New Official DLC - Made by Devildread

[dimstog]

Great! However, is this 1.01beta savegame compatible ? Sounds like it is but of course you might have better insight on this.

[Devildread]

Hey guys, here is the first beta of the patch. It should be stable and in the definitive version but I may have missed some bugs in some place. This is why I ask you to test it and report here. Thanks.

DOWNLOAD :
Common Weapons of WWII - Patch 1.01 beta (thanks to derkb to provide me the server)

INSTALLATION :
Make a backup of your \mod\common_weapons_of_WWII\ folder (simply copy it and paste it in another location).
Extract the patch in your \mod\common_weapons_of_WWII\ folder and overwrite the files.

Don't apply the patch if you are not confident with computers, wait for the finale patch instead.

CHANGELOG :

################################
#### COMMON WEAPONS OF WWII ####
#### PATCH 1.01 CHANGELOG ####
################################
By DiDay for Paradox Interactive

- Added unit upgrade feature for most of the new units
- Added names for SS divisions and deleted them from the regular units division names
- Added several division names for Germany
- Added several division names for Soviet Union
- Added several division names for United Kingdom
- Added several division names for USA

- Transport ship engine tech now decreases the speed by 0.33 instead of 1

- Tweaked the interface in order to have the production panels scrollable

- Balanced most of the units, the motorized / mechanized / armored units consume lot more fuel and supplies (based upon Semper Fi values)
- National Guards are more expensive but build faster now, they also have suppression value to 2
- National Guards is now about x2 cost than garrison but better at defense and with no need to spend leadership in research
- SS and guards have less moral and org (40-40) now

- Added new units in the major OOBs

- AI will research the new units and tech but don't expect it to build units efficiently

Great! However, is this 1.01beta savegame compatible ? Sounds like it is but of course you might have better insight on this.

I'd rather see reports about new games but you can try and report too.

I think this is savegame compatible.

[dimstog]

I'd rather see reports about new games but you can try and report too.

Yes, I understand, but I only get a couple of gamehours per day and I want to finally finish a Barbarossa at some point

[mille]

Where im gone see what version of common weapons i have when patch oficial?
And how come that new transport engine decrease the speed and not increase the speed? or have i missunderstood?

[Devildread]

Where im gone see what version of common weapons i have when patch oficial?
And how come that new transport engine decrease the speed and not increase the speed? or have i missunderstood?

I don't understand your first question.

Transport engine adds range at the cost of fuel and speed.

[SAS]

Will the official patch for the mod be in the tech forum when it is released?

[Devildread]

Will the official patch for the mod be in the tech forum when it is released?

I don't know, this is Paradox responsability. I guess they will find a way to warn all their customers.

The tests are running good, I think I will release the patch next monday.

[Alex_brunius]

Good to see some of the most active modders get a bit off pay for their hard work.

I just hope any income is shared fairly between all who contributed (in the case its more then DD). This is often hard to arrange with community mod projects like I know at least the big mod is.

[Brad1]

How are sales for this going?

[Whiskeyblind]

Just a heads up on beta patch. The second SS inf unit I built had a name of ' 2. SS-Panzer-Div.'Das Reich'. The first SS unit was cool, ' 1. SS-Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler'.
An congrats on the Mod!
Edit: Since the first SS inf, all SS units have panzer names even motorized. Havn't reached the tech for SS panzers yet, or mech. inf. Still pre-Poland 1937 time frame.
After eight SS inf, an two moto SS units this name popped up 14. Galizicshe SS-Freiw. Div. for a SS inf unit.

[davion76]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but is it correct for the (two engine) transport to give heavy aircraft practical? Given that there is now a 4 engine transport, it seems to me that the two engine transport would give medium aircraft practical.

[Devildread]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but is it correct for the (two engine) transport to give heavy aircraft practical? Given that there is now a 4 engine transport, it seems to me that the two engine transport would give medium aircraft practical.

Excellent point, added.

[Sir Kyle Aziz]

I'm most interested in the CAG's. Silly me though, I expected the NAV bombers to be able to be on carriers and made a few of them. Doh. Oh well atleast they'll protect Canada's borders from any naval threats!

As much as I'd like this mod, I have no way of purchasing online content at the moment. ): Something to remember about though.

[Commander-DK]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but is it correct for the (two engine) transport to give heavy aircraft practical? Given that there is now a 4 engine transport, it seems to me that the two engine transport would give medium aircraft practical.

I disagree (respectfully ). From the beginning in 1936, building Junkers Ju-52 transports gives you Heavy Aircraft practicals the same as strategic bombers - while tacs and (I think) naval bombers give you Medium Aircraft practicals and interceptors, multi-role and CAG/CAS all give you light practicals.

Now, just because you can build even bigger 4-engine beasts later on that should not alter the fact that a 2-engine transport is still a "heavy" wing!

Just my 2 cents

[Alex_brunius]

Now, just because you can build even bigger 4-engine beasts later on that should not alter the fact that a 2-engine transport is still a "heavy" wing!

The Junkers Ju-52 will always be a hard one since its actually a 3 engine transport :P

[davion76]

I disagree (respectfully ). From the beginning in 1936, building Junkers Ju-52 transports gives you Heavy Aircraft practicals the same as strategic bombers - while tacs and (I think) naval bombers give you Medium Aircraft practicals and interceptors, multi-role and CAG/CAS all give you light practicals.

Now, just because you can build even bigger 4-engine beasts later on that should not alter the fact that a 2-engine transport is still a "heavy" wing!

Just my 2 cents

I am ok with either, but

type maxTOweight
Do-17 7,039 kg - 8,850 kg
HE-111 14,000 kg
JU-52 10,990 kg

B-25 19,000 kg (J variant)
B-26 17,000 kg (G variant)
DC-3 11,400 kg

seems to make sense with a medium aircraft practical for the typical 2-3 engine transports.

[Devildread]

Anyway this is not "heavy" or "medium" aircraft practical but two and four engines practical. So the vanilla transport plane is two engine and the four engine transport plane is, well, four engine.

[telesien]

Anyway this is not "heavy" or "medium" aircraft practical but two and four engines practical. So the vanilla transport plane is two engine and the four engine transport plane is, well, four engine.

Which brings us back to Tante Ju

[KommanderKhaki]

I personally want to see the Antonov A-40 in this, I think it'd be a great addition to the game.

[telesien]

I personally want to see the Antonov A-40 in this, I think it'd be a great addition to the game.

Actually gliders would be good technology. Increasing cost of transport planes while increasing air assault efficiency. But maybe they are already there. I don't use this tool because it seems to be way too expensive