Slitherine

Changes I would like to see to the unit system. Most of them are aimed at making more units viable or adding to the fun of the game.

RECON

Add an infantry type "recon" unit to every nation. Infantry recon would be fast moving, agile in rough terrain and ideally able to keep up with armor. Combat stats on defense would be equivalent to infantry but with lower attacking stats. 2CP costing.

Examples:

* Konnaya Razvedka (Cavalry Recon) or OZNAZ for USSR
* Cavalry Recon for US (mounted in M2 halftrack for 42+ and Jeep for prior) in a ETO campaign, Marine Raiders in a PTO campaign
* Kradschutzen (motorcycle mounted infantry) for Nazis
* Bicycle Recon for Japan (more because it is fun than because they really did it all the time)

The cheap vs combat recon car distinction isn't useful but I don't have a better idea! In general recon is ok, but should have the light tank bonus to getting kills on low STR units to reflect their combat role of chasing down weakened units. Alternatively it might be worth adding an adjacency aura that improves offensive performance for units near a recon car and accepting that their combat power will always be low.

INFANTRY

This tab is usually pretty good but there are some issues. Every faction should have access to the full tactical package (standard, engineer, heavy, mountain, marine, airborne, commando) which historically pretty much all of them did. Currently some are missing part of it which -- and this is the important bit -- isn't particularly fun.

The Soviets should not have a "conscript unit", People's Militia would be a much closer fit. Every army in the period was a conscript army even the Canadians (although man did they have some seriously wild political battles getting there)!

TANK

Usually the biggest problem with this tab is the CP costing of light and medium tanks relative to the heavies making them super unappealing in most circumstances. Heavies should be 2CP more than the most expensive same period medium to reflect their supreme combat efficiency. Light tanks should probably have the Flexible Pathing trait so that they take full advantage of their maneuverability.

ARTILLERY + AT

ZiS3 showed that dual mode AT/ART is a fun tactical choice but not a dominant one. It'd be great to see 25lbr, US 105mm gun, LeFH 105mm and similar get this ability also. The biggest advantage of the dual mode gun approach is that it massively improved the viability of medium artillery relative to heavier guns. I actually downgraded a number of 122/152mm guns to ZiS3 because I found flex fire so appealing, meaning for the first time in the years I've been playing this franchise (literally since it launched as OOBP) I actually chose medium guns when heavier ones were available. 2CP 2 move AT guns are still excellent, SPAT are still great for supporting tanks. IMO the ZiS3 is hardly the dominant choice, so this works well to provide a flexible 4CP option that some people will prefer while others will prefer a mix of light and self propelled AT + dedicated high end artillery.

The only other change I would like to see is medium towed AT guns getting 0CP transports and 2CP base cost. This would dramatically improve their viability vs their light AT brethren. It'd be a much tougher choice than the current no brainer.

Rocket artillery is straight up terrible despite the 3CP cost (low considering their excellent combat power). Their vulnerability to counterbattery/bombing, 2 range and inability to flee after firing makes these units worthless. The best option is to make them unique by giving them the ability to move after attacking which would make them an interesting tactical option and would be historically accurate.

Mountain guns should always have 2 move and their Mountain Gun trait should reduce the move cost of mountains and "difficult terrain". The whole point of these things is to support mountaineers, but right now they suck at that due to their lack of mobility compared to heavier guns that can stay on the road and shoot from 5-6 tiles away!

AA

All heavy AA (80mm+) should have AT swap to make them more appealing! Right now the 2cp 30-40mm AA units with 2 move speed are far better than the 1 move speed heavy AA despite lower combat stats because they can function just fine without a truck. 2x 2cp AA guns that have some foot mobility will always beat 1 4cp truck bound heavy AA that is weaker against fighters. It'd also be nice to see the transports for heavy AA made 0 cp.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm Changes I would like to see to the unit system. Most of them are aimed at making more units viable or adding to the fun of the game.

RECON

Add an infantry type "recon" unit to every nation. Infantry recon would be fast moving, agile in rough terrain and ideally able to keep up with armor. Combat stats on defense would be equivalent to infantry but with lower attacking stats. 2CP costing.

I certainly have no objections to any of this (in regards to recon).

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm INFANTRY
This tab is usually pretty good but there are some issues. Every faction should have access to the full tactical package (standard, engineer, heavy, mountain, marine, airborne, commando) which historically pretty much all of them did. Currently some are missing part of it which -- and this is the important bit -- isn't particularly fun.

The Soviets should not have a "conscript unit", People's Militia would be a much closer fit. Every army in the period was a conscript army even the Canadians (although man did they have some seriously wild political battles getting there)!

I disagree strongly with this concept. Every single country having paratroopers? Marines? Finnish airborne forces? Chinese Marines? There’s a reason why many units like this are absent (for campaign nations), because they never had them! As far as I know, there were no Airborne troops of Belgium, nor Belgian marines. Likewise for places China, Finland, and Australia. Besides the historical-ness, it also comes to an issue. What transport aircraft would, say China use? They barely had an airforce, let alone elite paras. Australia does, as a commonwealth nation

On the conscripts, yes, I think Russia should have the conscripts option. If not for actual use by players, for scenario creators. However, it makes sense to have “conscripts” for nations that were basically defending the homeland, on the brink of being conquest. The “Volunteer Fighters” fill this gap for Japan, and “Volksturm” fill it for Germany. I think it should stay that way.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm TANK

Usually the biggest problem with this tab is the CP costing of light and medium tanks relative to the heavies making them super unappealing in most circumstances. Heavies should be 2CP more than the most expensive same period medium to reflect their supreme combat efficiency. Light tanks should probably have the Flexible Pathing trait so that they take full advantage of their maneuverability.

My biggest issue is that that idea makes most heavy tanks just the same CP cost. I presume this extends to “Super Heavy” units like the German Maus and the Japanese OI?
However, I do agree that some light tanks should utilize flexible pathing.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm ARTILLERY + AT

ZiS3 showed that dual mode AT/ART is a fun tactical choice but not a dominant one. It'd be great to see 25lbr, US 105mm gun, LeFH 105mm and similar get this ability also. The biggest advantage of the dual mode gun approach is that it massively improved the viability of medium artillery relative to heavier guns. I actually downgraded a number of 122/152mm guns to ZiS3 because I found flex fire so appealing, meaning for the first time in the years I've been playing this franchise (literally since it launched as OOBWW2) I actually chose medium guns when heavier ones were available. 2CP 2 move AT guns are still excellent, SPAT are still great for supporting tanks. IMO the ZiS3 is hardly the dominant choice, so this works well to provide a flexible 4CP option that some people will prefer while others will prefer a mix of light and self propelled AT + dedicated high end artillery.

My issue is that, to my knowledge, some medium guns were never used in a direct fire role (particularly the 25pdr). Why should you give a gun an ability it never had?
[Edit: Turns out that 25pdrs did have limited AP productions, however, I can find scarcely any evidence of common use of this. These shells were developed later in the war, and as such, would require an upgraded/otherwise distinct version to differentiate from the earlier version.]

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm The only other change I would like to see is medium towed AT guns getting 0CP transports and 2CP base cost. This would dramatically improve their viability vs their light AT brethren. It'd be a much tougher choice than the current no brainer.

I don’t exactly see your point? I rarely use any AT guns, mostly due to playing the pacific, and not really needing AT that much?
When I do, I always use medium AT (Japanese 47mm, American 57mm, I believe). The lighter AT has never actually been worth it to me.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm Rocket artillery is straight up terrible despite the 3CP cost (low considering their excellent combat power). Their vulnerability to counterbattery/bombing, 2 range and inability to flee after firing makes these units worthless. The best option is to make them unique by giving them the ability to move after attacking which would make them an interesting tactical option and would be historically accurate.

I’m not entitled to speak about this, as I rarely actually use it, even when I play as a Nation that has it.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm Mountain guns should always have 2 move and their Mountain Gun trait should reduce the move cost of mountains and "difficult terrain". The whole point of these things is to support mountaineers, but right now they suck at that due to their lack of mobility compared to heavier guns that can stay on the road and shoot from 5-6 tiles away!

Again, can’t really speak. Neither Japanese nor Americans have mountaineers, as should be.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm
AA

All heavy AA (80mm+) should have AT swap to make them more appealing! Right now the 2cp 30-40mm AA units with 2 move speed are far better than the 1 move speed heavy AA despite lower combat stats because they can function just fine without a truck. 2x 2cp AA guns that have some foot mobility will always beat 1 4cp truck bound heavy AA that is weaker against fighters. It'd also be nice to see the transports for heavy AA made 0 cp.

While I do agree that more guns should have dual fire opportunities, it should be considered whether they actually had that firing versatility. Not every gun was designed with direct fire in mind.

I don’t mean to be rude, so hopefully none of this comes off as such.
This is just my 2 cents

Quick answers:

I think rocket arty is very useful to soften/shock enemy ground. Yes, they're vulnerable to both arty and air attacks, but the shock effect is quite powerful, so there needs to be a downside IMO. In any bigger battle you have options to deal with enemy air or arty.

Light tanks - flexible pathing - I understand two-step move like recon? I think is ok to be added to selected types, but I have also left it out in some cases, like T60, 70 on purpose as they were often used in a standard tank role (if only out of shortages on med. tanks due to high losses).

However, adding two-step move to T 60, 70 or others (Pz II F, Luchs) would be fine for me if that is consensus. I would not add it to every lt. tank in the roster, as earlier war models were for standard battlefield use (T-26 et al.), and are already fine MP-wise IMO.

Mountain troops -- my impression is kinda that ppl like to use them because they're faster in forests. Which is understandable But to me it seems a bit of an easy way out, not to mention that it's rather ahistorical (which is moot if the player want to use them that way).

TBH I seriously think about upping them all from 3 to 4 CP -- they are certainly not hvy inf, but have extra equipment and training, so I'd compare them more to special units like paras. Right now they can too easily be mass-used as faster "standard" infantry type IMO.

I don't mean to personally insult you but I feel these suggestions don't fit the game and strongly disagree. I actually really like how Rocket artillery is already done- it's short and harsh but not very sustaining- if you want something more sustaining you need lighter guns.

Bicycle infantry for the Japanese as a special unit could be added to a campaign that takes place in Singapore and such early in the war in future if there is one.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm * Cavalry Recon for US (mounted in M2 halftrack for 42+ and Jeep for prior) in a ETO campaign, Marine Raiders in a PTO campaign

Really? Cavalry with Jeep/halftrack transport? I have trouble understanding this.

But I also think that some 1CP recon unit for other nations than the US could come in handy. Was already on my list. I'll test some recon variations.

... and thanks for some good ideas!

bebro wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:47 am Quick answers:

I think rocket arty is very useful to soften/shock enemy ground. Yes, they're vulnerable to both arty and air attacks, but the shock effect is quite powerful, so there needs to be a downside IMO. In any bigger battle you have options to deal with enemy air or arty.

Light tanks - flexible pathing - I understand two-step move like recon? I think is ok to be added to selected types, but I have also left it out in some cases, like T60, 70 on purpose as they were often used in a standard tank role (if only out of shortages on med. tanks due to high losses).

However, adding two-step move to T 60, 70 or others (Pz II F, Luchs) would be fine for me if that is consensus. I would not add it to every lt. tank in the roster, as earlier war models were for standard battlefield use (T-26 et al.), and are already fine MP-wise IMO.

Mountain troops -- my impression is kinda that ppl like to use them because they're faster in forests. Which is understandable But to me it seems a bit of an easy way out, not to mention that it's rather ahistorical (which is moot if the player want to use them that way).

TBH I seriously think about upping them all from 3 to 4 CP -- they are certainly not hvy inf, but have extra equipment and training, so I'd compare them more to special units like paras. Right now they can too easily be mass-used as faster "standard" infantry type IMO.

Interesting, those are exactly the (only) same things I noted as viable and changeable in my mod.

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

I'll test the flex-pathing mechanic for some light tanks, it's a good idea. Thanks for some insights, bebro!

BUT, PLEASE, don't change the mountaineers to 4CP. Yeah, you're right, I'm using them instead of regular infantry (as many others do obviously), but I'm paying about the double price for +1 attack stats and better movement. I think that's balance enough. Maybe it would be rather a better idea to increase some stats of the paras to make them more useful for 4 CP and incredible high costs compared to the amazing heavy inf. with mortars.
(That's actually a good idea, I'll try it in my mod)

As for mountain - yeah, I guessed ppl would have disliked a change to 4 CP, so I leave them.

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm * Cavalry Recon for US (mounted in M2 halftrack for 42+ and Jeep for prior) in a ETO campaign, Marine Raiders in a PTO campaign

Really? Cavalry with Jeep/halftrack transport? I have trouble understanding this.

Mechanized Cavalry ?

terminator wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:03 pm

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:31 pm * Cavalry Recon for US (mounted in M2 halftrack for 42+ and Jeep for prior) in a ETO campaign, Marine Raiders in a PTO campaign

Really? Cavalry with Jeep/halftrack transport? I have trouble understanding this.

Mechanized Cavalry ?

According to my favorite source, niehorster, this [http://www.niehorster.org/013_usa/42_or ... v_rgt.html] is the composition of mechanized cavalry. As can be seen, mechanized cavalry in the US army are just scout car regiments.

Zekedia222 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:47 pm

terminator wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:03 pm

GabeKnight wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 9:25 am
Really? Cavalry with Jeep/halftrack transport? I have trouble understanding this.

Mechanized Cavalry ?

According to my favorite source, niehorster, this [http://www.niehorster.org/013_usa/42_or ... v_rgt.html] is the composition of mechanized cavalry. As can be seen, mechanized cavalry in the US army are just scout car regiments.

During the year 1942.

Structure of a US Cavalry Group, Mechanized, during 1944–1945:

Still effectively the same, with armored cars, light tanks, and 75mm SPGs.

Yes, US cavalry recon units tended to be equipped with armored cars, however they could also be and were equipped with lighter vehicles depending on situation and need. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_half-track_car M2 was heavily used by US Cavalry Recon because it was actually good on rough terrain unlike the armored cars which performed poorly (despite their incredible road speed).

Similarly Soviet cavalry formations tended to be a mix of horse equipped units that used both saber charge (latest documented large scale saber charge I can find is 43) and rifle as the situation allowed and lighter tanks (Valentine, T70) or tanks with greater automotive reliability (M4) alongside some halftrack mounted infantry and light artillery. These were primarily used for the exploitation mission. Konnaya Razvedka like US Cavalry Recon were often equipped with armored cars, armor, halftrack cars and (unlike US Cavalry Recon) horses.

I disagree strongly with this concept. Every single country having paratroopers? Marines? Finnish airborne forces? Chinese Marines? There’s a reason why many units like this are absent (for campaign nations), because they never had them! As far as I know, there were no Airborne troops of Belgium, nor Belgian marines. Likewise for places China, Finland, and Australia. Besides the historical-ness, it also comes to an issue. What transport aircraft would, say China use? They barely had an airforce, let alone elite paras. Australia does, as a commonwealth nation

Every faction meaning playable country, not every country in the game most of which are not playable. That's why I used the word faction and not country. The only exception on this list would be Finland, whose airborne equivalent is their ski troopers.

On the conscripts, yes, I think Russia should have the conscripts option. If not for actual use by players, for scenario creators. However, it makes sense to have “conscripts” for nations that were basically defending the homeland, on the brink of being conquest. The “Volunteer Fighters” fill this gap for Japan, and “Volksturm” fill it for Germany. I think it should stay that way.

My objection is to the name, which isn't at all accurate and carries on the old Nazi myths about Slavs forced to fight at gunpoint. The Soviets used massive People's Militia forces and that name would be far more applicable in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnoe_Opolcheniye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... 's_Militia

The "crap" Soviet infantry in the Japan and Finland scenarios can be just as well represented by 35 or 37 infantry which has utterly abysmal stats.

My biggest issue is that that idea makes most heavy tanks just the same CP cost. I presume this extends to “Super Heavy” units like the German Maus and the Japanese OI?
However, I do agree that some light tanks should utilize flexible pathing.

Most heavy tanks already have the same costing. In any event, my point was not that heavy tanks should all cost the same, but that there should be a +2CP heavy tank premium not the current 0-1 CP premium. The KV1 despite far better stats than the T-34 (and higher cost) is only +1CP and the same 6CP as the M4!

My issue is that, to my knowledge, some medium guns were never used in a direct fire role (particularly the 25pdr). Why should you give a gun an ability it never had?
[Edit: Turns out that 25pdrs did have limited AP productions, however, I can find scarcely any evidence of common use of this. These shells were developed later in the war, and as such, would require an upgraded/otherwise distinct version to differentiate from the earlier version.

Every gun on my list had an AP or HEAT shell designed for it and available for the crew. The 25lbr actually was routinely used in the AT role up until about 42, when the 6lbr (and, frankly, alternatives to the utterly atrocious early war UK tanks) became widely available.

I don’t exactly see your point? I rarely use any AT guns, mostly due to playing the pacific, and not really needing AT that much?
When I do, I always use medium AT (Japanese 47mm, American 57mm, I believe). The lighter AT has never actually been worth it to me.

While this game started as OOB:Pacific, most of the campaigns are outside of the Pacific. The light AT gun is routinely more useful because it is far more CP efficient and can keep up with other units on roads + has a much easier time managing forests (where it cannot be spotted). I usually have multiple copies deployed and it is a staple of my 5 star difficulty campaigns. A viable alternative is seriously necessary, and right now the medium AT definitely isn't.

Again, can’t really speak. Neither Japanese nor Americans have mountaineers, as should be.

False. Both the US and IJA had mountaineers and the IJA routinely substituted mountain gun regiments for divisional artillery when operations in rough terrain were expected. Examples for both armies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Mountain_Division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_Divi ... nese_Army)

While I do agree that more guns should have dual fire opportunities, it should be considered whether they actually had that firing versatility. Not every gun was designed with direct fire in mind.

Every gun I have mentioned including all the large caliber AA guns were specifically designed with dual purpose fire in mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_gun ... M3#History (from 42 on)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85_mm_air ... 939_(52-K)
Obviously the 88 was used in AT shoots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_88_75_mm_AA_gun

Honestly the rudest thing in everyone's post has been the weird "hope i'm not being rude winky" comments.

bebro wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 7:47 am Quick answers:

I think rocket arty is very useful to soften/shock enemy ground. Yes, they're vulnerable to both arty and air attacks, but the shock effect is quite powerful, so there needs to be a downside IMO. In any bigger battle you have options to deal with enemy air or arty.

I've found any time I bring it on diff 5 I regret it and wish I had brought a different unit. While the impact is potent, the probability of fire on a particular turn is low due to the poor off road mobility, low range and severe vulnerability in all scenarios. By contrast my range 5 artillery is firing nearly every turn barring rests or the occasional reposition. At least with flexible pathing they'd be able to use their historical shoot and scoot capabilities.

Light tanks - flexible pathing - I understand two-step move like recon? I think is ok to be added to selected types, but I have also left it out in some cases, like T60, 70 on purpose as they were often used in a standard tank role (if only out of shortages on med. tanks due to high losses).

However, adding two-step move to T 60, 70 or others (Pz II F, Luchs) would be fine for me if that is consensus. I would not add it to every lt. tank in the roster, as earlier war models were for standard battlefield use (T-26 et al.), and are already fine MP-wise IMO.

I can largely agree with this.

Mountain troops -- my impression is kinda that ppl like to use them because they're faster in forests. Which is understandable But to me it seems a bit of an easy way out, not to mention that it's rather ahistorical (which is moot if the player want to use them that way).

The Soviets had by far the largest mountain force in the world so it is pretty weird that they don't have any! The US had the 10th Mountain Division, and the Japanese had various mountain divisions. I'm less sure about the Finns, but I honestly think of them as a very scenario specific force so please don't consider any of this as applicable to them.

TBH I seriously think about upping them all from 3 to 4 CP -- they are certainly not hvy inf, but have extra equipment and training, so I'd compare them more to special units like paras. Right now they can too easily be mass-used as faster "standard" infantry type IMO.

Hilariously I was thinking of suggesting a reduction in CP cost for airborne units from 4 to 3 as their combat advantage isn't that amazing and their cost is _very_ high. As a result I can rarely find a place for them when heavy infantry (with its excellent mortar attack and defensive stats) exists.

For the Soviets Airborne units should be Guards Airborne, potentially with a late war upgrade to VDV blue hats.

Oh final note since I forgot it, Soviet and Japanese cavalry with same upgrade timings as heavy weapons team, same costing, equivalent stats to infantry barring +2 movement.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

On the conscripts, yes, I think Russia should have the conscripts option. If not for actual use by players, for scenario creators. However, it makes sense to have “conscripts” for nations that were basically defending the homeland, on the brink of being conquest. The “Volunteer Fighters” fill this gap for Japan, and “Volksturm” fill it for Germany. I think it should stay that way.

My objection is to the name, which isn't at all accurate and carries on the old Nazi myths about Slavs forced to fight at gunpoint. The Soviets used massive People's Militia forces and that name would be far more applicable in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnoe_Opolcheniye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... 's_Militia

The "crap" Soviet infantry in the Japan and Finland scenarios can be just as well represented by 35 or 37 infantry which has utterly abysmal stats.

Ah, I see. Personally, I prefer conscripts. It makes more sense to me, and like you said, they are conscripts. Saying “people’s militia” doesn’t ring very positive either, as typically when someone has to clarify it’s the people’s (People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), it’s not the people’s, it’s not voluntary, and it’s under the whim of a dictator. Either way, I don’t see it positive, and as such, shall remain in the “conscript” name camp.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

My biggest issue is that that idea makes most heavy tanks just the same CP cost. I presume this extends to “Super Heavy” units like the German Maus and the Japanese OI?
However, I do agree that some light tanks should utilize flexible pathing.

Most heavy tanks already have the same costing. In any event, my point was not that heavy tanks should all cost the same, but that there should be a +2CP heavy tank premium not the current 0-1 CP premium. The KV1 despite far better stats than the T-34 (and higher cost) is only +1CP and the same 6CP as the M4!

Most is the key word. These heavy tanks already cost hundreds of rp, which for me is already discouraging, at least given the campaigns I play. I rarely used anything bigger than a Sherman throughout the Pacific campaigns. They’re too expensive for my liking, and the high cp is already discouraging. It seems like most of these tank balance complaints come from the USSR. Perhaps balance them in Europe. There is no reason over on Iwo Jima.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

My issue is that, to my knowledge, some medium guns were never used in a direct fire role (particularly the 25pdr). Why should you give a gun an ability it never had?
[Edit: Turns out that 25pdrs did have limited AP productions, however, I can find scarcely any evidence of common use of this. These shells were developed later in the war, and as such, would require an upgraded/otherwise distinct version to differentiate from the earlier version.

Every gun on my list had an AP or HEAT shell designed for it and available for the crew. The 25lbr actually was routinely used in the AT role up until about 42, when the 6lbr (and, frankly, alternatives to the utterly atrocious early war UK tanks) became widely available.

Up until 1942, the year in which Burma kicks off. After which it became obsolete. And unused. Hence why it is unused.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

I don’t exactly see your point? I rarely use any AT guns, mostly due to playing the pacific, and not really needing AT that much?
When I do, I always use medium AT (Japanese 47mm, American 57mm, I believe). The lighter AT has never actually been worth it to me.

While this game started as OOB:Pacific, most of the campaigns are outside of the Pacific. The light AT gun is routinely more useful because it is far more CP efficient and can keep up with other units on roads + has a much easier time managing forests (where it cannot be spotted). I usually have multiple copies deployed and it is a staple of my 5 star difficulty campaigns. A viable alternative is seriously necessary, and right now the medium AT definitely isn't.

Yes, I understand it’s outside the Pacific. In fact, I even ATTRIBUTED MY BEHAVIOR to playing the PACIFIC CAMPAIGNS. And I don’t see how a 2mp AT gun can keep up with infantry movement, unless you move at a snail’s pace. For me, it’s always transports or bust. But to each their own.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

Again, can’t really speak. Neither Japanese nor Americans have mountaineers, as should be.

False. Both the US and IJA had mountaineers and the IJA routinely substituted mountain gun regiments for divisional artillery when operations in rough terrain were expected. Examples for both armies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Mountain_Division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24th_Divi ... nese_Army)

Firstly, the 24th Division is not a mountain infantry. It’s callsign is Mountain Division. Just as how the 25th IJA division was the Country Division. Sidenote: Mountain guns are not mountain infantry. We already have mountain guns.
Secondly, I fail to see how a singular division in the US army represents the need for mountaineers. I’ve failed to find any other examples of either, ignoring the fact that this division was active for a mere 2 years, along with it never serving in the Pacific, where both US campaigns take place.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm

While I do agree that more guns should have dual fire opportunities, it should be considered whether they actually had that firing versatility. Not every gun was designed with direct fire in mind.

Every gun I have mentioned including all the large caliber AA guns were specifically designed with dual purpose fire in mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_gun ... M3#History (from 42 on)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85_mm_air ... 939_(52-K)
Obviously the 88 was used in AT shoots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_88_75_mm_AA_gun

The 90mm M1 was specifically upgraded to the M2 variant, because the M1 could not depress the barrel far enough to effectively engage tanks. The wikipedia article you yourself cited states this.

Stated in your wikipedia article about the QF 3.7 inch is this:
“Sighting arrangements were improved for the anti-tank role, but the weapon was far from ideal. Its size and weight - two tons heavier than the German 8.8 cm - made it tactically unsuitable for use in forward areas. The mounting and recuperating gear were also not designed to handle the strain of prolonged firing at low elevations. The 3.7 found little use as a dedicated anti-tank gun except in emergencies. There were few 3.7-equipped heavy anti-aircraft regiments in the field army and most were not subordinate to divisions where the anti-tank capability was required. The arrival of the smaller 76 mm (3-inch) calibre 17-pdr anti-tank gun finally obviated the need.”
This highlights that the QF 3.7 inch was rarely used as AT, and was completely unsuited for such activities, and, as such, should not have such a setting.

The article for the Soviet 85mm provides little actual information about the effectiveness of its dual-purpose capabilities. As such, I will refrain from commenting.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 8:13 pm
Honestly the rudest thing in everyone's post has been the weird "hope i'm not being rude winky" comments.

Perhaps it comforts you to know I was being sincere. Now I wish I was being sarcastic.

I hope to see the German Cavalry one day (with a correct animation):

France, cavalry at the outskirts of a village

I would like to see naval units ammo system become more realistic. Never-ending ammo is the dream of toy admirals.

I would also like that. Also just more ships. Torpedo boats, minelayers, minesweeper, subchasers, more tenders, auxiliary cruisers and seaplane tenders, all ships that just don’t exist.

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.

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.

I’m also confused about the level of hostility from a particular poster when I’ve been polite throughout.

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.

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).

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:55 pm 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.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:55 pm 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.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:55 pm
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.

prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Jul 19, 2020 2:55 pm
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.

terminator wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:03 pm Mechanized Cavalry ?

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...