Land movement speed

[Dili]

I need that a fully motorised unit(Battalion,Brigade level) in a desert trail be able to move faster then a 80% foot movement Infantry Brigade "Division" in a road. Would that be possible?

[el cid again]

Probably if all the squads in the unit are actually vehicles. The rub is that you could not do this with artillery!
Artillery is pretty much motorized, if of any size, and certainly SP artillery is mechanized - but we don't have any good way to simulate it. For a large unit with walking squads I simulate it with one (or more) motorized support per tube.
But the tubes themselves seem to always be some sort of 19th century creatures! But if there were lots of slots (right) we might try to create true mobile artillery as some wierd form of tanks. [Tanks, of course, are really a wierd form of artillery]

[Dili]

So a squad even with plenty motorised support slows down an unit?

Btw did you noticed any diferent behaviour between Armored Unit Vs Infantry Unit choosen in "Type"

I dont even know if "Suffix" like Cavalry Division, RCT or SNLF or the "Symbol" 12(Cavalry) 13(Paratroop) means anything. 

[el cid again]

Well - no one knows. This is undocumented code. It is also evolving undocumented code. It is literally impossible to know such things difinitively.

But these things may matter - at least sometimes to some routines. There is a field which, if you give it a certain value, says to code "use a cavalry symbol on the screen" - and this is NOT implemented at Matrix (or if it is, it didn't used to be - I never look at stock except in an editor). CHS and RHS were told about it and we implemented the field - and we published it - so anyone who wants to can use the field. WITP is full of undocumented routines that use normally invisible fields (or visible fields) for some special purpose.

The person to ask is Joe Wilkerson. He is a Matrix Programmer specializing in land combat units. He has more of a clue than anyone else at this moment, probably.

My educated guess is that what matters is at the squad level. There are a zillion possibilities re exceptions, but probably the basic system is that AFVs move faster. It does not appear cavalry moves faster. It may or may not be motorized support moves faster. Create units with just one squad type, and see if they move fast. That way you can proove what squads move faster - if any do? It does appear that armored units move faster - from in game reports.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

So a squad even with plenty motorised support slows down an unit?

Btw did you noticed any diferent behaviour between Armored Unit Vs Infantry Unit choosen in "Type"

I dont even know if "Suffix" like Cavalry Division, RCT or SNLF or the "Symbol" 12(Cavalry) 13(Paratroop) means anything.

Movement rates are determined by the LCU type. The Suffix value doesn't impact movement. Movement rates are modified by the terrain type and by the fatigue value of the unit. (for example, an LCU with 99% fatigue would only move half as far as a unit with 0 fatigue)

[Dili]

Thanks El Cid. I think i'll have to assemble a bunch of testing units for many questions i have.
 

Movement rates are determined by the LCU type. The Suffix value doesn't impact movement. Movement rates are modified by the terrain type and by the fatigue value of the unit. (for example, an LCU with 99% fatigue would only move half as far as a unit with 0 fatigue)

 
So how to diferentiate Foot Infantry from Motorised Infantry?
 

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Dili

So how to diferentiate Foot Infantry from Motorised Infantry?

You designate the LCU that contains them as an armor unit in the editor.

[Dili]

Okay. Thanks.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Dili

So how to diferentiate Foot Infantry from Motorised Infantry?

You designate the LCU that contains them as an armor unit in the editor.

Nik appears to be correct. It may be that ALL squads in an "armored" unit move faster - and if so - that is a good thing.

Note that infantry is not motorized as such - and also note that is technically consistent with the real world: infantry is pretty much worthless unless dismounted. There have been THEORIES about changing that since WW I - but only today MIGHT it be true we have some idea - and the vehicles - to permit effective fighting mounted. In WW II the nearest thing to true APCs were invented by Japan - and what armor buff wants to admit Japan was leading the world in APCs in WWII?
Surely the handful produced never won any significant action. And almost as surely - in all the years since - there have been countless times armor got in trouble facing infantry - or even irregulars (the classic case being Budapest where the main enemy was civilians - where 2000 tanks and hundreds of APCs were committed - and the cost was horrendous).

Anyway - like it or not in theory - WITP just has infantry. I pair an infantry squad with motorized support to call it motorized. I create an AFV and pair it with motorized support for armored infantry. Artillery is even worse - ALL WITP artillery is more or less the same - in a movement sense. Also you cannot create an AFV that is artillery - I don't think - and if you can we have to somehow lie to code. Only artillery is treated as artillery - so pair it with motorized support to make it mobile. AAA is the same - putting AAA on an AFV does NOT work. But pairing AAA with motorized support approximates it.

Assuming Nik has hit the nail on the head (theory wise) - all this becomes pretty much academic: IF we call the formation armored - anything in it - including infantry squads, artillery squads and AAA squads - will move at the armored unit rate. I cannot show he is wrong in any test (I am up to 305 long game tests and half again that many short game tests) - and I think he is right. Still - ask Joe.

[Dili]

There have been THEORIES about changing that since WW I - but only today MIGHT it be true we have some idea - and the vehicles - to permit effective fighting mounted.

 
No. That theory was proposed by Soviets for the first developed IFV: BMP. Arabs used it by the book in 1973 against Israel and the Valley of Tears was littered with BMPs destroyed with the infantry inside. Soviet doutrine corrections later  said that the infantry element must dismout at 300-500m from objective, NATO copied it more or less. I suppose that will change depending on AT weapons of the enemy, terrain etc. Right now most new IFVs came without fire ports so a change of doutrine is not expected by any army. Btw Bradleys  have theirs covered by armor.
 
 

ALL WITP artillery is more or less the same - in a movement sense. Also you cannot create an AFV that is artillery - I don't think - and if you can we have to somehow lie to code. Only artillery is treated as artillery - so pair it with motorized support to make it mobile. AAA is the same - putting AAA on an AFV does NOT work. But pairing AAA with motorized support approximates it.

 
I think i read that weapons with 5  or more range fire indirectly (unfortunately that doesnt work for most mortars that have usually less range). I think that defines an Artillery piece. Would AFV tag void that?
 

Nik appears to be correct. It may be that ALL squads in an "armored" unit move faster - and if so - that is a good thing.

 
I would have prefered a way that made possible to transform a foot unit in a motorised unit during the war, something that doesnt appears possible right now. Hmm unless i update the TOE starting with Infantry and changing to Armored.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

There have been THEORIES about changing that since WW I - but only today MIGHT it be true we have some idea - and the vehicles - to permit effective fighting mounted.

No. That theory was proposed by Soviets for the first developed IFV: BMP. Arabs used it by the book in 1973 against Israel and the Valley of Tears was littered with BMPs destroyed with the infantry inside. Soviet doutrine corrections later  said that the infantry element must dismout at 300-500m from objective, NATO copied it more or less. I suppose that will change depending on AT weapons of the enemy, terrain etc. Right now most new IFVs came without fire ports so a change of doutrine is not expected by any army. Btw Bradleys  have theirs covered by armor.

I refer to tankette theory of the 1920s. These were NOT invented in Japan FYI, but were instead copied by Japan from European countries. [It is a bit hypocritical to criticize Japanese micro armor when in fact it was merely a slightly improved form of vehicles we usually regard as sensible. Even the USA tried to field an "airborne armor" tank - only to find it insufficiently protected. Yet to this day you find micro tanks in the British Army - see Scorpion and Scmitar.]
Theorists wanted more or less every squad (or fire team) in a separate vehicle. [We have managed to get to squad level, but never fire team level IRL]. Yet in any serious situation, and in lots of special situations, there is no effective substitute for going in on foot. A military unit incapable of sending in walking infantry cannot be effective - except perhaps in completely open terrain (as in Falklands lowlands, desert, the plains of Ukraine or Kansas) - and even then - when I had to contemplate getting in the way of GFSG on the North German Plain - I believed my best chance to live a while and contribute to the battle was dismounted, with a 19th century weapon (something like a Mauser 98 with a telescope). Being in a vehicle tends to get you killed on a modern battlefield. Everybody has weapons that will kill you - and you get noticed a whole lot more than dispersed infantrymen do.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Dili

[
I think i read that weapons with 5  or more range fire indirectly (unfortunately that doesnt work for most mortars that have usually less range). I think that defines an Artillery piece. Would AFV tag void that?

[quote]

The thing you read might be true.

I am able to simulate mortars with ranges less than 5 however. What I learned was that two other factors matter.
This is detailed on some other thread. I had to play with products to get the same code effect - but eventually I got light mortars to work - in the sense of attack - and larger mortars to work - in the sense of bombard. Same for MMG - which I added and generally are missing in WITP mods.

What defines an artillery unit as artillery is the unit type. If you don't define it as "artillery unit", it isn't. Except for certain purposes a "coast defense unit" is also an "artillery unit." Possibly also an "AAA unit" is also an "artillery unit" for certain functions.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

[

Nik appears to be correct. It may be that ALL squads in an "armored" unit move faster - and if so - that is a good thing.

I would have prefered a way that made possible to transform a foot unit in a motorised unit during the war, something that doesnt appears possible right now. Hmm unless i update the TOE starting with Infantry and changing to Armored.

It is hard to grasp how much has happened since this system was first concieved. For a 1980s vintage bit of software, it is remarkable how much it can do. The limits on program size and data base size (then) were unbelievably severe from our present point of view.

And you have missed Nik's point (unless I am confused): it isn't the squad type (like I said above) that matters - it is the unit classification. Unless it is an "armored unit" - it isn't. Specifically to address your original question - unless it is an "armored unit" it isn't going to move faster. And we cannot change the unit type during the game. Well - not unless you want to do it by changing the field in a save game file - something that takes a programmer familiar with file structure - since we don't have an approved in turn editor (which I think should be a product, but which I guess will never be - due to strange concern with "security" - because no sane person is going to make his work creating turns meaningless by cheating).

The CHS and RHS principle which applies here (maybe a WITP principle) is this: a unit exists in its ORIGINAL form, and not in a later form. In RHS I also adopted Joe Wilkersons idea (maybe also a WITP idea) that you can start a unit with fewer squads and point at a formation that adds numbers and or types of squads. And then I created Armored Divisions out of Tank Brigades (for IJA) by putting everything NOT in the tank brigade in a fictional "mechanized brigade" - IRL there was a motorized infantry regiment, a mech infantry battalion, an artillery unit, an AA unit, and engineers - and these were mixed with tank brigade elements to form combat teams. In RHS you get all the parts - but in two radically different formations - and only by being in the same hex do you get the right effect of the combined arms team.

[Dili]

And you have missed Nik's point (unless I am confused): it isn't the squad type (like I said above) that matters - it is the unit classification. Unless it is an "armored unit" - it isn't.

 
I only said what was desirable not what works.
 

The CHS and RHS principle which applies here (maybe a WITP principle) is this: a unit exists in its ORIGINAL form, and not in a later form.

 
I made a mistake, for some reason i assumed that was a update field in LCU TOE's and it was possible to update TOE's, so there would be a 1941 Infantry Div TOE that would update to a 1942 Infantry Div TOE. I was wrong so yes the only way is to start like you said "with fewer squads and point at a formation that adds numbers and or types of squads" or of course like you also said adding new capabilities as independent units.
 
So it is impossible to turn a foot based unit(Infantry) into a motorised unit(Armored).