Motorised/mechanised independent Anti-Tank

[Destragon]

I noticed that you can't raise motorised or mechanised independent anti-tank units.
I assume this is an oversight, cause you can build motorised artillery, so why not anti-tank?

Edit: To clearify, I meant that we can currently not raise an independent anti-tank gun unit that comes with trucks, unlike independent artillery gun units, which can be raised with trucks.

Airplane update edit: We now have flak guns and the same applies to them.

[Malevolence]

See this discussion...

More OOBs

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: Clux

Motorized AT guns: since we can have motorized arty, why not AT guns? they need to move a lot faster since they will be defending the frontline from tanks, which normally are faster than infantry

Isn't that in the game already?

Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers?

or do you mean AT Guns towed by Motorized trucks or mechanized APCs? I assumed they were towed. You can't haul them very far by hand. You would need horses or other beasts.

I suppose in my head, I didn't think the infantry were marching 250km each hex either--not with industrial age equipment. The transportation was simply less organized than the more specific OOB provided. Certainly those Operational Logistics Points aren't covering 5,000km back and forth each turn on foot.

[Malevolence]

Also for reference, Make Unit Types More Generic In Formation OOB's

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Clearly my suggestion to modify OOB's was not a hit. [:D]

Eliminate or modify the Assault Infantry Formation

The new suggestion: make the model requirements for formation OOB's less restrictive of model types.

Examples...

Infantry can be Infantry, MG Infantry, RPG Infantry

Transport can be Truck, APC, IFV

Artillery can be towed-artillery, self-propelled artillery

Tanks can be Light, Medium, Heavy, etc.

etc.

With respect to formations, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

In the current WW2 models, we had a certain amount of history as a guide. With science fiction, we have historical, post-apocalyptic, modern, post-modern, and future models to consider and perhaps suggest.

Since we can already pick multiple models in the Raise Formation dialog window, allow players to choose any model in keeping with it's super-type.

With the current OOB design pattern, the players are left to negotiate and lobby for their method to be included as a hard coded design. This change, however, puts the responsibility on the player and not the OOB design. If you want a specific model equipped in a formation, the onus is on the player to provide the technology and the resources. If someone else wants something different, the onus is on them to provide it.

This also allows the game developers to retain their control and vision for the strengths and weakness of each super-type and type. MG Infantry are good in the defense, etc.

[Destragon]

I think you might be missing the point, Malevolence. This thread is just about a probable bug/oversight.

We can raise independent artillery units either with or without trucks. Without trucks, they have "foot" movement type, with trucks they have "wheel" movement type.
The weird thing is that we cannot raise independent anti-tank units with trucks (as far as I can tell). We can only raise them without trucks, meaning they are only available with "foot" movement type.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Destragon

I think you might be missing the point, Malevolence. This thread is just about a probable bug/oversight.

We can raise independent artillery units either with or without trucks. Without trucks, they have "foot" movement type, with trucks they have "wheel" movement type.
The weird thing is that we cannot raise independent anti-tank units with trucks (as far as I can tell). We can only raise them without trucks, meaning they are only available with "foot" movement type.

Sounds like it is on the buggy side.

And since this is about indepoendant Units, OOB does not realy factor into the discssion.

[Malevolence]

I'm not missing the point... and nothing I added as reference indicated you were incorrect.

The bug could just as easily be including independent towed artillery with or sans trucks.

Both units have to be towed by something.

My point is such an issue includes trucks or APCs (or any tractor like a HET, or any future airmobile sling load, etc.) and should be consistent as you have suggested.

How do faster at-guns units impact the already included self-propelled antitank models?

Were self-propelled artillery units already designed with the independent towed artillery with or sans trucks already considered? Maybe there is a hidden bug there?

What I wrote stresses the need for a whole, consistent design solution that anticipates consequences, instead of just adding more OOB's so at-guns will move faster.

With respect to formations, I keep thinking all the different model types (i.e. dimensions) are causing unnecessary complexity. It's a combinatorial explosion. Each model type adds an exponential increase of possible OOB's. As the potential for new models becomes a reality, I think it's important to consider the implications.

[zgrssd]

@Malevolence:
You seem far off-topic.

This is about there being no "Independant Motorized Anti-Tank gun" unit.
Wich looks like a oversight.

This is not a discussion about OOB's. OOB and Independant Units are fundamental opposites.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

@Malevolence:
You seem far off-topic.

This is about there being no "Independant Motorized Anti-Tank gun" unit.
Wich looks like a oversight.

This is not a discussion about OOB's. OOB and Independant Units are fundamental opposites.

Clearly an independent unit is an OOB, it is not, however, a formation of units. Go back an read my post about tables of organization and equipment. [;)]

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

@Malevolence:
You seem far off-topic.

This is about there being no "Independant Motorized Anti-Tank gun" unit.
Wich looks like a oversight.

This is not a discussion about OOB's. OOB and Independant Units are fundamental opposites.

Clearly an independent unit is an OOB, it is not, however, a formation of units. Go back an read my post about tables of organization and equipment. [;)]

You clearly understood what I said. And how your discussion does not fit here. Please just stop. You are not helping this Bug Report.

[Vic]

Taking a note on the AT guns. In the meantime you can always move them by Strategic transfer.

[Destragon]

I'm bumping this as a reminder, because there are still no motorised anti-tank gun formations, but also because we're also missing motorised flak gun formations, too, now.

[Vic]

Yes I should ideally put them in, its just a bit of crunch time with other competing items i want to put in asap.

[Destragon]

That's alright. I don't mean to pressure you. I was mainly bumping in case they were forgot about, especially now that we have the flak guns, too.

[Vic]

Will be added in beta20 !

[Destragon]

[&o]