DEBATE: Motorized infantry vs. regular infantry

[GaryChildress]

As soon as I install CEAW, the first thing I typically do is "nerf" regular infantry movement down to 3 instead of 4. To me, motorized or mechanized corps are supposed to represent just that, infantry that is fully motorized. Regular infantry should represent non-motorized or only partially motorized infantry, which should have drastically less movement speed than a fully motorized unit. A corps is only as fast as it's slowest elements. If a unit is only partially motorized, then it shouldn't have as much speed as a fully motorized unit.

Why do I do this? Because, to me, blitzkrieg is about armor and mechanized units radically outpacing the regular infantry. Regular infantry should not be very fast and shouldn't be able to keep up with the tanks. Keeping up with the tanks is what motorized infantry is for and why you should purchase them. As it stands now, the only difference between regular infantry and motorized infantry is 1 movement point and usually 1 point of shock attack. So why even purchase motorized infantry if you can save oil by purchasing regular infantry who can keep up just as well with your tanks?

This is another thing I don't understand. I've been told that regular infantry are transported by truck which explains their speed. If this were so then shouldn't regular infantry use oil points?

All this leads me to the conclusion that regular infantry should be substantially slower than mechanized or motorized infantry. My proposition is that this adjustment should be made to the GS mod.

Also, ALL REGULAR INFANTRY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SPEED. Polish regulars should have the same movement as German regulars, etc. What sets a country's infantry apart from another should be what percentage of its infantry are motorized corps.

What are other people's thoughts on the matter?

Thanks.

[BuddyGrant]

I personally don't mind the current movement of 4 for INF, 5 for MECH, and 6 for ARM, but changing INF to 3 movement would make an interesting test game if nothing else. It's such a drastic change that I would not want it applied to GS except as a user option (which actually any user can change anytime they want in the 'unit.txt' file).

"...ALL REGULAR INFANTRY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SPEED. Polish regulars should have the same movement as German regulars..."
As you know (since you edit these values) there is a single units file that holds all the games unit values, including movement. The only thing that impacts those default values is effectiveness % and technology advances.

[shawkhan]

Gary, you are completely right as far as infantry speeds go. That is true on a tactical scale. With a turn representing 3 weeks, infantry marching 4 hexes is only 120 miles(200km). Blitzkrieg wasn't a continous process. It went in spurts, with re-supply required before the next leap forward. About 200 miles (7km) was the maximum distance a panzer group could move before stopping. I think infantry should keep its speed of 4, but armor and mechanized could have speed increased to 7 and 6.
The US and UK actually had completely motorized infantry. I think people may confuse motorized divisions with mechanized(panzergrenadier) divisions at times. You are right that ALL the early mechanized divisions should be motorized instead and represented by trucks. There should be a LARGE increase in combat effectiveness when the mechanized(panzergrenadier) level is reached.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Movement range is determined quite a bit by supply and weather as well. E. g. at supply level 3 you get -1 MP. Even more at supply level 0 and 1.

Bad weather will also reduce the movement allowance by half.

When I play the Axis I often see that I have to send my armor / mech as spearheads into Russia in 1941 if I want to capture the key cities in time. So they become vulnerable to counter attacks etc.

If you look at other games like WIF you will see that there armor has 5-6 MP (a few 7). Mech has 4-5. Infantry has 3-4 and so on. This is not so different from GS.

http://froon.pagesperso-orange.fr/WiF/c ... CSH05.html

WIF can have unique MP's per unit while in GS each unit type has the same MP. Right now the armor units have a range per turn 50% higher than corps units. If we drop the MP of corps units to 3 then you will notice that their capability to ooze through ZOC will become worse. So it can impact game play quite a bit. Garrisons have 2 MP's. Then it's natural for infantry corps to have 4 MP's.

If any changes should be made then it's maybe better to increase mech from 5 to 6 and armor from 6 to 7 and instead increase the vehicle penalty in bad terrain / weather. But this can have significant game play issues.

Mech units get quite a few tech advances that corps I'm a bit reluctant to fix something that isn't broken and maybe cause a balance issue.

[ferokapo]

I would increase mechanized movement to 6, same as armor. If mechanized infantry truly is mechanized (i.e. using half-tracks), they should have the same movement as armor.

[shawkhan]

The only thing that worries me about the upcoming GS 2.0 mod is paratroopers. They simply weren't that useful at the corps level.

[zechi]

I do not think that anything should be changed. The original unit system works very well and is balanced (if para and elite units are balance will have to be seen). Especially I do not agree with GaryChildress that there are not much differences between MECHs and INFs. MECHs gain a lot more tech upgrades as INFs. They also cost less manpower and have some better stats at the beginning and are worth their price.

[rkr1958]

The only thing that worries me about the upcoming GS 2.0 mod is paratroopers. They simply weren't that useful at the corps level.

Airborne units are only at the division level (i.e., garrisons). No corps level airborne units.

[joerock22]

Another thing you have to consider with movement is ZoC. Suppose you're facing a row of enemy units together. Infantry can currently attack from 3 rows away (i.e. moving 2 rows then attacking), mechs from 4, and tanks from 5. If you reduce infantry movement to 3, then they can only attack from 2 rows away. That's a pretty substantial reduction that I'm not sure is warranted.

[Plaid]

I don't think that current system needs any change.
We should separate tactical level and strategic corps level. Tanks can move much faster in combat, but they are not good for long marching at all. They need lots of supplying, repairing, fueling and so on. And better vehicles alwasy need better roads, which can be a problem aswell. Also corps is a bulky formation, composed of many units. Type of unit is some abstract "class" of mechanisation, even tank unit supposed to have some regular infantry.

[shawkhan]

In order for paratroopers to jump they have to be transported by a/c. Will fighters be able to intercept them?
In my opinion the game is nearly perfect as is, I would hate to see play balance upset by something touted as an 'improvement'.

[schwerpunkt]

In order for paratroopers to jump they have to be transported by a/c. Will fighters be able to intercept them?

Yes, paradrops can be intercepted

In my opinion the game is nearly perfect as is, I would hate to see play balance upset by something touted as an 'improvement'.

Paras are quite interesting and fun but are restricted in their use. A paradrop costs 10 PPs to do and I've seen possible paradrop losses of 2-7 steps occur depending upon the terrain and number of ZOCs you are dropping into. Hence, you dont usually do many paradrops - the allies probably can afford to do a few later in the game I suspect. In a game I'm playing as the axis, by Dec 1942 I have done 5 paradrops to date I think, which isnt a huge number I think.

Paras do add to the game by forcing players to think about garrisoning their rear area cities a bit more I think.