Units

[Allenby]

But during the period we are trying to model, cavalry divisions were reformed into infantry divisions, more than into armoured units. What then happened after the war and or timeframe, is another question.

No it isn't - we're painting with the broad brush, not concentrating on 1914-1918 without any consideration for years before and after.

I thought the tech tree existed to represent any change in the organisation of the military forces, and that the doctrinal changes only was a part of that. Am I implying anything? Cavalry techs in the HoI 2 tech tree then implies that all armies would reform their cavalry units into motorised units. Which is not true.

Of course it is true (or mostly, at least). The technology tree is there to represent the development of arms between 1890 and about 1935. Can anyone tell me with any certainty that the bulk of armed forces in the post-war era had a large reserve of 'dismounted infantry' ready to give the army mobility? Certainly not - the emphasis was either on armour, motorised infantry or cavalry. By shoving 'dismounted infantry' at the end of cavalry's natural development, you are effectively saying that all cavalry units would disappear forever and be replaced by infantry.

My argument is that the decision to dismount cavalrymen and reform them into infantry divisions is not one worthy of representing as a technological development on the basis that it wasn't a technological development, merely a decision to maximise firepower because the circumstances suited it best.

And the word 'circumstances' is important - for a change of this nature is one that is ideally modelled by event. The best way to deal with this is through the writing of events which will remove cavalry units from the map and replace them with infantry divisions of the same name.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

No, these are armoured divisions. There will be tank brigades also, that will be available earlier.

I see, I thought you were talking about 1919 and 1924 armoured brigades.

 

[Allenby]

If we can wrap up the remaining units, then we can assign their attributes and probably get started on the technology tree much quicker.

I'd recommend the following (so far):

Guards Infantry
1890 Infantry
1912 Infantry

Reserve Infantry
1890 Infantry
1912 Infantry
1918 Trench Infantry (? - this could possibly be a garrison unit instead)

Garrison Infantry
(Will these be able to move or not?)

Light Infantry
1890 Infantry
1912 Infantry

Marine Infantry
1924 Infantry

Mountain Infantry
1890 Infantry
1912 Infantry

There are two models for some of these unit types, largely so that there is a neat distinction between 'early' and 'modern' as with our other units. 1912 Infantry calls for a comparative Mountain Infantry model, I suppose.

Are we to model Garrison Infantry with the ability to move or not?

 

[Johan Elisson]

I guess we'll keep Garrison immobile? They'd be used for for instance the German fortress divisions and territorial units not meant to be moved away from their home area.

/Johan

 

[Evans]

Just for my 2 cents, I'd keep them immobile myself. I did think they could be used to keep permanent garrisons in places for the AI, then I realised you can lock units anyway!

 

[Allenby]

I guess we'll keep Garrison immobile? They'd be used for for instance the German fortress divisions and territorial units not meant to be moved away from their home area.

/Johan

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. Any other arrangement and we might end up with the Königsberg garrison in Belgium, for example.

I'd also assume that we'll have two models of garrison too - 1890 and 1912...unless we are going to make trench divisions a form of garrison unit, in which case we'd have three.

 

[Evans]

I'd say having a "post-war" (1918) garrison would make sense. In fact, having a post-war level unit for all types would make sense to me, though of course, not a pressing/vital concern for the first release.

 

[Johan Elisson]

I'd say having a "post-war" (1918) garrison would make sense. In fact, having a post-war level unit for all types would make sense to me, though of course, not a pressing/vital concern for the first release.

At least having a late-war model of some of the types of divisions commonly used after the war (Mountain, Light). Adding a 1917 model to these would probably do fine as "post-war" (even if they aren't really post-war).

Also edited the first post.

/Johan

 

[StephenT]

If we have two mobile models of reserve division (1890 and 1912), making the most advanced version (1918) immobile all of a sudden seems a little silly.

However, I would make all the reserve divisions have a very low movement rate. They're for holding the line in quiet sectors, not advancing into enemy territory or being rushed up to block a breakthrough.

I support keeping immobile garrison units as a separate category.

 

[Shadow Knight]

I cocur with StephenT, keep a immobile garrison unit seperate from the reserve units.

 

[Braedonnal]

I've always believed that Nelson and Rodney were the front halves of what would have been far, far larger warships pre-Washington Treaty - that's why all their turrets are at the front. Anyway, they were laid down in 1922, which is just within our time frame, so I see no harm in using their pictures. Especially since the one I chose is a front view, so could just as easily be an N3 type ship.

A good guess but incorrect. The armament was grouped as such so the armored citadel was shorter and thus you could save weight and thus more heavily armor the ship or add additional boilers.

The G3 planning was complete when the Washington Naval Conference came around and they were ordered but not laid down AFAIK (Beardmore, John Brown, Fairfield and Swan Hunter received the orders on Oct 25, 1921 but the Cabinet ordered them suspended on Nvember 18th (most likely material was still being collected but perhaps they were laid down).

They were to be armed with 9-16"/45 guns and the theorical speed was to be 31-32kt. Armor would have been quite sufficent 12-14" inclined belt and the US 'all-or-nothing' approach was used (finally). They would rather resemble a fast battleship than a battlecruiser.

The N3 was only in the earliest planning stages but they were planning on 9-18"/45 guns. Practice with the 18" gun (when on the Furious though this was only a 40 caliber version) and the 16" gun (on Rodney and Nelson) showed that the theorical power of the 18" gun would be overshadowed by the terrible blast effects on the deck and superstructure (guessing that amidship turret is the main problem area). Armor was to be 13-15" on the belt and I'd assume inclined as well. Speed was to be 23.5kts.

Be nice to the HMS Rodney and Nelson. Sure, they are a touch fugly but they were really the only modern battleships the RN had (the QE's and RS's were pre-Jutland in design) until the KGV class and they significantly outgunned them. 9-16" > 10-14" in shell throw weight (18,432lbs vs 15,900lbs and a 16" shell penetrates armor better).

Now, why I felt the need to type all this I just don't know. :rofl: If you need help with naval aspects I can certainly help if you need.

 

[Java of Flanders]

However, I would make all the reserve divisions have a very low movement rate. They're for holding the line in quiet sectors, not advancing into enemy territory or being rushed up to block a breakthrough.

I disagree. The early succeses of the Germans were obtained because they could use (most of) their reserve divisions as normal divisions, in quality and everything. of course that was only the German Army, the French reserve divisions were not that good.

 

[Allenby]

If we have two mobile models of reserve division (1890 and 1912), making the most advanced version (1918) immobile all of a sudden seems a little silly.

You have both misunderstood what I wrote.

There's no question of making Trench divisions immobile at all - I'm merely tying to find a suitable place for it. Having it as a type of reserve unit would be suitable in my opinion - after all, Trench divisions are a step up from Reservists in TGW.

When I wrote that "unless we are going to make trench divisions a form of garrison unit" I was referring to what file we put it in, not that it should also take a garrison unit's characteristics.

 

[StephenT]

I disagree. The early succeses of the Germans were obtained because they could use (most of) their reserve divisions as normal divisions, in quality and everything. of course that was only the German Army, the French reserve divisions were not that good.

In my opinion, what that means is that the German Reserveinfanteriedivisionen would be represented as normal INF divisions, not reservists. We would use Reservists to represent the Landwehr and Ersatz divisions in the 1914 OOB, and the Stellungsdivisionen in 1918. (And the French Territoriales, as you say).

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Allenby & Johan E,

Would you care to wander over to the AI thread please and tell me if you are happy with the way I have matched everything up?

Especially these?

This will affect your on going work here too I think :wacko:

Brigades

Tank Section
Armored Car Section
Artillery Section
Heavy Artillery Section
Engineer Section
Heavy Weapons Section
Anti-Air Artillery Section
Anti-Tank Artillery Section
Cavalry Section
Gendarmery Section
Communications Section
Medical Section
Supply Train Section

 

[Allenby]

We did have gas attachments in TGW, albeit briefly. I recall that I argued for their removal on the basis that it was unwieldy to have gas companies always servicing the same infantry division, when realistically, they were shifted around the front according to the army's need.

Now that brigades are detachable, it would seem logical to have a gas company attachment that could give a soft attack bonus, and other minor benefits. This should probably replace the medical section - the provision of medical services is surely given and doesn't require a special attachment?

Having said that, I don't believe that a gas attachment should be introduced at the expense of the 'rocket' style gas attack. Individual gas units, that can be launched against the enemy as if it were a V2, would be excellent in simulating the exceptional and massive use of gas, that was increasingly evident in the run up to the end of the war.

 

[Shadow Knight]

Allenby, if there is room for a gas brigade attachment then I believe what you have just typed is the consensus...or at least a consensus in that is what I said and agree with.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I think Allenbys solution seems to be the most reasonable.

Then the rocket facility becomes a gas factory.

 

[unmerged(36926)]

So, why not start discussing units. I'd suggest starting with the cathegory that probably will see the most changes, land units. As the system is pretty different from HoI, and that a few new slots for units are available, the units can be arranged slightly different.

Land Units

HQ (TGW tag: -, 1914 tag: hq)

1870 HQ
1914 HQ
1918 HQ

Guards Infantry (motorized, light armor)

1890 Guards Infantry
1912 Guards Infantry

Assault Infantry (motorized, armor)

1918 Assault Infantry

Infantry (infantry, infantry)

1890 Infantry
1895 Infantry
1912 Infantry
1915 Infantry
1917 Infantry
1919 Infantry

Reserve Infantry (-, motorized)

1890 Reserve Infantry
1912 Reserve Infantry
1918 Trench Infantry (might be placed under Garrison instead)

Garrison Infantry ((mechanized), garrison)

1890 Garrison Infantry
1912 Garrison Infantry
1917 Garrison Infantry (late-/post-war model?)

Cavalry (cavalry, cavalry)

1890 Cavalry
1902 Cavalry
1916 Dismounted Cavalry (currently under fierce discussion)

Armour (panzer, mechanized)

1919 Armour
1924 Armour

Light Infantry (paratrooper, paratrooper)

1890 Light Infantry
1912 Light Infantry
1917 Light Infantry (late-/post-war model?)

Marine Infantry (marine, marine)

1924 Marine Infantry

Mountain Infantry (bergsjaeger, bergsjaeger)

1890 Mountain Infantry
1912 Mountain Infantry
1917 Mountain Infantry (late-/post-war model?)

Militia (militia, militia)

1860 Warriors
1900 Militia
1917 Militia

All changes seem very possible to do, and there will not be any problem with having infantry on an 'armor' slot as the variable softness can be modified.

On to brigades then. 13 different types (not counting CAG) meant I had to strenghten myself with a pizza before starting thinking about it.

Brigades

Tank Section
I'd say tanks would do much better as attachments instead of a whole division.

Armored Car Section
No need for explanation.

Artillery Section
Normal field artillery attachment. Additional soft attack (and some hard and defensive).

Heavy Artillery Section
Heavy corps artillery attachment. Additional soft attack (and some hard and defensive) and much slower speed.

Engineer Section
Additional defensive values, no more need for explanation.

Heavy Weapons Section
Some sort of compromise between artillery and engineer.

Anti-Air Artillery Section
No need for explanation.

Anti-Tank Artillery Section
No need for explanation.

Cavalry Section
Better speed, org and defense values.

Gendarmery Section
Additional suppression and org values.

Communications Section
Little lower supply cost, better org and defensive values.

Medical Section
Better org, morale and toughness values.

Supply Train Section
Better morale, lower supply values.

I know, I know, there is little difference between a few of them, but I ran out of ideas... I thought about having a brigade that'd double all values to simulate the enormous size of for example the Belgian divisions, but I discarded that thought.

Naval units then. Not much is going to change here I guess. And the CAG will be the same.

Naval Units

Carrier
As before.

Battleship
As before.

Battlecruiser
Gains its own type.

Heavy Cruiser
As before.

Light Cruiser
Gains its own type.

Destroyer
As before.

Submarine
As before.

Transport
As before.

And air units won't change much either.

Air Units

Scout Fighter
Gains its own type.

Two-Seat Fighter
Gains its own type.

Escort Fighter
Gains its own type.

Recon/Bomber
Merging recon and bomber into one.

Contour Bomber
As before.

Strategic Bomber
As before.

Seaplane
As before.

Airship
As before.

As the torpedo plane was removed for HoI 2, I guess that merging recon and bomber would be the best solution.

And finally, one of the flying bomb/missile slots can be used for gas.

/Johan

For the most part all of the above is pretty good. However, assault troops first formed in late 1915 by the Germans for use on the Russian front. Generally, new infantry doctrines and new aircraft technologies were tried out in the East first which is strange as the most obsolete infantry gear the Germans had was also sent out to the eastern front.

Also, all the major powers had naval infantry before 1914.

As to Armor please note that tank units (medium and light) were first fielded in 1916 with heavy tank units formed by the end of 1918 for the big offensive planned for Spring of 1919. Armored cars often operated as separate units of company strength and never were as large as a brigade.

Contour operations were for armored fighters only. The very early tactical bombers filled a similar role but were not very good at it which is why doctrine about ground attack changed quite a bit by 1916 being fully developed by Spring of 1918.

Airships of the time had the following categories: static observation, semi-mobile observation, non-rigid medium duration and rigid. Needless to say, the last one is the most technologically involved and was the only one used for strategic bombing. Contrary to popular opinion, the Italians and Americans had very good rigid airship technology although the Germans were the clear leaders in that area.

 

[unmerged(36926)]

I would like to suggest that those interested in the matter of units look into the Order of Battle, general organization leadership of the German and K.U.K (Kaiserlic und Konigilch Armee) to get a handle on how things worked then. Recall that the both the Duel Monarchy and the German Empire lacked the unified command structures common to all major nations of the second World War. As an example, I would for instance suggest that the term militia as it’s commonly understood simply does not apply to the German and Austro-Hungarian armies. I say this because their reserve formations were made up experienced soldiers that served for several years in mainline units rather then hastily formed and poorly trained formations that are typically labeled militia.

For Imperial German material (in English mostly) allow me to recommend:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~maampo/militaer/milindex.html
http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/index.htm/

For K.U.K. material the best site is:
http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/

One site that has plenty of excellent info on Austro-Hungarian naval assets is:
http://www.doppeladler.com/kuk/

Some material here cover the first practical hydroplanes and airfoils which were used by the Duel Monarchy in WWI, the brilliant AFVs of Guenther Burstyn that I have briefly mentioned else where, Italian airships, K.U.K. seaplanes and lots more.

For an excellent overview of the Italian front I recommend:
http://www.worldwar1.com/itafront/