Changes to the Unit System

[bebro]

IIRC it's often units which were traditionally cavalry became mechanized (and later air mobile with helis indeed), but kept the names often.

I also think there's a bit of an extra role for them, like recon in force or rapid deployment for (modern) air mobile units, but can't say I'm an expert on this ...

[TheFilthyCasual]

What really need changing are commandos. They're simply too fragile - sure, you CAN use them, but it's more efficient to just replace them with another infantry unit which can handle frontline combat.

For commandos to be useful they need one or more of the following changes:

-being able to move after attacking (literally being able to hit-and-run)
-making their special ability their normal attack (they take no damage when attacking)
-flexible movement

[Zekedia222]

The entire point of commandos is not to be frontline units. They work fine for my purposes (dropping them on airfields, sabotaging them and nearby supply points, while destroying any grounded aircraft). I’ve accumulated 4.5 to 5 star SAS commandos this way (Burma campaign).
I do agree they need some change, I would prefer option 2 or 3, preferably both. I don’t think option 1 would be possible, given the way combat works for all units, No movement after attacking.

[TheFilthyCasual]

I've never found a situation where Paratroopers wouldn't be a better choice than Commandos.

[Zekedia222]

I prefer SAS over paratroopers, because unlike paras, SAS has the guerrilla trait (IIRC). It’s annoying at best, and dooming at worst to move in jungle without that trait. They are also HALF the CP cost, and thus can mount doubly sized operations.
Usually I’ll still include one in any airborne operation, but in the event of an enemy attack which threatens the operation, they’re the first to leave. Paratroops CANNOT leave through jungle. It just doesn’t work.
However, outside of the Pacific, I completely understand the choice of paratroopers over commandos. The commando benefit is nil in the terrain of Europe.

[conboy]

Gabe,

Thanks for the answers. So it's basically some military jargon gibberish meaning nothing. Probably anything that moves fast counts as Cavalry, even tanks and helicopters, right...?
Okay, it has nothing to do with horses as such... silly me...

Here's what you get when you look it up on wiki:
[Cavalry missions are]Reconnaissance, security (e.g., flank screening, advance guard, rear guard, combat out post, etc.), and economy of force missions. The term "cavalry", e.g. "armored cavalry", remains in use in the U.S. Army for mounted (ground and aviation) reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) units based on their parent Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) regiment.

Nowadays you have air cavalry (helicopter) and armored cavalry (variety of supercharged vehicles and helicopters too). But, in the old days, only heavy cavalry had anything like the breakthrough/overrun mission of today's armor, the light cavalry pretty much was like today's cavalry - lightly armed (in the US civil war they mainly used shotguns, carbines, and pistols (and sabers)), very fast, and mainly recon, flank security, raiding, and delay missions. There are lots of exceptions, of course, which only further confuse things.

I went with the 11th and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiments on some exercises in Germany in the 80s. My opinion of them were that they were highly motivated, well trained troops. They were genuinely proud of their units and took their mission very seriously. Honestly, I thought that they were genuinely 'bad-ass' .

It was explained to me that their primary missions were border patrols (even in peacetime to ward off the mighty Czechs) and in wartime it was the list above, but primarily recon and flank security. They were not designed to overpower the enemy, but to find them, make them have a bad day, take their names, and have them destroyed by heavy rocket artillery or other convincing means.

So if I can extrapolate to WWII, your assessment is correct, in WWII, US Cavalry units were light, fast, and assigned recon and flank security missions. Sometimes, if they were in the right place, they'd be assigned exploitation missions (e.g., Strasbourg), or attacks on the enemy rear or as probing elements (recon in force...) But that might have been because they were the most conveniently located units.

There you have it, hombre.

conboy

[GabeKnight]

-being able to move after attacking (literally being able to hit-and-run)
-making their special ability their normal attack (they take no damage when attacking)
-flexible movement

I like using commandos. Unlike other infantry units they are concealed to the enemy and operate outside my supply zones, ideally behind enemy lines, attacking mechanized units (like AT, AA or arty) or bunkers or such without being spotted or attacked back.

Their attack has to cost something, otherwise this unit would be unbalanced; I know, I've tried it.

And all this flex-movement dicussions are useless for units with low MP points. Once they enter the enemy unit's ZOC, they couldn't leave either way, flex-movement or not.
It's the same as for light tanks. I've tried it, it makes only sense for those >8MP, and even then the gain is minimal, if any. Sure, sometimes you can get into the more favourable "flanking" position like this, but other than that you'll only end up with another unit (besides recon) that brings up the "unused action points" popup at the end of the turn because you moved once and didn't use up the second AP...



And thanks very much, conboy, for the whole "Cavalry" explanation.
Well, I was basically looking for info or new ideas for my mod and was confused by the wording used. Thanks for the clarification. Usually I use wiki too, but sometimes it's really confusing to read (for me) as I lack the military background knowledge and most terms mean nothing to me and I would have to look them up and so on and on and sometimes I spent hours reading stuff that in my view wasn't interesting just to able to understand something I didn't want to know in the first place... it can be exhausting.

[bebro]

I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)

Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?

[kondi754]

I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)

Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?

Reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 is good
When it comes to halftracks, the best German vehicles during Russian fall, winter and spring were Maultier halftracked trucks, so...

[GabeKnight]

I've increased the Katyusha supply to 4 because of that (German Wurfrahmen has five!)

Serious question for everyone: I tend slightly in the other direction - keep Katyusha BM13 and 31 to 3, but reduce Wurfrahmen to 4 CP, as it shares the same strengths, but is vulnerable in a simlar way.

Also, I'm thinking to slightly reduce movement costs in very few cases for halftracks. For example winter move in open terrain for them is just like wheeled, but IMO halftracks weren't so bad in snow. However, the bulk of the penalties, esp. in mud etc would stay, so it's just minor adjustments.

Thoughts, prayers, curses?

Nope, sounds good to me.

I'm keeping the Katyushas at 4CP in my mod, though. Those whole Wurfrahmen, Katyusha and B-29 Superfortress units are overpowered IMO. Like some of the "heroes" in PC2. Of course I love to use them, I mean, one hit and the enemy unit, entrenched or not, is history. But it feels a bit like cheating.

[GabeKnight]

And all this flex-movement dicussions are useless for units with low MP points. Once they enter the enemy unit's ZOC, they couldn't leave either way, flex-movement or not.
It's the same as for light tanks. I've tried it, it makes only sense for those >8MP, and even then the gain is minimal, if any. Sure, sometimes you can get into the more favourable "flanking" position like this, but other than that you'll only end up with another unit (besides recon) that brings up the "unused action points" popup at the end of the turn because you moved once and didn't use up the second AP...

Okay, I've had the flex-movement-change to light tanks with MP>=9 for about two weeks in my mod now and I must say that I've changed my mind about it.
With those speedy units it really is useful. And the AI knows how to use it well, too. I'll definitely keeping that in my mod and now I'm also for the suggested changes to add a second step to some light tank units in the vanilla game!

[Xteam25Boyz]

I’m not sure why there is all this quibbling in a game with all sorts of fantasy or never deployed units in the tank and AT tab and in scenarios over whether weapons with an actual capability that they did in fact use merit inclusion with that capability. To me this seems straightforward. No one said British heavy AA flex fire needed to be good or even that it’d make the unit a viable choice. Just as in real life it is slow, expensive and not particularly useful. And heavy AA near the front line are invariably targeted for AI artillery as they are particularly weak to it. Try using heavy AA for AT as the Nazis in their campaign on diff 5! You will bleed points doing it.

Firstly, you started this entire discussion of whether these guns deserve this capability.
Secondly, no, not every gun you listed had the capability to fire in such a way, so there is no historical basis. Every single thing in this game (to my knowledge) is somewhat historical. Whether they were actually ever created for battle, is a different matter, but they are all (again, to my knowledge) are real concepts of war machines. They all existed, whether on paper or the battlefield.
Thirdly, I see no reason to add a completely ineffective and near useless feature. Why would QF 3.7 AT exist, much less with the only official campaign it is in (Burma Road), being at the end of their (very limited) use.
Fourthly, I don’t think I will “Try using heavy AA as AT as the Nazis.” 1) Because I don’t play on difficulty 5. 2) Because I don’t really play the German campaigns. They have no appeal to me.

I’m also not sure how to respond to the idea that mountain warfare wasn’t something the Japanese excelled in given their repeated demonstrations of excellence in mountain warfare and their widespread use of mountain guns. They didn’t have the same theory or doctrine as western armies, so they didn’t have specific “mountaineer” formations.

You said yourself. They never had dedicated mountaineers. They never had mountain divisions. Therefore, they don't have mountaineers as an infantry option. Simple. Like I’ve said, a mountain gun is far removed from mountain infantry. For a time, that mountain gun (Type 41 75mm, I believe) was the standard regimental gun. That doesn’t make every unit mountaineers, does it? No. It doesn’t.

Ships with ammo seems a curious choice. I’m not aware of any battle decided by a lack of ship ammunition given the enormous munition supply available in ships magazines. Over the course of a campaign naval logistics are of course critical and I personally found the history of naval resupply at sea in the PTO pretty fascinating, but we have few maps that rise to the level of campaign length. And as there are only 3 campaigns where ships play a major role, I don’t see further efforts on ships as particularly well spent time especially when IMO they are already represented fairly well and naval combat is pretty enjoyable.

Honestly, it’d be more restricted to torpedos. Numerous times (Particularly at Java Sea), ALL torpedos were expended, with NO hits. Like you’ve said, most ammunition is plentiful, all except torpedos. I do think more ships should be present, especially if a “Normandy” kinda campaign was added. Many ships in support of that invasion were smaller (corvettes, frigates, sloops, trawlers), so it’d be nice if they added that, even if just for scenario design.

I would like to see an Atlantic/Mediterranean War campaign as the Allies with a mix of French, UK and US ships, but I’d honestly prefer a land/air ETO campaign as the various United Nations (FRA/UK/US/CAN/POL and to a lesser extent DUT/BEL/Spanish Republicans all of whom would make more sense as unique flagged units in particular scenarios).

I think it’d be more interesting to step away from Europe, and detail lesser known wars. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, circa 1931, would be interesting, as would numerous conflicts before and after WWII. The Chaco War, the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and an Indonesian Revolution mini-DLC would all be welcome additions, in my opinion. Perhaps throw in the African colonial wars, along with the Franco-Thai war, too.

Actually, in WW2, I agree IJA doesn't have any specifically trained "mountain inf", but there are some individual brigades in China which were used as mountain inf units. They were depolyed in Shanxi province, where has a lot of mountains.

[cutydt02]

Wew the more i want from this game is the diversity of infantry.
The heavy/para/regular of every nation in every way is extractly the same. Only the german has a notable difference in tech.
Im talking about, is about nation way of war:
-Soviet: better defence in city or rugged defence. Slightly better when fighting as group.
-German: better anti tank ability late game (their personal AT weapons were very best those time). Slightly better when fighting near tanks.
-US: enemy has slightly weaker air defence while standing near us inf.
-Japanese: better fighting in Jungle. Morale boostes, like less affected by moving rugged environment or lacking of supply. But decreasing hard attack and hard defence.
-British: Wew they already have the best commando in game, but it’s oke to make them even better. I.e: harassing morale (not causing or taking dmg), attacking then retreat or stationary mode to increase range of view (play as recon).

P/s: the German legendary multitasking 88s should have ability to switch to a field arty. Actually German army did it in many situations. Range can be short (like 2) but it will give me reason to use such a badass weapon much more beside being idle without enemy fighter.

[Erik2]

I believe all general infantry types (from each year) is using the same stats. This is normally OK, but a few national characteristics would be nice. This is why we have the national specialisations.
I would like to see a Soviet SMG unit type. Should work well in city-battles.
The Germans already have several specialisations that improve tanks/AT abilities: Pak Front, Panzer Keil and Panzer Fibel. It is up to the scenario designer to use these outside the campaigns (in single/multilayer scenarios).
The US have only one (weak) specialisation, the Field Medics. I'm a surprised that the recent Allied campaigns did not add to this.
Agree about increased Japanese and jungle/difficult terrain/low-supply fighting abilities.
There are still several AA unit types that should be switchable to AT/art role, ie the Soviet 85mm AA

[StuccoFresco]

More distinction between nations would be a good idea.

[Kaa303]

Hi

I am playing Morning Sun and as because it seemed forever for the air support to arrive at the ever advancing frontline I took a broader look at the unit parameters in the units.csv file. It seems there are quite a lot of ground units faster than air units (assuming ground units moving on road i.e. each hex costs 1 movement point). Seeing that e.g. light tanks or recon units can outrun most of the tactical bombers is... well... confusing. Also seeing cavalry not moving any faster that foot infantry make me wander - why bother with the horses with all the neccessary logistics and care involved if in that period cavalry rather fought dismounted.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to have aircraft move multiple times faster than ground units while having much less fuel. I was thinking about at least 3 times faster movement than currently (which still would be artificially low if you try to compare it to real world) with 3 times less fuel which would make aircraft more a bit more like in e.g. Panzer Corps 2 or Wargame - flying sorties to target area (preferably after recon found the targets) and returning to base instead of loitering over the battlefield for several turns.

I did search the forum for the topic but found little - I think Erik the author of MicroMod mentioned that increasing aircraft movement breaks balance in carrier battles...

I am attaching an excel file with the stats.
[attachment=0]Clipboard01.jpg[/attachment

[cutydt02]

Hi

I am playing Morning Sun and as because it seemed forever for the air support to arrive at the ever advancing frontline I took a broader look at the unit parameters in the units.csv file. It seems there are quite a lot of ground units faster than air units (assuming ground units moving on road i.e. each hex costs 1 movement point). Seeing that e.g. light tanks or recon units can outrun most of the tactical bombers is... well... confusing. Also seeing cavalry not moving any faster that foot infantry make me wander - why bother with the horses with all the neccessary logistics and care involved if in that period cavalry rather fought dismounted.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to have aircraft move multiple times faster than ground units while having much less fuel. I was thinking about at least 3 times faster movement than currently (which still would be artificially low if you try to compare it to real world) with 3 times less fuel which would make aircraft more a bit more like in e.g. Panzer Corps 2 or Wargame - flying sorties to target area (preferably after recon found the targets) and returning to base instead of loitering over the battlefield for several turns.

I did search the forum for the topic but found little - I think Erik the author of MicroMod mentioned that increasing aircraft movement breaks balance in carrier battles...

I am attaching an excel file with the stats.
[attachment=0]Clipboard01.jpg[/attachment

I think it’s from gameplay rather than realistic. Still, OoB aircrafts can move much more further (from their airfield) and it suites the most on Pacific theatre, where there’s not so much airfields and aircraft must fly for hour to start engaging. Its better with this fuel mechanic. I dont think faster but lower fuel can really change anything, just make the spec “fuel tank” and “scrambling” much more important. And beside some very rare campaigns, i see aircrafts speed dont matter more than fuel while you just spend about 1/4 time or so running max speed.

[StuccoFresco]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to have aircraft move multiple times faster than ground units while having much less fuel. I was thinking about at least 3 times faster movement than currently (which still would be artificially low if you try to compare it to real world) with 3 times less fuel which would make aircraft more a bit more like in e.g. Panzer Corps 2 or Wargame - flying sorties to target area (preferably after recon found the targets) and returning to base instead of loitering over the battlefield for several turns.

This is exactly what I did in my mod: aircrafts can traverse almost all maps in a turn, with bombers being able to cover even the biggest maps and fighters slightly less. BUT both have only 3 turns of fuel. It makes aircraft use more strategic: you can't hover on the battlefield picking your targets at your convenience: once you take off you have to make the most out of a limited timeframe. Also, moving too far could essentially cripple your ability to be effective.

IMHO it works much, much better. It makes aircraft use much less of a no-brainer.

[Kaa303]

This is exactly what I did in my mod

Could you please share the mod / exact paramenters? I it's tested balance-wise then I'd prefer not to reinvent the wheel:)

In PC2 aircraft are based at an airfield and behave in what in OoB terms would be probably around 6 times movement points of ground units but 1 turn of fuel with a sort of flexible pathing - meaning they fly to their destination/target and back to base in one turn - if find it somewhat limiting, because it eliminates interception en-route, also it strongly encourages capturing airbases to be able to rebase aircraft, which considering the scale of the game is rather a misplaced mechanic - e.g I suppose in reality while advancing in northern France from Arras to Paris (<200km) it would not be essential to rebase aircraft to provide air cover for the attacking force, but in PC2 it its.

[StuccoFresco]

Eeeeeh, mine is a Total Conversion mod, the aircraft changes are a tiny, tiny part of it.

But basically all you have to do is to modify a single file: units.csv in the Data folder.

Find the aircraft's "mp" column, that's the number of hexes it can move per turn. I set it to 75 for early fighters, up to 130 for late war heavy fighters. Bombers go from 90 to 170. Then find the "fuel" column and set it to "3". This way you'll have aircrafts that can travel throughout the whole map in a turn or so, but have limited "loiter" time.

You'll have to modify ALL aircrafts this way, though.