Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Models.csv & names.csv

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.
MRAKoris said:
I am not sure but Panzerbrigade is rather a big armed formation: bigger than it could be in WWI. I would prefer to stick to:

Panzerzug - platoon
Panzerkompanie - company
Panzerbataillon


Bataillon if i am right was the biggest panzerunit for WWI.
Click to expand...

We can't really have battallions sized formations - it's too small and can't be compared favourably with anything of a divisional size. I think we can use 'brigade' by assuming that the Germans finally get their act together and deploy their few tanks in this way, naturally with additional infantry to bring them up to proper strength. :)
 
Allenby said:
We can't really have battallions sized formations - it's too small and can't be compared favourably with anything of a divisional size. I think we can use 'brigade' by assuming that the Germans finally get their act together and deploy their few tanks in this way, naturally with additional infantry to bring them up to proper strength. :)
Click to expand...

A 1940 German pazner division consists of only 4 tank battalions plus 1 rifle brigade, a recon btn etc. etc...

Early armour formations such as ours are likiely to be tank battalions with in support of infantry divisions aren't they? We had this argument on another thread months ago, but I cannot remember the outcome.

My suggestion is we use the term Abteilung, which is roughly the same as battalion, but for none infantry formations.
 
Kaiser Bill said:
A 1940 German pazner division consists of only 4 tank battalions plus 1 rifle brigade, a recon btn etc. etc...

Early armour formations such as ours are likiely to be tank battalions with in support of infantry divisions aren't they? We had this argument on another thread months ago, but I cannot remember the outcome.

My suggestion is we use the term Abteilung, which is roughly the same as battalion, but for none infantry formations.
Click to expand...


You are right, i also would prefer to stick to Abteilungen just because even in White Russian troops where British sent a good deal of tanks there were still tank bataillions, just check the North-West Army of Yudenich.
 
Tanks

This is a preliminary list :)
Using this classification:
0 - Female tank
1 - Male tank
2 - Light tank
3 - Cruiser tank
4 - Land battleship
5 - Modern tank 40mm
6 - Modern tank 70mm
7 - Modern tank 100mm

MODEL_FRA_4_0 "Schneider CA1 - CA3"
MODEL_FRA_4_1 "St. Chaumond"
MODEL_FRA_4_2 "Renault Ft.17"
MDOEL_FRA_4_3 "Renault M.24/25"
MODEL_FRA_4_4 "2C"
MODEL_FRA_4_5 "Renault NC1"
MODEL_GER_4_1 "A7V"
MODEL_GER_4_2 "LK I - II"
MODEL_GER_4_3 "LK III"
MODEL_GER_4_4 "K"
MODEL_ITA_4_0 "Pavesi"
MODEL_ITA_4_1 "Fiat 2000"
MODEL_ITA_4_2 "Fiat 3000"
MODEL_RUS_4_0 "Vezdehod"
MODEL_SOV_4_1 "Rikardo"
MODEL_SOV_4_2 "Taylor - KS"
MODEL_SOV_4_3 "T-16"
MODEL_SPA_4_2 "Trubia"
MODEL_SWE_4_2 "m/21"
MODEL_ENG_4_0 "MkI - Mk V"
MODEL_ENG_4_1 "MkI - Mk VIII*"
MODEL_ENG_4_2 "Whippet MkA - MkC"
MODEL_ENG_4_3 "MkI"
MODEL_ENG_4_4 "A1E1 Independent"
MODEL_ENG_4_5 "Vickers 12t."
MODEL_USA_4_1 "Mk IV - VIII International"
MODEL_USA_4_2 "Ford"
MODEL_USA_4_3 "Kristie M.1919"

Any help apreciated :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Dibo, maybe i missed something but

Female and Male tanks? :eek: :p Do tanks have sexes too?
 
MRAKoris said:
Hi Dibo, maybe i missed something but

Female and Male tanks? :eek: :p Do tanks have sexes too?
Click to expand...

Indeed they did - Mrs. British Tank had a machine gun, and Mr. British Tank had a sort of cannon thingy attached to him.
 
Allenby said:
Indeed they did - Mrs. British Tank had a machine gun, and Mr. British Tank had a sort of cannon thingy attached to him.
Click to expand...


So we speak virtually of a tankette and tank, right? :)
 
Allenby said:
That would technically be the correct English, yes :)
Click to expand...

However the British female tanks were quite heavy and I would not call them tankettes ;) :p :rofl:
 
Tank Mk1, Male (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, two 6-pdr guns and 4 machine guns.
Tank Mk1, Female (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, 6 machine guns.

As far as I can tell, tanks continued to be made in male and female versions up until the Mark V (inclusive). There was also a "Hermaphrodite" tank with one cannon and 5 machine guns. :)

Incidentally, in the model list, shouldn't the French tank be the St. Chaumond? "Sen Shamond" looks to me like a literal transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet!
 
StephenT said:
Tank Mk1, Male (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, two 6-pdr guns and 4 machine guns.
Tank Mk1, Female (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, 6 machine guns.

As far as I can tell, tanks continued to be made in male and female versions up until the Mark V (inclusive). There was also a "Hermaphrodite" tank with one cannon and 5 machine guns. :)

Incidentally, in the model list, shouldn't the French tank be the St. Chaumond? "Sen Shamond" looks to me like a literal transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet!
Click to expand...

You got me :rolleyes:
Corrected :)
 
StephenT said:
Tank Mk1, Male (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, two 6-pdr guns and 4 machine guns.
Tank Mk1, Female (1916):
28 tons, 9 kph, 6 machine guns.

As far as I can tell, tanks continued to be made in male and female versions up until the Mark V (inclusive). There was also a "Hermaphrodite" tank with one cannon and 5 machine guns. :)

Incidentally, in the model list, shouldn't the French tank be the St. Chaumond? "Sen Shamond" looks to me like a literal transliteration from the Cyrillic alphabet!
Click to expand...

The thinking behind the tank, and its sole purpose, was to kill infantry. It was not seens as necessary to have too many with guns instead of MGs. MGs weer widely recognised as being more useful for killing chaps. With no enemy armour that made sense.

In game mechanics I would advocate giving the male a higher hard attack value, and slightly lower soft attack. Does that sound okay anyone?
 
Female tanks should also, presumably, cost fewer IC to build. I also suggest that they should have a relatively higher soft attack value than the mere 4 to 6 difference in machine guns suggests - if nothing else, presumably the female tanks could carry a lot more machine gun ammunition, since they had no need to carry shells as well.
 
StephenT said:
Female tanks should also, presumably, cost fewer IC to build. I also suggest that they should have a relatively higher soft attack value than the mere 4 to 6 difference in machine guns suggests - if nothing else, presumably the female tanks could carry a lot more machine gun ammunition, since they had no need to carry shells as well.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I am on to tanks fairly soon. I think we need to review the models we have listed, but that can wait until after the 23rd release I imagine.
 
Dibo said:
However the British female tanks were quite heavy and I would not call them tankettes ;) :p :rofl:
Click to expand...


He-he, so ugly and fat they were :) :D
 
Preliminary Models.csv (including the navy and the tanks) sent by e-mail :)
 
Recieved
icon14.gif


A few errors, but they're sorted now :)
 
Allenby said:
Recieved
icon14.gif


A few errors, but they're sorted now :)
Click to expand...

Could I recieve the corrected one please? :)
Slightly edited the subs list in this thread - they should be nearly completed now.
I'm currently locating sources for the aviation part - it will be more difficult :eek:o
BTW - Should I add the localized land names - like "infanterie", "Guards", etc. in the file or will someone else do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back