You really need to close some encirclement, even small ones, time is not working in your favor otherwise.

O.Schmidt wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2026 2:17 pm Thanks, interesting—nice map!

Thanks! The graphics are by far the hardest part of modding.

Here's a video of the AAR. For a test I didn't want to make a detailed AAR, but it's still neat to see the chits move on the battlefield and how the battle shapes up turn after turn.

Map graphics are entirely handmade by me: I used Wonderdraft and touched it up with Photoshop. Barbed Wire is ...

Hi all, I've been working hard at a total conversion mod set in a fantasy world with 1940s-equivalent tech.

I've always been a modder at heart, and I came to Stalingrad for its amazing WEGO system, waiting for the moment I could create all kinds of fantastical scenarios with it.

All my scenarios ...

Thanks, worked perfectly.

I only just now saw that Start Date doesn't go further than 1943, is it possible to push it to 1945 somehow?

I thought it maybe happened only if the defender had Hold at All Costs enabled but alas no, I had a unit with that order get 48% strength losses not displaying the bug at all.

It seems to trigger when losses exceed 40 or 50% strength.

Hi, I think the in-map popup should show whether a unit resists a Retreat trigger thanks to Hold at All Costs. Whenever it happens, the popup shows "Unit Retreats", but then it doesn't because it actually passed the Hold at All Costs check.

Hi all, attached a screenshot of an infrequent visual bug I see in my games: sometimes losses aren't visualized. Even the on-map small popup will only display the % of lost Readiness and none of the "physical" losses.

Not a big deal at all, just a small bug. It usually happens with huge losses.

Saint Ruth wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2026 4:39 pm Yep, I've changed it so you can set it per scenario now. We're just testing the patch at the mo so it should be released soon.
Cheers,
Brian

Fantastic! Thanks!

Hi,

Yes, so a 60% means a 40% chance of being delayed, so you're right actually.

Higher CCV is good, lower CCV is bad.

So I guess that really should be "Command and Control Value", not "Command and Control Delay Value" so the abbreviation is right but the name is wrong.

Cheers,
Brian


Ah I ...

Mmmm... the explanation isn't good.

That 100% means there's a 100% chance of moving, and 80% means there's an 80% chance of moving (20% chance of delay)
but it's called a "Delay" so you'd think a 100% "Delay" means 100% chance of delay.

So 100% = 0% chance of delay
80% = 20% chance of delay etc ...

Oh, weather is actually turned "off" for Stalingrad. It was only added for Overlord so it doesn't save it when you play Stalingrad and Desert War.
And also you cannot access the Weather Display for Stalingrad/Desert War either in the game.

I can see about having the option to turn it on/off per ...

As I see in the editor, the CCV value should be *detracted* from the base chances of a unit getting a delay on its orders. And yet the table shows the CCV as a positive influence on the calculations, so a CCV of 100 is actually better than a CCV of 20.

Example:

I'm trying to set up custom weather from the "weather" tab in the scenario editor, but every time I reload the scenario it resets to default "all green" weather.

Hi, no, they are all hardcoded. If there's no Shock, then using Steppe is best.
Cheers,
Brian


Ah, unfortunate.

I think something like the Antitank effect that halves Shock would be best for this kind of terrain. It's not as shock-hostile as a thick Forest tile, or Urban warfare. Gently sloped ...

Hello, I'm wondering if it's possible to modify the terrain modifiers. For example, I think that Rolling Steppe terrain completely negating Shock is a bit much.

Is there a way to modify the modifiers?

Hi,

The type of replacements (not "reinforcements" as reinforcements are new units that enter) needed is based on the type of HQ, so non motorized require more personnel than equipment, and armoured require more equipment.

Artillery HQs need 2 equipment for each 1 personnel (the actual amount ...

One thing I'm not getting: supply-wise, reinforcements only consider Manpower and Vehicles, but not guns. However, many units are entirely made of Guns; how are those losses and therefore reinforcements counted?

If a unit loses half its Guns, will it show up as a Manpower reinforcement need or a ...