But what about the speed of Airship? Surely it won't be fast as bomber... Maybe something inbetween panzer and strat bomber?
-
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.
My suggestion:
Range: 600-2000
Speed: 55-120
And since it is based on Nav. bomber, some low naval bombing stats, but high Strat. stats. And of course:
Manpower: 1-2
IC cost: 15-19
Just my two 'thougts'
Joe
Range: 600-2000
Speed: 55-120
And since it is based on Nav. bomber, some low naval bombing stats, but high Strat. stats. And of course:
Manpower: 1-2
IC cost: 15-19
Just my two 'thougts'
Joe
Let's start with naval, because that is the tech tree I will do next. Would this be ok for everyone?
Battleships: We could have Pre-Dreadnought, Battlecruiser, Basic Dreadnought, Improved Dreadnought, Basic Battleship and Improved Battleship. It isn't necessary to let the battlecruiser be and upgrade to Pre-Dreadnought, it's just there as another choise of what to build. Original HoI had six levels, so there is no problem with us having those six levels.
Cruisers: We could have Old Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Medium Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser and Advanced Cruiser. Or any other names that fit better.
Destroyers: We could have Torpedo Boat, Torpedo Boat Destroyer, Basic Destroyer, Improved Destroyer, Advanced Destroyer. Or any other names...
Carriers: We could have Seaplane Carrier, Converted Carrier and Aircraft Carrier. Or?
Submarines: See my post below.
/Johan
Battleships: We could have Pre-Dreadnought, Battlecruiser, Basic Dreadnought, Improved Dreadnought, Basic Battleship and Improved Battleship. It isn't necessary to let the battlecruiser be and upgrade to Pre-Dreadnought, it's just there as another choise of what to build. Original HoI had six levels, so there is no problem with us having those six levels.
Cruisers: We could have Old Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Medium Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser and Advanced Cruiser. Or any other names that fit better.
Destroyers: We could have Torpedo Boat, Torpedo Boat Destroyer, Basic Destroyer, Improved Destroyer, Advanced Destroyer. Or any other names...
Carriers: We could have Seaplane Carrier, Converted Carrier and Aircraft Carrier. Or?
Submarines: See my post below.
/Johan
Battlecruisers are more advanced than battleships, although their fighting stats are much poorer.
In terms of battleships, I would favour rating them by main armament. namely, 11", 12", 13.5" and 15" dreadnoughts. That was certainly the terminology of the day when rating a vessel's usefulness.
Of course, the German guns were better, pound for pound, than the British ones. Higher grade steel & hence greater muzzle velocities = greater penetration. Oh, but it did make the shells wobble. You can't win em all...
At the bottom of the destroyer tech you could add gunboat, before torpedo boat.
Better naming them in mm, because that is what the techs are named in inside the artillery tech tree (Naval Gun 100mm+, 150mm+ and on up to 400mm+).
So: Pre-Dreadnought, Dreadnought 250mm+, Dreadnought 300mm+, Dreadnought 350mm+, Battleship 400mm+, and somewhere in between, Battlecruiser? I still like the Basic, Improved, Advanced though, because I suppose that it wasn't just the guns that where different...?
/Johan
Battlecruisers and basic dreadnoughts were developed almost simultaneously - HMS Dreadnought was commissioned in December 1906, the first battlecruiser HMS Indomitable entered service in June 1908. They should have the same attack value as the dreadnoughts, lower armour and higher speed.
(In practice, British battlecruisers had much lower armour and much higher speed - German battlecruisers had slightly lower armour and higher speed. This choice could be determined by researching optional techs)
Dreadnoughts could have 11" or 12" guns - again, this could be a choice depending on other research techs. Generally, British ships had big guns, high speed and long range; German ships had smaller guns and lower operational range, but much better armour.
"Superdreadnought" was the popular name given to the ships with much larger guns (13.5" or 14") introduced by the major naval powers in the years just before the war. However, calling them "improved dreadnoughts" would work fine too.
You could, if desired, also have a "superdreadnought" equivalent of the battlecruiser.
Ships with 15" and 16" guns were on the drawing boards when the war began. The Queen Elizabeth class (commissioned January 1915) were commonly referred to as "fast battleships" - they were not only much more heavily armed, but used oil-fired engines for greater speed. (There was no need for a battlecruiser equivalent, since the fast battleships were already as fast as battlecruisers).
Finally, as the war ended navies made plans for ships with either lots and lots of 15/16" guns, or even heavier calibres like 18". In reality, few such ships were ever launched (or they were converted to aircraft carriers, like the USS Lexington and Saratoga.
Cruisers: old cruiser, light cruiser and armoured cruiser were the main categories when war began. Armoured cruisers were much bigger, had heavy armour (equal to a battlecruiser) and a reasonable armament, but were a lot slower - a navy could find a use for both the light and armoured types. For the next level up, I'd go for "improved cruiser" with the combat values of the armoured and the speed of the light.
Destroyers - no problem. (Though I'd say that gunboats are "below the level" of this simulation, just as coastal motor boats don't appear in standard HoI)
Aircraft carriers - not sure what "converted carrier" is meant to represent: after all, some of the most successful aircraft carriers of WW2 had begun life as battleships. How about just "Basic " and "Improved"?
(In practice, British battlecruisers had much lower armour and much higher speed - German battlecruisers had slightly lower armour and higher speed. This choice could be determined by researching optional techs)
Dreadnoughts could have 11" or 12" guns - again, this could be a choice depending on other research techs. Generally, British ships had big guns, high speed and long range; German ships had smaller guns and lower operational range, but much better armour.
"Superdreadnought" was the popular name given to the ships with much larger guns (13.5" or 14") introduced by the major naval powers in the years just before the war. However, calling them "improved dreadnoughts" would work fine too.
You could, if desired, also have a "superdreadnought" equivalent of the battlecruiser.
Ships with 15" and 16" guns were on the drawing boards when the war began. The Queen Elizabeth class (commissioned January 1915) were commonly referred to as "fast battleships" - they were not only much more heavily armed, but used oil-fired engines for greater speed. (There was no need for a battlecruiser equivalent, since the fast battleships were already as fast as battlecruisers).
Finally, as the war ended navies made plans for ships with either lots and lots of 15/16" guns, or even heavier calibres like 18". In reality, few such ships were ever launched (or they were converted to aircraft carriers, like the USS Lexington and Saratoga.
Cruisers: old cruiser, light cruiser and armoured cruiser were the main categories when war began. Armoured cruisers were much bigger, had heavy armour (equal to a battlecruiser) and a reasonable armament, but were a lot slower - a navy could find a use for both the light and armoured types. For the next level up, I'd go for "improved cruiser" with the combat values of the armoured and the speed of the light.
Destroyers - no problem. (Though I'd say that gunboats are "below the level" of this simulation, just as coastal motor boats don't appear in standard HoI)
Aircraft carriers - not sure what "converted carrier" is meant to represent: after all, some of the most successful aircraft carriers of WW2 had begun life as battleships. How about just "Basic " and "Improved"?
So...
Battleships: Pre-Dreadnoughts, Basic Dreadnought (11"/250mm+), Battlecruiser (11"/250mm+?) Improved Dreadnought/Super Dreadnought (12"/300mm+), Advanced Dreadnought/Basic Battleship (13.5"/350mm+), Battleship/Improved Battleship (15"/400mm+), names depending on what you think is the best.
Cruisers: Old Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Armored Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser/Improved Cruiser, Advanced Cruiser.
Destroyers: Yeah, gunships might be a little to small to be included.
Carriers: Seaplane Carrier, Basic Carrier, Improved Carrier.
/Johan
Battleships: Pre-Dreadnoughts, Basic Dreadnought (11"/250mm+), Battlecruiser (11"/250mm+?) Improved Dreadnought/Super Dreadnought (12"/300mm+), Advanced Dreadnought/Basic Battleship (13.5"/350mm+), Battleship/Improved Battleship (15"/400mm+), names depending on what you think is the best.
Cruisers: Old Cruiser, Light Cruiser, Armored Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser/Improved Cruiser, Advanced Cruiser.
Destroyers: Yeah, gunships might be a little to small to be included.
Carriers: Seaplane Carrier, Basic Carrier, Improved Carrier.
/Johan
A question concerning infantry supported by tanks (accompanied by the superb sprite, of course 
).
Are they modelled as a seperate unit from standard infantry, or are they a different 'model' of infantry?
The problem with having two seperate infantry based units are what they could be called - if infantry, rightly so, takes the names '1st Division', '2nd Division' and so on, then what names do tank supported infantry take? If they had the same names as normal infantry, then a player would probably end up with two divisions of the same name, one of normal infantry, and another supported by tanks.
By having infantry supported by tanks as a 'model' of infantry, in the same way that a T-34 is a 'model' of tank for the Soviet Union in the normal HOI, it would save the hassle of creating different names for various divisions, solve the conundrum I posed above, and free room up for another land-based unit type.
We wouldn't even have to get rid of tank models, because the various types of tank could be added to the infantry 'model'. So the British player, if wanting to build more infantry, could choose between 'Infantry', 'Infantry supported by Mark I's', 'Infantry supported by Mark II's' and so on.
).Are they modelled as a seperate unit from standard infantry, or are they a different 'model' of infantry?
The problem with having two seperate infantry based units are what they could be called - if infantry, rightly so, takes the names '1st Division', '2nd Division' and so on, then what names do tank supported infantry take? If they had the same names as normal infantry, then a player would probably end up with two divisions of the same name, one of normal infantry, and another supported by tanks.
By having infantry supported by tanks as a 'model' of infantry, in the same way that a T-34 is a 'model' of tank for the Soviet Union in the normal HOI, it would save the hassle of creating different names for various divisions, solve the conundrum I posed above, and free room up for another land-based unit type.
We wouldn't even have to get rid of tank models, because the various types of tank could be added to the infantry 'model'. So the British player, if wanting to build more infantry, could choose between 'Infantry', 'Infantry supported by Mark I's', 'Infantry supported by Mark II's' and so on.
I thought that "infantry supported by tanks" was our new name for what standard HoI calls a Panzer Division?
Historically, the largest tank units fielded during WW1 were brigades, I believe - in other words between 1/3 and 1/2 of a full division. To bring this up to divisional strength, we can assume that the tanks are being accompanied by a suitable force of infantry. However, for the purposes of the game I think we could simply call the unit, for example "2nd Brigade, Royal Tank Corps", composed of "Mark V tanks", and ignore the infantry.
Historically, the largest tank units fielded during WW1 were brigades, I believe - in other words between 1/3 and 1/2 of a full division. To bring this up to divisional strength, we can assume that the tanks are being accompanied by a suitable force of infantry. However, for the purposes of the game I think we could simply call the unit, for example "2nd Brigade, Royal Tank Corps", composed of "Mark V tanks", and ignore the infantry.
So in effect, it isn't "infantry supported by tanks" but "tanks supported by enough infantry to make it the same size as a division".
My proposal is to have "infantry supported by tanks" as a model of infantry (if that can be done), as opposed to having them as an entirely seperate unit, taking up the Panzer Division slot.
The type we have at the moment would work fine, I'd assume, but I still have a preference to having tanks as an add-on to infantry, as opposed to the reverse.
My proposal is to have "infantry supported by tanks" as a model of infantry (if that can be done), as opposed to having them as an entirely seperate unit, taking up the Panzer Division slot.
The type we have at the moment would work fine, I'd assume, but I still have a preference to having tanks as an add-on to infantry, as opposed to the reverse.
Well, you could redefine one of the infantry add-on brigades (anti-aircraft, say) to be "tanks". That would fit your concept. Of course, the unit would appear as a normal infantry sprite.
However, what's the benefit of 'saving' the panzer slot? What else are you going to use it for, if not a force of tanks? I suppose you could have the tank brigade appearing first, then the actual panzer unit being activated once the player researches the appropriate advanced land doctrine ("Massed Armour", illustrated by a picture of JFC Fuller). However, I suspect that our public will want rhomboidal tank sprites early, and they'll want a lot of them
Incidentally, the British fielded six tank brigades in WW1 - but a WW2 British armoured division was one brigade of tanks plus supporting infantry and artillery units. In other words, it's not all that unrealistic allowing the UK to build 6 panzer divisions in HoI-TGW. We just have to make sure the cost and tech level is balanced, to prevent the player building 60...
However, what's the benefit of 'saving' the panzer slot? What else are you going to use it for, if not a force of tanks? I suppose you could have the tank brigade appearing first, then the actual panzer unit being activated once the player researches the appropriate advanced land doctrine ("Massed Armour", illustrated by a picture of JFC Fuller). However, I suspect that our public will want rhomboidal tank sprites early, and they'll want a lot of them
Incidentally, the British fielded six tank brigades in WW1 - but a WW2 British armoured division was one brigade of tanks plus supporting infantry and artillery units. In other words, it's not all that unrealistic allowing the UK to build 6 panzer divisions in HoI-TGW. We just have to make sure the cost and tech level is balanced, to prevent the player building 60...
Fair enough, your Second World War comparison has convinced me.
My idea simply invisaged having 'Infantry with tanks' a type of infantry much like the Wellington or Wellesley bomber is an advance on the pre-war tactical bomber in the standard version - by having it in that form, the sprite can stay in place.
In any case, I still couldn't think of anything to fill the 'Panzer' slot anyway.
My idea simply invisaged having 'Infantry with tanks' a type of infantry much like the Wellington or Wellesley bomber is an advance on the pre-war tactical bomber in the standard version - by having it in that form, the sprite can stay in place.
In any case, I still couldn't think of anything to fill the 'Panzer' slot anyway.
Stephen,
You're right, but i think the thing about armoured divisions is not just the tanks themselves, but all the supporting elements. Essentially mech inf, SP guns, AFVs etc... An armoured division is, or should be, fully mechanised. That was beyond the scope of the Great War, but perhaps not if it lasted a few more years. I am not completely certain, but I don't think there is much infantry in a British armoured division in WW2.
Proposed unit models for aircraft:
Scout Fighter fighter.txt (Short range)
Two-Seater fighter.txt (Medium range)
Escort Fighter fighter.txt (Long range)
Bomber tactical_bomber.txt
Strategic Bomber strategic_bomber.txt
Contour Bomber dive_bomber.txt
Seaplane torpedo_plane.txt
Reconaissance 'Plane naval_bomber.txt
Airship transport_plane.txt
Explanations: "Contour Bomber" was, according to Jane's, the contemporary name for a ground attack aircraft. Seaplanes also represent the aircraft carried on board ships during this time. There wasn't really a separate category of long-range naval bomber in WW1, so I used this model for the early-war recce planes. Similarly, there were no paratroopers in WW1, so no need for transport aircraft - so these become Zeppelins.
Seem reasonable?
All we need now is somebody to code the model files and the tech file
Scout Fighter fighter.txt (Short range)
Two-Seater fighter.txt (Medium range)
Escort Fighter fighter.txt (Long range)
Bomber tactical_bomber.txt
Strategic Bomber strategic_bomber.txt
Contour Bomber dive_bomber.txt
Seaplane torpedo_plane.txt
Reconaissance 'Plane naval_bomber.txt
Airship transport_plane.txt
Explanations: "Contour Bomber" was, according to Jane's, the contemporary name for a ground attack aircraft. Seaplanes also represent the aircraft carried on board ships during this time. There wasn't really a separate category of long-range naval bomber in WW1, so I used this model for the early-war recce planes. Similarly, there were no paratroopers in WW1, so no need for transport aircraft - so these become Zeppelins.
Seem reasonable?
All we need now is somebody to code the model files and the tech file
Originally posted by StephenT
[...]
All we need now is somebody to code the model files and the tech file
That's where I come into the picture.
Wait one month, and I'll have a whole week of, thus being able to get the whole picture on how long you guys have taken the project. /Johan
No, they weren't Marines at all. They were men who'd joined the Navy, but were surplus to requirements (not enough ships) so they were formed into a standard infantry division and sent off to fight on the Western Front.
They had no amphibious training and never participated in any opposed-beach landings - just normal trench warfare. The only things special about them are that they still used naval, not army ranks, and the Officers' Mess drank the Loyal Toast sitting down...
I've done some editing of text.csv and the GFX/Interface/units.bmp and units_small.bmp files.
Now all we need is somebody to edit models.csv and do the sprite
Now all we need is somebody to edit models.csv and do the sprite
Incidentally, any German-speakers out there who cringed at my bad translation of Army Airship Service, feel free to post a correction! Also for Naval Airship Service...