Units

**Allenby** · 15-01-2005 21:05

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.

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)

**Johan Elisson** · 15-01-2005 21:23

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

**Allenby** · 15-01-2005 21:43

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.

**Gwalcmai** · 15-01-2005 21:50

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.

**StephenT** · 16-01-2005 16:57

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.

**StephenT** · 16-01-2005 17:14

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).

**Allenby** · 16-01-2005 20:53

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]

**Zuckergußgebäck** · 16-01-2005 20:55

Most european minors should have inf 1895, correct?

**StephenT** · 16-01-2005 22:20

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.

**Johan Elisson** · 16-01-2005 22:28

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

**Allenby** · 18-01-2005 23:29

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)

**Shadow Knight** · 19-01-2005 00:18

Looks okay to me.

**Johan Elisson** · 19-01-2005 00:32

Me 2.

Changing my first post.

/Johan

**StephenT** · 19-01-2005 01:17

Looks fine to me.

**Allenby** · 20-01-2005 22:06

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.

**Shadow Knight** · 20-01-2005 23:53

Sounds fine to me Allenby, on both accounts.

**Allenby** · 23-01-2005 01:17

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

**StephenT** · 23-01-2005 01:30

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.

**Allenby** · 23-01-2005 16:59

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.

**StephenT** · 23-01-2005 18:54

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...

Thread: Units

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions