Ruler of the Queen's Navee
- Feb 13, 2004
Arilou said:Personally I'd prefer this be modified by DP sliders, if at all. And given how the idea is to replace gunpowder with bow-armed infantry why not just keep it tied to tech-level?
Because the Turks weren't behind in land tech, while they were still successfully using archers. I want to emphasize that I'm not pushing this point as hard as the basic 6-types option. But if possible, I'd like to see it.
Arilou said:I can see why that would be desireable, but frankly, I don't like it: Not with the abstract "troop numbers" model. Upgrading troops was a hassle in HOI2 and they did everything they could to make it "streamlined".
I don't see this as a big deal, as you can currently have your troops, in a given province, divided up into many contingents. The AI seems to prefer it that way. The problems involved can be solved by 2 changes which should be adopted anyway, whether my suggestions here are accepted or rejected:
1. A commander should be in charge of all the troops in his province, whether they are "his" unit, or not. This is already true in sieges & battles, it should be general. The one exception is where there are 2 or more leaders present, in which the juniors should be in charge of "their" units, the sr. officer gets the rest.
2. When you use "select all" to move a bunch of troops in different contingents, they should move in company, & arrive together. If you want them to move separately, you can give them orders separately. (This would be a very minor change in the game as it is, with great benefits.)
Arilou said:As I see it the very act of advancing in tech also includes the cost of actually *implementing* said tech. (though a nice idea would be to tie tech-cost to your actual standing army size, would make demobilizing after war even more desireable)
Not necessarily. IRL, these changes often came slowly. I wouldn't mind seeing the option to spend a boatload of $ to convert quickly, but IMO, that's a peripheral matter.
Arilou said:Paradoxically p) while I don't think that is a good idea for land units I could see it for navies.... Though still, given the timeframe we're dealing with, wouldn't it be a bit too detailed? (After all, how long did a warship actually serve?)
Some served over a century. Victory was almost as old as Nelson was, & at least one ship which had fought the Armada was still in service under Charles II. In the 17th & 18th C's, the improvements were continuous, albeit incremental, but no large fleet could afford to replace wholesale.