winter troops

[peo]

Will nations such as Sweden, Norway and Finland have an advantage in winter warfare??
Afterall the troops in theese natoions were equiped and trained for the conditions in Scandinavia/Finland.

 

[unmerged(8622)]

I still think 'winter troops' or something like that should be one of many troop characteristics.

 

[peo]

Maybe...
What i mean is somewhere in the lines of WiF where all the Scandinavian nations troops are considered winterized.
If it is only a characteristic then you will have to pay extra or it i guess and that will mean that mainly the Finnish troops will most likley lack that, which is not consistant with history.

 

[Pkunzipper]

Maybe "Winter equipment" is one of the many researchable things... So scandinavian country and Russia should start the game with that research yet completed.

Another thing should be "Long Lance torpedoes" for Japanese ships and subs (far better than Allies ones) and "Strategic bombers" for UK and USA.
Maybe there is the need also of a "Jungle combat" research, to boost Japanese troops fighting value in Malesia and in the Pacific Islands

 

[unmerged(9422)]

The Japanese troops in the Kurils were good at fighting in the colder climates. The troops were specially selected from Tohoku and Hokkaido, the northern-most prefectures of Japan. It will be interesting to see how the climates are simulated. I wonder if troops who fight in the cold, such as the troops in the Kurils, will have an advantage in the colder areas, but an above average disadvantage in jungles. While units who fight in jungles will have an above average disadvantage in colder climates.. Hmm..

 

[jacemiles]

I submitted a thread about Nation's attributes early, and the response I received was that special attributes would be in the form of doctrine. Nations will start of with doctrines that others will have to research to achieve the same status. Some of the example that were given to me:
Russia- winter warfare; Industrial mobility
Britain-Naval War; Espionage
Japan-Naval Air; Jungle warfare
USA-Industrial; Amphibious Warfare
German-Tank/mechanized warfare; Submarine warfare
China-Population
Italy-Diplomacy

Note these were only speculations of the being doctrine a country might receive. It was mentioned that doctrines would be directly tied to research. Hope this is helpful!!!

 

[Vharzul]

You forgot German Air, (Luftwaffe) remember Germany had the msot advanced Air Unites any were really, so did the UK, Germany had the First Jet fighter and Bombers etc etc.. and some great Navel ships of wonders of Engeniring, like the Bismarck and Graff Spee..

 

[unmerged(5261)]

Originally posted by KonigMaximilian
You forgot German Air, (Luftwaffe) remember Germany had the msot advanced Air Unites any were really, so did the UK, Germany had the First Jet fighter and Bombers etc etc.. and some great Navel ships of wonders of Engeniring, like the Bismarck and Graff Spee..

I think that if you wanna give all the good military doctrines to Germany you gonna have to use the editor............

 

[unmerged(589)]

Was Japan especially proficient in jungle warfare? I mean, wasn't the Japanese army trained to fight the Russians (in theory) and the various Chinese forces (in practice).

Maybe there are other factors than an alleged Japanese "jungle combat badassness" to explain the British failure in the Singapore campaign. Hmmm?

Personally I don't think that the Japanese army's successes in WW2 came from any special jungle skill.

 

[unmerged(9422)]

Originally posted by The Brain
Was Japan especially proficient in jungle warfare? I mean, wasn't the Japanese army trained to fight the Russians (in theory) and the various Chinese forces (in practice).

Maybe there are other factors than an alleged Japanese "jungle combat badassness" to explain the British failure in the Singapore campaign. Hmmm?

Personally I don't think that the Japanese army's successes in WW2 came from any special jungle skill.

The Japanese army suffered from jungle combat. The troops at Singapore's only training was from the research done in the Taiwan Research Center and the troops at Singapore still weren't "the best" a jungle warfare, but better than the British. I believe that the British soldiers were more used to the climate, though. In the jungles of New Guinea, the troops also suffered badly from the jungle heat. The troops originally trained in the Japanese,Korean, and Manchurian climates. The troops in the Pacific became better at jungle warfare, however, from fighting there. But, at first, they had little experience and training in the art.

 

[Pkunzipper]

I think Japaneses troops suffered the tropical weather, but they fought very well in jungle. In addition to the Singapore campaign and the Dutch Indies, think at Iwo Jima or Okinawa, they used to do ambush and in general other successfull tactics (some companies were able to hold off whole divisions) that neither British (in 1941-42) or American (in New-Guinea) did against them.

 

[unmerged(589)]

Well, I still think that the Japanese successes came (when they came) from a higher allround ability, not from specific jungle proficiency. Will the Germans have special desert warfare bonus in the game? Or maybe they just were successful there because they were better in general? Same with the Japanese and the jungle (not that the Japanese ever approached the general ability of the German forces though).

 

[vertinox]

Originally posted by KonigMaximilian
You forgot German Air, (Luftwaffe) remember Germany had the msot advanced Air Unites any were really, so did the UK, Germany had the First Jet fighter and Bombers etc etc.. and some great Navel ships of wonders of Engeniring, like the Bismarck and Graff Spee..

Hrm... I think the main problem Germany had was lack of pilots and industrial production of the planes... And fuel to boot.

 

[jacemiles]

Foolow-up

The doctrines are designed to give Nation individual bonus, but if you invest in research you can quickly surpass leading nation.

Second, prior to the start of World War II, France was believed to have the World strongest army. Historical Facts (Pre WWII):
· Italy had the first frogmen (US version of The Navy SEALs)
· Britain had the Largest Navy
· France had the world most advance tanks (Terrible Doctrine)
· America was the industrial giant
· Japan had the best Naval aviators and amphibious soldiers
· Russia had the largest army (even after the purge)
· China had mastered guerilla warfare
· Germany had mastered combined arms (Air units supporting Land forces)

 

[Deserteur]

Originally posted by The Brain
Well, I still think that the Japanese successes came (when they came) from a higher allround ability, not from specific jungle proficiency. Will the Germans have special desert warfare bonus in the game? Or maybe they just were successful there because they were better in general? Same with the Japanese and the jungle (not that the Japanese ever approached the general ability of the German forces though).

I think that the Germans simply had the better overall performance comparing their soldiers to the British forces. And they had an excelent General (Rommel) in North Africa. So I dont think that Germany deserves a desert warfare doctrine.

But I wonder if the German troops will have a higher morale as i.e. Russian troops Does anyone know anything regardig this topic?

 

[unmerged(9214)]

Originally posted by jacemiles
I submitted a thread about Nation's attributes early, and the response I received was that special attributes would be in the form of doctrine. Nations will start of with doctrines that others will have to research to achieve the same status. Some of the example that were given to me:
Russia- winter warfare; Industrial mobility
Britain-Naval War; Espionage
Japan-Naval Air; Jungle warfare
USA-Industrial; Amphibious Warfare
German-Tank/mechanized warfare; Submarine warfare
China-Population
Italy-Diplomacy

Note these were only speculations of the being doctrine a country might receive. It was mentioned that doctrines would be directly tied to research. Hope this is helpful!!!

Maybe the Russians should not have winter warfare in 1939 and 1940. Their winter tactics were somewhat lacking during Winter War.

 

[Murmurandus]

Originally posted by Energizer

Maybe the Russians should not have winter warfare in 1939 and 1940. Their winter tactics were somewhat lacking during Winter War.

That's an understatement...their overall tactics were bad until let's say Stalingrad...

OTOH it's not only a matter of tactics and doctrine, but also technology and leadership...and of course the masses of a fully mobilized Red Army...

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by Deserteur



I think that the Germans simply had the better overall performance comparing their soldiers to the British forces. And they had an excelent General (Rommel) in North Africa. So I dont think that Germany deserves a desert warfare doctrine.

...

So we agree. That's nice.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by Energizer

Maybe the Russians should not have winter warfare in 1939 and 1940. Their winter tactics were somewhat lacking during Winter War.

But didnt they still have good cold weather gear plus tanks and planes that could actually start during the russian winters?

 

[peo]

Acctually not, maybe the tanks and so but they are of little use in that area (Karelia). There was units with good gear, but thoose were not used in Finland the russians didn't even use their finnish troops (saved them for the victory parade).