Are you trying to give slot items as an upgrade? If you're trying to give them a blanket upgrade such as 3x MP40 for your 4-man squad, there is a way to do this.
Say you have an officer squad armed with 3xK98 and 1xLuger pistol, where you want to upgrade the K98s into MP40s on the bodyguards and keep the Luger on the officer:
Under bodyguard EBPS:
- Combat: add StG44 as weapon 2 under hardpoint 1
Create a package upgrade that does the following:
- Requirement action -> if active weapon is K98 -> change-weapon to MP40
To make this work for reinforced models, add a requirement action under the bodyguard EBPS to check for:
- Upgrade active
- Active weapon: K98
If yes: change-weapon to MP40
Thanks to Mr. Smith for coming up with this solution. It allows you to switch the weapons of all models with a specified EBP at once, but leave non-specified EBPs alone. There are a variety of uses for this, such as PPsH + Flamethrower (it works with 1 slot item).
If you're trying to let them pick things up from weapon racks or ground... well, I'm at a loss of how to do it. |
The Soviet Support Weapon Kampanya looks and feels like a trench or a bunker (it was the trench from the concept art). However, garrisoning units in it via hold_ext looks ugly, as they stand at the entrance (not even in the trench, and only one model). I noticed it has a dummy MG as a weapon. Does it actually have a hardpoint for the MG and is it possible to make it into a bunker that is not only functional but also aesthetically pleasing? |
I'd just like to point out that even though the T-34 broke down quite a bit too, it was comparably much easier to repair or replace due to both its simple design and the abundance of replacement material available in the Soviet Union made possible through both its own vast industry and through lend-lease, whereas if a Panther broke down, the complex design and lack of spare parts made the impact of the break down far more pronounced than that of T-34s, or really any allied tank in general post 1943. If an allied tank broke down, it was a non-issue. If an axis tank broke down, it was a big deal. This likely biased crews into blaming engineers for designing an "unreliable" piece of pudding, and is probably part of the reason why the German tanks were often cited as having reliability issues or high down time from mechanical breakdown. It's not that the vehicles were that unreliable to begin with (other than Panther Ausf. D, which was rushed off to Kursk before they ironed out issues), but its that they took much longer to repair and were progressively harder to get parts for.
Also, I feel like a point in crew quality that is widely understated is that the German tank crews were in the war from 1939-1945 whereas the Soviets and US only fought from 1941 onward. For example, Dmitry Lavrinenko as an allied ace scored ~50 vehicle kills, but only had 3 months to do it (as he was killed by a stray mortar fragment), whereas most German aces had 5 long years to rack up their total kill counts of ~150. That's 20 times longer for a result that was roughly only 3 times as impressive. Additionally, keep in mind that throughout the war, veteran allied crews and vehicle count steadily increased as veteran axis crews and vehicle count steadily decreased. By the end of the war, the Panzerwaffe was so helplessly outnumbered that there was never a shortage of targets to choose from, whereas for the allied tank divisions, panzer targets became increasingly uncommon. Finally, the US, UK, and the USSR did not promote the idea of tank aces due to doctrinal differences, and did not formally recognize or award tank aces for their achievement (at least not for being an ace specifically; awards were given for heroism and other accomplishments) unlike Germany, whom actively promoted the idea of becoming an ace. This likely also skewed how enthusiastic crews were for claiming kills for themselves rather than to their supporting arms. |
Agreed and definitely new insight having Jacksons shoot then scoot back. Which is exactly what Shermans did in the war since they were the only tanks to have stabalizers I think.
In reality, the stabilizers did very little for firing on the move, next to nothing even. What it was helpful for was for reducing the time between the vehicle stopping (which it still had to do to hit anything) and firing, which is still technically a boost in mobility while firing -- just not the shooting without stopping everyone envisions. Even Cold War tanks couldn't reliably hit anything while moving until the 70's.
Nothing in WWII realistically helped being able to fire on the move, be it American stabilizers, Panther suspension, or otherwise. The only point in moving while firing is suppression, where they don't plan on hitting anything in the first place. |
The idea is that Conscripts are a Vet 5 squad, and at Vet 3, they join the Guards and become statistically the same as Guards. Is there something I can do to change their portrait and voice lines to those of Guards? |
I, for one, enjoyed the blizzards, the deep snow/mud, and OKW's resources/trucks at launch. It made the game feel that much more unique, and I miss all of them. I also miss the RNG shell shock in armored warfare and the much greater variance in counterpart units (such IS-2 being AI and Tiger being AT or 120mm mortar having higher base damage than 82mm). I miss kubel suppression and OKW's lack of MG (gasp!). I feel like the factions are becoming too similar to each other. Sure, there are still stat differences and pricing differences, and sure, there are good things from homogenizing the factions to a degree, but the factions no longer feel unique. I've spent a lot of time in the mod tools trying to rework the factions, but you can only do so much with those, compared to the amazingly flexible tools for CoH1. |
So when a squad is ordered to fire an ability (e.g. a grenade), it is either one guy or all of them that fire that ability (regular grenade vs. assault grenades). And sure enough, that's what your options are under the squad_caster selection: one entity, all entities or squad, though it doesn't seem like squad does anything.
Anyway, what do i do if i want two entities to fire the given ability? I tried just copy pasting the given use_accessory_weapon action, but that doesn't work. I also tried pasting it under end_target in the action list, but that just makes the same entity try to do it again. What i want is for two different entities to fire the same ability, at the same time from the start.
Does anyone know how to accomplish this?
You could try using a dummy slot item (give two to the squad) and then add a requirement for the casting entities for the slot item. The problem with this approach is that if you have a squad already equipped with a slot weapon would have problems with slot item priority, eg. if your grenadier squad is carrying 2 g43s, you have 4 slot items on 4 members and if someone carrying a dummy grenade slot item dies, the others are already equipped with g43s and thus using the ability would only throw one grenade because only one squad member still alive has the grenade slot item. Likewise, if the two G43 guys die, the remaining two will not pick up the G43s because they are armed with extra grenades.
However, a potential workaround specifically with G43s (and double shrecks too, as well as any other "double" weapon upgrade) is you can add the G43 slot item as a requirement. This would cause only those models armed with G43/shreck to throw the grenades, but it would get rid of the headache of slot item conflicts.
You can potentially do something similar with single weapons like the LMG42 by combining adding a dummy slot item in conjunction with forcing the upgraded model to also fulfill the requirement, but on LMGs you want to stay still so it can keep shooting rather than wasting DPS by throwing a grenade. |
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I had the same (or very similar) problem today. However, I went to my AppData and purged the Attribute Editor folder and it seems to have worked for me. Try it, see if it works. Hope this helps. |
Player's Concerns:
Blizzards + deep snow + mud (I will fite you on this)
OKW Truck and resource system
OKW Non-doc Sturmtiger in place of PzIV
OKW Kubelwagen suppression (Although occasionally I get a vet 5 kubel)
OKH Panzerwerfer in T3
OKH MG in T1 and Landser in T0
SOV AA HT + Reinforce (synergy with Adv. Warfare PPsH repair blobs)
SOV IS-2 as a low-RoF AI tank instead of Tiger gun stats
SOV Penals flamethrower
SOV ISU-152 having universal ammo
SOV KV-2 being able to fight other heavies
Modder's Concerns:
Certain animation states (T-34-85 hatches)
Modding loopholes ever since I've seen eliw00d's old videos |
In my mod, I've given the Soviets a command bunker where works identically to the Ostheer command bunker with the exception that you can't garrison any units in it. I've then made a radio post that, if built near the command bunker, serves as an add-on of sorts and enables the retreat point ability. However, when the add-on structure is destroyed, the retreat ability becomes locked in its current state and is untoggleable, which means the retreat point is still on if the radio is destroyed, but you can't toggle it off because of a missing requirement. I'd like the retreat point to be automatically turned off when the requirement building is destroyed. How should I go around doing this? |