Weapon names, a little suggestion

[Victor Cortez]

I was watching WWW and I've come to the conclusion that (obviously this is just my opinion) infantry "kits" should not be called "Weapons 1", 2 and 3.

At some point, when Germany switched to Weapons 2, he said this was the biggest change in production so far, and in fact infantry weapons should be a pretty big deal, but it's a little bit underwhelming to say:

"Yes, I will stop producing Weapon 1 and will start producing Weapon 2."

while something like:
"Yes, I will stop producing Bolt Action Rifles and will start producing Submachine guns."
has a rather cooler flavour to it.

Do you agree?

Weapons 1 could become Bolt Action Rifles
Weapons 2 could become Submachine Guns
Weapons 3 could become Assault Rifles.

I see two problems though:

1) Weapons also include protable anti-tank weapons, so only "Bolt Action Rifles" could be misleading for some players
2) The US weapon 1 is the Garand, which I don't think is a bolt action rifle. So, it would be weird.

Opinions?

 

[Swinds]

maybe Weapons 1936, Weapons 1939 etc

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Depends. Sometimes a rifle will be am upgrade to an smg with this system if the smg is super crap. I think it should be abstract, using dates for names. Naturally, custom name I assume are a thing (still can't watch the stream yet, so I don't know details).

 

[LordOfWar16]

The problem with that is, that Weapon I, Weapon II and Weapon III arent simply a new weapon. They are infantry equipment with everything an soilder needs. Its more of adding up to the packages rather than swapping out the weapon.

Overall, those Weapon I,II and III also improve the other aspects of the equipment like anti-tank capability or defensiveness aka mines, barbwire etc.

 

[Will Steel]

I would simply go for "Late Interwar Equipment", "Advanced Infantry Equipment", "Modern Infantry Equipment" and kits and etc.

Stuff like "Weapons I", "Weapons III", "Weapons IV" sounds retarded and immersion-breaking, and is bad in general.

 

[CrasherZZ]

"Weapon I, Weapon II and WeaponIII?"

What is this? Dr Seuss?

Infantry 1, 2 & 3 maybe?

Edit: Okay - I withdraw this lame suggestion. Don't know what I was thinking...

 

[Zaku]

I was watching WWW and I've come to the conclusion that (obviously this is just my opinion) infantry "kits" should not be called "Weapons 1", 2 and 3.

At some point, when Germany switched to Weapons 2, he said this was the biggest change in production so far, and in fact infantry weapons should be a pretty big deal, but it's a little bit underwhelming to say:

"Yes, I will stop producing Weapon 1 and will start producing Weapon 2."

while something like:
"Yes, I will stop producing Bolt Action Rifles and will start producing Submachine guns."
has a rather cooler flavour to it.

Do you agree?

Weapons 1 could become Bolt Action Rifles
Weapons 2 could become Submachine Guns
Weapons 3 could become Assault Rifles.

I see two problems though:

1) Weapons also include protable anti-tank weapons, so only "Bolt Action Rifles" could be misleading for some players
2) The US weapon 1 is the Garand, which I don't think is a bolt action rifle. So, it would be weird.

Opinions?

Researching weapons 2 is not the same as researching subachine guns.
Weapons as a category incudes every small arms and even some heavier stuff an infantry battalion uses: SMGs, LMGs, HMGs, rifles, mortars, mines, AT rifles/bazookas, smaller AA guns, etc. (not to mention every non weapon stuff it includes)

 

[Victor Cortez]

Researching weapons 2 is not the same as researching subachine guns.
Weapons as a category incudes every small arms and even some heavier stuff an infantry battalion uses: SMGs, LMGs, HMGs, rifles, mortars, mines, AT rifles/bazookas, smaller AA guns, etc. (not to mention every non weapon stuff it includes)

Yep, I know.

1) Weapons also include protable anti-tank weapons, so only "Bolt Action Rifles" could be misleading for some players

Weapon 1 is not only "a rifle".
But the fact remain, for me, that "Weapon 1" is a bit underwhelming.

 

[fabius]

Researching weapons 2 is not the same as researching subachine guns.
Weapons as a category incudes every small arms and even some heavier stuff an infantry battalion uses: SMGs, LMGs, HMGs, rifles, mortars, mines, AT rifles/bazookas, smaller AA guns, etc. (not to mention every non weapon stuff it includes)

Yeas this. But I get where OP is coming from. Looks like it could be better named.

 

[columbusbobby23]

Maybe they could be:
Interwar Infantry equipment Package
Early Infantry equipment Package
Basic Infantry equipment Package
Advanced Infantry equipment Package

Then when you hover your mouse over each one, the tool-tip could display details like:
Kar98k Bolt-action Rifle
Panzerschreck RPzB 88mm (Anti-Tank)
Walther P38 Pistol
Model 24 Stielhandgranate (Grenade)
Granatewerfer 36 (Mortar)
Kampfmesser 42 (Knife)
German S-mine
Early Field Spade (Interwar Could be Trench Shovel)
Early Ration Pack
Early Med Kit (Interwar could have Gas Mask)

They could do this for all the majors and have a generic list for the minors.

 

[Axe99]

I hear ya Victor - I think the suggestions people are making along the lines of either having a year date, or 'interwar'/'basic'/'advanced' would be where I'd go if I was playing with it. I like ColumbusBobby's suggestion about the details of each kit in the tooltip, even if it's just text for flavour .

 

[xtfoster]

I am pretty sure that going from Weapon I to Weapon II isn't simply a matter of switching from rifles to SMGs, but instead changing the ratio of rifles to SMGs (and MGs of various types, anti-tank rifles, bazookas, grenades, etc.) After all the US was using SMGs (the Thompson), LMGs/SAWs (the BAR), bolt-action (the Springfield) and semi-auto (Garand) weapons well before the 1939 date for Weapon II.

 

[Caesar15]

Thing is, it sounds like you're replacing your rifles with sub machine guns at that point. Which you're not, you're just giving some of your guns them and other weapons.

 

[sunnyboy310]

Weapons 1 could become Bolt Action Rifles
Weapons 2 could become Submachine Guns
Weapons 3 could become Assault Rifles.

Maybe more like Weapons 1 could be understand to be bolt action rifles (Springfield, Kar 98k e.g.); Weapons 2 would be semi automatic rifles (M1 Garand; Gewehr 43) and Weapons 3 maybe assault rifles. Submachine guns were, for many reasons, never the (only) main weapon of inantry units, especially for the Wehrmacht ("only" 1.1 milllion MP40 were produced before and during the war, compared to 12 million K98k).

 

[eddyill]

The individual flavour of the weapons and vehicles in Hoi is one of my favourite bits, and for many minors the small arms were the only unique equipment they produced historically.

 

[Jmland]

Well, if you are not introducing new weapons systems, but merely redistributing the numbers among your infantry platoon/company/etc, wouldn't that be a "doctrine" thing rather than a "weapons upgrade"?

 

[Kovax]

How many countries changed their main infantry weapon during the war? As far as I know, the Germans used the KAR-98K throughout the war, and the Americans used the M1 "Garand" from beginning to end. There were several models of Soviet rifle built before and during, but I don't think that there was a comprehensive push to introduce one new model for the entire army. The idea of clear stages of progress in infantry weapons is highly misleading.

 

[xtfoster]

Well, if you are not introducing new weapons systems, but merely redistributing the numbers among your infantry platoon/company/etc, wouldn't that be a "doctrine" thing rather than a "weapons upgrade"?

Because you still have to shift your production priorities from (for example) 90% rifles, 5% SMGs, 2% LMGs, 1% HMGs, 1% AT weapons (anti-tank rifles, panzerfaust, etc.), 1% other to 75% rifles, 12% SMGS, etc. If it was simply a doctrine change then you would still be producing just "Weapons" without any change in the COST (i.e., resources per factory, production points per "Weapon", etc.) to produce those weapons.

 

[GsusNSV]

Acording to the flavor text shown in WWW3 @xtfoster was spot on. Weapon II is a modernization to include more sub-machine guns.
I think it is strange, to have it, in the research tree, called Weapon I or Weapon II and the tech itself then is called Infantery Equipment.

 

[Jmland]

Because you still have to shift your production priorities from (for example) 90% rifles, 5% SMGs, 2% LMGs, 1% HMGs, 1% AT weapons (anti-tank rifles, panzerfaust, etc.), 1% other to 75% rifles, 12% SMGS, etc. If it was simply a doctrine change then you would still be producing just "Weapons" without any change in the COST (i.e., resources per factory, production points per "Weapon", etc.) to produce those weapons.

True...but what would be the cost (per infantry division for example) of said change. If we are talking about small arms, it would be relatively small. Say for example that 20% of your troops got new weapons. Even with that large a change, you are along talking about (in a German Division), maybe .....1000 soldiers???? (I'm assuming front line troops, not support). I'm thinking that this would less than or maybe (MAYBE) equal to one tank in cost of production time and resources.

If however we are talking about entirely new weapon systems being included in the mix, then there is a support and logistics tail that would have to be included, and my read of the DD's is that this is included in the "price" of the weapon system when it is produced. The cost would then be proportional to what proportion of the troops are getting the new weapon system.

But I still think that the proper place for "redistribution" of weapons systems would be under "doctrine.

Entirely new weapons systems, if deployed to all troops....well...maybe a different matter....maybe.