Mech v. Arm

[Becket]

I noticed in the AAR that the units represented by the tank icon are called "mech" units. I don't know all the facts about the game, so maybe I'm way off base here, but it seems like it might be better to call these units "armored" (or "ARM" for short).

We've already got infantry, and when I think of infantry in a game like this, I tend to lump mechanized and non-mechanized infantry together. If you asked me what a "mech" unit was, I would think of mechanized infantry -- infantry equipped with halftracks, etc. I would not think of tank armies.

Therefore, in a game of this scale, it seems more appropriate to have a unit type representing infantry of various flavors, and another unit type representing tank armies with the "ARM" designation.

However, as I said, maybe there are points I'm not thinking of here or specific game reasons to do it this way.

[pterrok]

It looked to me like the speed of the Mech units was 2 and that of infantry 1. Can you increase the speed of Infantry? If so, THEN they would become Mech Infantry to my way of thinking. (Or maybe it would be Calvalry? Or Mechanized Cavalry?)

The current Mech units seem like they SHOULD be called Armor, but I guess I'd have to go back and read the AAR to see if they tend to natively have higher armor values, etc. But currently it seems to be that they are faster either because they ARE armor or else have a motor pool attached to them.

[MButtazoni]

at this scale (corps and armies) no country operated pure "Tank" TO&E. even the German Pz Corps had a LOT of infantry in their TO&E. so the blend is referred to as Mechanized for this game's purposes.

[Becket]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

at this scale (corps and armies) no country operated pure "Tank" TO&E. even the German Pz Corps had a LOT of infantry in their TO&E. so the blend is referred to as Mechanized for this game's purposes.

From a pure historical perspective, that does make sense. My point is really about optics and gameplay more than anything else -- sort of like the naming of turns. I think a player would assume that the "tank" icon represents the concentration of his armored forces, so mechanized just seems a little confusing.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Becket

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

at this scale (corps and armies) no country operated pure "Tank" TO&E. even the German Pz Corps had a LOT of infantry in their TO&E. so the blend is referred to as Mechanized for this game's purposes.

From a pure historical perspective, that does make sense. My point is really about optics and gameplay more than anything else -- sort of like the naming of turns. I think a player would assume that the "tank" icon represents the concentration of his armored forces, so mechanized just seems a little confusing.

I agree with the armor comment. I almost always refer to them as armor and although the data files say mechanized, I'm hoping to change the code to interpret this as Armor in the game.

[Becket]

Thanks, Joel! Between this and the WitP information, you are really making my day better. [:)]

[AnimalAl]

at this scale (corps and armies) no country operated pure "Tank" TO&E. even the German Pz Corps had a LOT of infantry in their TO&E. so the blend is referred to as Mechanized for this game's purposes.

It has been my observation that the British and French, and to some degree even the Americans, used tanks in support of infantry and so dispersed their tank units amongst infantry divisions. I don't think you can say the same for the Germans - while they did have infantry presence in the Pz Corps, there were distinct tank divisions and distinct tank tactics, etc, is that not so? There really was no "mechanized" forces, at best the Brits were tooling around in those Bren carriers, everyone else was motorized "truck-borne" forces.

Vote for tank units distinct from motorized or mech!!!

V/R
Animal Al