Blue Collar Game

no... it includes stuff like arty and AT

I'd say: AC, all tanks, TD, mot & mech inf

no because arty and AA are all under the armour tab,

mot and mech inf are under the inf tab.

so it is definitely easiest to refer to all under the armour tab as ARMOUR and all under the inf tab as INFANTRY for purposes of capture.

There is no point in over complicating it, at least not that I can see. You seem to want to group them by speed rather than the way the game classes it.

What should be defined is how the SECRET group is classed. CAn the Commando be classed as Inf and the RailRG as armour?

totally wrong clanpred. we all know what is armor and what is inf. figure out out noob.

noob u say ? lol.

not everyone is as knowledgable as you. Remember what I said, it's the easiest.

Pray tell what advantage is there in categorising AA and Arty as Inf? Whilst SP versions aren't? Really like to know how categorising them separately helps.

Armored Cars, Lt, Med and Heavy Tanks, Tank Destroyers, Mech Inf. These are the units we said okay to in the rules discussion.

come on. if you play this game a fair amount you should know what armor class each unit is in, if you don't you need to go to your room and do some home work

Sign me up please

Mr Selfridge

I agree with the rules

that's because mechanised infantry is not recognised IRL as armour. For that you have, armoured infantry.

What I am suggesting the easiest thing is to just use the armour tab in the game. If the BCL wants to modify it fine.

@Clanpred

In this time period, the term "armored infantry" is synonymous with mechanized infantry, i.e. the infantry components of mobile division which were transported in halftracks or other armored vehicles. They would certainly qualify as "mobile" for the purpose of this game.

This idea behind this rule is to allow exploit after breakthrough with fast, mobile units. You surely wouldn't want to qualify towed gunds as "fast mobile units" would you?

I'd like to join. This would be very interesting to try. Besides that, it promotes the use of artillery and other tactics which are never used until far later into the game, and even then only on a couple occasions.


Just want to ask, are the separate captures allowed to have both infantry and armored(IE you are required to do one with infantry and the other with armored, but you can throw in any other units into the stack with them)? Just curious, mostly so that doesn't end up being a confusing factor for people who join.

which proves what I said earlier, you wanted to class them by speed, simples.

If that's the way we want to structure it in the BCL that's fine. I just said that it's easier to class them by the game tab. Have no particular wish to class mule drawn artillery as a fast mobile armoured unit, just clarifying that my system is "easier" and will not cause confusion.

Mark my words, people will confuse themselves.

Anyways, looking forward to game start tomorrow.

and of course DXC has not provide any explanation of why reclassifying mot or mech inf as armoured provides.

edit: I should have written:

has not provide any explanation of why reclassifying mot or mech inf as armoured provides some advantage.

Mech infantry is classified as armor for the purposes of damage calculation, and hence should be considered armor. I don't think that needs any explanation whatsoever, you can literally look at any of them in the stats tab and see they are classed as armor. Motorized is debatable, it is still infantry class, even if it goes a bit faster in most terrains.

Also, contrary to what you think, classing them by game tab isn't as easy as you might think. AA, AT, and artillery units are *all* classed as infantry(except for the SP versions of AA and arty, but even then they should still be in the same class, as you don't send artillery blind into a province. TD's are an entirely separate development from AT guns), and Mech Inf are armored, as stated above, with motorized being a sort of in-between(tank speed while retaining the infantry classification). Simpler, but also much less accurate. If you've played the game long enough, you should know the difference between the different units by heart, and would not require something as simplistic as separating them by tab. You should know what Mech infantry can do, compared to every other class, if not remembering the specific stats on each level.

the fact that there is a little icon that says armor class for purposes of damage does not mean it is a real Armoured Unit.

It is not simpler because people now need to examine each stat sheet to confirm which is which as opposed to just using the Armour tab to define it. Remember not everyone has the same level of experience. We want the game to be inclusive and not just accessible (the little tricks) to veterans. Not everyone has the time or memory to "know what Mech Inf" can do. Don't think about yourself as the best example.

That the AA and Arty should have come under the Inf tab is another issue and a flaw in game design.

All I am suggesting is the easiest and simplest way of defining the game rules.

It is easiest to say that both Inf, Motorised Inf and Mech Inf can all capture 1 province a day under the heading Infantry. Because there name includes the key word "INFANTRY" it's as simple as that.

... Yes, it does, actually. Mechanized is as close to armored as you can come without it no longer being classed as infantry, and instead something like armored cars or tanks. Remember, unit sizes in this game are very bloated, in comparison to their visual model. In the model, you only see the halftrack of the mechanized infantry. In reality, that's a couple hundred halftracks carrying a dozen or so infantry each, with supporting anti-tank guns, light tanks, armored cars, and other assorted weaponry and equipment necessary to complete the tasks required of the regiment. There is no such thing as armored infantry, never has been for the last 100 years, never will be. Mechanized is synonymous with armored. Read up on history sometime, would ya?

Umm... If you can't figure it out, just look in the research tree! I think that is pretty simple, and only takes a few minutes at the most. And no, I don't think I'm the best example. Nobody is. Your certainly not a good example.

It's not a flaw... The only reason they are in the armor tab is because SPG's and SPAA's are in it(And you can't put arrows across tabs, now can you?), and AT guns are, obviously, anti-armor, so putting them in the infantry tab is pointless. Again, separating by tab is inaccurate. I'm pretty sure a simple list is good, and this has a simple list of units. So why complain and try to push for something that is only a tiny bit simpler but is a whole lot more inaccurate?

what do u do for a living Topaz?

I only ask because having been Second in Command of an Armoured Infantry company I feel I am more qualified to comment on the subtle distinctions than most people here.

Here is an ORBAT for an AI (Armoured Infantry Battalion)

armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0033.html

a mechanised force is very different in it's structure and employment.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Division_(United_Kingdom)

and this in turn is a full on heavy metal armoured division

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_(United_Kingdom)_Division

with regards to examples I refer to a generic profile of your gamer, not someone who delves into each aspect. Like I said, it's about making the rules easy to understand FOR ALL. your argument that AA is in with SP AA is as flawed as saying that SP AA should be in the infantry tab because AA belongs there.

So if we have a dedicated ground attack fighter such as the Stuka or Typhoon then it should go in the armour or inf class as they have a big anti tank role?

Don't get me wrong, am not complaining am merely pointing out a simpler system that will avoid a newish player making the mistake of using a couple of light tanks to take a province and a couple of mech inf to take another and get penalised. It's as simple as that.

Anyways, I do look forward to more revelations on Army orders of battle and doctrinal terminology. I seem not to have paid attention at the various military academys and staff colleges I attend over a 30 year career so please fill in the gaps.

Umm... School. Do I really need to say more? Lol.

But I still know a lot about this stuff. Admittedly, I was a bit wrong on the armored, but armored never existed during WWII, as that specific role did not exist at that time. And Armored is only used in specific countries, and in general are a modern contraption to describe infantry riding in IFV's. Before that, the last use of armored infantry was... Knights, in the 11th-14th century. You know, when guns were not even invented yet. Between then and about 40 years ago, armored infantry was slowly phased out and then ceased to existed for several centuries on end, until after WW2(specifically the 60's onwards) when they finally had use again.This game's timeframe is from 1932 to early cold war, when said type simply did not exist, period. IFV's as we know them today did not exist. Hell, we didn't have amphibious landing assault craft(IE the things that brought some marines to the beaches at normandy) until 1943! Let alone something like the BMP series. So you can speak about them better than any of us, but armored belongs in... Guess what? CoN(Conflict of Nations, modern CoW, basically)! And I'm pretty sure it has it... Been forever since I've played it, though.

I think this wikipedia article summarizes it pretty well... This is basically the TL;DR of this point.

Obviously, my point on the AA, AT and artillery was not too well formulated, but short of making a COMPLETELY new tech tree branch(which ONLY includes those 3), they don't really fit anywhere. They don't fit in infantry because, while manned by infantry, most of the stuff is guns and metal, and are largely built out of stuff not infantry. They don't fit in armored because they obviously aren't armored. And they don't fit in Air, Naval or Secret, for pretty obvious reasons I shouldn't have to point out. The most common base they do have is the fact they are designed for support. The only real thing that separates them from everything else is that they are all below everything else in the armored section. So if you were to do something like that with both the infantry and the armor(at respective cutoffs), then maybe. But then it's more complicated to write down in the rules section, and your better off just listing the units anyway.

Also, the penalizement thing was partially the reason why I asked if mixed stacks with both types of units could be used to attack one province and could then attack another with that same stack of units, if so desired. Your usually going to have both in a single stack anyway(when attacking).

Knights were armoured cavalry not infantry try again.

The concept of motorised, mechanised and armoured infantry is much more than just using APCs, AFVs and IFVs. We can look at Jaeger Battalions versus Panzergrenadier Battalions and other world examples. It is more complicated and has its roots in WW2, read the works of Liddell Hart and Guderian for more insight.

Am glad you recognise that it's not good to write some stuff in the rules section, remember there are lots of players who have never pressed the i button for detailed unit info, look at the questions in the ingame chat

You raise a good issue on the mixed unit stack. so whilst the rules specify a clear need for a inf stack and an armd stack to each take a province a day, it doesn't clarify about mixed stacks. Now I can see some players blow away the enemy with an early build arty stack and then moving to capture a province, now what if an early game inf stack takes a province that day?

We must also consider that some provinces might be attacked late in teh day with the conquest happening the next day. so people need to be careful.

Like I said, it's easiest to use KISS (Keep it stupid simple) a favourite thing taught in all armies.

What should also be clarified are the penalties for the various rule infringements. Let's be clear, a lot of rule infringements are accidental. So we need perhaps different levels of punishments to meet different seriousnesses of infringement.

PS, wish I was back at school

oh by the way, we've had marines for over 300 years. The lack of landing craft as per WW2 just made it easier to offload them at the shore