Thoughts on "Heavy Tanks"

[TheBattlefield]

So now the Tank Groups were converted to the new unit "Heavy Tanks". This is of course a very subjective feeling but somehow this renaming seems a little unhappy to me. Again such a topic of game haptics.

A strategy game on a global level will designate its military branches usually according to their respective sizes of organization (armies, corps, divisons, brigades and so on). In my eyes the term "Tank Group" was a good compromise to avoid the partially different organization names of of the warring nations. Although in the course of the war almost all bigger organisation units of the armoured weapon were equipped in different scales with heavy tanks. An exclusive equipment with "heavy tanks" was left structurally only to the smaller organisations far below divisions and brigades.

For an armoured corps heavy tanks are probably more an additional equipment sign than a name of the whole unit. Of course, at last it is only a new name for a part of the armoured weapon, but maybe still other thoughts have come along on this subject. [8D]

[BillRunacre]

One thing that will change going forward is that their Action Points will default to 3 rather than 2.

Maybe if these are taken to be armoured units with a spearhead of Heavy Tanks it might feel more appropriate, as the actual unit of Tanks is both more mobile but less hard hitting?

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

One thing that will change going forward is that their Action Points will default to 3 rather than 2.

Maybe if these are taken to be armoured units with a spearhead of Heavy Tanks it might feel more appropriate, as the actual unit of Tanks is both more mobile but less hard hitting?

Please, do not misunderstand me, Bill. I did not mean the new adjustment of the armoured units in the gameplay. It will be attractive certainly! (After a short holiday break I have just started with the new version!)

I have referred exclusively to the new naming of these units which, in comparison to the other units, is now regardless of the military organisation size. For me it would be also a reason for doubt if the "Mechanized Infantry" were renamed as "Heavy Infantry" and the "Mountain Infantry" changed to "Light Infantry". Would also not be absolutely wrong, however, concerning the scale of the game, well, rather improperly. Does my consideration become a little clearer?

[sPzAbt653]

I was also against the names at first, but since discovering that with a little tinkering the names can be displayed 'properly' for those of us that are anal about it, it has become a non-issue for me. This re-naming can be done right in the game, no need for using the editor [but that can be done also]. So for my opinion, I'd rather Bill and Hubert spend their valuable time on other things than to worry about these names.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

One thing that will change going forward is that their Action Points will default to 3 rather than 2.

Maybe if these are taken to be armoured units with a spearhead of Heavy Tanks it might feel more appropriate, as the actual unit of Tanks is both more mobile but less hard hitting?

Please, do not misunderstand me, Bill. I did not mean the new adjustment of the armoured units in the gameplay. It will be attractive certainly! (After a short holiday break I have just started with the new version!)

I have referred exclusively to the new naming of these units which, in comparison to the other units, is now regardless of the military organisation size. For me it would be also a reason for doubt if the "Mechanized Infantry" were renamed as "Heavy Infantry" and the "Mountain Infantry" changed to "Light Infantry". Would also not be absolutely wrong, however, concerning the scale of the game, well, rather improperly. Does my consideration become a little clearer?

I do understand, and did think about naming them as Tank Division/Tank Corps instead, but making that change would require amending all orders of battle in the game, with lots of consequent rebalancing and retesting.

I also think that given the game's scale, any units of divisional size should be very rare indeed, which is why I think of these two Tank units as being roughly equivalent in size, but with one just having slightly different attributes to the other. One being more useful for mobile operations, the other for delivering a hefty punch!

[TheBattlefield]

@sPzAbt653
Thanks for the tip, sir. This was only one exchange of thoughts, therefore, I have put my post in the "free" half of the beta forum.

@Bill
Don't worry. The game would satisfy even with the names "Tank I." and "Tank II."[;)]
The older I get, the harder I find the separation of familiar things...thanks, Bill!

[BillRunacre]

[:)]