+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 507

Thread: Units

  1. #21
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    Having an armoured division available in the latter part of the game to allow the player to put Fuller's ideas into practice is an idea I sympathise with. However, as it would seem that there is an inherent link between light armour and standard armour in the game, it might be necessary to use another unit type to represent armoured divisions, so as to prevent guards/assault units from suddenly turning into tanks.

    I would suggest that we scrap Regular Infantry and give the mechanised slot to Armoured Divisions. Conscript Infantry could probably be renamed to 'Infantry' or 'Standard Infantry'. Regular units can be represented as Guards or Standard Infantry, judged on a case by case basis.

    By doing this, we will be able to keep Guards and Assault Infantry as separate unit types, although personally, I'd be happy to see them merged together, with Assault Infantry being a later model of Guards.

    Quote Originally Posted by StephenT
    Perhaps
    Militia 1860 (still using single shot muskets, swords and impractical uniforms)
    Militia 1900 (at least now they've got rifles)
    Militia 1917 (...and machine guns!)

    Infantry 1890 (Red trousers and close-order assault)
    Infantry 1912 (Camouflage uniforms and fire-and-movement)
    Infantry 1915 (Machine guns and entrenching tools)
    Infantry 1917 (Light machine guns, mortars and creeping barrages)
    Infantry 1919 (Submachineguns and inflitration tactics. Germany and Britain tech-rushed this model to obtain it in 1918)
    Looks fine to me. I would try to fill out the Infantry part a little bit more by placing another model between Infantry 1890 and Infantry 1912:

    Infantry 1895 (After the first use of the Maxim Gun in combat)

  2. #22
    ex-Great War[lord] Johan Elisson's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,163
    I don't think we should have too many models though. Remember that the player would need to research all models, and even with short research times, you have only got maximum five slots of research teams.

    /Johan
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength


    HoI II: 1914

  3. #23
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Johan Elisson
    I don't think we should have too many models though. Remember that the player would need to research all models, and even with short research times, you have only got maximum five slots of research teams.

    /Johan
    I don't believe that a player should have to research all the infantry models - we do not, for example, necessarily want the 1890-standard Guatemalan Army being able to imitate the German Army of 1918 during the course of the game. By introducing another model, it gives technologically weaker states something greater to aspire to without overpowering them unrealistically.

  4. #24
    I agree with having two pre-war models. Maybe the first one should be earlier, though. The first model (1870 infantry?) would be using single-shot rifles, while the 1895 model would be using maxims and smokeless-gunpowder repeaters.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by.
    It ended abruptly in the middle of nowhere; would not pick again.
    A traveler

  5. #25
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    The real question is whether any serious army in 1914 was still using single shot rifles and smoky gunpowder. There's no point having a tech model if every country will start with it...

    OK, perhaps some of the really obscure countries, like Jebel Shammar or Sanusia, might still be at that level. But in that case, I think their best troops should be represented by militia anyway, not infantry. Hence the 1860 militia model I suggested.

    The infantry tech tree would therefore look something like this:

    Code:
    Warriors (militia 1860)
        |_________________________ Early Infantry (1890)
        |                                       |
    Militia (1900)                 Basic Infantry (1912)
        |                                       |
    Improved Militia (1917)        Improved Infantry (1915)
                                                |
                                   Advanced Infantry (1917)
                                                |
                                    Semi-Modern Infantry (1919)
    Of course, we'd need to fit the other infantry types in as well. And note that there are two pre-war INF models, 1890 and 1912. You could change the dates if you don't feel they're historical enough.

    The Sanusid Army would have Militia 1860; the Guatemalan Army could start with Militia 1900 and have Early Infantry ready to research; the French Army would already have Early Infantry; the British and Germans would have Basic Infantry.

  6. #26
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Johan Elisson
    Could work, but I don't think we should lower movement stats. Did conscripts really march only half as fast as professional soldiers? My talk about moveable garrison was more meant at having the same low stats as garrison, but normal movement speed.
    Well, in reality conscripts probably did march more slowly than professional soldiers; they'd be less fit, less well-trained, more likely to have badly-fitting boots...

    However, I was thinking more about operational readiness, discipline and fieldcraft skills. Conscripts might take roughly the same time as regulars on a simple route march from A to B , but in HoI that's represented by Strategic Movement. When it comes to moving forward into potentially hostile territory - or even striking camp and moving out on a moment's notice - conscripts are going to be slower. While the regulars are already on the march the conscripts will still be running around in confusion trying to get things organised.

    In other words, I think they should be capable of movement - unlike HoI2's garrison units that have to be strategically redeployed to move - but a lot slower than normal infantry. In other words, what were called "static divisions" or even (it's that phrase again) "trench divisions".

    Incidentally, I did manage to track down the actual German phrase that's translated in English as trench division - it was Stellungsdivision. (In the context of 1918, meaning semi-mobile defensive troops with slightly suspect morale and training - not troops used to garrison permanent fortifications like Metz).

  7. #27
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    I would like to distinguish between the most basic unit used by nomadic tribes and those used by relatively minor states.

    Minor states shouldn't have militia to represent their armies because they were not composed of irregular formations like small tribal states. Therefore, I would give them a basic level of infantry (1890) with the attainment of another level (1895) as something to aspire to. Meanwhile, major powers will at least have the 1890 and 1895 models researched, thereby ensuring that their armies are stronger than the regular forces of minor states.

    1900 Militia therefore ought to become a well armed sort of irregular unit, and wouldn't be suitable for representing the front line units of any army, but would be appropriate for scratch home defence forces.


    Code:
    Warriors (militia 1860) [Senussi, Jebel Shammar]
        |_____________________________________Infantry (1890) [Guatemala]
        |                                            |
    Militia (1900)                            Infantry (1895) [Guatemala would do well to achieve this]
        |                                            |
    Improved Militia (1917)                   Infantry (1912) [Britain and Germany]
                                                     |
                                              Infantry (1915)
                                                     |
                                              Infantry (1917)
                                                     |
                                              Infantry (1919) [Britain and Germany by 1918]

  8. #28

  9. #29
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    I've got no problem with Allenby's revision, as long as 6 levels of Infantry aren't excessive. As for who get's what, I'd suggest:

    The most advanced armies get the 1912 model: Britain, Germany, others?? No army which wears red trousers into battle should qualify for this level.

    Armies which had combat experience in the last 15 years should get the 1895 model: France, Russia, Japan, USA, Italy, Ottomans, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania. Probably Austria-Hungary too, to be fair to them.

    "Civilised" countries without any recent military experience should get the 1890 model. Some might be promoted to 1895 level if they were particularly technically advanced.

    Of course, we do have the option of giving a country a particular tech advance, but having most of their troops being at the lower level and having to be upgraded.

  10. #30
    ex-Great War[lord] Johan Elisson's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by StephenT
    "Civilised" countries without any recent military experience should get the 1890 model. Some might be promoted to 1895 level if they were particularly technically advanced.
    With the risk of being subjective, I'd say that both Sweden and Norway (know to little about Denmark) should have the 1895 model. Most if not all weapons were of later model, and we didn't have red pantaloons.

    /Johan
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength


    HoI II: 1914

  11. #31
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    I'd like to finalise land units.

    Does this look fine?

    Code:
    HQ (TGW tag: -, 1914 tag: hq)
    
    Guards Infantry (motorized, light armor)
    
    Assault Infantry (motorized, armor)
    
    Armour Division (armour, mechanized)
    
    Infantry (infantry, infantry)
    
    Reserve Infantry (-, motorized)
    
    Garrison Infantry ((mechanized), garrison)
    
    Cavalry (cavalry, cavalry)
    
    Light Infantry (paratrooper, paratrooper)
    
    Marine Infantry (marine, marine)
    
    Mountain Infantry (bergsjaeger, bergsjaeger)
    
    Militia (militia, militia)

  12. #32
    Admiral of the Fleet Shadow Knight's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIHearts of Iron IIIEuropa Universalis: RomeEU Rome Collectors EditionEU3 Collectors Edition
    Europa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,985
    Looks okay to me.
    f.k.a. shdwknightx
    HOI:TGW
    HOI2: 1914

    "When you have a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails. However, when you don't have a hammer, you may begin to ignore anything that looks like a nail."

  13. #33
    ex-Great War[lord] Johan Elisson's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,163
    Me 2.

    Changing my first post.

    /Johan
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength


    HoI II: 1914

  14. #34
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    Looks fine to me.

  15. #35
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    I can only assume that we are happy with the naval units?

    Code:
    Carrier
    
    Battleship
    
    Battlecruiser
    
    Heavy Cruiser
    
    Light Cruiser
    
    Destroyer
    
    Submarine
    
    Transport
    Now that we have separate units for battleships and battlecruisers, we have the opportunity to revise things a little, if we so wish.

    In TGW we had the following (RN class names in brackets):

    Code:
    Model 0 - Pre-Dreadnought (Revenge)
    Model 1 - Basic Dreadnought (Dreadnought) 
    Model 2 - Battlecruiser (Invincible)
    Model 3 - Super Dreadnought (Orion) 
    Model 4 - Improved Battlecruiser (Lion) 
    Model 5 - Battleship (Queen Elizabeth) 
    Model 6 - Advanced Battlecruiser (Renown)
    Model 7 - N3 (Improved Battleship)

    We can therefore split them thus:

    Code:
    Battleships
    Model 0 - Pre-Dreadnought (Revenge)
    Model 1 - Basic Dreadnought (Dreadnought) 
    Model 3 - Super Dreadnought (Orion)
    Model 4 - Battleship (Queen Elizabeth) 
    Model 5 - Improved Battleship (N3)
    
    Battlecruisers
    Model 0 - Battlecruiser (Invincible)
    Model 1 - Improved Battlecruiser (Lion) 
    Model 2 - Advanced Battlecruiser (Renown)
    Model 3 - (Another Battlecruiser) (G3)
    Perhaps we should have a new model of battleship inserted to make it much harder to advance from Basic Dreadnought, for example, to Improved Battleship? Something like Iron Duke between the Orion-class and Queen Elizabeth-class might be suitable, being slightly quicker and having a bit more armour than the Orions.

  16. #36
    Admiral of the Fleet Shadow Knight's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIHearts of Iron IIIEuropa Universalis: RomeEU Rome Collectors EditionEU3 Collectors Edition
    Europa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,985
    Sounds fine to me Allenby, on both accounts.
    f.k.a. shdwknightx
    HOI:TGW
    HOI2: 1914

    "When you have a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails. However, when you don't have a hammer, you may begin to ignore anything that looks like a nail."

  17. #37
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    I assume that we are happy to keep the TGW models for these naval units?

    Code:
    Destroyers
    0 - Torpedo Boat
    1 - Torpedo Boat Destroyer
    2 - Basic Destroyer
    3 - Improved Destroyer
    4 - Advanced Destroyer
    
    Submarines
    0 - Early Submarine
    1 - Short-Range Coastal Submarine
    2 - Long-Range Coastal Submarine
    3 - Open Seas Submarine
    
    Carriers
    0 - Seaplane Carrier
    1 - Basic Carrier
    
    Transports
    0 - Merchantman
    1 - Transport
    3 - Armored Transport

  18. #38
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    Rather than insert another battleship model, why not just make researching any of the dreadnought techs extremely difficult, and ensure that only countries that historically built dreadnoughts have suitable naval tech teams?

    Regarding the transports, do we actually need separate models? What would they each do? (HoI2 only has one type of transport, doesn't it?) On the other hand, if it's possible to make amphibious assaults an option you have to research, instead of being able to do them automatically, that would be a good option for the tech tree.

    I'm happy with the other suggestions.

  19. #39
    Custom User Title Allenby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    7,169
    Quote Originally Posted by StephenT
    Regarding the transports, do we actually need separate models?
    I simply copied the details over from TGW. HOI II has just one transport model, and I am happy to conform with this - how many transports we have in the mod doesn't really bother me too much.

  20. #40
    OT iconoclast StephenT's Avatar
    Cities in MotionDeus VultDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty II CollectionMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Victoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    Pride of NationsCK2: Holy KnightEU3 Collectors Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    8,375
    Some capital ship photos:



    Allenby - I'll email you the actual files. I've named them as ill_div_ENG_22_0.bmp for the first battleship model, and so on. Hopefully I'll be able to do the smaller ships at some point.

    Do we need different pictures for each country's ships, or can we use these for all? I'd class doing different pictures for other nations as "nice but not essential" - we can always drop in a few here and there as people get time, or if somebody's a huge fan of, say, the Kaiserlich-und-Königlich Marine and really, really wants to see a picture of the Tegetthof in the mod...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts