Units

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I can see no case for later torpedo boat models. And no case for giving this particular group of ships an ahistorically high speed.

Nor am I arguing for an ahistorical high speed. And you foirget that the threat of torpedo boats caused major headaches to all navies during the early parts of the 20th century, leading to a lot of destroyers deployed to protect taskforces.

 

[TheLand]

And you foirget that the threat of torpedo boats caused major headaches to all navies during the early parts of the 20th century, leading to a lot of destroyers deployed to protect taskforces.

No, I don't forget that at all.

Nor am I arguing for an ahistorical high speed.

If you look at the ships which StephenT mentioned above, the torpedo boat model in game should/does represent the TB90 class. I.e. 23 knots.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

No, I don't forget that at all.

Then why not include torpedo boats?

If you look at the ships which StephenT mentioned above, the torpedo boat model in game should/does represent the TB90 class. I.e. 23 knots.

Your point being?

 

[TheLand]

My point is that torpedo boats are adequately represented by the DD-0 unit type, whether or not their stats (or those of all other destroyer models) are quite where they should be yet.

When you said,

But I do think that torpedo boats should be as fast or slightly slower than destroyers

I took you to mean that we should increase the speed of this class to be in line with later models which are best represented as destroyers. This would be ahistorical.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

My point is that torpedo boats are adequately represented by the DD-0 unit type, whether or not their stats (or those of all other destroyer models) are quite where they should be yet.

There has never been much talk about more torpedo boat models, only that the first destroyer model shouldn't sleep the last torpedo boat model.
Although if we take the later destroyer models to include torpedo boats, we should still try to make them deadly at short fireing range, and absolutely harmless cannon fodder att longer ranges.

I took you to mean that we should increase the speed of this class to be in line with later models which are best represented as destroyers. This would be ahistorical.

I meant that torpedo boats were slightly slower than the contemporary destroyers.

 

[TheLand]

Phew. I think we were talking at cross purposes.

There has never been much talk about more torpedo boat models, only that the first destroyer model shouldn't sleep the last torpedo boat model.

I'm not sure there is any need to keep 1890-style torpedo boats as an option all the way through. Perhaps the TBs should be made obsolete by the 1905 destroyer model?

Although if we take the later destroyer models to include torpedo boats, we should still try to make them deadly at short fireing range, and absolutely harmless cannon fodder att longer ranges.

This was the original idea of the current set of naval stats. It runs into the problem which CookieCollector identified, that pure destroyer fleets are too capable of closing the range and hence too powerful against battleships. It is a problem we can thank Paradox for, but a tricky one to solve accurately...

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

This was the original idea of the current set of naval stats. It runs into the problem which CookieCollector identified, that pure destroyer fleets are too capable of closing the range and hence too powerful against battleships. It is a problem we can thank Paradox for, but a tricky one to solve accurately...

It can be accomplished by giving them absolutely horrendous naval defense and organization. After all, the enormous firepower of the destroyer escorts and smaller guns of larger warships would make any torpedo boat attack after say 1905-1910 into a bloodbath for both sides.

The main purpose of the torpedo boat was after all to be an expendable capitalship killer. As long as it brought down a battleship, one could afford to lose enormous amounts of torpedo boats before the losses became anything close to equal.

 

[StephenT]

Tl;dr summary of my last post:

The DD/2 model and later should be called 'Destroyers' in the English version of the mod and 'Torpedoboote' in the German version...

 

[unmerged(78196)]

Okay, let's stick to torpedo boats as the first destroyer model and not make them obsolete. If someone wishes to build them, let him. We just make sure that the ai does not build them anymore.

Concerning destroyers being to puwerful: Their sea defence is already as low as 1-5. Reducing it further or cutting their max org will not help at all as long as they can get close enough to become absolutely immune to the fire of capital ships. Possible solution: enact a sea doctrine that lowers the minimum positioning of capital ships considerably so that they can fend of destroyers at close range. As you pointed out, capital ships had light calibres that were very effective at fighting destroyers/torpedo boats. Due to the good relation between fire power and costs, destroyers will still be an viable option but hopefully stick to their actual role of screening battleships against subs and other small vessels.

 

[unmerged(78196)]

As there has been no reaction so far concerning land unit balance I have drafted a specific proposal to outline the direction of development I had in mind. I have only collected the stats which I have changed and a few others to compare with:

Guards develop into expensive storm troops, perfectly suited for offensive actions. They get a slight speed and attack increase, but cost much more than before.

# Guards Infantry 1912 - 2
cost = 18
maxspeed = 4
defensiveness = 21
toughness = 19
softattack = 10

# Guards Infantry 1915 - 3
cost = 22 #18
maxspeed = 4
defensiveness = 28
toughness = 25
softattack = 14


# Assault Infantry 1917 - 4
cost = 30 #18
maxspeed = 5 #4
defensiveness = 35
toughness = 35
softattack = 20 #18

Reserves gain almost no attack power, but a lot of defensiveness. They are cheap defensive troops (trench infantry).

# Reserve Infantry 1912 - 2
defensiveness = 18
softattack = 6

# Trench Infantry 1917 - 3
defensiveness = 34
softattack = 8 #12

Infantry remains an allrounder, yet their attack power is downscaled to emphasize on trench warfare and enforce the employment of guards for offenses.

# Infantry Division 1912 - 2
defensiveness = 18
toughness = 18
softattack = 8

# Infantry Division 1915 - 3
defensiveness = 24
toughness = 20 #24
softattack = 10

# Infantry Division 1917 - 4
defensiveness = 30
toughness = 24 #30
softattack = 12 #15

# Infantry Division 1919 - 5
defensiveness = 36
toughness = 30 #36
softattack = 15 #18

To complement these changes, we should also downscale the attack bonus of most brigades by 30-50% or people will send hordes of militia with gas detachments into the battle. I have also edited the modifiers.csv and gave light infantry advantages in jungles and deserts, but disadvantages in cold weather and arctic terrain; the other way around for mountaineers.

Guards had disadvantages in comparison to normal infantry in almost every type of terrain which does not fit at all to the idea of assault troops. Instead, they are now equal in most and better in a few areas.

Please have a heart and leave a short comment. Critique or even suggestions heading in a different direction are welcome!

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Guards could perhaps have much higher org and morale than infantry, reflecting the fact that they get better training and are better motivated.

Thus, if you want a unit to keep your defense going once the rest of your troops are out of org, you will want guards - who are no more deadly than ordinary inf, but very good at holding the enemy until you can commit reserves.

 

[unmerged(78196)]

So you say we should rather give guards more org and morale instead of attack and toughness? The problem is that right now, land doctrines and diplomacy settings add raw bonuses of org and morale to all types of infantry, thus the relative advantage gets lower the higher you advance through the tech tree.

Guards already have more org than normal infantry, I think toughness can represent their better training and motivation as well and the attack value reflects their high quality equipment. Still, we might give them extra morale and org, that's no bad idea.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I am not sure whether there was an actual material difference between guards and regular infantry. AFAIK, guards and infantry alike used the same rifles, the same machineguns and the same artillery.

 

[StephenT]

I am not sure whether there was an actual material difference between guards and regular infantry. AFAIK, guards and infantry alike used the same rifles, the same machineguns and the same artillery.

Early in the war - yes they used the same equipment; the biggest difference was in training, recruit quality and morale. However, if an army was short of equipment (for example, the Russian) the Guards would probably get first priority.

When you're talking about late-war assault and stormtrooper divisions, they certainly had different equipment - light machineguns, submachine guns, trench mortars, flamethrowers...

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

Early in the war - yes they used the same equipment; the biggest difference was in training, recruit quality and morale. However, if an army was short of equipment (for example, the Russian) the Guards would probably get first priority.

Of course, this is equivalent to putting them on offensive supply and upgrade priority, no?

When you're talking about late-war assault and stormtrooper divisions, they certainly had different equipment - light machineguns, submachine guns, trench mortars, flamethrowers...

Ah, but we are talking about guards, not stormtroopers. I was mainly saying that the main advantage of guards should be in morale and org. Storm troopers should of course have much better attack and defence values.

 

[unmerged(78196)]

In the current tech tree 1917 guards are called "assault infantry" and 1917 reserves are "trench infantry". Thus, I treated them like that. In the beginning of the war, the difference between guards and normal infantry is indeed mainly an org advantage. Does not that fit to what you had in mind?

 

[Tegetthoff]

@ Cookie Collector:
If you take up the large task of reworking infantry units, please include the need for one or two intermediate infantry types between 1895 and 1912. There should at least be an 1905 or 1907 type in between.

This is very important for game balance in the 1897 scenarios, since otherwise there is too little to research and all nations will be more or less equal in quality by the time WWI starts.

Good Luck

Tegetthoff

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

In the current tech tree 1917 guards are called "assault infantry" and 1917 reserves are "trench infantry". Thus, I treated them like that. In the beginning of the war, the difference between guards and normal infantry is indeed mainly an org advantage. Does not that fit to what you had in mind?

It is the exact thing I had in mind.

And as for the tech tree, I suggest that we switch those doctrine components to training and management.

 

[unmerged(78196)]

@ Tegetthoff

Actually, it was not my intention to take this part away from you, but I am not afraid to assist you in any way I can.

I know that you planned to develop a new land doctrine and infantry tech tree and that you want to introduce additional infantry models for that time span as well. I have no experience with creating techs and thus will gladly leave that task up to you.

I guess that more changes to the infantry models will be needed then to complement the new techs and doctrines, so that we finally approach our goal of somewhat historical trench warfare with long battles and higher casualties.

The changes I have proposed were intended as an intermediate step to prepare or maybe implement by parts the greater changes planned for 0.5, but they can not go without a serious redesign of the associated tech trees.

 

[Tegetthoff]

@ Tegetthoff

Actually, it was not my intention to take this part away from you, but I am not afraid to assist you in any way I can.

I know that you planned to develop a new land doctrine and infantry tech tree and that you want to introduce additional infantry models for that time span as well. I have no experience with creating techs and thus will gladly leave that task up to you.

I guess that more changes to the infantry models will be needed then to complement the new techs and doctrines, so that we finally approach our goal of somewhat historical trench warfare with long battles and higher casualties.

The changes I have proposed were intended as an intermediate step to prepare or maybe implement by parts the greater changes planned for 0.5, but they can not go without a serious redesign of the associated tech trees.

Cookie,

At the moment I am finding myself with less and less time to do serious modding, so I would be happy if somebody else takes the lead in modifying units.

I did some preliminary work (which really was just typing up the various unit stats) and noticed that inserting new units has to be balanced across the whole unit tree (either make the old ones weaker or the later ones stronger).

If you have immersed yourself in the problem it would actually be good of you went the whole way and included those additional units.

Cheers

Tegetthoff