(That generic portrait was added in the anniversary DLC which was free for everyone)That Swiss general does not have a generic portrait. This either means they're expanding generic portraits or that there is indeed some focused work on Switzerland.
Or they're just trolling us hard.
(It could be both combat width rework and something Switzerland related)
Fair enough. I only checked the vanilla portraits. Forget there were new ones in DLC files.That generic portrait was added in the anniversary DLC which was free for everyone
I'll be a bit disappointed if they stick to rounded numbers instead of 72 which supports historical divisions.
Apologies, it was in fact a generic portrait that came in Waking the Tiger (Europe generic land 16)Fair enough. I only checked the vanilla portraits. Forget there were new ones in DLC files.
Edit: are you sure? I cant find him in the anniversary pack files either.
I know I'm gonna regret it, but WTF is a historical division? A square division? Triangular? Binary? The smaller ones from late in the war? Asking for the combat width mechanic to support some arbitrary (and never achieved) historical ideal is simple fantasy.I'll be a bit disappointed if they stick to rounded numbers instead of 72 which supports historical divisions.
Oddly enough, 72 fits square, triangular, and binary formations, seeing as it's divisible by 4, 3, and 2.I know I'm gonna regret it, but WTF is a historical division? A square division? Triangular? Binary? The smaller ones from late in the war? Asking for the combat width mechanic to support some arbitrary (and never achieved) historical ideal is simple fantasy.
Certainly not a 40 width heavy tank division.I know I'm gonna regret it, but WTF is a historical division? A square division? Triangular? Binary? The smaller ones from late in the war? Asking for the combat width mechanic to support some arbitrary (and never achieved) historical ideal is simple fantasy.
You just had to go there, did-en-ya?I know I'm gonna regret it, but WTF is a historical division? A square division? Triangular? Binary? The smaller ones from late in the war? Asking for the combat width mechanic to support some arbitrary (and never achieved) historical ideal is simple fantasy.
75 combat width seems interesting enough, though what specific changes this is an effect of I can't really imagine. What bothers me though is that those are some really bad divisions being used. Swiss player needs to make more guns.
The pentatomic was such a bad idea that it doesn't deserve to be meta.Oddly enough, 72 fits square, triangular, and binary formations, seeing as it's divisible by 4, 3, and 2.
It would, however, fail to fit the post-war USA "Pentatomic" division concept -- at least, not evenly.