88mm FlaK project

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Fri Apr 20, 2001 4:12 am

My latest WIR-obsessive idea is to introduce the FlaK-18 and PAK 43 88mm guns to the game. Clearly, the Axis AT-guns modelled in WIR are the standard 37/50/75mm used by regular AT units. Especially in the early war, the 88s were unsurpassed tank killers.

I was thinking of giving the FlaK-18 Attack 19 (like the Tiger) and Defence 1 (like other AT/AA guns), and the PAK 43 Attack 22 (like the Nashorn) and Defence 1.

I need some info to be able to model them correctly (or close to correctly).

1) Do Flak units contribute to the Anti-tank fire phase, and if so, to what extent (as compared to anti-tank units)? Or more to the point, should 88 units be Flak or Anti-Tank units? If they are FlaK, will they fire at aircraft? Better than other Flak?

2)What are the effects of making an equipment type "Generic"?

3)Roughly how many 88 battallions (labeled sFlaK Abteilung) were there on the eastern front? Would every Korps have one? I read somewhere that before Fall Blau, every Panzer Division got one Battallion of 88s for tank-killing. True?

4)Does anyone have the faintest idea which Flak battallions of those modelled in WIR were equipped with 88s?

5)Were in Germany were there 88-factories? I was thinking of replacing some FlaK and/or AT factories with 88 factories and would like to make them as historical as possible.

dextertt · Post by **dextertt** » Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:20 am

Good idea Yogi, I have been wondering where are the famed 88 ? there are three empty icon slots available. May be you can have one for AT and one for AA.

Dexter

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Thu Apr 26, 2001 5:06 am

This project is moving along nicely, and I have learnt quite a few things about how WIR works. Some armor slots should not be changed since the icon numbers for the russian equivalents of generic equipment is stored there. (Specifically, the three "empty" slots after the generic "FlaK" unit, wow did I learn about that the hard way!)

So, what will come in the new package?

1) Two new generic AT-gun types, the 88mm FlaK-18/36 (A/D 18/1) and the 88mm PaK-43 (A/D 22/1). They both use the old Axis Flak icon (for now). The Axis Flak will be represented by a new 20mm Flak gun icon.
Both types are represented in the tank pool window.

2) New AT-battallions numbered after and attached to the German PanzerKorps, equiped with the 88mm FlaK/PaK. This is a compromise, since every Pz/PzG division had two batteries of heavy FlaK (should be 8 guns in each battery if we are to belive the SPWAW OOB). Since there will usually be 3 such divisions in each PzKorps (for a total of 48 guns), one AT-batallion would rather accurately model the number, if not the distribution of 88's. The infantry divisions had no heavy FlaK.

3)Artillery factory at Cologne transformed to produce 88's. The production numbers were massive, but most were used for air defence, and so falls under the Flak category.

4)A new Tiger Icon. (Has nothing to do with this, but it looked so nice...

)

Problems: It will NOT be possible to manually upgrade FlaK-18's to PaK 43's. This has to do with the generic flag. Computer upgrade works fine though. One alternative is to change unit type to some kind of TD, but then lost 88's will count as AFV's, not guns, plus they will be used in attacks (while AT-guns are purely defensive).

Many thanks to Frank Uhl for his help!

[ April 25, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]

dextertt · Post by **dextertt** » Thu Apr 26, 2001 9:18 am

Way to go Yogi, please send me a copy even if it is beta. I love to see your new Tiger icons.

Dexter

wmiller159 · Post by **wmiller159** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 12:31 am

how did you set up the at batallions.what slots did you use

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 1:53 pm

Originally posted by Danny:
how did you set up the at batallions.what slots did you use

Slots 1110-1127

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 3:37 pm

Sorry guys, but this is not going to work.

It turns out the program seems to be hardwired to assume any axis AT (type 35) units is equipped with the standard axis AT gun (slot 61), no matter what you assigned.

But on the other hand, it’s hardwired to assume any unit attached to a JPz Bn is a TD vehicle. Which means that the 88’s suffer tremendous casualties in the anti-tank phase due to their light “armour”.

I tested this by letting 204 KV-1’s attack 204 88 FlaK’s in various configurations (in AT unit, in JPz unit, and as “generic” or “heavy TD” in both these kinds of units). I then did the same but replaced the 88s with standard AT.

The results (roughly) were as follows:

88 as AT: Killed 7 KV’s, lost 23-33 guns
88 as JPz: Killed 70 KV’s, lost 100+ “tanks”

Regular AT: Killed 7 KV’s, lost 23-33 guns.

Changing the unit type did not affect the result in any way.

So, since I can get either kills or losses about right, but not both, I’m going to shelve this. Perhaps, if someone skilled in programming could hack the executable this project would still be feasible, but that’s about the only way.

[ April 28, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Sun May 27, 2001 3:56 pm

dumb question as you all undoubtedly know a thousand times more about adjusting the game than I. I though the Germans were able to use their flak as anti-tank weapons in the game (I am sure I read that somewhere). Could not their flak component be adjusted to equal the dreaded 88mm

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sun May 27, 2001 5:40 pm

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
dumb question as you all undoubtedly know a thousand times more about adjusting the game than I. I though the Germans were able to use their flak as anti-tank weapons in the game (I am sure I read that somewhere). Could not their flak component be adjusted to equal the dreaded 88mm

According to the old manual, Flak is used in calculating tank losses. I don't believe that has changed. The current game cannot distinguish between "light" Flak and "heavy" Flak. Adding this would not be easy since the game only knows one type of Flak, requiring a brand new slot for everyone, ie., instead of Inf/Art/AT/Flak, it would now require Inf/Art/AT/LightFlak/HeavyFlak.

I'll give you one guess as to how difficult this little operation on the game would be.

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Sun May 27, 2001 6:38 pm

Understand.
any chance of giving the germans more powerful flak, or increasingly to compensate for increasing uses of 88s.
just thought it was a possible workaround.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Mon May 28, 2001 2:48 am

I first tried to make 88 units FlaK units, but all my tests indicated that FlaK did not kill any tanks at all.

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Mon May 28, 2001 10:16 am

worth testing. I had always liked flak units with my panzers for their anti-tank power (as well as their use against aircraft of course). Shame if that does not work.
makes anti-tank weapons vital.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon May 28, 2001 10:51 am

Don't know about tanks, Yogi. But my test had showed that they kill recons VERY good. 200(effective) flaks kill 60+ recons. May be their att value is too low for tanks. Esp. for KV's. BTW: how is your mapwork going on? Any ways to consolidate our efforts? Ricky said that it is possible to include upgraded map to new release...Right?

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Mon May 28, 2001 3:25 pm

that would be excellent to have the map included.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Mon May 28, 2001 6:50 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
Don't know about tanks, Yogi. But my test had showed that they kill recons VERY good. 200(effective) flaks kill 60+ recons. May be their att value is too low for tanks. Esp. for KV's. BTW: how is your mapwork going on? Any ways to consolidate our efforts? Ricky said that it is possible to include upgraded map to new release...Right?

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

Actually, I have no control over it and I think was mentioning my preference to have a chance to play with your maps. However, I would bet that Arnaud would be willing to include both the current map and an optional one that just requires renaming the two to use the desired one. I will pass it on to him. We have had a release for testing for about a week now and I am just getting to the point of being able to tell its balance now for the 1941 scenario. It may make the Axis a little too tough in blizzards, but we haven't had a discussion of it yet.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue May 29, 2001 5:09 am

Originally posted by RickyB:

Actually, I have no control over it and I think was mentioning my preference to have a chance to play with your maps. However, I would bet that Arnaud would be willing to include both the current map and an optional one that just requires renaming the two to use the desired one. I will pass it on to him. We have had a release for testing for about a week now and I am just getting to the point of being able to tell its balance now for the 1941 scenario. It may make the Axis a little too tough in blizzards, but we haven't had a discussion of it yet.

Optional map must be supplied with *.md files for each scenario in this case. These files define all SL's and control over hexes. I have them for each scenario and can send them to you if you would like. By the way, I've found some WWII maps regarding battles north of Pripet and they also confirm that straight railroads Zhitomir-Mogilev and Minsk-Gomel existed at that time.
Thank you for testing work you're doing there! Hope to see next release soon

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue May 29, 2001 9:42 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
Optional map must be supplied with *.md files for each scenario in this case. These files define all SL's and control over hexes. I have them for each scenario and can send them to you if you would like.

Oh, man I never thought of this. The *.md files won't help because I believe rail supply from the eastern map edge is hardwired in the game. The rail links at 70,25 and 71,38 won't act like supply sources for example.

I think eventually city supply (e.g. Berlin), rail supply (eastern map edge) and sea supply (port cities) sources should be moved to the map file itself, but this would break compatibility with older maps.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue May 29, 2001 10:05 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Oh, man I never thought of this. The *.md files won't help because I believe rail supply from the eastern map edge is hardwired in the game. The rail links at 70,25 and 71,38 won't act like supply sources for example.

I think eventually city supply (e.g. Berlin), rail supply (eastern map edge) and sea supply (port cities) sources should be moved to the map file itself, but this would break compatibility with older maps.

Ed, I should express more correctly: *.md files define initial SL. WIthout them railroads may become brocken in the begining of scenario.
By the way, I like your idea about moving supply sources to map or at least to scenario data file. Second option would save compatibility with older maps.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed May 30, 2001 3:51 am

Originally posted by Mist:

Ed, I should express more correctly: *.md files define initial SL. WIthout them railroads may become brocken in the begining of scenario.

Yes, but these squares still won't act as a supply *source*, like Berlin. Once the rail supply from a true source reaches this square it'll show SL6, so it looks as if there's nothing wrong, but cutoff this rail line from the rest of the net, and it'll drop to SL0. The supply *source* locations are hardwired in the .exe file.

By the way, I like your idea about moving supply sources to map or at least to scenario data file. Second option would save compatibility with older maps.

... but it will break compatibility with scenario files. Since compatibility has to be broken somewhere it should be done with the maps, I think, since the location of supply sources logically belongs in the map file, and there are a lot more scenarios out there that would be broken than maps. After all, there's only 3 of them I know about, the standard one, yours, and Yogi's map.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Wed May 30, 2001 4:02 am

Sure. Rails repair pretty quick, but some units face SL0 at starting turn as it happens with almost all Soviet units if I try to start scenario'41 with old *.md file.
I hope to cooperate with Yogi and unify our maps, so there would probably be only one nonstandart map of ours. Agree with scenario compatibility. It should be preserved.