Capturable Equipment

[unmerged(134661)]

Please find below my proposal:
1) Battle won implies some material i.e. some supplies for the winner
2) Encirclement and destroying implies
2.1) for the winner some material i.e. some supplies + some leadership increase (you likely captured some leaders)
2.2) for the looser some leadership reduction
3) Annex a country implies for the winner some material i.e. supplies, depots, IC, etc + some leadership increase (you likely captured many leaders)

Please let me know your thoughts

1 - Fine
2.1 - No. Perhaps during Annexation, Puppeting a leaders may be willing but too often military leaders would simply be executed or jailed.
2.2 - You lose the officers and I'm sure you'll already lose some leadership based on DDs.
3) You already gain all money, supplies, materials, IC. Leadership should be very minimal due to reasons I've outlined. I'd simply rather that you gain some theoretical research in areas that you're weaker in.

 

[Cardus]

1 - Fine
2.1 - No. Perhaps during Annexation, Puppeting a leaders may be willing but too often military leaders would simply be executed or jailed.
2.2 - You lose the officers and I'm sure you'll already lose some leadership based on DDs.
3) You already gain all money, supplies, materials, IC. Leadership should be very minimal due to reasons I've outlined. I'd simply rather that you gain some theoretical research in areas that you're weaker in.

Please consider that leadership should abstracts not only officers but know how in general: scientists, skilled workers, specialized factories, etc. So when you conquer a country you will get most of that.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

Please consider that leadership should abstracts not only officers but know how in general: scientists, skilled workers, specialized factories, etc. So when you conquer a country you will get most of that.

I don't think you are fully understanding the picture here. Sure when the Germans conquered the Netherlands, they had a few volunteers, a couple of scientists defecting and whatnot. But at the same time they HAD to occupy the country. They used money and manpower to police over their latest acquisition. And since that is not portrayed in the game at all, it is safe to assume that the two (pros and cons in taking over a nation) are abstracted and cancel each other out for the most part.

 

[Cardus]

I don't think you are fully understanding the picture here. Sure when the Germans conquered the Netherlands, they had a few volunteers, a couple of scientists defecting and whatnot. But at the same time they HAD to occupy the country. They used money and manpower to police over their latest acquisition. And since that is not portrayed in the game at all, it is safe to assume that the two (pros and cons in taking over a nation) are abstracted and cancel each other out for the most part.

I don't get you. What is the relationship between leadership and manpower? If GER conquers Denmark then Niels Bohr should join the Heisenberg's team. Do you think that this is offset by a couple of GER peasant recruited in the Heer to guard him?

 

[unmerged(135152)]

I don't get you. What is the relationship between leadership and manpower? If GER conquers Denmark then Niels Bohr should join the Heisenberg's team. Do you think that this is offset by a couple of GER peasant recruited in the Heer to guard him?

Yes clearly. I can see how Germany conquering the United States would immediatetly see Albert Einstein exchanging the stars and stripes for a swastika and continuing to give his 100% input on the Manhattan project.

And it is not just a question of individuals. "Niels Bohr" the tech team represents far more than one wack-a-doo Dane.

 

[Van der Gent]

Because when the Germans captured the French Tanks, they would brak down, and the germans could not "trade" parts whit the French goverment because.. duh..

If you have defeated France you have also captured the factories that build these tanks, so just have those factories make new parts!

However, in the long run it's more clever to have these factories producing parts for more modern german tanks.

 

[Cardus]

Yes clearly. I can see how Germany conquering the United States would immediatetly see Albert Einstein exchanging the stars and stripes for a swastika and continuing to give his 100% input on the Manhattan project.

And it is not just a question of individuals. "Niels Bohr" the tech team represents far more than one wack-a-doo Dane.

I'm not sure. I would call it instead of Manhattan "Unter den Linden project".
Bohr had a team with him but I can guess that a Nobel Prize worth much more than a bunch of good researchers.

Going back to the point I think that if you conquer a country you should get some leadership. How much has to be defined...

 

[Makeyourownmind]

I think this brings up one of the great drivers of arguments.

Camp A - States that X happened in WWII (even if it's peripheral)
Camp B - States that it was not critical enough or that it's too small scale to model.


I think I'm with Camp B. Yes, equipment was captured and infrequently it was used. However, I'd rate this lower than simply getting the engine perfect for land, sea and air combat.

An abstraction of adding supplies would be an easier way of including it but I'm not sure it's a critical feature.

I think it's not peripheral, so I stick with Camp A
I know that the germans used a lot of captured equipment, and I would like to see captured brigades. But I am ok with supplys. Its a lot more fun if you can see what you have achived than to wait for the enemy capital.

And isn't fun a good argument? And if the eqipment is advanced, a good bonus on research would be nice.

I would like a model where eqipment would be seperated from manpower, even if its only to get over this upgrade system ^^.

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Certainly the case that captured equipment important for all sides in the war - a whole US division turned itself into an armoured division in 45 using German equipment, as well German and Soviet use of captured stuff.

Yeah, right!
But can you prove it, 'cause I don't believe that for the US division.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

Yeah, right!
But can you prove it, 'cause I don't believe that for the US division.

That would be tough to prove, indeed. I have seen photos of US troops riding a lot of captured equipment, especially late in the war; but not much armor and certainly not a division's worth.

 

[Cardus]

That would be tough to prove, indeed. I have seen photos of US troops riding a lot of captured equipment, especially late in the war; but not much armor and certainly not a division's worth.

Yes, I agree. Some spare equipment that may be simulated by supplies...

 

[PIT_AMERO]

That would be tough to prove, indeed. I have seen photos of US troops riding a lot of captured equipment, especially late in the war; but not much armor and certainly not a division's worth.

Of course there are such photos, but the machines are used for intel reasons, or for some temporary solutions, or just because it's cool to pose for a picture on Tiger. But they were never included in the TO&E of even one company.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Yeah, right!
But can you prove it, 'cause I don't believe that for the US division.

I do remember a passage in this book On to Berlin, Battles of an Airborne Commander 1943-1946 by James M. Gavin. Talking about one of his battalions (in 1945) who had captured some German halftracks and called themselves 'Panzer-Paratroop something'. But it certainly wasn't the whole 82nd Airborne.

I have somehow misplaced this book and can't look up what it said exactly.

 

[petester]

I think that this is being overlooked somewhat. And battlefield ownership is crucial.

The best example is with Rommel in Egypt. The vast majority of his equipment at one point was captured british vehicles. In fact, his mechanics, which would quickly right his losses after a fight, was the main reason he was as successful as he was in '41.

There were cases where he actually lost more tanks in a battle than the british, but he ended up taking the battlefield. Thus his mech were able to repair & replenish his forces, whereas the british were forced to retire without salvaging its forces.

 

[Cardus]

I think that this is being overlooked somewhat. And battlefield ownership is crucial.

The best example is with Rommel in Egypt. The vast majority of his equipment at one point was captured british vehicles. In fact, his mechanics, which would quickly right his losses after a fight, was the main reason he was as successful as he was in '41.

There were cases where he actually lost more tanks in a battle than the british, but he ended up taking the battlefield. Thus his mech were able to repair & replenish his forces, whereas the british were forced to retire without salvaging its forces.

It is what I suggested: if you win the battle you get some supplies and, maybe, a tech bonus to repair your equipment...

 

[gigzoid]

Yeah, right!
But can you prove it, 'cause I don't believe that for the US division.

Referring to the US 83rd Infantry Division, known as the "Rag-Tag Circus" as it "motorized" itself from captured German equipment in the final stages of the war.

A quick google came up with this:

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-today/2524...r-1945-rag-tag-circus-dash-toward-berlin.html

 

[Jorgas]

Add in a new battle event?
Capture enemy equipment?
For a random set hours, one side would gain some extra org, by the capture of new ammo/supply/fuel. Or since units carry their own supplies, maybe they could steal a percentage of their damage dealt for a few hours in "supplies" from the enemy they're currently attacking.

 

[Bullfrog]

logistics is what seems to be the major recipient of captured equipment, that is most easily simulated aside from just supplies. I depends on the way logistics is costing the nation. Perhaps the gain of foreign built trucks can help the supplies along somewhat.

 

[SuperKyle]

Hi everyone! Glad to see this turned into a lively thread after all.

Here's my idea (JUST for military use to be clear, not research)

Lets picture British group infantry division with armored car brigade A, arbitrary attack of 20.

2 German divisions + 1 panzer division attack the british division.

Panzer Division has like ... 5% to capture brigade based on tech, or something, and infantry has 1%. Combined, 7% chance.
Edit: (Maybe this could be overpowered so possibly individual chances)

Successful, after battle, enemy brigade becomes german's. goes to highest priority unit or first on the roster. Brigade becomes "Captured British Armored Car Brigade A" with attack of 15. like, a 25% utility decrease.

What do you think? I don't think it'd be that hard to add in, and would satisfy many people by the surprise chance of getting new equipment

 

[unmerged(12217)]

The entire discussion of captured equipment is basically moot because the game does not count discrete numbers of tanks, trucks, etc.

When the game allows for production and itemization of tanks, trucks, artillery pieces, etc, then we can first design units around numbers of equipment, second we can stockpile and issue older equipment and third we can do something about quantifying captured equipment and perhaps use some of it.

Until such a time, the topic of "captured equipment" is essentially a waste of time...unless you want to get into all sort of exotic little scripts, programming tricks and gosh knows what else.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it annoys the pig.