Changing Division Types

[unmerged(32776)]

I just wondered if anyone had suggested a mechanism to change divisions from one type to another in a similar way in which they are upgraded? So you could, for example Motorise or Mechanise Infantry or Cavalry units, or put your cavalrymen in tanks, or train up your militia to Infantry standards. You would pay the 'gap' IC cost and the 'gap' training time and then get them back.

Any thoughts on this?

Jumbo

 

[unmerged(25612)]

Why not just disband and use the freed resources?

Cross training took place yes, but is it really worth it?

With such an abstracted army control, it seems rather too "micro" to be fiddling with that kinds of things.

Afterall you get the manpower fully back, and you would lose roughly the same amount of resources in any event...


Or am I missing some crucial here? Other than it being a "nice little touch".. ??

 

[Spruce]

Why not just disband and use the freed resources?

Cross training took place yes, but is it really worth it?

With such an abstracted army control, it seems rather too "micro" to be fiddling with that kinds of things.

Afterall you get the manpower fully back, and you would lose roughly the same amount of resources in any event...


Or am I missing some crucial here? Other than it being a "nice little touch".. ??

yeah, reasonable- . And you can hardly say that experienced cavalrists will make as equal experienced tank crews...

so a new job means new training,

leaves Jumbo's point of the IC open - perhaps you can get part of the IC's back when you disband a unit - like 50 or 75%?

 

[Mattias]

yeah, reasonable- . And you can hardly say that experienced cavalrists will make as equal experienced tank crews...

so a new job means new training,

leaves Jumbo's point of the IC open - perhaps you can get part of the IC's back when you disband a unit - like 50 or 75%?

And exactly what sort of old cavalry equipment (IC) should the tank crews use? The saddles instead of seats? Horse pulled field kitchens? /Mattias

 

[Tachikaze]

leaves Jumbo's point of the IC open - perhaps you can get part of the IC's back when you disband a unit - like 50 or 75%?

Just curious, other than upgrading units, how can you "get IC back" with the current model (as I understand it)?

 

[Spruce]

And exactly what sort of old cavalry equipment (IC) should the tank crews use? The saddles instead of seats? Horse pulled field kitchens? /Mattias

very funny

when you disband a cavalry division, many materials could be re-used to re-fit other cavalry divisions - so stuff you don't need to produce to keep stocks at level.

the point is that disbanding a unit gives you resources that could be used by other similar type of divisions. We are not talking about making a unit type obsolete, we are talking about disbanding one unit.

 

[Spruce]

so my point is that disbanding a division shouldn't be equal to = burning down all equipment or throwing equipment on the junkyard.

 

[unmerged(32776)]

My point is that a division is more than just equipment and men. It is organisation and training and logs and all the rest of it. Cavalry units were converted pre-war, and for the Us I seem to think during the war.

However moving away from the most extreme - you guys just had to choose that one didn't you - mechanising or motorising Infantry? Should it take as long to motorise an infantry division and cost as much than it takes to build it from scratch?

Jumbo

 

[forezjohn]

so my point is that disbanding a division shouldn't be equal to = burning down all equipment or throwing equipment on the junkyard.

I agree about that, you can get back the clothes, ammo, some guns, food(yes the tankist and cavalry men eat the same food! )...

 

[unmerged(25612)]

My point is that a division is more than just equipment and men. It is organisation and training and logs and all the rest of it. Cavalry units were converted pre-war, and for the Us I seem to think during the war.

However moving away from the most extreme - you guys just had to choose that one didn't you - mechanising or motorising Infantry? Should it take as long to motorise an infantry division and cost as much than it takes to build it from scratch?

Jumbo

Yes, we took it out to extreme because that would be the very first exploit. Making the riders of Mongolia into one huge King Tiger army and rolling over the world.

And yes training is a part, but the basic traning suitable for all is only like 1/10th of the whole traning. The whole style on which regular infantry works over mechanized is a whole lot different. They do different tasks, with different equipment, under different circumstances...


One could of course add this "conversion" thing, but at what cost? Not only will it mean coding, testing, balancing, documenting... But also it will open exploits. (Make a landing with marines, turn them into tanks in a lonely beach head surrounded by enemies one by one, make a breakthrough and drive on...)

Giving back some money and resources sounds good. (Maybe some steel from the guns, supplies as for clothing and ammunition, and money just to balance a bit (And to represent using the equipment elsewhere).)

 

[Windmolen]

Yes, we took it out to extreme because that would be the very first exploit. Making the riders of Mongolia into one huge King Tiger army and rolling over the world.

Sure, but only if Mongolia would have knowledge of basic/advanced heavy tanks, and had the IC to complete such a refit/upgrade

:
Make a landing with marines, turn them into tanks in a lonely beach head surrounded by enemies one by one, make a breakthrough and drive on...

One could do that, but that particular Marine division would then be put in the build queu for x amount of day's, which would leave that beach undefended. I really don't think that Jumbo meant that these refits could happen in an instant.

 

[Tachikaze]

(Make a landing with marines, turn them into tanks in a lonely beach head surrounded by enemies one by one, make a breakthrough and drive on...)

I thought he meant it like the unit is moved to the build queu just like in HoI when you upgrade something. Then the unit must be placed in annexed (i.e not just temporarily controlled) territory like any other unit, and with 0 org. At least that's how I understood it...

 

[Yaromir]

But also it will open exploits. (Make a landing with marines, turn them into tanks in a lonely beach head surrounded by enemies one by one, make a breakthrough and drive on...)

Simple, make only conversion available in home provinces. Anyway, converting marines (cavalry, mnt, par) into tanks is a bit silly, but I would like to have the option of motorizing or mechanizing infantry. Training infantry to commando divs would be way too much micro.

So the only viable thing is here, IMHO, is motorizing or mechanizing.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

I thought he meant it like the unit is moved to the build queu just like in HoI when you upgrade something. Then the unit must be placed in annexed (i.e not just temporarily controlled) territory like any other unit, and with 0 org. At least that's how I understood it...

I thought that first...

But when I thought it that way I soon realized that it would be almost EXCACTLY the same as just disbanding and building a new unit.

That is why I looked around the options a bit...

So if it is done as I first understood it, and as you all seem to understand it... Then what`s the point actually? How does it differ from disband and build?

 

[unmerged(32776)]

Precisely what I meant, thanks guys. I do sort of assume acertain degree of common sense when looking at this rather than accounting for gamesmanship.

I disagree that there is a vast difference between Mech,Mot and Inf. The Brits and Germans changed the status of many of their units during the war and it simply should not take as long as recruiting from scratch. Would German 15th Light Division have to stay a Mech rather than become a Panzer Division? Would the same apply to Western Desert Force when it changed over to become 7th Armoured? It should take a shorter time because all you are doing is retraining and re-equipping, not recruiting, assigning officers, creating formations and generally teaching people how to be soldiers.

As another suggestion you could also go backwards. If you were running out of oil and needed those Mech and Mot to stop consuming then get them to abandon the transport a la Germany late 44 onwards.

 

[unmerged(32776)]

I thought that first...

But when I thought it that way I soon realized that it would be almost EXCACTLY the same as just disbanding and building a new unit.

That is why I looked around the options a bit...

So if it is done as I first understood it, and as you all seem to understand it... Then what`s the point actually? How does it differ from disband and build?

The difference is less time and IC than new build.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Mongols using King Tigers? What sort of nonsense is this?
They would use elite T-34/85 and IS-3 divisions.

Or perhaps Mangudai 80mm Advanced Mediums and Jengiz Khan-3 120mm Advanced Heavies.


Seriously though Mongol cavalry conquered Russia without being slowed down by winter.

The Wehrmacht and its horses could not duplicate that feat even with a few centuries of R&D.

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Seriously though Mongol cavalry conquered Russia without being slowed down by winter.

The Wehrmacht and its horses could not duplicate that feat even with a few centuries of R&D.

And based on these facts, a true logical mind can not deny tha fact that the Mongolian Army was, indeed, much more 1337er than the German Army has ever been.

And since the Mongolians and Siberians were on the Russian side in '41-'45, it's no wonder the Germans lost.

 

[Slargos]

An infantryman and a mechanized infantryman both fight in basically the same manner once they're off their transports (feet/trucks, respectively).

Equipping an infantrydivision with trucks/'tracks should not take as long as building a mechanized division from scratch.

Wether this is included in the game or not is anyone's guess, but I'm certainly keeping my fingers crossed that it will be.

 

[Asudulayev]

I agree

My point is that a division is more than just equipment and men. It is organisation and training and logs and all the rest of it. Cavalry units were converted pre-war, and for the Us I seem to think during the war.

However moving away from the most extreme - you guys just had to choose that one didn't you - mechanising or motorising Infantry? Should it take as long to motorise an infantry division and cost as much than it takes to build it from scratch?

Jumbo

I agree completly. Infantry should be changed to Motorised infantry and later to mechanized infantry, in my opinion it should work like in an <<upgrade to latest model>> way. Infantry shuld be one type of unit and Mot. and Mech. should be newer, better, and cooler models of infantry, kind of the same way one can <<Upgrade>> a fighter in to a two engine escort plane. As for Cavalry to tanks, it seems a bit less connected so the <<Disband = fraction of resources back>> seems great, especially in the Cavalry to Tanks thing.