Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Colonial troops?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(1180)

unmerged(1180)

Kaiser und König
Feb 24, 2001
813
0
www.medio.mh.se
Why not replace paratroopers with colonial troops? Worse stats than regulars, a little better than militia, and does not consume supplies, or very, very low supply consumtion?

This would solve the problem with colonial troops holding out long with the colony cut off - like von Lettow-Vorbeck's men - and then you won't need a huge pile of supplies - which the AI probably would prove inept at defending...
 
Make them consume far fewer supplies, not 0. How do we explain a column of troops not eating anything, and not firing off any rounds in combat?

I like the floppy hat idea.

Steele
 
The units list is already full. :p

But why not make militia consume very little supplies? They can be both militia and colonial troops (that was what I first thought of when I planned the units).

Militia also gain stats with some tech advances to not make them completely obsolete after some years.

/Elisson
 
It is a shame though, colonial troops in slouch hats and shorts would make a refreshing change from the feldgrau and battle kakhi.

On the subject of sprites, will our beloved Frenchmen be sporting blue jackets and delicious red pantaloons circa 1914?
 
Originally posted by von Adler
Why not replace paratroopers with colonial troops? Worse stats than regulars, a little better than militia, and does not consume supplies, or very, very low supply consumtion?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are intending colonials to represent here. Colonials are simply troops "from the colonies" so Canadians, Australians, Indians etc... historically some of the best troops fielded by the UK were colonial. The idea of introducing a new "weaker" infantry unit to represent them doesn't seem to be based on fact. Canadians were used as shock troops on the western front and the Australian forces faught extremely well (though doomed to failure) during the Gallipoli campaign.
So just wondering how you see colonials as worse than regs? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Good point - not only were the ANZACs and Canadians some of the best troops in the British Army, but the Senegalese and Moroccans gave exceptional service to the French, and Lettow-Vorbeck's African askaris weren't exactly hopeless either.

On the other hand, troops "used" in the colonies rather than "recruited from" there tended to be poorly equipped compared to those on the Western Front - so lower values but the same organisation wouldn't be out of place.

Stephen
 
Originally posted by StephenT
On the other hand, troops "used" in the colonies rather than "recruited from" there tended to be poorly equipped compared to those on the Western Front - so lower values but the same organisation wouldn't be out of place.

Stephen
Click to expand...

this is what i was thinking of.
a colonial troop should fast, have a lower defence attack as regulars (but more even) and have low supplie requirement and a little higher ablity in mountians jungle and desert. and dont forget they need some kind of kick a$$ sprite
 
With colonials, I mean not like Canadien or Indian troops, but troops stationed in colonies, like StephenT said. I.e. the German troops in East Africa and so on.

/Elisson
 
Originally posted by Elisson
With colonials, I mean not like Canadien or Indian troops, but troops stationed in colonies, like StephenT said. I.e. the German troops in East Africa and so on.

/Elisson
Click to expand...

I agree, Canadians and ANZACs et. al. should be regarded as regulars. They should have better generals, offensive doctrine, to reflect their agressive spirit. This would work for the German colonies too, make Lettow-Vorbeck a general skill 6 and his troops will fight like lions!
 
I think skill 6 is quite unreasonable. I'm sure you were kidding, and that I don't have to explain why. ;)

Steele
 
Colonial Troops

As we all know some of the best aquitted troops during the entire war, and also some of the most famous, were ANZAC and Canadian troops. These did great things like the Gallipoli Campaign, the Australilan Cavalry charge at Beersheba, Indian troops holding the line at Ypres, and Canadian actions all along the Western front. BUT many troops were from completely different types of men. The French Moroccan, Algerian, and Annamites all dressed diffrently and also had different skin colors. The Annamites for example are from French IndoChina and were found to be so inept for battle because of lack of training (not fighting Spirit) that they were used for labor instead. You cannot use Militia to represent Colonials because colonials differed completely in the fact that the were pre-established units recruited mainly from the areas in which they were targeted to defend. (i.e. French African Divisions and British Sepoys). But militia on the other hand were ordinary civilians that trained maybe once every 3 months or so (if they were lucky) and were called to arms to defend their homes. For this reason Militia and Colonials cannot and shouldnot be represented as the same thing.

Got that off my chest so time to move on :)
 
Originally posted by Allenby
I think the more elite colonials will be represented as standard infantry divisions.
Click to expand...

I think so. The British Dominions are going to be part of UK national provineces anyway I thought?

The issue for me with colonial troops is the lack of heavy equipment. Precisely the smae problems with marines and paratroop divisions in the main game. The skills of the infantry are enormously variable as has already been pointed out, but invariably colonial troops lack the heavy equipment such as machine guns and artillery. Certainly the Indian corp on The Western Front did. Out on the colonial stations the situation was far worse. The British In German East Africa didn't really have a divisional structure, apart from a nominal one. And they were seriously under equipped in artillery and machine guns. Not to mention trench mortars, kitchens, mills bombs, suffieceint ammunution and so on and so forth. The equipemnt they did have was usually dated or evenm obsolete.

So, in short, I think colonial troops, maeaning those raised for fighting in the various colonial stations, should be worse than regulars, but better than militia.
 
Bill raises a good point concerning equipment.

Anyone who's read about the battle of Tanga in East Africa will know that some of the British Indian troops were driven back by a swarm of bees, and that afterwards, the local colonial authorities in Kenya tried to charge Major-General Aitken money for docking his small transport vessels in port.

The British had plenty of problems concerning structuring their forces in Africa, and seemed to have difficulty in getting a coherent force together, whereas the Germans did far better, with far less supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back