IDEA: alternate unit types

[SittingDuck]

So I've been thinking about, and messing with, some of the unit types:

1) Anti-tank units
2) Field Artillery


The former never sat right for me. I can accept large artillery units better than a large AT unit. The latter is not 'used' in the game, but in fact can be activated through the editor (and used).

So to understand things a bit more, the AT units are considered 'light armor', the Field Artillery are considered... artillery.

(I know - you are all stunned by that last one)...

Anyhow, what I've been thinking about are how SP-Art and TDs are not really found in the game. Now this does get into everyone's concept of 'what does that tank unit represent' or 'what does that army unit represent'? Which kinda seems obvious, but in fact you'd find the AT and or ART in the Armies, and other attachment units in various units as represented in SC:WaW.

Anyhow, I know it is possible to alter the units, and I have done so. Like I said in another post, I did gimp the AT unit into functioning more like a 1-hex range artillery unit (armor piercing capacity and basically defensive fire only, but kinda lethal). That works. It would also work to make it into a TD unit.

Further, I have messed with the Field Artillery and made it into a mobile, armored (def values) unit that hangs back a hex and has a 2-hex firing range.

What I am saying is, it is all possible. I am just curious what people would like to see represented? I am working on a mod, and intend to mess with this a bit further.

SORRY! I cannot activate 'Synthetic Oil'.

Let's just blame that on Bill

[SittingDuck]

Oddly enough, I was reading back through the E-Book, and looked at the descriptor of the unit types, specifically the AT one, and it includes both stationary guns and SP TDs...

Not sure what to think of that. The movement/armor(defensive values) for each would be quite diff.

[Anonymous]

I think the designers are just giving us a "flavor" of a variety of units available and it shouldn't be all encompassing to reflect every type that was available. I'd be happy if both weren't in the game at all.

[SittingDuck]

Kind of agree with you in that. Actually, that can in fact be the case through the Editor (just as I did that for the test of the Field Artllery).

[SittingDuck]

I ended up dropping the action points for the early AT to zero to start, then on upgrade #1 it gets some mobility with an AP through. Then another one on upgrade #2. Then on upgrade #3, it looks like things have shifted from AT guns to actual tank destroyers, so the APs - as they pile up - actually are more representative of a TD unit (than an fixed gun unit).

I also adjusted the soft/hard/lightarmor/tank defense values so they start low and ramp up toward the latter upgrades, to represent moving from a fixed gun (with little protection) to a Jagdpanther or w/e.

Kinda interesting.

[stryc]

I'm new to the game but I have found the AT units to be odd beasts; they don't really know what they're supposed to be. They seem strangely separated at this scale, which feels odd. Consequently, I don't see them being used much - at least by me.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: stryc

I'm new to the game but I have found the AT units to be odd beasts; they don't really know what they're supposed to be. They seem strangely separated at this scale, which feels odd. Consequently, I don't see them being used much - at least by me.

They are odd beasts but are useful if applied correctly with other units...especially if they have the mobility upgrade. I'm still trying to figure out the bet approaches with them though. They can shred superior enemy tank units for sure.

[stryc]

I suppose, but to the mind's eye they're confused. They seem too strong in defence to be TDs and too strong in attack to be Paks (et al). It's as if they shouldn't exist at this scale and should instead be represented as a tank defence pip bonus for Corps/Armies to represent the presence of Paks (et al), or a production cost reduction and tank defence pip penalty for tank units to represent TDs.

[SittingDuck]

I do think dropping down their stage 1&2 attack/defense values is highly appropriate. Early guns didn't have the punch that they are assigned in the game at that stage. I also really don't like their ability to be so offensive early on.

I'll keep playing with it. Maybe put up some of my numbers, per stage of development.

[stryc]

Tweak away. My opinion is still that they shouldn't exist as a discreet unit at this scale.

[SittingDuck]

Fully agreed, and my initial comments (not in this thread, but on the forum) questioned their inclusion vs an 'attachment' for infantry divisions/armies. In fact, they can be made the latter. Also, ATs could be taken out entirely, and I'm not against that. OTOH, ATs can also serve as attachments (upgrades) to units (just as mobility, anti-aircraft, infantry weapons, etc) and do not have to be units at all. I think that can be made fairly realistic. The research upgrade area (not on the game, but in the editor) is very rich as to what it allows.

For example, I've utilized the Synthetic Oil, Trench Warfare and Shell Production 'techs' to give specific nations enhancements on their abilities to reflect their unique military 'behavior' (for lack of a better word). It just comes down to defining how those 'techs' show up in the game and what they do. But there is a lot of flexibility in the Editor. I'll always cry for more - or want more: the ability to 'open' techs up to research (via chronological flag), the ability to 'read' what a country has researched or not (for scripting purposes and to open/shut doors for other scripts). It's kinda endless, but so be it. That's creativity.

[SittingDuck]

OK, having said all that above, I've had a thought:

What if we were to take out the Brigade and Division units (in reality, rename/retool) and make them into Armies or Corps with various 'attachments' (using HOI terminology) such as artillery, engineer, anti-tank.

We could have a standard 'Army with an artillery brigade attachment' (via the upgrade tool), and 'Army with an engineer brigade attachment', and so on.

It would also be possible to retool the AT unit into another type of armor unit, or a more combined arms kind of unit. In fact, I tend to think that is what most of these units should represent, given the scale of the game (hex scale).

Anyhow, just more thoughts...

[stryc]

Agree that AT unit should be removed and instead represented as modifiers to existing units (cf. abstracted 'attachment' mechanic). Sounds good. Looking forward to not seeing an bunch of Paks assault (yes, assault) their way through an Army. [:)]