models.csv

[unmerged(15893)]

Originally posted by Lunar
I'm asking the difference between a US mechanized division and a normal US division in real-life.

They are the same thing.

ALL U.S. Army Divisions are Modern Day Mech/Motor. In this day of age, things are different than they were in WWII. Mechanized divisions and motorized in reality are the same thing, they are all just classified as *rd Infantry Division.

For example, If I get stationed and placed into the 3rd Inf. Division when I graduate VMI, the division I'm gonig to be in is going to be a Motorized (MPs, light support), Mechanized (Light IFV Units), Armor (M1A2 Support/Assualt Tanks) and aviation (Helicopters)

A modern day U.S. Infantry unit is the same as a HoI Mot/Inf/Mech, and that's a HUGE reason why we should change it to the Mot for Inf, Helo-Airmobile for Mot, and H.Cav for Mech.

 

[unmerged(16020)]

Ok, I'm using GlobalSecurity and some divisions are classified as mechanized while others are not. But ok, I understand.

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Originally posted by Lunar
Ok, I'm using GlobalSecurity and some divisions are classified as mechanized while others are not. But ok, I understand.

May you please post a link of the exact page your reading?

Thanks

 

[unmerged(16020)]

You mean like this one or this one?

 

[Exel]

MartyWolf, it seems to me that you are talking only from the US military perspective. Not all the countries (in fact most) have the same kind of OOBs. Wheeled units are gaining more and more ground in Europe at the cost of tracked units. The list you suggested may suit very well the US model, but it certainly doesn't work as a global one. All infantry in the world isn't motorized/mechanized, nor is motorized and mechanized the same thing everywhere. My suggestion would allow the simulation of nearly all military models, including the US model.

Also, I didn't say that the basic HOI system shouldn't be changed. If you read my suggestion you should notice quite significiant changes. Anyway, I still see absolutely no reason to scrap the ordinary foot infantry class, nor motorized, mechanized or militia classes. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

I also don't see a need for a separate futuristic unit class. Isn't it enough to ugrade existing units with near-future technology?

 

[Raczynski]

What about old idea of simulating independent brigades? Is it dead know?
I suppose it would be quite easy: non reasarcheable "model 100" unit with 1/3 of orginal stats. Not for tanks, because it would be a pain, but certainly for airmobile and other specialized formations. It would be much better than having them as 30% strenght or not having them at all.

 

[unmerged(16020)]

Originally posted by Exel
or militia classes

I can answer this one since it was my idea. There is no real need for militia since countries with crappy armies will have infantry which amount to the same thing (and be cheaper). However, I find the idea of partisan units with very high jungle defense, as well as other terrain types, very interesting since it would force a major power to devote a a lot of infantry in the area to completely gain control of the province. It may or may not work out, the game mechanics may ruin that idea (retreating?), but I'd like to test it.

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lunar
I can answer this one since it was my idea. There is no real need for militia since countries with crappy armies will have infantry which amount to the same thing (and be cheaper).

Ahem. So some 3rd world country would have similar infantry to Finland for example, eh? The situation would be exactly the same if you'd replace all the Chinese units in HoI with normal infantry divisions. You can't just ignore all the 3rd rate armies in the world either, can you now?

 

[unmerged(16020)]

Originally posted by Exel
Ahem. So some 3rd world country would have similar infantry to Finland for example, eh? The situation would be exactly the same if you'd replace all the Chinese units in HoI with normal infantry divisions. You can't just ignore all the 3rd rate armies in the world either, can you now?

They would never have similar infantry to Finland. Even if Finland gave Ethiopia all her techs, Ethiopia's basic infantry unit would have decreased base values. All the third world nations will get infantry, they just won't be getting militia at this point.

Of course, since no country can BUILD partisans we can just make them a model type that no one can access in the milita catagory, which would solve your issues.

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Simple answer: Militia isn't needed, Partisans are more useful.

Oh, and because of Tech, the 3rd World countries will NOT have troops that are as good as Finland.

 

[unmerged(16020)]

But since countries can't build militia (they can only start with it), is it really needed to completely erase the whole catagory for them? We only need an unbuildable model number to do the partisans.

Oh, and all the different types of planes will have to be good at most things (at least after the beginning models). A fighter wing will take out tanks & ships, just perhaps less efficiently than planes designed to do it.

 

[Jace]

Well for Russia there Should be a T-80 Black Egale for 3rd or 4th gen tanks

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by MartyWolf
Simple answer: Militia isn't needed, Partisans are more useful.

Oh, and because of Tech, the 3rd World countries will NOT have troops that are as good as Finland.

The irregular infantry many 3rd world countries have is not similar to ordinary infantry even by its type. Countries like (former) Zaire have a normal standing infantry army, but have those irregular militia troops as well. So I think militia is definitely needed - it exists today just as it did in WW2.

And about the partisans: I am almost certain that the way you suggested the partisans to be modelled wont result in anything satisfying.

 

[h345]

how wil transports be modeled because transports today are armed

 

[Exel]

Originally posted by h345
how wil transports be modeled because transports today are armed

Very lightly. As were WW2 transports. Show me a transport vessel that can do any serious damage to, say, a destroyer.

I think this in the wrong thread anyway. This one is about unit classes and model names.

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Originally posted by h345
how wil transports be modeled because transports today are armed

Wel, Aerial treansports aren't armed, and sea transports are VERY lightly armed. I don't think we will give them any attack pints at all, MAYBE "1" sea defense point.

 

[h345]

how r we modeling ICBM's for the nations who have them

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Originally posted by h345
how r we modeling ICBM's for the nations who have them

I'm not sure about that, good question. I guess it's up to Buke/Lunar/Me for what we will do with those.

 

[unmerged(10371)]

for the smaller thirdworld type countries the model for motorized or maybe even mech could be a pickup with a machinegunner on the back!

 

[unmerged(15893)]

Originally posted by vcarter707
for the smaller thirdworld type countries the model for motorized or maybe even mech could be a pickup with a machinegunner on the back!

That wouldn't work with Mech/My Mech idea, but of course it will be used with 3rd World motorized. It's called a "Technical", and it's the preferred method of transport amongst african and arabic nations.