Pablo22510 wrote:
Yes, but not in real warfare. Guerrilla warfare.
Forum Gang Commissar Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
"Elite" militia?
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
So-so, who is to say this is not how the militia fight? All we know is they come into combat, and the militia's buff in woods would point towards guerilla. Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
Before, from what I was told, people complained about militia being too weak and useless. Now they are complaining about them being too strong? What you propose was already in-game, leading the official manual to say militia is useless.
MontanaBB wrote:
And, in point of fact, level 7 militia is stronger on defense against attacking level 5 infantry -- which is available four days after level 7 militia is. Comparing level 7 militia to level 7 infantry is misleading because it completely ignores the research timeline.
Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
Rarely, and only then in exceptional circumstances. And, if you read my original complaint at the beginning of this thread, you will see that I acknowledged this only makes sense if the game incorporates some new concept of guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately, as presently structured militia don't function as guerrillas, but as a cheaper version second-tier auxiliary infantry. They fight stand-up battles as a regiment, not as guerrillas. Few if any World War II powers used militia in this manner. The Germans employed Volkssturm militia regiments in desperation in the last months of the war in 1945 and most of them got massacred against first-tier American, Commonwealth and Soviet troops.
Quasi-duck wrote:
Partisans have kicked the behinds of SS units you know. Repercussions were awful...
-
As I've said already, you don't know how those little men fight. A buff in woods terrain points to guerrilla, as it would let a unit attack on the hour from an ambush point, then seamlessly disappear.
MontanaBB wrote:
Rarely, and only then in exceptional circumstances. And, if you read my original complaint at the beginning of this thread, you will see that I acknowledged this only makes sense if the game incorporates some new concept of guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately, as presently structured militia don't function as guerrillas, but as a cheaper version second-tier auxiliary infantry. They fight stand-up battles as a regiment, not as guerrillas. Few if any World War II powers used militia in this manner. The Germans employed Volkssturm militia regiments in desperation in the last months of the war in 1945 and most of them got massacred against first-tier American, Commonwealth and Soviet troops.
Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
The goal should not be to give militia a greater purpose, but to reflect World War II reality. Having level 7 militia that are roughly comparable to the concurrently available level 4 and 5 infantry does not reflect World War II reality. Whether militia are useless is not my problem. Frankly, I think they are useless and should be useless as frontline combat troops. Please read my comments above in the thread regarding the performance of the German Volkssturm militia, and why the German game programmers may be perpetuating a mythical idea of Volkssturm "tank killers".
Quasi-duck wrote:
Before, from what I was told, people complained about militia being too weak and useless. Now they are complaining about them being too strong? What you propose was already in-game, leading the official manual to say militia is useless.
-
I'm not arguing against the woods & hills terrain advantage built into the militia game specs. I am arguing that, generally speaking and under most circumstances, militia were not remotely equivalent to frontline infantry units, and the present game specs for level 7 militia and level 4 and 5 infantry present them as rough equivalents in ordinary combat. I can't make the point any clearer for you.
Quasi-duck wrote:
As I've said already, you don't know how those little men fight. A buff in woods terrain points to guerrilla, as it would let a unit attack on the hour from an ambush point, then seamlessly disappear
-
Look, if you are looking for realism, here is not the place. Our TB kill men in the thousands in a few short hours, our naval bombers are useless and our DD cannot harm land targets. I think the devs go more for balancing than realism.
MontanaBB wrote:
The goal should not be to give militia a greater purpose, but to reflect World War II reality. Having level 7 militia that are roughly comparable to the concurrently available level 4 and 5 infantry does not reflect World War II reality. Whether militia are useless is not my problem. Frankly, I think they are useless and should be useless as frontline combat troops. Please read my comments above in the thread regarding the performance of the German Volkssturm militia, and why the German game programmers may be perpetuating a mythical idea of Volkssturm "tank killers".
I read your comments already. Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
Look, you're arguing about how men on a screen are fighting. They aren't even really there. Besides, if we are going to argue that militia can't beat frontline troops, I would beg you to read about Italian troops in WWII and how they were hammered by Greek troops, basically militia using gear from the last world war and poor training. Hell, I don't even think they had an airforce.
MontanaBB wrote:
I'm not arguing against the woods & hills terrain advantage built into the militia game specs. I am arguing that, generally speaking and under most circumstances, militia were not remotely equivalent to frontline infantry units, and the present game specs for level 7 militia and level 4 and 5 infantry present them as rough equivalents in ordinary combat. I can't make the point any clearer for you.
Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
All combat simulations require a certain measure of abstraction in order to make the game playable. That said, within the confines of relative ease of play, more realistic is better than less realistic.
Quasi-duck wrote:
Look, if you are looking for realism, here is not the place.
Oh, and by the way, tactical bombers and tank-busting fighters were one of the major advantages of the American and British/Commonwealth forces on the western front. Air superiority was one of the keys to Allied victory. After June 1944, the Germans could not launch a major offensive or counter-offensive unless the weather effectively grounded the Allies' tactical air force. Aircraft like the P-47, Hawker Typhoon and F4U Corsair were notorious for their devastating effect on enemy tanks and infantry. As for the other issues you mentioned, yes, the game specs for destroyers, cruisers and naval bombers could use some improvements too. I would start by separating "naval bombers" into two different classes: patrol bombers like PBY Catalinas, and dedicated naval bombers like the Grumman Avenger. And, yes, destroyers should have a limited shore bombardment capability.
Weirdly, our German game designers chose to use the Hawker Sea Fury as our representative Allied fighter. In case you're unfamiliar with the Sea Fury, it is arguably one of the two or three best piston-engine fighters ever built, but it saw no combat during World War II. -
They generally struck tanks on trains, and infantry, well, I highly doubt they took out entire regiments alone.
MontanaBB wrote:
Oh, and by the way, tactical bombers and tank-busting fighters were one of the major advantages of the American and British/Commonwealth forces on the western front. Air superiority was one of the keys to Allied victory. After June 1944, the Germans could not launch a major offensive or counter-offensive unless the weather effectively grounded the Allies' tactical air force. Aircraft like the P-47, Hawker Typhoon and F4U Corsair were notorious for their devastating effect on enemy tanks and infantry.
I've heard calls for all these things.MontanaBB wrote:
As for the other issues you mentioned, yes, the game specs for destroyers, cruisers and naval bombers could use some improvements too. I would start by separating "naval bombers" into two different classes: patrol bombers like PBY Catalinas, and dedicated naval bombers like the Grumman Avenger. And, yes, destroyers should have a limited shore bombardment capability.
Yeah, the Fury was mainly in the Korean War, I think. Shot down a Soviet MiG or two.MontanaBB wrote:
Weirdly, our German game designers chose to use the Hawker Sea Fury as our representative Allied fighter. In case you're unfamiliar with the Sea Fury, it is arguably one of the two or three best piston-engine fighters ever built, but it saw no combat during World War II.
This is debatable. The militia unit is kind of a "when all else fails" unit and you need to spam some things quick to try and save yourself. From what I know, you can build up a formidable, albeit slow, force of AT, AA, and Militia fairly rapidly to hold onto provinces. Militia make decent blocking units to hold off enemy forces as they can be made quick. Decent sponges for arty too, as they can be made quick.MontanaBB wrote:
more realistic is better than less realistic.
I would think the strong defense would come from either guerrilla tactics, or doing what Dad's Army would do in WWII and setting up lots of booby traps, then digging in (then didn't do this against the Germans, they were just trained to).
As for the Volkssturm, well, I can't say much. They were pretty awful but I think they did okay at Seelow Heights, for what they were. They also held up long enough in Berlin, again a surprise for what they were. Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
Virtually no weapon kills 100% of a regiment, but I'm afraid this is one of the abstractions of gaming we have to accept. The game should be directly programmed to reward players who attack with multiple unit types at the same time -- tactical air, artillery, armor and infantry -- and to some degree it does already because if your tactical air, artillery and combined armor and infantry attack the same target separately they have different start times for their hourly damage assessments and will "attrit" the enemy unit faster.
Quasi-duck wrote:
They generally struck tanks on trains, and infantry, well, I highly doubt they took out entire regiments alone.
-
No problem, just use all your available gold and rares to capture the golden prize of elite militia, that you fear so mightly!
-
Even at that, 5 of my bomber wings just killed 1,000 men in one run. Like, an hour or so ago. The unit had 100% health too and was grouped with other targets.
MontanaBB wrote:
Virtually no weapon kills 100% of a regiment, but I'm afraid this is one of the abstractions of gaming we have to accept.
Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
Five wings or 5 squadrons? Assuming a wing of 5 squadrons, in Allied terms that's at least 60 tactical bombers -- if those were B-25s or their equivalent, it's completely plausible they could have killed 1,000 infantrymen. Think napalm and fragmentation bombs.
Quasi-duck wrote:
Even at that, 5 of my bomber wings just killed 1,000 men in one run. Like, an hour or so ago. The unit had 100% health too and was grouped with other target
-
I don't fear militia at all, Wayne. That's what tactical bombers, artillery and medium tanks are for. I'm surely not going to waste my good motorized infantry on them. That said, my point is the in-game fighting capability of militia vis-a-vis top-tier infantry is complete fantasy.
WayneBo wrote:
No problem, just use all your available gold and rares to capture the golden prize of elite militia, that you fear so mightly!
-
It was the unit, I just said wing, thinking it might fit. Poor judgement on my part. Japanese force of Ki-67 which would've been equipped for a patrol, then they immediately switched to ground attack, attacking and wiping out either a single anti-tank unit, AC unit, or LT unit. On plain terrain.
MontanaBB wrote:
Five wings or 5 squadrons? Assuming a wing of 5 squadrons, in Allied terms that's at least 60 tactical bombers -- if those were B-25s or their equivalent, it's completely plausible they could have killed 1,000 infantrymen. Think napalm and fragmentation bombs.
Even at 60 bombers, bombing in WWII was not accurate. That many bombers going for low level attacks would be confusing too, and hard for the pilots. If it was a higher up and easier attack, that means the bombing would be less accurate. Forum Gang Commissar
Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!!
-
I would enjoy a separate guerrilla fighter unit for later in the game.It's been a while
-
Strategic bombing was not accurate because it was done from high altitude, the bombs were unguided, and even with wonders such as the Norden bombsite, the trajectory was subject to atmospheric conditions such as crosswinds, etc. The big American and British 4-engine bombers were very good at area/carpet bombing, which was well suited to destroying city centers and large industrial plants.
Quasi-duck wrote:
Even at 60 bombers, bombing in WWII was not accurate. That many bombers going for low level attacks would be confusing too, and hard for the pilots. If it was a higher up and easier attack, that means the bombing would be less accurate.
Tactical bombing, on the other hand, could be devastating. The Germans relied on dive bombers like the Stuka early on. The western Allies used twin-engine TBs which attacked from lower altitudes with far greater accuracy than strategic bombers. They also used fighter bombers which flew fast and low. Ironically, some of the best tactical "bombers" were fighters like the P-47 Thunderbolt, Hawker Typhoon and F4U Corsair which could be adapted to carry anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, rockets and napalm. Fighter squadrons were typically larger, too -- 18 to 24 aircraft. Such fighter-bombers would also have attacked in element succession of pairs or fours, not as a massed wing of 2 or 4-engine bombers all at once.
