In that case we shouldnt treat these as models, but different unit types so the AI builds a good range of them.
-
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.
Exactly: the fortress infantry model and the infantry model 
Anyway, just to see if it could be done, I just started a game as Germany, planning on a historical Schlieffen plan opening.
WW1 ended on 24 August 1914 with German troops parading down the Champs-Elysées
How? Well, I got military access from Luxemburg (why not? They're members of the German Confederation and their railways are all owned and built by Germany). I pre-positioned two 9-division armies in Luxemburg, a 9 and a 12 in Koln (the 12 was entirely Guards and Artillery-Infantry, under Hindenburg). July came, and the cowardly Austrians decided to ignore the assassination so I declared war on Belgium anyway. A couple of days later Britain declared war on me, followed by France and Russia soon after. One army hit Arlon, two hit Bruxelles simultaneously. Bruxelles soon fell and the troops moved on to Antwerpen; once this fell I was at war with France so advanced on Lille and Sedan. By the time the two Belgian fortress units in Arlon were killed, I'd already reached Paris. I was looking pretty overstretched now with a 30-strong French army advancing on Lorraine and threatening to cut off my spearhead (ouch :wacko: ) but luckily the French Defeat event kicked in around now, and I'd won the war.
Anyway, just to see if it could be done, I just started a game as Germany, planning on a historical Schlieffen plan opening.
WW1 ended on 24 August 1914 with German troops parading down the Champs-Elysées
How? Well, I got military access from Luxemburg (why not? They're members of the German Confederation and their railways are all owned and built by Germany). I pre-positioned two 9-division armies in Luxemburg, a 9 and a 12 in Koln (the 12 was entirely Guards and Artillery-Infantry, under Hindenburg). July came, and the cowardly Austrians decided to ignore the assassination
so I declared war on Belgium anyway. A couple of days later Britain declared war on me, followed by France and Russia soon after. One army hit Arlon, two hit Bruxelles simultaneously. Bruxelles soon fell and the troops moved on to Antwerpen; once this fell I was at war with France so advanced on Lille and Sedan. By the time the two Belgian fortress units in Arlon were killed, I'd already reached Paris. I was looking pretty overstretched now with a 30-strong French army advancing on Lorraine and threatening to cut off my spearhead (ouch :wacko: ) but luckily the French Defeat event kicked in around now, and I'd won the war. 
Good point. If the "trench infantry" is a new model of "fortress infantry" the AI will build both. It will be a hard target, though. Is that good or bad? (can anyone think how that could serve the purpose?
Also, what's motorised infantry being used as? I can't remember.
Also, what's motorised infantry being used as? I can't remember.
IIRC mechanised infantry are now fortress infantry exactly because they're a hard target. The troops are all cowering inside concrete bunkers
Motorised infantry are unchanged, I believe. Think Paris taxicabs...
Motorised infantry are unchanged, I believe. Think Paris taxicabs...
Well, exactly because of those taxis I thought the unit type was being used for something else. As that was a desperate measure... How motorised were the armies. Were there really any divisions that were created with the purpose of being moved with their "motorcars"? (I do remember something of the sort in "Imperialism")
(I do remember something of the sort in "Imperialism")
StephenT said:I was looking pretty overstretched now with a 30-strong French army advancing on Lorraine and threatening to cut off my spearhead (ouch :wacko: ) but luckily the French Defeat event kicked in around now, and I'd won the war.
Would you say that the French would have to accept defeat if they were in the position that you reduced them to, even though they were launching a counteroffensive against Lorraine? It was what von Schlieffen did originally envisage, of course. He was prepared to let the French take as much border territory as they wanted, as long as the grand outflanking manoeuvre was completed successfully.
StephenT said:
How about getting rid of fortress infantry and replacing it with Stosstruppen, to be gained by a later tech? Or do we feel that there needs to be a defensively orientated division made available in 1914? Doesn't infantry suffice?
In my opinion, if a player wants forts, he'll build them as usual.
That's bloody brilliant of you Stephen!
But your scheme wouldnt work so well in the new Schlieffen Plan event!
I added declare war on Luxembourg, so that's an extra border province to worry about!
But your scheme wouldnt work so well in the new Schlieffen Plan event!
I added declare war on Luxembourg, so that's an extra border province to worry about!
My triumph is slightly tempered by the discovery that I'd been playing on normal/weak (I hadn't even looked at the difficulty settings after installing the mod); perhaps on hard/aggressive I'd have been in more trouble on the Eastern Front - although in the event it wouldn't have helped the French at all.
Allenby - no, I don't think France would have surrendered so quickly in reality, not after just 3 weeks of fighting. I basically had six reduced 9-division armies trying to hem in 40+ French divisions in three or four provinces in the east, a few lone units roaming around grabbing provinces in the west, but new French units kept popping up everywhere and recapturing provinces - while on the Eastern Front I was seriously outnumbered by the Russians. I was fairly confident that I'd win in the end, but it certainly didn't feel like a walkover and the French could have done me some serious damage.
Allenby - no, I don't think France would have surrendered so quickly in reality, not after just 3 weeks of fighting. I basically had six reduced 9-division armies trying to hem in 40+ French divisions in three or four provinces in the east, a few lone units roaming around grabbing provinces in the west, but new French units kept popping up everywhere and recapturing provinces - while on the Eastern Front I was seriously outnumbered by the Russians. I was fairly confident that I'd win in the end, but it certainly didn't feel like a walkover and the French could have done me some serious damage.
Trench divisions still inflicted significant losses on attacking forces of all nations. Quite unlike the "fortress infantry" currently, which have no damage potential at all.
I gtuess though that militia could serve as 2nd grade units of all kinds. Including underequipped russian units and whatnot.
I gtuess though that militia could serve as 2nd grade units of all kinds. Including underequipped russian units and whatnot.
Allenby said:
I don't see much benefit in having separate stormtrooper units - we already have Guards units. Add a few doctrines and tech advances, and these become the 1918 Stosstruppen. (Perhaps some of the aforementioned doctrine advances should only apply to Guards units?)
I think that the defensive division (whatever it ends up being called) does fill a gap between regular infantry and militia. Relatively few armies, at least in Western and Central Europe, actually fielded militia divisions full of badly-equipped conscript levies and hicks with shotguns. They did, however, have plenty of the third-rate divisions we discussed before. I'd say such a unit should actually have less defensive strength than regular infantry - but compensated by being a hard, not soft target - no attack strength, low movement, 10% lower organisation, one less IC cost, half (round up) the manpower cost, eligible for fewer tech advances.
Perhaps convert some of the existing Militia divisions in the OOBs to this type instead? And at the same time convert the British Regular Army divisions, the ANZACs, and the French Armée d'Afrique to their rightful status as Guards.
Guards infantry isnt that appealing.
I've researched the whole tech tree and normal infantry with artillery is far more preferable than Guards.
Granted "stormtroopers" are just regular troops with special training, but the Germans did make special divisions out of them - hence this justfies them being a new unit type. If we have a tech that applies to everyone, then all infantry becomes stormtroopers, which was not the case.
I've researched the whole tech tree and normal infantry with artillery is far more preferable than Guards.
Granted "stormtroopers" are just regular troops with special training, but the Germans did make special divisions out of them - hence this justfies them being a new unit type. If we have a tech that applies to everyone, then all infantry becomes stormtroopers, which was not the case.
I noticed a small problem with the VP distribution. Even if the Central Powers win the war, the Entente wins the game. Even after shedding all the provinces for a defeat, the Entente has more VP than the Central Powers. Not a big deal, but it does look strange.
Also, the mod-dir version has db mismatches in leaders and ministers, but there don't seem to be files not covered by the dummies (actually, there are, but those are the dummies from CORE.) I'll try to check what's going on.
Even after shedding all the provinces for a defeat, the Entente has more VP than the Central Powers. Not a big deal, but it does look strange.Also, the mod-dir version has db mismatches in leaders and ministers, but there don't seem to be files not covered by the dummies (actually, there are, but those are the dummies from CORE.
) I'll try to check what's going on.
Ah, I found out what was causing those db mismatches. I had both u11.csv and austriahungary.csv, and u06.csv and warlord.csv.
Gwalcmai how much did they win by? We could the the Central Powers a VP bonus for winning 'against the odds'.
IC distribution
ICs (with zero dissent) at start of game.
USA 1075
UK 638
Russia 508
Germany 363
Austria 269
France 192
Italy 148
Ottoman Empire 96
Notice Austria is more industralised than France?? Absurd.
I'd give France 290, and Austria 190.
Do we think Russia is OK? They have enormous potential to be great, but tuning down ICs could "solve" the problem of the juggernaut. Alternatively we can do this CORE style, have a Russian only tech that makes their army less effective.
Anyone want to point out more about the ICs?
ICs (with zero dissent) at start of game.
USA 1075
UK 638
Russia 508
Germany 363
Austria 269
France 192
Italy 148
Ottoman Empire 96
Notice Austria is more industralised than France?? Absurd.
I'd give France 290, and Austria 190.
Do we think Russia is OK? They have enormous potential to be great, but tuning down ICs could "solve" the problem of the juggernaut. Alternatively we can do this CORE style, have a Russian only tech that makes their army less effective.
Anyone want to point out more about the ICs?
Ctd!!!!
Ok i have to say that it looks much better from the previous version for as much as i could play it.Now tried Belgium/Russia and both times in the first 10 days of August(4rth or 5th not sure) the game CTD.The only common is that war is not declared since Austria either puppets Serbia or withdraws but dont know whether has something to do with it.Since i had that game in auto save every month,loaded the 1st August save but happened again.Any ideas.
Oh i beliave that some of the last land doctrines offer nothing(at least there is nothing written in the game text),is that correct or do they have a function?I think one of them is the encirclment-destruction doctrine.
CTD means crash to desktop,right?
Ok i have to say that it looks much better from the previous version for as much as i could play it.Now tried Belgium/Russia and both times in the first 10 days of August(4rth or 5th not sure) the game CTD.The only common is that war is not declared since Austria either puppets Serbia or withdraws but dont know whether has something to do with it.Since i had that game in auto save every month,loaded the 1st August save but happened again.Any ideas.
Oh i beliave that some of the last land doctrines offer nothing(at least there is nothing written in the game text),is that correct or do they have a function?I think one of them is the encirclment-destruction doctrine.
CTD means crash to desktop,right?
One more thing!!!
I noticed that the Motenegro Rayal yacht has the stats of an advanced BB,is that correct or happend to me only?I mean could that be so powerfull?The last one is that fort infantry seems to has no combat stats exept from ground defence.In the beginning i thought that it will improve by several techs but after having a look in the tech tree it seems that unless you add a brigade fort infantry never has a SA/HA point,is this WAD or a mistake?
To whom may i send names from some Greek officers because in game they are only 6(too little).Spain does not have any generals at all by the way.
No matter keep on it looks good and mistakes happen(unfortunately).
My best regards.
I noticed that the Motenegro Rayal yacht has the stats of an advanced BB,is that correct or happend to me only?I mean could that be so powerfull?The last one is that fort infantry seems to has no combat stats exept from ground defence.In the beginning i thought that it will improve by several techs but after having a look in the tech tree it seems that unless you add a brigade fort infantry never has a SA/HA point,is this WAD or a mistake?
To whom may i send names from some Greek officers because in game they are only 6(too little).Spain does not have any generals at all by the way.
No matter keep on it looks good and mistakes happen(unfortunately).
My best regards.
StephenT said:I don't see much benefit in having separate stormtrooper units - we already have Guards units. Add a few doctrines and tech advances, and these become the 1918 Stosstruppen. (Perhaps some of the aforementioned doctrine advances should only apply to Guards units?)
I think that the defensive division (whatever it ends up being called) does fill a gap between regular infantry and militia. Relatively few armies, at least in Western and Central Europe, actually fielded militia divisions full of badly-equipped conscript levies and hicks with shotguns. They did, however, have plenty of the third-rate divisions we discussed before. I'd say such a unit should actually have less defensive strength than regular infantry - but compensated by being a hard, not soft target - no attack strength, low movement, 10% lower organisation, one less IC cost, half (round up) the manpower cost, eligible for fewer tech advances.
Perhaps convert some of the existing Militia divisions in the OOBs to this type instead? And at the same time convert the British Regular Army divisions, the ANZACs, and the French Armée d'Afrique to their rightful status as Guards.
Here's an idea:
Change Fortress Infantry into Reservists - 'Territorials/Landwehr/Honved...' which can be upgraded to Trench divisions with tech advances.
Guards divisions can then be upgraded to Attack divisions with tech advances.
We'll change the OBs appropriately - so that the reserve divisions aren't represented as the shotgun wielding yokels that you imply.
I agree that the Regulars and ANZACs (and Canadians!) should be Guards divisions - what of the Germans and Austrians? And apart from the Armée d'Afrique, which French units? The Moroccan army was pretty professional from what I know.
The ancient mar said:
With those attributes the armoured Montenegrin Royal yacht could take on the Queen Elizabeth in battle.
The ancient mar said:
Working as designed, seeing as the fortress infantry will almost certainly go.
I'll have the Greeks and Spaniards
Nursey - merge this thread with something appropriate