What about Tanks, Aircraft, etc?

[unmerged(15764)]

re

IMO tanks planes and subs need to be in the game. Say you choose to concentrate all researching on tanks tehn you probably would have pretty advanced tanks. so there. maybe even tank divisions! PARTY UP PEOPLE DONT BE SO DAMN SERIOUS!

 

[Rundris]

If they are going to put "what if" weapons in the game, they should add mustard gas bombs.

 

[unmerged(15470)]

I'm inclined to think that tanks should be in the game, but right at the end of the tech tree and time-triggered say to some time 1895-1915 onwards. As pointed out very well above by peo, the idea has been around for a long time, but from the late 19th century the technical know-how and industrial infrastructure to build tanks on a large enough scale to have an effect was in place. It doesn't matter tremendously in game terms if WWI breaks out in 1905 and tanks appear in 1910, does it? With proper triggering, there's no reason tank tech shouldn't be contingent upon a WWI-type conflict breaking out, i.e. a war against another Great Power.

 

[grumbler]

Originally posted by The Larch
Now that you mention Naval power, it'll be interesting how the ship race of Germany with Britain, the limits of the Russian Navy after the Crimean War, how some improvements rendered whole navies obsolete in the blink of an eye, etc, will be modeled.

Yes, this is a good point. Far more so than with land or air combat, the actual design charactoristics of the equipment decided the outcome of naval battles.

Given two reasonably competant crews, by 1914 the victor in a clash between two ships was nearly absolutely predictable. As actions get larger, this effect diminishes somewhat (since fleet speed then matters more than ship speed), but some of the smaller actions were actually quite significant.

Yes, naval warfare in this period will be quite a tough nut for the designers to chew.

 

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Oberstein
...With proper triggering, there's no reason tank tech shouldn't be contingent upon a WWI-type conflict breaking out, i.e. a war against another Great Power.

What is more, such breakthroughs should only come after failure, for what SUCCESSFUL nation invests heavily in changing their doctrine?

 

[Kaigon]

Originally posted by Malthus
Makes sense, and could be combined with the barrage/poision gas/ attrition idea.

There should however be a time lag and cost involved - the trenching function should not be automatic. Thus, it would be possible (in theory) to break through the line of trenches.

IMO, the cost and time should decrease with higher tech, but then I would like an infantry to have an on/off button if I want them to spend money on trenches...

 

[The Larch]

Originally posted by grumbler
Yes, this is a good point. Far more so than with land or air combat, the actual design charactoristics of the equipment decided the outcome of naval battles.

Given two reasonably competant crews, by 1914 the victor in a clash between two ships was nearly absolutely predictable. As actions get larger, this effect diminishes somewhat (since fleet speed then matters more than ship speed), but some of the smaller actions were actually quite significant.

Yes, naval warfare in this period will be quite a tough nut for the designers to chew.

Well, for one thing, we'll have to say goodbye to the EU instantaneal upgrade of fleets, to model these situations accurately. You discover ironclads, you get stuck with a bunch of wooden ships only useful as targets.

 

[Rundris]

For sure, the instant upgrade of fleets has to go.

The day the Monitor gets built, all other navies should be obsolete, and the naval race should start over.

Same thing the day the Dreadnaught gets built.

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by Rundris
For sure, the instant upgrade of fleets has to go.

The day the Monitor gets built, all other navies should be obsolete, and the naval race should start over.

Same thing the day the Dreadnaught gets built.

Heartily agree - with one teeny weeny difference

replace 'Monitor' with Gloire and HMS Warrior

(Gloire built 1859 - a wooden ship with iron clamped on her sides - by the French. HMS Warrior built in 1860 - first purpose built all iron ship, but the real innovation was two bulkheads (one stern, one bow) that prevented 'raking').

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

monitor was first turret ship though. all in all each had a little effect.
merrimeck in proving wooden ships were dead, monitor for turret, the other 2 for well... starting the whole thing up somewhat, proving they can be ocean going vessels.

so..... while dreadnought was a ship ship revolution the ironclads were kinda a group effort

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
monitor was first turret ship though. all in all each had a little effect.
merrimeck in proving wooden ships were dead, monitor for turret, the other 2 for well... starting the whole thing up somewhat, proving they can be ocean going vessels.

so..... while dreadnought was a ship ship revolution the ironclads were kinda a group effort

The turret was interesting, but not a obselete-creating event. Dreadnought was of course on account of the number of large guns, but especially because of her speed.

Warrior was because of iron bulkheads, indeed the 'all-iron' part of her design, and the fact she was truly ocean-going, as opposed to Monitor and other US ironclads of the ACW which were either riverine - or really coastal at best.

Actually I think the real issue was heated shot as used in the Crimean War that forced the first proto-ironclads to be built - which were actually built during the war iirc.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

i would still have to say the merrimeck utterly devestating a blockaid squadren. had a profound effect
the whole....wooden ships now usless in combat

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by jacob-Lundgren
i would still have to say the merrimeck utterly devestating a blockaid squadren. had a profound effect
the whole....wooden ships now usless in combat

Fine, but the point was already proven in the Crimean war by the employment of heated shot. And the point about iron armour - I'm afraid to say that both sides of the ACW were just copycating.

Now - I agree that the Virginia-Monitor episode is important in the history of naval warfare, but I am saying that neither ships were quite as revolutionary as is often claimed by populist history.

(I blame The History Channel, but there you go )

 

[Rundris]

Well while we are on the subject of navies...

What about river going navies? Particularly in regards to the Mississipi and the Cival War.

Both sides had quite large fleets. There were iron clads, ram ships, transports, and huge battles. The river was used to supply troops and to transport troops.

You couldnt seige a fortress on the river unless you blockaded it with a navy.

The whole fortress vs ship aspect is cool too. Basically if an invasion fleet wanted to pass by a fortress they had to shoot it out with the fortress while they passed.

Somehow I don't think they are going to do it. They should have had naval movement along the Mississippi in EU2 even, as the Portugese and Spanish explorers sailed up it, and the British sailed down it in 1814 to attack New Orleans.

In the Cival War though control of the Mississippi was absolutely critical. Once the Union had control of it, not only could they run supplies and troops up and down it as they please, the Confederates could no long transport supplies or men across it. They basically cut a big chunk of the South right off.

 

[stnylan]

Rundris

A very good question. And it can be asked of the Nile, the Chinese rivers, and the Tigris/Euphrates as well at the very least.

Unforunately I tend to agree that the importance of rivers will be downplayed - since I don't think the basic province engine can cope with it.

imo it is probably the only real failing of the basic engine.

 

[unmerged(10591)]

would they have a single contested province with both armies or would they just sit in opposite provinces or something different?

My hope for trench warfare is simple. Since provinces no matter the size will be to big to represent trench warfare (aka Germany in one France in other) when two armies (after certian tech) ingage in battle for a province either side should have a opition (button) to "dig in", the other side imediatly geting a pop up asking to follow (with AI defult choice = yes ) automatically daily causalties drop, but not stop, unless one side would hit an "assult" button, restarting the battle (with much higher causalties of course). Both sides could funnel more divisions into fortify the area and as time would go on both sides defensive values would raise, with a steady decrease of moral on both sides also.

 

[unmerged(15002)]

I am very interested in this time period and its possibilities in a new game. I have enjoyed the ideas in this thread and I would like to add the following ideas:

It would be interesting to simulate artillery as separate units with their own upgrades and special abilities such as smoothbore, rifled, horse arty, howitzer, mortars, siege guns that would be slower moving than infantry normally. Use them much as tank units are used in HOI, but with the ability to add to firepower and diversions rather than as breakthrough units.

Maybe brigades could be the unit of choice for Victoria rather than divisions, because many battles in this time period were often smaller than WWII or WWI battles. Maybe brigade attachments could be developed whereby special brigades could be attached or detached as needed by larger combat formations such as divisions and corps. Cavalry could be used as separate divisions or could be attached to divisions or corps as desired by the player. Then when tanks come in they could be used the same way.

Artillery also could be used to form large artillery batteries such as used by Napoleon I or Lee at Gettysburg and many other battles in the period. They could also be dished out to individual divisions to upgrade their firepower.

I think this would add a special flavor to the warfare of this period and place a proper appreciation of the effects of artillery in this time period.

 

[peo]

Originally posted by Rundris
Well while we are on the subject of navies...

What about river going navies? Particularly in regards to the Mississipi and the Cival War.

Both sides had quite large fleets. There were iron clads, ram ships, transports, and huge battles. The river was used to supply troops and to transport troops.

You couldnt seige a fortress on the river unless you blockaded it with a navy.

The whole fortress vs ship aspect is cool too. Basically if an invasion fleet wanted to pass by a fortress they had to shoot it out with the fortress while they passed.

Somehow I don't think they are going to do it. They should have had naval movement along the Mississippi in EU2 even, as the Portugese and Spanish explorers sailed up it, and the British sailed down it in 1814 to attack New Orleans.

In the Cival War though control of the Mississippi was absolutely critical. Once the Union had control of it, not only could they run supplies and troops up and down it as they please, the Confederates could no long transport supplies or men across it. They basically cut a big chunk of the South right off.

Rivers would be essential in the "gunboat diplomacy " thing.
But i doubt they will be in.

 

[Tim O]

If river going ships are not included, cutting the Confedracy in two, and thereby shorting the war will be much more difficult.

 

[unmerged(2907)]

And I want to sail my gunboats down the Nile to bombard the fuzzy-wuzzies