Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 14, 2006, 12:03:36 PM »

Quote from: "ocie"
What, no U.S.M.C !!
Somebodies gotta be the main assault spearhead


Yes, it did occur to me afterwards that there were no marines :)

I'll bear that in mind when I start building new units

Steve
Posted by: ocie
« on: October 14, 2006, 07:45:57 AM »

What, no U.S.M.C !!
Somebodies gotta be the main assault spearhead
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 09, 2006, 04:41:21 AM »

Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"

These Russkies?

Moscow Military District HQ-3
10th Guards Tank Division ARM-3
2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division INF-3
3rd Motor Rifle Division INF-3


Also the 106th Guards Airborne is part of the XVIII Airborne Corps

Steve
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: October 08, 2006, 01:47:42 PM »

Steve,
       I must have been tired when I made that last post, I thought I had checked to verify Ist Armd and Ist Cav, but I guess I missed them,  You are right the number of divisions does complicate game management.  But since the US only had ten and the Germans had only 12 these armies are that large.  I can see limiting them for game purposes.  

      So I stand corrected, and apologize for being silly, or is it stupid.  Oh well, I blew that one.  

Later,

Kevin
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: October 06, 2006, 08:49:19 AM »

Quote from: "Summercat"
Where's the Russkies? O.o;

These Russkies?

Quote
Moscow Military District HQ-3
10th Guards Tank Division ARM-3
2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division INF-3
3rd Motor Rifle Division INF-3
[/quote]
Posted by: Summercat
« on: October 06, 2006, 07:53:05 AM »

Where's the Russkies? O.o;
Posted by: rmcrowe
« on: October 04, 2006, 03:11:06 PM »

Thank you.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 03, 2006, 09:11:00 AM »

Quote from: "rmcrowe"
Would it be reasonable to edit in the HQ-x (and maybe the command span) information to the original posts?  Then we would have it all in one place.

robert


I have edited the originals to include the HQ ratings

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 03, 2006, 07:09:48 AM »

Quote from: "kdstubbs"
Steve,
       I have a problem with the Commonwealth Armed Forces, since you've left out First Cavalry, First Armored Divisions , and Third Infantry Division (Mech)--The Rock of the Marne is a very proud Division in US Army Lineage, as is the Golani Brigade in Israeli Lineage.  I can see Giving the Commonwealth another Corps, as I would the Chinese and Terran Union.  

      Also, I think you left out the Indian Divisions nor given the Chinese a large enough army.  I would hope to see more Russian Guard Tank Divisions given their role in World War II.  

      China and India with two plus billion people can raise armed forces larger than what you're showing.  Not significant but just an observation

      Terrible being a military historian, I know its just a game but.....

Kevin


All the ground forces have far fewer units than they would have in reality, just as the space forces are far fewer in number than current navies. If I had included every current division for every major world power, there would have been hundreds of divisions in the game. My experience has been though that if you triple the number of units in a game, you triple the management requirement but you don't triple the enjoyment. I am trying to provide enough units to create a flavour for ground combat without having huge number of divisions. I would also had to reduce the supply requirement of all the units to accomodate more of them

I could have used the Corps as the base unit instead of the division but I think players identify more with well known divisions than corps. Also with fewer units, each one is more meaningful. You may be concerned about the fate of the 101st Airborne, one of only four assault infantry divisions, but you wouldn't be concerned about it if you had twenty of them (or fifty)

In any event, over time the powers will build more units as their empire expands and the divisions that you named will come into existence.

By the way, the I Armored Corps  includes the 1st (US) Armored Division ARM-3 and the 1st Cavalry Division ARM-3

Steve
Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: October 02, 2006, 10:23:40 PM »

What minerals does "Supply" consume?

It would be a bummer if ground troops used up precious Gallicite.

If you are looking for suggestions on ground combat ideas, may I suggest that one of the roles for defensive forces is to hold out for a long time, and not necessarily to inflict huge damage.  So if fighting defensively or hiding allows them to preserve their force in terms of weeks or even months, that is a good option to have.
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: October 02, 2006, 10:07:20 PM »

Steve,
       I have a problem with the Commonwealth Armed Forces, since you've left out First Cavalry, First Armored Divisions , and Third Infantry Division (Mech)--The Rock of the Marne is a very proud Division in US Army Lineage, as is the Golani Brigade in Israeli Lineage.  I can see Giving the Commonwealth another Corps, as I would the Chinese and Terran Union.  

      Also, I think you left out the Indian Divisions nor given the Chinese a large enough army.  I would hope to see more Russian Guard Tank Divisions given their role in World War II.  

      China and India with two plus billion people can raise armed forces larger than what you're showing.  Not significant but just an observation

      Terrible being a military historian, I know its just a game but.....

Kevin
Posted by: cary_hocker
« on: October 02, 2006, 08:52:58 PM »

Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"


I agree for modern day equivalents (and it will probably be the same in 2040 as well). However, I am trying to simulate a Europe that is not very military inclined, hence better INF tech than ARM tech, and I also have to set a level of armour tech for the Terran Union as a whole, rather than just the German part of it.


I thought about that after I posted - I've got to quit thinking in terms of current capabilities. In your future, the Asian Alliance needs to be more capable, the Terran Union less so, than their current counterparts. Maybe the Germans should still be higher relative to the French though? <ducks>

Cary
Posted by: rmcrowe
« on: October 02, 2006, 05:54:17 PM »

Would it be reasonable to edit in the HQ-x (and maybe the command span) information to the original posts?  Then we would have it all in one place.

robert
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 02, 2006, 05:49:20 PM »

Quote from: "Father Tim"
I thought the number of units a Corps HQ could command went up with its level - or does the -1, -2, etc. of the HQ units refer to their combat capabilities only (in which case, how do you indicate the number of divisions a Corps HQ unit can command?)


The -1, -2 etc refers to the tech level of the HQ (it goes up to -12). The first three levels of HQ can command three units, levels 4-6 can command four units, 7-9 five units and 10-12 six units.

Steve
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: October 02, 2006, 05:47:53 PM »

Quote from: "cary_hocker"
I would have thought that, equipment wise, the German Armorored Division was equal to the Commonwealth forces (ARM-3). Their tanks are undeniably state of the art. (Not counting ex-East German equipment, of course, which I believe is now out of service)


I agree for modern day equivalents (and it will probably be the same in 2040 as well). However, I am trying to simulate a Europe that is not very military inclined, hence better INF tech than ARM tech, and I also have to set a level of armour tech for the Terran Union as a whole, rather than just the German part of it.

Steve