Hypothetical upgrade alternative: Variants

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Hypothetical upgrade alternative: Variants

      Scenario: You're an island nation pursuing a strategy heavy on a fleet air arm, causing you to invest a lot in your navy and air force. This leaves your infantry, ordnance, and armored units languishing as they become hopelessly outmatched by their peers in other nearby nations. You can't really fix this. You already went all-in on your chosen strategy. You wish, though, that you could do something to squeeze out a little more service life from the ground units that you have, on the cheap.

      Scenario: You have an idea for a strategy, or want to give your army a little but of off-color character. But the units existing in-game are unsuitable to your vision, and you find yourself becoming bored with the same old units game in and game out.

      I've been tossing around an idea as of late that addresses both of these. The way it would work is that each research level of unit is accompanied with three sub-variants, which can be accessed after researching a particular unit. You then have the option of taking one of these three variants, which would alter the stats of the unit to fit a particular playstyle.

      These upgrades would be relatively cheap and quick to research. The upshot, however, is that they are disregarded and rendered invalid as soon as you upgrade to a new level. So it's ideal to pick one of these so-called "varients" for a weapon/unit that you intend to keep around for quite some time.

      Example: I research Antitank LvL.1 from the ordnance foundry, anticipating an early armor rush. However, the enemy shows up with more infantry than armor, and I see a need to try and force out a bandaid solution in short order to buy me time to turn the situation around, so I look to add a variant to the Antitank LvL.1.

      The variants in this hypothetical situation might be as follows:

      Advanced armor piercing ammunition
      By using tungsten carbide and advanced ballistic research, our scientists have developed more effective shells to defeat heavy armor. By issuing this ammunition in quantity, we increase the effectiveness of our current generation of guns against increasingly heavier armor. However, these shells are less effective against everything else.

      +1 vs. Heavy Armor, -0.5 vs. All Else

      High Explosive Ammunition
      Ordnance has developed effective anti-personnel shells in this caliber. Although not initially designed for this mission, issuing high explosive shells to our antitank gun crews gives them the ability to lay direct fire against soft targets in support of our troops. However, this comes at the cost of less armor piercing rounds per gun, leading to a decrease in antitank firepower.

      +1 vs. Infantry Armor, -0.5 vs. All Else

      Heavy Gun Shields
      Experience in the field shows that exposed gun crews are vulnerable. The application of heavier gun shields affords the crew with more cover, increasing their survivability. However, the added weight makes the weapon noticeably more difficult for troops to effectively deploy on uneven and broken terrain.

      +5% Health, 10% terrain speed penalties

      Given the situation, I might choose to make the antitank guns in the field a little tougher, or give them more anti-infantry firepower. The quick research would apply to all guns in the field and future guns of this level that I build. However, as soon as I research to Antitank LvL.2, all new-production guns will be stock LvL.2 units. As soon as I upgrade a LvL.1 gun in the field, it loses the upgrade and becomes a stock LvL.2 gun, until I decide whether or not to take one of the LvL.2 variants.
    • Further thinking about it, it would also help give some units that struggle to find a place in the game (like Cruisers) a chance at a role. Imagine the following hypothetical variants:

      Battlecruiser
      Modern technologies and naval theory allows for cruisers to be fitted with armaments similar to battleships. Although unsuitable to match a battleship in a one-on-one fight, the increased range afforded by the greater armament affords a less-expensive alternative to battleships which are still capable of handily defeating other surface threats. They also offer superior shore bombardment capabilities when compared to basic cruisers.

      +20 Attack Range
      -18 Speed

      Anti-aircraft Cruiser
      With the advent of aircraft capable of striking from longer range and with deadlier payloads, the need for fleet defense against these threats is paramount. Several nations are removing torpedo tubes and other surface weapons from their cruisers to make room for hybrid anti-aircraft armaments and suitable fire control systems. Such vessels could provide superior cover from air attack for the larger ships of the fleet, while still being capable of out-gunning smaller vessels.

      +1 Damage vs. Aircraft
      +5% View Range
      -1 Damage vs. Ship

      It should be noted that both of these are intended to be side-grades, rather than flat-out upgrades, to give a player a chance to give his army more character and tweak his units slightly to better fit a strategy. With a little more thought, these variants could be made specific to doctrine trees, which gives the game even more variation.
    • Daniel_Phelps wrote:

      Battlecruiser
      Modern technologies and naval theory allows for cruisers to be fitted with armaments similar to battleships. Although unsuitable to match a battleship in a one-on-one fight, the increased range afforded by the greater armament affords a less-expensive alternative to battleships which are still capable of handily defeating other surface threats. They also offer superior shore bombardment capabilities when compared to basic cruisers.

      +20 Attack Range
      -18 Speed
      Perhaps you can also get it by changing up a battleship instead of a cruiser?


      And what about MG infantry which deal higher anti infantry damage but are slower, deal less damage to armor, and deal less attacking damage?

      MG Infantry
      With the advent of fast firing machine guns capapble of firing hundreds of rounds per minute, militaries are utilizing these weapons in defensive positions. Several nations are sacrificing the speed of their infantry and its attacking abilities in exchange for being able to use these weapons defensively. The units can deal high defensive damage against infantry and are very good at defending strategic positions

      The post was edited 1 time, last by whowh ().

    • you suggest use taktical weaponary in strategic game. Sure, it is off topic.

      Our units already have all weapons they need. Infantery regiment has common soldiers, MG-Gunners, grenadethrowers, sharpshooters, even 1 platoon AA and some light AT's.


      Tank regiments have already different armed tanks. your regiment has average overall stats. This is strategical game not a tactical one. And some players try to pay it even like action one...
    • I'm not suggesting undue tactical focus. However, armies tended to field units with different formats and capabilities. The units in the game have been stated over and over to represent battalion to brigade-sized units. They aren't individual divisions, and their performance is fully influenced by the distribution of weapons within its subunits.

      Going back to my cruiser example, a battlecruiser is an entirely different vessel than a light cruiser. My suggestion allows players the freedom to tweak unit statistics to suit their play style, while still being historical.

      Or, what, do you think a 1944 U.S. Marine rifle and Army Rifle battalion have the same capabilities, even though the former has a much more lavish spread of automatic firepower and the latter has a far more generous spread of antitank weapons?