More Flexible Unit Naming

[Arcalane]

Something for flavour/fluff, but it'd be nice to have slightly more flexible unit naming options.

I figure how it works is something like this; upon completing a new unit design, you're given a prompt for the base model name (e.g. "Tiger") which is static across all variants of the unit. Then you pick a model/variant naming scheme from a list;
- M[Full year] (e.g. Tiger M1928)
- M[Short year] (e.g. Tiger M28)
- M[Model number] (e.g. Tiger M1)
- Mark # (e.g. Tiger Mk 1/2/3/4)
- Mark R# (e.g. Tiger Mk I/II/III/etc.)

When upgrading, you'd have a couple of options;
- Increment existing (e.g. M1928 becomes M1938 if updated in 1938, Mark 1/I becomes Mark 2/II, and so on)
- Submodel A[Number] (e.g. Tiger M1 becomes Tiger M1A1)
- Modification [Letter] (e.g. Tiger Mark 1 becomes Tiger Mark 1 Mod. A)
- Name Prefix (e.g. Tiger becomes Super Tiger)
- One of submodel/mod/prefix + increment

Or just give us freedom to name units whatever we want, without being restricted by the auto-incrementing model number or auto-renaming previous unit models. That'd work too and probably be a lot easier.

[BlueTemplar]

I think that the underlying issue here might be that for some reason we're allowed to have, say :
Blitzer II to be an anti-infantry design with a howitzer, while Blizer III is an anti-tank design with a HVG ?

Then you get confused as to which one is which...

Maybe the Howitzer tank models should be restricted to not being able to share the model line with HVG (and then Energy, since it's anti-hard too ?) models ?

[zgrssd]

Maybe the Howitzer tank models should be restricted to not being able to share the model line with HVG (and then Energy, since it's anti-hard too ?) models ?

If he did such a limitation, he might even be able to enabled Upgrade as a Option for vehicles. Something we are doing in the real world:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4940295

[Arcalane]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

I think that the underlying issue here might be that for some reason we're allowed to have, say :
Blitzer II to be an anti-infantry design with a howitzer, while Blizer III is an anti-tank design with a HVG ?

Then you get confused as to which one is which...

Maybe the Howitzer tank models should be restricted to not being able to share the model line with HVG (and then Energy, since it's anti-hard too ?) models ?

That's certainly a risk with the current system, but I don't think it's fair to ask players to design a whole new model if they want to switch between weapons.

Instead, I think it would be better to determine the BP cost based on the degree of modifications the player is asking of the bureau, as opposed to a flat cost based on unclear values. It's one thing to make a few incremental improvements based on field testing results; it's another entirely to take a tank and replace the gun, engine, and armour setup entirely!

Having a more flexible name system (either through different fixed options, or free-naming) would help avoid such headaches. For instance I might set it up so that the Tiger M1 is always HV guns, and the Tiger M2 is always howitzers. Both become the M1A1 and M2A1 with the addition of stronger composite/polymer armour. Later, I take the best of the two and create the M3, which uses a laser cannon. It's much easier to keep track of which is which at that point, because I've created my own mnemonic device.

---

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
If he did such a limitation, he might even be able to enabled Upgrade as a Option for vehicles. Something we are doing in the real world:
-

Being able to upgrade vehicles would be nice for sure - it doesn't make sense to me that you can only upgrade infantry. Perhaps super-drastic overhauls shouldn't be permitted (at some point, you just have to recycle those really old scrapheaps) based on tech differences, but if I'm taking my buggies and swapping out the machinegun for a rapid-fire machinegun that really shouldn't require scrapping the old one entirely.

[BlueTemplar]

That's certainly a risk with the current system, but I don't think it's fair to ask players to design a whole new model if they want to switch between weapons.

It's not *that* unfair... because there are a whopping 6 different tank model types in the game (not even talking about other model types), 5 of which do not even require any research and 2 & 3 of which share the same formation type !

[FalconSMG1]

I agree-for exactly the reasons Blur templar noted. The base unit can be used for a range of designs bit they are all called guard 1,2 3 even though one has auto, one gauss and the third laser weapons!

[BlueTemplar]

Right, it becomes inconsistent for small arms too once Liquid Armor & Shields start to come into play, since bullets & laser have pretty opposite performances against those ones..?

Still, I'm not sure I would suggest doing the same for small arms, because while there are 10 small arms (& "medium arms" : "light" walker) model types in the game, they are *much* more specialized than tanks ?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: FalconSMG1

I agree-for exactly the reasons Blur templar noted. The base unit can be used for a range of designs bit they are all called guard 1,2 3 even though one has auto, one gauss and the third laser weapons!

In 1969, the US Army upgraded from Carbine (M14 Rifle) to Automatic Rifle (M16).
Yet the nickname "GI" has persisted since before WW1.

Infantry is the least issue. You always find the newest, hottest shit to equip your soldiers with. Then make it standard issue and begin the rollout. Until you find a new, hotter shit.

[BlueTemplar]

A similar, but also different issue happens with aircraft, where the same model line can *also* switch reinforcement types !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB6rHnX ... 4&t=23m49s

[Arcalane]

Aircraft are actually exactly another reason this came to mind; I redesigned a bomber into a transport at one point, but any renaming of the new model renamed the base one too. Being able to name the two seperately would be very nice for avoiding confusion.

I do wonder if there's some kind of underlying engine reason that the name has to be the same across an entire line?

edit- come to think of it, why can't we design proper knockoffs of the AC-130 or A-10/Su-25 either? [:(]

[BlueTemplar]

There's even a gameplay reason : model line design upgrade BP costs increase quadratically (?) with each new Mk !

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Arcalane

Aircraft are actually exactly another reason this came to mind; I redesigned a bomber into a transport at one point, but any renaming of the new model renamed the base one too. Being able to name the two seperately would be very nice for avoiding confusion.

I do wonder if there's some kind of underlying engine reason that the name has to be the same across an entire line?

edit- come to think of it, why can't we design proper knockoffs of the AC-130 or A-10/Su-25 either? [:(]

I do think Vic could change it so each model has it's own name. It is just a ton of work to change something so fundamental so late in development.