Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Concerning the ages of the early engineer units, I very recently read that even the earliest SeaBee units were made up of men up to mid-fifties because it was their experience that was need,(not unlike the Aussie units proposed here.)
With the harsh weather and hard work, these older folks did suffer attrition, and as the war progressed and the average age dropped, so did the experience level, and quality of work suffer.
FWIW, while the Australian units were retained as civilians, they laboured on, together, not unlike their military counterparts.
I think it proper they be remembered.

It is traditional in English speaking countries that military service is permitted until age 55. Japan adopted that same standard in the 19th century - and when it committed its last and oldest class of reserves - 55 year olds - it also implemented its war termination plan in the Russo Japanese War. That "short victorious war" was notably very different from WWII in that Japan HAD a plan to end it! Curiously, that plan won Teddy Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth (Maine). It does not seem unreasonable to have such age groups in service - and in some countries (notably Israel) they are preferred for combat engineering tasks (because of a notable increase in maturity with age they are instructed to refuse to do overly dangerous tasks).

In RHS, since you have civil engineers at every major point you may need them already, the few mobile military engineer units should be more free to move to undeveloped points. I see no way to create a mobile civil engineer unit which would not always be misused by AI - and while I don't recommend playing with Allies under AI control - I hate to mess it up worse than it inherently is. I also think few players would know (and therefore be able to honor) a house rule - and so even in human games they would be moved overseas in many - perhaps even most cases.

Andrew said he was unsure "how much of a restriction a restricted command is on AI." Not much. AI has a very different command system than humans use - and it routinely assigns units to the local ARMY or Corps HQ - and does not pay any attention to our regional restricted HQ. Nevertheless, such a command assignment will slow humans down, and force them to spend valuable PP, which are much more difficult to come by in non RHS scenarios - so it will matter more.

This idea (adding civil engineers) has merit - and I probably have added more civil units (including transports, aviation support, engineers, laborers and support) than everyone else combined. My concern from a game design point of view is that players and AI will tend to concentrate everything available for an offensive attack - including civilians - if they are easy to move. Fact of game design life. That is why I make civilian units immobile - to distinguish them from units which under orders will move to engage the enemy. The civilians will fight - sort of (some of my civilian squads have firepower values of 0 and 1) - if the enemy comes to them.

Note that one might say that USN Seabees are civilians. They were made of civilian contractors. But they were technically militarized, wore uniforms, given combat training. I don't think this is exactly similar to the Aussie organization. If constituted - it is delightful chrome.

Sid..Is there ANY way to have an engineer unit with "zero" military/assault/defense capability, which could ONLY construct?
If so, this in itself might prevent misuse, even by the AI?

Please note I am asking from a position of total ignorance on the internals of this program.
I might be hellacious (sp?) on some ideas, but I prefer to ask people in a position to know..

Standard engineers have a small assault value, but I believe it is only in defense.  Most of the engineer units do not show an AV value.  The ones that do have infantry or combat engineer squads in them.

Bill

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid..Is there ANY way to have an engineer unit with "zero" military/assault/defense capability, which could ONLY construct?
If so, this in itself might prevent misuse, even by the AI?

Please note I am asking from a position of total ignorance on the internals of this program.
I might be hellacious (sp?) on some ideas, but I prefer to ask people in a position to know..

Actually, engineers as such have a significant (Range = 0) combat rating. There are two types of proper construction engineers - engineers or pioneers (meaning walking) and motorized engineers or engineer vehicles (the name depends on the mod) - have anti-armor values of 15 and anti-soft values of 6.

But "combat engineers" sometimes have very low values. RHS Field hand squads have anti-armor = 0 and anti-soft = 1 while RHS Labor squads are 0, 0. These squads DO help construction - but require at least one "real" construction engineer be present or no construction will occur. Most combat engineers / sappers have significant combat values - but they need not.

Construction engineers probably need to retain their combat values - because they are used by both sides and many units. Making them 0 is probably not good modeling. And no, a copy of an engineer does not work. I tried. This is slot coded.

In CHS, construction engineers are weaker.  Engineer vehicles are 1/5 and Engineers are 1/9.  (Anti Soft being the higher number.)

Bill

ORIGINAL: el cid again

<Snip> Curiously, that plan won Teddy Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth (Maine).

Historical niggle: Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: el cid again

<Snip> Curiously, that plan won Teddy Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth (Maine).

Historical niggle: Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA

Blackhorse, I remember when your unit was in the Fulda Gap, with a combat life expectancy of about 4 minutes...Very high espirit de corps..

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Blackhorse, I remember when your unit was in the Fulda Gap, with a combat life expectancy of about 4 minutes...Very high espirit de corps..

Indeed. I was there, then. (Or, as we Old Soldiers like to start off our stories, "There I was . . ."). I was with H Company and then Fox Troop of the 11th ACR from 1981 - 1984.

Our squadron (2/11) covered the southern flank of the regiment, and were actually south of the Fulda Gap. So our life expectancy was much higher (say, 8-10 minutes). Per the old Battle Plan, Fox Troop was actually the southernmost unit in the US Vth Corps, and we tied in with a batallion from the German II (?) Corps.

In 2005, as a civilian US gov't bureaucrat, I was posted to Iraq -- and got to visit the Blackhorse regiment, deployed near Mosul. That was cool -- visiting the regiment, I mean, not being stationed in Iraq
[;)]

The regiment had lots of neat vehicles -- but no Tank Destroyers, alas.