True Foot Infantry

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5495
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

True Foot Infantry

Post by Lobster »

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to give static equipment organic transport by making it slow motorized and uncheck the static flag. Then eliminate the supply train in the TOE. That will make foot units truely foot units. Because that supply train increases the movement allowance of the foot infantry beyond what it should be. I know, some artillery is horse drawn. But how do you split horse drawn and motorized artillery? You can't do it in any logical fashion so just make it all slow motorized. That way the game engine won't look at the supply train and go, 'Oh look, trucks. Let's give that unit more movement points!". Then put the supply train if the HQ unit instead of in the combat units. :?:
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
User avatar
cathar1244
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

Re: True Foot Infantry

Post by cathar1244 »

Sort of boils down to assigning "movement factors".

A different issue, but of the same flavor, involves assignment of armed transport equipment (halftrack etc).

I think it was you who pointed out each piece of transport equipment can carry two pieces of transportable equipment.

But what if one wants all of the AA firepower included in a unit. Should a designer used unarmed transport in a quantity to "produce" a desired movement speed for the unit, and include the desired number of heavy machine guns to match what would have been mounted on the halftracks ? :|

Dunno. There are work arounds for these questions, but they have their own baggage.

:D
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5495
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

Re: True Foot Infantry

Post by Lobster »

cathar1244 wrote: Sat Nov 29, 2025 7:40 pm Sort of boils down to assigning "movement factors".

A different issue, but of the same flavor, involves assignment of armed transport equipment (halftrack etc).

I think it was you who pointed out each piece of transport equipment can carry two pieces of transportable equipment.

But what if one wants all of the AA firepower included in a unit. Should a designer used unarmed transport in a quantity to "produce" a desired movement speed for the unit, and include the desired number of heavy machine guns to match what would have been mounted on the halftracks ? :|

Dunno. There are work arounds for these questions, but they have their own baggage.

:D
Actually one transport can tow any number of static equipment. Armed transport or not. And armed transport combat values already include any mounted MGs. I suppose you could have the transport and the MGs separate to model MGs that can be used dismounted. You still have the halftrack conundrum. In combat one halftrack equipment is one halftrack but it's any number of halftracks when its transportation ability is taken into account.
What might be nice regarding transport is a unit's movement dependant on the icon. An infantry icon moves as fast as the slowest equipment. A motorized icon moves as fast as the slowest transport or equipment. Still problems with that. :lol:
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”