I was working on updated inc files for all countries (to include mobilized troops, to balance some techs etc.) and I'll combine the Stephen's file with the one I made. Results will come soon.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
the Kamerun troops should most likely be light infantry, maybe with MP's to simulate the schutztruppe, the Polizeitruppe and the native irregulars. Militia is too disorganised for them, but i'd say Light Inf. is good enough, they'd be a very small unit though.
TurnerBenton, how did you fix the Columbian OOB error? I can't figure out what is creating that ship-division combo.
Stephen, are the Austrohungarian landwehrinfanterietruppen division presented as inf OK? Should they be res, perhaps? Currently, only theeir landsturm is res.
Stephen, are the Austrohungarian landwehrinfanterietruppen division presented as inf OK? Should they be res, perhaps? Currently, only theeir landsturm is res.
jova said:
Like so:
Code:
landunit = {
id = { type = 23000 id = 1 }
name = "Colombian Army"
location = 813
division = {
id = { type = 23000 id = 2 }
name = "Colombian Army"
strength = 100
type = militia
model = 0
}
}
navalunit = {
id = { type = 23000 id = 500 }
name = "Colombian Fleet"
# leader = ?
location = 803 # Cartagena
division = { id = { type = 23000 id = 501 } name = "Almirante Lezo" type = light_cruiser model = 0 }
}
}
Well...jova said:
Austrian Landwehr and Hungarian Honvéd troops were equipped and trained to the same standards as the regular Common Army units. Better, in some cases - the Hungarian Parliament in particular begrudged every pfennig spent on the Common Army, but was only too happy to pay for improvements to the Honvéd.
This confused foreign observers, even the Germans, who expected 'Landwehr' to be second-rate troops when in fact they were just as good as the rest of the army. The catch is that 'just as good' isn't really saying very much when it comes to the Austro-Hungarian army.
In short, if the A-H regular divisions are INF then the Landwehr and Honvéd should also be INF: but there is an argument to downgrade their entire army (other than a few elite units) to RES... However, since at present Russia and Serbia seem to regularly defeat Austria-Hungary, I wouldn't recommend weakening A-H any more than it currently is.
jova said:Ah, now I see. The bracket.
Did you see the error in the British naval OOB? There is a group stationed in Argentan (province 40) when I believe they should be in Sunderland.
StephenT said:
Thank you very much for doing that - as your other post reveals, this all looks rather promising.
Also, could you create some room in your PM inbox? I am trying to issue an update circular.
StephenT said:
Why that ? Gameplay ?
I'm asking this, because afaik Landwehr-Brigades and -Divisions consisted of reservists which were too old and/or deemed unfit to serve in a Reserve-Division, why should they then have the same combat ability as a Reserve-Division, which consists of younger and abler reservists. And all the other Landwehr-Brigades in the german.inc file stay militia, so why should be this one upgraded to Reserve-Infantry ?
No, all the other Landwehr brigades are Reserve Infantry - this one was the only one that was militia. The German OOB is currently as follows:SirCentipede said:
Regular divisions: model 3 INF
Reserve divisions: model 2 INF
Landwehr and Ersatz divisions: RES
There are now no German MIL divisions in the starting OOB. The only historical German units that would fall under this category, in my opinion, are the post-1918 Freikorps (if anyone fancies writing an alt-historical Soviet Revolution in Germany battlescenario?) and East African askari native levies.
StephenT said:
Ok, i see... i just didn't have your new german.inc. But isn't this a bit too much INF for Germany and in addition to that after one has upgraded one's Reserve-Divisions there's no distinguiishing factor between an active, regular infantry-division and a reserve-division. I think giving Landwehr- and Ersatz-Division a Reserve-Model is ok, as the former were historically older reservists and the latter divisions still in training. So there is in game terms only a minimal difference between a Reserve-Division and a Landwehr- or Ersatz-Division, but making "Reserve-Divisonen" INF is historically not accurate and counterproductive to the game concept, as we have a RES unit type. So why not use it for divisions which are named "Reserve-Divisionen", not to mention that you have to change your unitnames.csv and put all the german "Reserve-Divisionen" names to INF.
Hhmm, but maybe it's only me to whome this is bothering...
The German Reserve-Divisionen were much better trained than their French and Russian equivalents and the Germans used them with success from the beginning in the first line while the French, fearing that their Reserves would be crushed if they use them in the front, used their Reserves very carefully.
lees said:
Ok, you're right. Unfortunately there is no Model 1917 Reserve-Infantry, otherwise you could have given GER Reserve 1917 just as you gave INF 1917to GER to reflect the better training of the German Divisions.
But as I wanted to do some name-changes to the unitnames.csv for the germans, ( http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5888844&postcount=32 ) i would suggest that the "Reserve-Divisionen" names aren't put to the INF, so only the first Line of "Reserve-Divisionen" (in the german.inc) are better than their counterparts and the following "Reserve-Divisionen" (which the player builds) are normal RES. Is that ok?
Germany gets Infantry 1915 not 1917 and there's an Reserve 1915.
For the Unit names I agree but Amona is working on them so you should talk to him.
For the Unit names I agree but Amona is working on them so you should talk to him.
Is it viable to make the Shutztruppe Südwestafrika a garrison instead of a light infantry? I'm having difficulty balancing British colonial force in southern Africa with this one unit. Either I have 35 divisions against it or none. If it's none, then that one unit will tear through all of South Africa, Rhodesia and Congo before being stopped. I hate to lose the historical accuracy, but in reality it was one of the first divisions that was defeated in the war and it's wreaking havoc on the AI.
Sounds fine to me. In fact, I'd go further and make all the German colonial garrisons GAR, except for Lettow-Vorbeck's troops in Ostafrika which should probably stay as LGT...TurnerBenton said:
I suggest that we test it first how the AI reacts to garrisons instead of a mobile division and then we decide. Generally I agree but maybe not all of the "Schutztruppen". Togo has no real force and Kamerun and Ostafrika should have mobile troops. But important is to test the reactions of the AI.
lees said:
My fault, i got confused with the INF models.
lees said:
In my v0.2 there are 3 models:
model_2_0 "Reserves 1890"
model_2_1 "Reserves 1912"
model_2_2 "Trench 1917".
Is there another/newer version where there's a Reserves 1915 model?
If there is now a model 1915 RES i suggest to change germany's Reserve-Divsions to that model instead of making them INF 1915, so they still have the advantage of better combat ability over the french and russian model 1912 reserves without making them INF divisions.
lees said:
I second that, large Britsh-French forces took heavy casualties conquering Kamerun and the small germans troops retreated to north-Kamerun where they lasted till Feb 1916 before they capitulated.
well, that doesn't sound too bad to me, many of the schutztruppen surrendere dquickly, but some lasted at least to 1915, possibly 1916. I mean, there was a small detachment of germans on Papua New Guinea that held otu till the end of the war, as small and weak as they were.