Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Units

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Army Unit Modifiers

I have a couple of question and thoughts about Army Unit Modifiers table. First should I just ignore the CavB column this unit being a Brigade would be run around by it’s self, or this something else? Second did the armor division idea die off, so ignore this column as well? While look at this table it appears that Res and Grd have Mot and Mech values and Lt I has Para numbers. Unless some has different idea I was going to change to match Inf in all fields, then come back and revisit this late. Though I have one idea now, that to give Lt I a 33% bonus in movement for Mtn, Hill, Swamp, Snow, Jungle, Forest, and Desert. This would mean they would move at -22% vs -33% (I’ll break it down below) for most. They wouldn’t get a bonus for Blizzard and Frozen cause nobody not trained in those environments does well, and Mud well no one march fast though mud.
This fast move bonus goes with my personnel thoughts about Lt I, that is they should be limited on brigades they get, no Art, H Art, AC, Arm, Gas. Those are unit that would have difficulty move over above mentioned terrains, thus slowing Lt I down.

Inf Lt I
Mtn -33% -22%
Hill -15% -10%
Swamp -33% -22%
Snow -35% -24%
Jungle -33% -22%
Forest -15% -10%
Desert -33% -22%

Oh one last thought, why is Cav so bad in desert, -70% move and -33% defend vs -33% and -10% for all others? This doesn’t make senses to me, in move alone horse are going to do as well as men marching, this isn’t even counting Arabian Horses or Camels which are breed for desert. As for that last thought they would be what desert Tribal Cav would ride. As for defending I just dont understand that 23% differance.
 
StephenT said:
Maybe so, but they should be proportionate. Reserve should still be abut 2/3 the cost of Infantry, even if you double the cost of both. :)
Click to expand...

Of course.

D.A.D.O.E.S.?, regarding the modifiers, I've already made some changes (made guards and reserve very similar to inf, made light inf better in heavy terrain, such as jungle, increased the effect of rivers, mountains and nighttime).

The table will still need to be modified, and I'll will be aware of your posts. Still, I am not sure what to do with cavalry in desert. Are there some other opinions?
 
Cavalry should be marginally better than infantry in desert, but not very much. This could represent using camels an such instead of horses.
 
D.A.D.O.E.S.? said:
They wouldn’t get a bonus for Blizzard and Frozen cause nobody not trained in those environments does well, and Mud well no one march fast though mud.
This fast move bonus goes with my personnel thoughts about Lt I, that is they should be limited on brigades they get, no Art, H Art, AC, Arm, Gas.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with your comments, but a couple of notes:

Units without organic artillery (Light and Mountain, in other words) probably should be faster in Mud than conventional infantry.

I can see a case for letting Light Infantry have armoured cars: these were mostly used in colonial situations, and it seems like a good match between the two. Picture an armoured car in a WW1 setting, and it's probably got a couple of British officers in short trousers and solar topees standing next to it. :)

Oh one last thought, why is Cav so bad in desert, -70% move and -33% defend vs -33% and -10% for all others?
Click to expand...
Possibly because they have to carry water for the horses as well as the men?

But for WW1 purposes, I agree that cavalry should not be any more penalised than infantry in desert terrain.
 
I've finished work on land divisions. I'll now post stats. Tell me do you think something should be changed before I send files to our leader.

Here are the division costs:

Code: 
[B]Infantry[/B]	Cost: 15
		Time: 95

		Total: 1425

		Mp: 15




[B]Cavalry[/B]		Cost: 12
		Time: 90

		Total: 1080

		Mp: 12




[B]Reserve[/B]		Cost: 12
		Time: 85

		Total: 1020

		Mp: 15




[B]Guards[/B]		Cost: 18
		Time: 115

		Total: 2070

		Mp: 15




[B]Mountain[/B]	Cost: 15
		Time: 115

		Total: 1725

		Mp: 15




[B]Light[/B]		Cost: 12
		Time: 120

		Total: 1440

		Mp: 15




[B]Garrison[/B]	Cost: 8
		Time: 85

		Total: 680

		Mp: 15




[B]Militia[/B]		Cost: 6
		Time: 55

		Total: 330

		Mp: 8




[B]Marine[/B]		Cost: 15
		Time: 140

		Total: 2100

		Mp: 15




[B]Headquarters[/B]*	Cost: 20
		Time: 270

		Total: 5400

		Mp: 8 	

*these are values for the HQ model 1. New models are more expensive, but 
  also built faster, and the total cost is roughly the same.


Although basic costs are high, they are reduced by sliders and doctrines. With full hawk lobby and doctrines up to infiltration, you can build infantry for 8.2 IC.
 
Here is the basic unit statistics.
HA is hard attack, SA soft attack, Def defensiveness, Tgh toughness, AA air attack, AD air defense, Sup supply consumption.

Code: 
		Inf		Cav		Res		Grd		Mtn		Lgt		Gar		Mil		Mar		HQ

1860/tribal	X		HA/SA: 0/4	x		x		x		x		x		HA/SA: 0/2	x		x
				Def/Tgh: 6/10											Def/Tgh: 8/6
				AA/AD: 0/0											AA/AD: 0/0
				Spd: 8												Spd: 3
				Sup: 1.6											Sup: 0.4			


1890		HA/SA: 0/4	HA/SA: 0/6	HA/SA: 0/3	HA/SA: 0/6	HA/SA: 0/4	HA/SA: 0/3	HA/SA: 0/3	x		x		x
		Def/Tgh: 12/12	Def/Tgh: 8/10	Def/Tgh: 12/8	Def/Tgh: 15/15	Def/Tgh: 12/12	Def/Tgh: 12/12	Def/Tgh: 12/x
		AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1
		Spd: 4		Spd: 7		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 5		Spd: x
		Sup: 1.4	Sup: 2.0	Sup: 1.2	Sup: 2.6	Sup: 1.5	Sup: 1.0	Sup: 1.0


1898		HA/SA: 0/6	x		x		x		x		x		x		x		x		HA/SA: 0/1
		Def/Tgh: 15/15																	Def/Tgh: 30/30
		AA/AD: 0/1																	AA/AD: 0/1
		Spd: 4																		Spd: 2
		Sup: 2.0																	Sup: 1.0


1912		HA/SA: 0/8	HA/SA: 0/8	HA/SA: 0/6	HA/SA: 0/10	HA/SA: 0/8	HA/SA: 0/6	HA/SA: 0/6	HA/SA: 0/4	x		x
		Def/Tgh: 18/18	Def/Tgh: 12/14	Def/Tgh: 18/15	Def/Tgh: 18/18	Def/Tgh: 18/18	Def/Tgh: 18/18	Def/Tgh: 18/x	Def/Tgh: 12/10
		AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1	AA/AD: 0/1
		Spd: 4		Spd: 7		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 5		Spd: x		Spd: 3
		Sup: 2.0	Sup: 2.4	Sup: 1.7	Sup: 2.8	Sup: 2.0	Sup: 1.6	Sup: 1.2	Sup: 0.8


1915		HA/SA: 1/10	HA/SA: 0/10	X		HA/SA: 2/14	HA/SA: 1/10	HA/SA: 0/8	x		x		x		HA/SA: 0/2
		Def/Tgh: 24/24	Def/Tgh: 18/20			Def/Tgh: 24/24	Def/Tgh: 24/24	Def/Tgh: 24/24							Def/Tgh: 40/40
		AA/AD: 0/2	AA/AD: 0/1			AA/AD: 1/3	AA/AD: 1/2	AA/AD: 0/1							AA/AD: 0/2
		Spd: 4		Spd: 7				Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 5								Spd: 3
		Sup: 2.0	Sup: 2.5			Sup: 3.0	Sup: 2.0	Sup: 1.7							Sup: 1.5


1917		HA/SA: 2/15	HA/SA: 1/12	HA/SA: 1/12	HA/SA: 2/18	HA/SA: 2/12	HA/SA: 0/12	HA/SA: 1/10	HA/SA: 0/6	x		x
		Def/Tgh: 30/30	Def/Tgh: 22/24	Def/Tgh: 34/24	Def/Tgh: 30/34	Def/Tgh: 30/30	Def/Tgh: 30/30	Def/Tgh: 24/x	Def/Tgh: 18/15
		AA/AD: 1/3	AA/AD: 1/2	AA/AD: 1/2	AA/AD: 2/4	AA/AD: 1/3	AA/AD: 1/3	AA/AD: 1/2	AA/AD: 0/2
		Spd: 4		Spd: 9		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 4		Spd: 5		Spd: x		Spd: 3
		Sup: 2.2	Sup: 2.6	Sup: 2.0	Sup: 3.0	Sup: 2.0	Sup: 1.8	Sup: 1.5	Sup: 1.0


1919		HA/SA: 2/18	x		x		x		x		x		x		x		x		HA/SA: 1/3
		Def/Tgh: 36/36																	Def/Tgh: 50/50
		AA/AD: 2/4																	AA/AD: 1/3
		Spd: 5																		Spd: 4
		Sup: 2.2																	Sup: 2.0


1924		x		x		x		x		x		x		x		x		HA/SA: 2/16	x
																		Def/Tgh: 36/36
																		AA/AD: 2/4
																		Spd: 4
																		Sup: 2.5

Few things to note:

1890 guards are much stronger than 1890 inf, and slightly stronger than 1898 inf (because of org and morale, which aren't presented in this table). Therefore, countries which start with 1898 infantry should start with 1890 guards, not the 1912 guards.

Supply consumption is increased, and some battlescenarios will have to be reworked so that countries don't run off supply. Early models spend much less supplies because I assumed that in 1897 scenario all nations will have significantly lower IC.
 
An illustration of supply consumption:

Amount of IC which some nations will have to spend on supplies (if they don't trade them) with current (unbrigaded) OOB's and without any industrial techs:


Germany: 69.74 IC (30% of IC planned in Resources and Manpower thread)

France: 36.72 IC (26%)

Austria-Hungary: 38.57 IC (40%)

Russia: 60.97 IC (35%)
 
Good work! A couple of comments:

Should cavalry really be cheaper than infantry? It takes a lot longer to train a cavalryman than an infantryman. I'd suggest leaving IC cost as now, but increasing the time required. Also (or alternatively), you might want to reduce the attack value of cavalry compared to infantry at all levels, not just the later ones. (a cavalry regiment could never use all its strength in combat because some of the men had to stay behind to look after the horses :)).

Light infantry - I'd envisaged them having a much lower supply requirement: more like 10% of a normal infantry instead of 75%. This allows them to effectively live off the land in places like German East Africa...
 
Modifiers for land divisions:

Code: 
[B]Blizzard[/B]

Attack: -70% inf, cav, res, grd, arm
	-80% mil, gar, hq
	-66% lgt, mar
	-50% mtn

Defense: -10% mtn
	 -33% others

Move: -60% mtn
      -70% others



[B]Snow[/B]

Attack: -20% mtn
	-50% others

Defense: -10% cav, arm
	 +33% mtn
	 0% others

Move: -10% mtn
      -35% others



[B]Frozen[/B]

Attack: -5% mtn
	-25% others

Defense: +10% cav, arm
	 +40% mtn
	 +20% others

Move: -5% mtn
      -25% others



[B]Rain[/B]

Attack: -10% all

Defense: 0% all

Move: -10% all



[B]Storm[/B]

Attack: -40% all

Defense: -10% all

Move: -25% all



[B]Mud[/B]

Attack: -50% arm
	-20% mar
	-33% others

Defense: 0% arm
	 +20% others

Move: -70% arm
      -15% lgt, mtn
      -25% others



[B]Night[/B]

Attack: -140% all

Defense: -120% all

Move: -25% all

Researching Infiltration Tactics will improve these values for grd, and a bit for inf



[B]Desert[/B]

Attack: -40% cav, lgt, arm
	-50% others

Defense: -10% cav, lgt, arm
	 -20% others

Move: -20% cav, lgt
      -33% others

Researching Colonial Warfare will improve these values for inf, lgt and mtn



[B]Mountain[/B]

Attack: -80% arm
	-50% lgt, mar
	-33% mtn
	-60% others

Defense: +15% arm
	 +50% mtn
	 +25% others

Move: -50% arm
      -25% lgt
      -10% mtn
      -33% others



[B]Hills[/B]

Attack: -33% arm
	0% mtn
	-25% others

Defense: +25% mtn
	 +5% others

Move: -10% mtn
      -20% others

Researching Colonial Warfare will improve move values for inf, lgt and mtn



[B]Forest[/B]

Attack: -20% arm
	0% lgt, mtn
	-10% others

Defense: +10% all

Move: -10% lgt
      -15% others



[B]Jungle[/B]

Attack: -25% lgt
	-33% mtn
	-50% arm
	-40% others

Defense: +10% arm
	 +50% lgt
	 +40% others

Move: -70% arm
      -20% lgt
      -33% others

Researching Colonial Warfare will improve these values for inf, lgt and mtn



[B]Swamp[/B]

Attack: -33% mil, hq
	-50% arm
	-20% lgt, mtn
	-15% mar
	-25% others

Defense: -10% arm
	 -20% others

Move: -20% mar, lgt, mtn
      -70% arm
      -33% others



[B]River crossing[/B]: -33% mar, mtn
		-50% grd
		-66% others



[B]Shore attack[/B]: -20% mar
	      -80% cav, mil, hq
	      -75% others



[B]Fort attack (per fort level): [/B] -20% cav, arm
			      -10% others
 
StephenT said:
Good work! A couple of comments:

Should cavalry really be cheaper than infantry? It takes a lot longer to train a cavalryman than an infantryman. I'd suggest leaving IC cost as now, but increasing the time required. Also (or alternatively), you might want to reduce the attack value of cavalry compared to infantry at all levels, not just the later ones. (a cavalry regiment could never use all its strength in combat because some of the men had to stay behind to look after the horses :)).

Light infantry - I'd envisaged them having a much lower supply requirement: more like 10% of a normal infantry instead of 75%. This allows them to effectively live off the land in places like German East Africa...
Click to expand...

I took into account that infantry cost will be reduced by doctrines much more than cavalry. However, I could increase time.

I made earlier cavalry more powerful because, as time progresses, firepower develops and that is much more dangerous for cavalry than for infantry.

As for light inf, I guess that further reducing of supply consumption also means that they must be less powerful, because of balance.

EDIT: How about this for cavalry?
IC: 12
Time: 110

Total: 1320

That is still less than infantry, but with doctrines, infantry should be cheaper.
 
Last edited:
For the lgt, would this be more appropriate?

1890 Light
HA/SA: 0/2
Def/Tgh: 10/10
Sup: 0.3 (around 20% of 1890 inf)


1912 Light
HA/SA: 0/5
Def/Tgh: 15/15
Sup: 0.4 (20% of 1912 inf)


1917 Light
HA/SA: 0/8
Def/Tgh: 24/24
Sup: 0.5 (little more than 20% of 1917 inf)
 
jova said:
Code: 
[B]Headquarters[/B]*	Cost: 20
		Time: 270

		Total: 5400

		Mp: 8 	

*these are values for the HQ model 1. New models are more expensive, but 
  also built faster, and the total cost is roughly the same.
Click to expand...

What are the factors that allow for later models of headquarters to be constructed at a quicker pace than earlier models? Is it merely a consequence of war-time experience?
 
Aesome job jova, no complaints here.


And is Allenby sporting a new avatar?
 
Allenby said:
What are the factors that allow for later models of headquarters to be constructed at a quicker pace than earlier models? Is it merely a consequence of war-time experience?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would say so. As the hq's become more "complex", they cost more IC, but because of the war experience, they are built faster. Something like that.
 
Last edited:
These are stats for land brigades:

Code: 
 [B]Anti-Air[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 40

Total: 200

Mp: 2

1916 model
-AA/AD: 1/3
-Sup: 0.6

1918 model
-AA/AD: 2/4
-Sup: 0.65

1920 model
-AA/AD: 3/5
-Sup: 0.7



[B]Anti-Tank[/B]

Cost: 6
Time: 70

Total: 420

Mp: 2

1916 model
-HA: 2
-Def: 1
-Sup: 0.5

1918 model
-HA: 4
-Def: 2
-Sup: 0.55

1920 model
-HA: 5
-Def: 3
-Sup: 0.6



[B]Armored Car[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 80

Total: 400

Mp: 2

1912 model
-SA: 2
-Def/Tgh: 1/1
-Soft: -5%
-Org: 0%
-Sup: 0.8
-Fuel: 0.4

1915 model
-SA: 3
-Def/Tgh: 2/2
-Soft: -5%
-Org: +5%
-Sup: 0.9
-Fuel: 0.6

1917 model
-SA: 4
-Def/Tgh: 3/3
-Soft: -5%
-Org: +5%
-Sup: 1.0
-Fuel: 0.8

1919 model
-SA: 5
-Def/Tgh: 4/4
-Soft: -5%
-Org: +10%
-Sup: 1.2
-Fuel: 1.0



[B]Artillery[/B]

Cost: 6
Time: 60

Total: 360

Mp: 2

1890 model
-HA/SA: 0/2
-Def: 2
-Spd: -1
-Sup: 0.75

1912 model
-HA/SA: 0/4
-Def: 2
-Spd: -1
-Sup: 1.0

1915 model
-HA/SA: 0/6
-Def: 2
-Spd: -1
-Sup: 1.25

1917 model
-HA/SA: 1/8
-Def: 3
-Spd: -1
-Sup: 1.5

1919 model
-HA/SA: 2/10
-Def: 4
-Spd: 0
-Sup: 2.0



[B]Engineers[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 60

Total: 300

Mp: 2

Def/Tgh: 5/3
Spd: 1
Sup: 0.5
Also helps in river crossing



[B]Tank Detachment[/B]

Cost: 10
Time: 90

Total: 900

Mp: 2

1917 model
-HA/SA: 1/4
-Def/Tgh: 2/3
-Spd: -1
-Soft: -20%
-Sup: 2.0
-Fuel: 2.0

1918 model
-HA/SA: 2/6
-Def/Tgh: 3/4
-Spd: -1
-Soft: -25%
-Sup: 2.2
-Fuel: 2.0

1919 model
-HA/SA: 3/6
-Def/Tgh: 4/6
-Spd: 0
-Soft: -30%
-Sup: 2.4
-Fuel: 2.5

1920 model
-HA/SA: 4/8
-Def/Tgh: 4/6
-Spd: 0
-Soft: -40%
-Sup: 2.5
-Fuel: 3.0



[B]Cavalry Detachment[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 70

Total: 350

Mp: 4

1912 model
-SA: 2
-Tgh: 1
-Soft: +10%
-Spd: 1
-Sup: 1.2

1915 model
-SA: 3
-Tgh: 2
-Soft: +10%
-Spd: 1
-Sup: 1.2

1917 model
-SA: 4
-Tgh: 2
-Soft: +10%
-Spd: 1
-Sup: 1.2

1919 model
-SA: 5
-Tgh: 3
-Soft: +5%
-Spd: 1
-Sup: 1.2



[B]Gendarmerie[/B]

Cost: 3
Time: 35

Total: 105

Mp: 3

Org: +3%
Sup: 0.2
Aso increases suppresion a lot



[B]Gas Detachment[/B]

Cost: 12
Time: 90

Total: 1080

Mp: 2

Basic model
-SA: 10
-Spd: -2
-Sup: 3.5

Improved model
-SA: 15
-Spd: -1
-Sup: 3.5

Advanced model
-SA: 20
-Spd: 0
-Sup: 3.5



[B]Heavy Artillery[/B]

Cost: 7
Time: 70

Total: 490

Mp: 2

1912 model
-HA/SA: 0/6
-Def: 3
-Spd: -3
-Sup: 1.25

1915 model
-HA/SA: 0/8
-Def: 4
-Spd: -3
-Sup: 1.75

1917 model
-Cost: 8
-HA/SA: 1/12
-Def: 5
-Spd: -2
-Sup: 2.5

1919 model
-Cost: 10
-HA/SA: 2/14
-Def: 6
-Spd: -2
-Sup: 3.0



[B]Logistics Detachment[/B]

Cost: 4
Time: 60

Total: 240

Mp: 2

1890 model
-Sup: -0.5

1912 model
-Sup: -1.0

1915 model:
-Sup: -1.2
-Fuel: -0.2

1917 model:
-Sup: -1.4
-Fuel: -0.4

1919 model:
-Sup: -1.7
-Fuel: -0.6



[B]Communications Detachment[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 60

Total: 300

Mp: 2

1890 model
-Def: 1
-Org: +5%
-Sup: 0.3

1912 model
-Def: 2
-Org: +10%
-Sup: 0.8

1915 model
-Def: 3
-Org: +12%
-Sup: 1.0

1917 model
-Def: 4
-Org: +15%
-Sup: 1.0

1919 model
-Def: 5
-Org: +20%
-Sup: 1.2



[B]Heavy Weapons[/B]

Cost: 5
Time: 70

Cost: 350

Mp: 2

1890 model
-SA: 1
-Def: 4
-Sup: 0.8

1912 model
-SA: 2
-Def: 5
-Sup: 1.0

1915 model
-SA: 4
-Def: 7
-Sup: 1.2

1917 model
-SA: 6
-Def: 8
-Sup: 1.4

1919 model
-SA: 7
-Def: 10
-Sup: 1.6
 
jova said:
Yes, I would say so. As the hq's become more "complex", they cost more IC, but because of the war experience, they are built faster. Something like that.
Click to expand...

Then would it not be suitable, by using the same logic, to reduce the building times of all other late models of our various units, and not just HQs? :)

I am inclined to lengthen the build time of the late HQ model on account of their enhanced size, covering the necessity of training a sufficient number of staff officers and the organisation of new departments to satisfy the growth in the number of branches of an army command. Issues relating to wartime construction experience can be dealt with gearing bonuses, I think.

Absolutely outstanding work, anyway.
 
jova said:
That too makes sense. Maybe this:

Code: 
Cost for all models: 20 IC

Model 1: 240 days - total 4800 IC
Model 2: 270 days - total 5400 IC
Model 3: 300 days - total 6000 IC

would be good?
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be lovely. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back