMENT POINT EXPENDITURE TABLE (by HexCode)
viewtopic.php?f=100&t=551#p9044

Refers to:
MVT TYPES (by Lettos)
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=956#p17398

Mandatory prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1)
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18246

So the first three problems are Muddy surface conditions, Rough Terrain and river crossings.

MUDDY. Medium and Heavy tanks.
It's clear that MUDDY doesn't just come from rainfall. Any small stream, a river a few meters wide, which is not on the PGF map, often already has banks in MUDDY condition.

Pz.III


T-34


Tiger





S-35


MUDDY. Light tanks.

Pz.II and Pz.IV

Stuart

Pz.I (seems not stopped)


Pz.38(t) (feels good!)


Pz.II



MUDDY. Half-tracks


Stopped by mud or not?

They can drag it through the mud. Tiger was probably brought in for repairs.


General conclusion: light tanks and half-tracks feel in the mud.... how to put it... more confident.

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1) viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18247#p18246
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 2) viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18247#p18247

Let's see how the tanks behave on Rough terrain.
By the way, we need to define what Rough terrain is. In my subjective understanding, it is a terrain with various ditches, holes, bushes, and sparse trees.From the point of view of the PGF terrain model, it is no longer CLEAR, but it is not yet FOREST and MOUNTAINS. Or am I wrong?

Ideal conditions, i.e. CLEAR
France

Kursk


ROUGH DRY. Heavy and Medium tanks


Sometimes tanks are too heavy...



Trials of first lightweight prototypes



Panther
Looks good!



Tiger

With that tank, it's unclear how it got there. Maybe it got there in winter when it did not see the river under the snow and fell through the ice?


ROUGH DRY. Light tanks and half-tracks
Stuart will drive himself out of here

Pz.II

Trials in 1941 in USA:


SdKfZ.10-4



SdKfZ.251


General conclusion: light tanks and half-tracks have good passability on ROUGH DRY. Medium and heavy tanks - depending on the model.

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1): viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18248#p18246
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 2): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&p=18248#p18247
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 3): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&p=18248#p18248

SWAMPS and RIVERS.

Speaking of swamps, one should understand - swamps of several hexes in the territory of Eastern Europe are rare. This is not Western Siberia or the jungle..... Among completely impassable areas you can sometimes find strips of dry land overgrown with forest. But driving through these strips is sometimes difficult and sometimes impossible due to the topography.
We talked about the small rivers. These are small water obstacles 5-10-20 meters wide. They are often not deep, or you can find a shallow place to cross. The banks can also be very swampy. Conventionally this is considered as ROUGH.
Now we talk about wider rivers, which are drawn on the PGF scenario map.

Tanks in non-frozen swamps.




My opinion - tanks have nothing to do on a non-Frozen swamp.

Crossing Rivers
Heavy tanks - only on big and strong bridges. Medium tanks - depending on the weight of the tank. Light and light medium - on the photos.

Successful standarts:






Unsuccessful creatives:





That wooden bridge was too unreliable


Conclusion: light tanks and half-tracks weighing up to 10 tons cross rivers by different means. Very much like the armored crocodiles and varans from the SSI universe. Drove up to the river and crossed it in the next turn. And in the case of light tanks it was!

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18246
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 2): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18247
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 3): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18248
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 4): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18251

Now a bit of theory to understand why this was the case.

Many parameters are taken into account to assess the passability of the tank on some type of surface.

Two main parameters:
Unit footprint pressure (Pound per square inch or kg/cm2) and Power/weight horse powers per tonne.

Additional parameters:
Gearbox design
Geometry of tank track units
Сhassis clearance
For wheel trucks: Tire pressure
Tank size
And some more...

For us, the first two main parameters are enough for the PGF game model.

To calculate the specific pressure on the ground, simply divide the mass by the support area.

Example:
Tiger I tank:
Length of the ground contacting part of the track = 3.605m
Track width = 0.725m
Weight of the tank = 57 tons
Specific ground pressure = 1.02-1.09 kg/cm2
Specific power = 11.9-12.9 hp/t

All of this has already been calculated and analyzed. Here are some statistics, which now, after viewing the photos, it is very easy to "stick" to these photos.

Model = Unit footprint pressure (in kg/cm2) -- Power/weight (hp/t)

Pz.I = 0.40 -- 11.1
Pz.II = 0.62 -- 15.7
Pz.III = 0.77-0.96 -- 16.6-13
Pz.IV = 0.69-0.89 -- 17-13
Panther = 0.88 -- 15.6-14
Tiger I = 1.02-1.09 -- 12.9-11.9
SdkfZ.251 = ? -- 11.1

KV-1 = 0.77 -- 11.6
Т-34 = 0.62 -- 19.5
Komsomolets = 0.54(with payload) -- 14.0
Voroshilovets = 0.58 -- 24.0

Bren Carrier = 0.45 -- 19
Matilda II = 1.12 -- 6.46

Sherman = 0.96 -- 13.0
Pershing = 0.90 -- 11.6

FT-17 = 0.48-0.6 -- 5.8
S-35 = 0.75 -- 9.5

For comparison:
Caterpillar D6K dozer = 0.33 -- 9.28 https://h-cpc.cat.com/cmms/v2?&f=produc ... 32026&nc=1

I don't think I can comment on these numbers any better than I can on the photos You have looked at.

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18246
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 2): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18247
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 3): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18248
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 4): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18251
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 5): viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18253#p18253

Now, wheeled vehicles.

Mercedes LG3000 (95 HP diesel) towing Flak 8.8
And did it drive into a mountain, forest, or swamp? And how far will it drive into the Rough?


Luftwaffe truck Einheitsdiesel with 2 cm flak


What about if you take a more powerful truck?
Stuck on soft ground again.
Bussing-NAG Type 900 with Sd.Ah. 115 trailer 1939



On the hard road its mate from another manufacturer carries 18 tons, 2 Pz.II tanks! By the way, who introduced the restriction that tanks can't have Organic transport? SSI again? But that was so long ago, and we learned a lot!
Faun L900


All-Terrain armored car (actually it not looks as All-terrain!):




Wheeled cars on Rough terrain:





Can cross rivers using temporarily bridges. But we shouldn't forget that the truck is carrying a lot of stuff!





The conclusion is as follows: wheeled vehicles can cross rivers conditionally everywhere. And what is carried by a truck can also cross the river.
But heavy guns weighing 10-20 or more tons should not be transported in such a way across the river.
This is very easy to do in the PGF. Three types of movement for artillery guns, and the choice of appropriate transport (This is not vanilla PGF). More on this in the sequel, Part 7 (very soon!).

[Radoye]

I think the "All-Terrain" movement type name has been unfortunately chosen. I take it as "All-Wheel-Drive" as opposed to "2-Wheel-Drive" for "Wheeled".

(I know, i'm not 100% consistent with that, but there should be some allowance for modder liberty! )

[Lettos]

I think the "All-Terrain" movement type name has been unfortunately chosen. I take it as "All-Wheel-Drive" as opposed to "2-Wheel-Drive" for "Wheeled".

(I know, i'm not 100% consistent with that, but there should be some allowance for modder liberty! )

Replied in [EDT] MVT Types - new names
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=579&p=18258#p18258

[Lettos]

Absolute prerequisity:
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 1): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18246
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 2): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18247
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 3): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18248
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 4): viewtopic.php?f=95&t=467&start=200#p18251
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 5): viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18262#p18253
[DEV] MVT TYPES - Photos and comments (Part 6): viewtopic.php?f=95&p=18262#p18254

I think the "All-Terrain" movement type name has been unfortunately chosen. I take it as "All-Wheel-Drive" as opposed to "2-Wheel-Drive" for "Wheeled".

(I know, i'm not 100% consistent with that, but there should be some allowance for modder liberty! )

Replied in [EDT] MVT Types - new names
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=579&p=18258#p18258

The MVT Types name change is very relevant both in terms of cosmetic corrections and in terms of matching the driving conditions seen in the photos.

1) Two types of tracked MVT for tanks and transporters: Heavy and Light. Heavy cannot cross unfrozen rivers anywhere, but can only move on bridges. Heavy ones move worse in MUDDY conditions on CLEAR, on ROUGH in any conditions, and very badly go for walks in the woods. The heavy type of tracked movement does not provide for frog fishing in unfrozen swamps, nor does it allow for traveling to the mountains for eagle watching.

The lightweight track MVT type just better than the heavyweight type. Can cross rivers anywhere, can drive to ROUGH (sure with penalty), can visit forests (with penalty too). Feels better in MUDDY conditions.

It would be nice to do MVT Type Medium tank as well....
Rides better than heavy tanks, but worse than light tanks. And can't cross rivers anywhere.

2) Wheeled lorries, trucks and armored cars.
No changes: Wheel and All-trn (with new type name meaning All Wheel Drive)
Wheel have big penalty comparing to both Track types and to All-Trn(AWD) if moves to Rough, Forests, Desert. Can't visit Swamps, Mountains. Can cross rivers anywhere. Huge penalty for MUDDY conditions, large penalty for FROZEN (because FROZEN mean some snow and ice on the ground).
AWD is much better than Wheeled. In DRY conditions similar to Light track, but in MUDDY and FROZEN moves a lot worse, similar to Heavy tanks.

3) Towed Artillery (ATY and ATG) should have three possible options:
Leg - for small very light guns (MVT=2)
Wheel - for medium weight guns (MVT=1-2)
Towed(with new name) - for heavyweight guns (MVT=1)

So new names:
Track -> H-trk
Half-trk -> Light-trk
Towed -> H-Gun

4) Very important changes in H-Gun(obsolete Towed) MVT Type and in Organic transport assigning logic.
H-Gun can't cross rivers anywhere. H-Gun can move on Clear, roads. (I am not talking about cities, ports, airfields - it is clear that there is no penalty on these terrain types). H-Gun can't move to swamps, forests and mountains.

But I just wrote about the same restrictions for MVT Type H-trk...
Then the paradoxical conclusion is that Heavy guns can have a H-trk type of movement!
And obsolete Towed MVT Type is completely free to create very necessary Medium Track type. It's worth thinking about!

5) Organic transport.

Since I've already decided for myself that an interesting game requires the player to ethically follow some of the rules of the game, it's hard for me to think in terms of Vanilla PGF anymore.
If the player wants to move the 21 Morser gun using the cheapest Opel Blitz truck, I can't prevent that happiness.
But I will not rejoice with the player either.

For Heavy Guns Heavy half-tracked or tracked transporters should be used. And, as mentioned, these tractors and transporters will not be traveling empty. They are built to carry very heavy loads. With a load or a transporter, these vehicles go from tracked all-terrain vehicles to... into a heavy tank. That's why their MVT Type = H-trk, Heavy tank.
By the way, a fully tracked tractor for towing heavy guns was used in both the Soviet and US armies. In the Wehrmacht, powerful half-track transporters served as tractors.

Combinations such as:
SdKfz.8 + 17 K18

or M4 High Speed Tractor + 155mm Long Tom

will never be in Swamps, Mountains, Forests, and won't cross a River anywhere.

New version of names:

Track -> Heavy
Half-trk -> Light-trk
Towed (obsolete MVT Type) -> M-trk (Should be created and tested)

[Aleksandr]

Excelent posts and amazing photos! I'm not into modding, and I never played PGF, but this is absolutely delicious food for thought!
Interesting, ineed interesting. I guess the original devs were't harsh enough considering the terrain, otoh, they surely wnated that people play their game, and extreme realism is not what's the Five Stars General about. Also, the AI had issues whenever it had to cross the river, maybe they didn't want it to be completely stunned by the rivers and streams.

[Lettos]

Excelent posts and amazing photos! I'm not into modding, and I never played PGF, but this is absolutely delicious food for thought!
Interesting, ineed interesting.

Thank you!

I guess the original devs were't harsh enough considering the terrain, otoh, they surely wnated that people play their game, and extreme realism is not what's the Five Stars General about. Also, the AI had issues whenever it had to cross the river, maybe they didn't want it to be completely stunned by the rivers and streams.

PGF is fundamentally the same as Open General and Panzer Corps. The differences are in the graphics and the rough and fine tuning of everything seen on the map and in the scenarios. Differences in all sorts of nuances. In some games you can customize unit options much more finely (PGF loses here), in some you can customize movement types (in Panzer Corps you can, I don't know if there are such possibilities in Open General).
AI can be explored. In PGF, we put a lot of effort into exploring this beast in tests. And as a result, we have gained the knowledge and ability to manipulate it to some extent in order to create interesting content. To put it simply, don't give AI tasks it is weak and/or unable to handle, but rather utilize its strengths in the game.
And I've already observed in scenarios that the new motion type parameters don't put the AI in a stupor. AI is successfully operating under the new rules.

[Lettos]

Some more photos.

Trophy Pz.IIIH on trials in Kazan, January-February'1942. In trials also participated T-34, Matilda II, Valentine III.
From article: https://warspot.ru/11382-luchshe-pozdno-chem-nikogda (in Russian)

The first stage of the test was overcoming a moat 5.5 meters wide and 3 meters deep. Before overcoming the moat, 4 fascines with a diameter of 1 meter were thrown into it. At first, the T-34 went to overcome the barrier and successfully passed the moat at the first attempt. However, the tank was equipped with spurs, which the Pz.Kpfw.III did not have. After each crossing of the moat, one fascine was removed from there, after which the Soviet tank successfully repeated the maneuver.
The Pz.Kpfw.III could not overcome the obstacle even with four fascines. The same picture was also observed during the tests for reversing out of the moat: the T-34 was able to do it, while the German medium tank was not.


Same Pz.IIIH unsuccessful attempting to drive out of the trench in reverse - the tracks lacked traction with the ground. Т-34 got out of the moat on his own.


The tests of overcoming snowdrifts turned out to be interesting. First, 3 snow berms were built, 5.5 meters wide and up to 1.7 meters high. The first to storm the barrier (first of two berms) went Pz.Kpfw.III. The tank managed to pass the obstacle in 16 minutes, each time accelerating in third gear. Valentine II overcame the two berms in 14 minutes. Infantry tank Matilda III was able to overcome two berms in 21 minutes, having spent on it 8 attempts.
Next, the Pz.Kpfw.III went on to breach three berms. The first one he passed in 8 minutes, the second - in 12, the third - in 13. Finally, the T-34 came to the start. Acceleration from 100 meters, the first berm, the second, the third - passed! The whole exercise took only 10 seconds.


The snow slope could not be overcome by all tanks participating in the tests


In most cases, the Pz.IIIH was pretty good at getting through anti-tank obstacles


On Summer trials, 1942. Same Pz.IIIH, Valentine VII, Stuart, Grant and Pz.Kpfw.38(t)Ausf.E
Good traction with the ground and good specific power allowed the Pz.III to climb quite steep hills. 35 degrees!


32 degrees! Only Stuart was better. When traveling on an incline, the tank's tracks may slide off.


The tanks performed quite differently when overcoming a 1.4 meter deep ford. Only M3 Stuart was able to pass the distance completely. Valentine VII and M3 Grant gained water and stalled when trying to get ashore maneuvering in reverse. Pz.Kpfw.III went only 30 meters, gained water and stalled, it had to be pulled out with the help of a tractor "Voroshilovets". Pz.Kpfw.38(t) went through the ford 35 meters.


The Valentine VII, M3 Stuart and Pz.38(t) performed well when moving through swampy terrain. M3 Grant went only 30 meters and got stuck. Pz.IIIH passed half of the distance - 50 meters out of 100, after which it evenly sank and sat on its belly. When trying to get out in reverse, the vehicle got even more bogged down. Attempts to get out with the help of a log fixed on the caterpillars also ended in failure. The " Voroshilovets" again found a job.



But... Stuart in snow trench

And at the same time same Stuart!


Matilda II. Poor traction of tracks on the icy road


KV-1 While crossing a deep ditch, the tank got stuck.


KV-2 After a brake failure on the approach after the bridge in Vitebsk over the Zapadnaya Dvina River, the vehicle fell under the slope


Good known three tanks in river Chernogostnica, Vitebsk-Smolensk. July'1941


T-26 in swamp near Leningrad. - The description of the photo says that the stuck tanks could not be pulled out by other tanks.


T-70 crossing Spree River. - Somehow this tank is failing miserably at doing that.


Laffly S15T - Without a towed gun, he'd have passed and participated in off-road competitions...


BA-11


BA-64 - Crossing the river in a raft is the first part of the challenge. The second part is to get to a flat place.


FIAT 3000 on Latvian army trials. Are they flying tanks by any chance?

[Lettos]

Cat Leon,

Elsewhere in this forum:

Why all the infantry units have Close Defense of zero? When infantry units fight each other in city, in forest or mountain terrain they use Close Defense. The same thing happens if only one of infantry units is in close terrain. Both infantry units use Close Defense anyway! But as Close Defense is zero, any defense is practically absent in this case. I think it would be more correct to add at least minimal Close Defense for the units of infantry class (maybe except cavalry)! What do you think?

Because of the underlying combat outcomes determination formulas, the opposing Close Defense values do NOT cancel one another out. Rather, they solely impact the units' Defense Grade values. Increasing Close Defense values will result in fewer casualties all around. It's up to individual content designers to decide whether this or that Close Defense value is "historically justifiable".

My understanding of the problem: there are infantry that fight well on Terrain Types that use the Close Defense parameter, and there are ... just infantry.
What is needed here is some sort of separation of infantry by their strength, their ability to fight effectively on certain terrain.

We have three terrain types where infantry has gotten a bonus thanks to the game engine: mountains, forest, city (port).

I would divide the infantry by the bonuses we get on the above three types of terrain, roughly like this:
Militia
Cavalry, motorized infantry
Regular infantry, armored infantry
Special units (Engineers, mountain infantry)

Accordingly, the Close Defense parameter is given to these infantry as a bonus.

- Militia - don't expect miracles from them neither in the city, nor in the forest, nor in the mountains. "0".
- Cavalry, Motorized Infantry, Motorcyclists. They fight great, but... I don't mean to say that cavalry swings sabers in the city and motorized infantry drives trucks through the streets. The problem with these types of infantry is that the vehicles have to be left somewhere while the fight is going on. In the city, in the mountains, in the forest, this presents a problem.
- Regular infantry fights great, but they don't know the nuances of urban combat.
- Armored infantry fights perfectly well, but it also comes with strange baggage in the form of armored personnel carriers.
The best use of armored infantry in the city, in the forest is to remove machine guns from vehicles, install them in very important places (upper floors, secret places in the mountains, in the forests), and hide the armored vehicles in the same place where cavalrymen hid horses. That is, nowhere.
- Special units are those infantry that have been trained to fight in the most unexpected situations. Engineers are better prepared to fight in the city, mountain infantry are great in the mountains and forests, but we cannot separate the city from the mountains in the PGF Infantry Combat model. Paratroopers, special forces, commandos - we have to give them all the same bonus.

My understanding of parameter Close Defense for INF (Edited!):
Militia = 4
Cavalry, motorcyclists, motorized infantry = 5
Regular infantry, armored infantry = 6
Special units (Engineers, mountain infantry) = 8

By the way, it's very good that we've moved to a model of integrated infantry units without a separate organic transport. For Close terrains it gives us the opportunity to make battles much more realistic!

(Added!)
The logical conclusion is that Close Defense of infantry should be approximately equal to its Ground Defense.

What happens in the model if you set such parameters? Infantry will finally become an effective and necessary unit. An effective tank attack on the infantry entrenched in the city will become very problematic. Yeah, well, this isn't Panzer General, where Tigers decided everything.
Will the AI still lead its infantry out of the city into the field in suicidal attacks? Will the AI finally realize that it's more profitable for it to keep its infantry in the city? We'll see in the scenarios!