|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jun 25, 2016 7:48:45 GMT
i think around 200
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Jun 25, 2016 8:53:34 GMT
150-200
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2016 10:35:08 GMT
≈original count, as adding more than original will be hard and taking time(icon setting mostly)
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Jun 25, 2016 10:46:14 GMT
We should probably aim for the bare minimum first in case we can't think of enough generals, and then we could add more if we have more suggestions and (of course) is our modding team is up to the task.
Id say bare minimum is ~200 as that is the amount of generals in the game as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2016 11:05:01 GMT
We should probably aim for the bare minimum first in case we can't think of enough generals, and then we could add more if we have more suggestions and (of course) is our modding team is up to the task. Id say bare minimum is ~200 as that is the amount of generals in the game as well. Most likely it will be up to me to add them and we programmers are lazy people  |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jun 26, 2016 12:39:02 GMT
200 is a good number I agree, it allows for not just the big names but also division leaders and other heroic officers that would add a little more variation, and our lower grade officers is probably where our Suvorov and Moreau-style specialty generals will come from, and higher up would be hybrids (like Pershing?!?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 17:33:43 GMT
Add some Canadian General like Sir Arthur William Currie
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2016 17:34:21 GMT
We need get the General for all those major power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jun 26, 2016 17:41:40 GMT
Add some Canadian General like Sir Arthur William Currie Of course. The CeF deserves its commanders. |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 18, 2016 15:16:16 GMT
I didn't see any thread for unit suggestions related to this WW1 mod, so I will post here instead of creating a thread that could get lost by slipping to page 3 or 4.
Okay, to me, WW1 was one of the most attrition-intensive wars heavily favoring the defensive. Suppose we could set the units with that in mind? It's probably the easiest way to simulate that sort of fact into the game, easier than terrain values, but not necessarily in excluding them out of the mod.
I would suggest for strongest infantry on the defensive: machine gun crews. They're not the speediest nor gives the best offensive punch (they're pretty difficult to use in a push while they're far more effective in holding a line). I was thinking of an unusual high HP but not necessarily a high attack rating, and also sports a very low movement rating.
Granted a whole bunch of machine gun crews would turn this into a grind-fest (WW1 is a grindfest though), would this be good or bad for the mod?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Jul 18, 2016 16:13:59 GMT
I didn't see any thread for unit suggestions related to this WW1 mod, so I will post here instead of creating a thread that could get lost by slipping to page 3 or 4. Okay, to me, WW1 was one of the most attrition-intensive wars heavily favoring the defensive. Suppose we could set the units with that in mind? It's probably the easiest way to simulate that sort of fact into the game, easier than terrain values, but not necessarily in excluding them out of the mod. I would suggest for strongest infantry on the defensive: machine gun crews. They're not the speediest nor gives the best offensive punch (they're pretty difficult to use in a push while they're far more effective in holding a line). I was thinking of an unusual high HP but not necessarily a high attack rating, and also sports a very low movement rating. Granted a whole bunch of machine gun crews would turn this into a grind-fest (WW1 is a grindfest though), would this be good or bad for the mod? I'd make these units fairly cheap in my opinion so as to make it more historical (making them cheaper will allow for more mg's which will then result in more holding a line which leads to grindfest, etc. etc.) Ofc, we must have Tanks. Tanks should be very expensive, but they should also have a lot of good skills. Good offensive capability, high HP, and would have high movement. Also deal high damage to units which are entrenched. Will planes be separate units or will they just be used for air strike, bombing, etc? |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Jul 18, 2016 16:49:34 GMT
To Ivan KolevHmm in my mind, I was thinking of almost all units have relatively weak attack stats in comparison to large HP stacks. The biggest HP would go to the MG crews, of course. So I wouldn't make MG crews that cheap, but not that expensive either, giving the best gold to HP ratio but still cost a bit more gold per unit than the average infantry. Tanks, agreed to that idea of strong attack, but you have to remember that early tanks being developed weren't nonewhere close to the armored beasts capable of doing 50 mph, shooting 70mm, laying out damage as a monstrous angel of death. That would be more of post-war development for tanks to finally transition into true tanks that we're familiar with the WW2 movies (which uses tanks that were developed like 15 to 20 years after those tanks that were used in WW1). Ww1 era tanks were clunky, unreliable, mildly armored (the engines at that time couldn't carry that much of tons of armor), slow, and barely could turn around. The caliber of their cannons were quite small, nonewhere near to what you would normally envision poking out of a turrent on a tank. That said, I'm still supportive of the idea of expensive high-powered attacking tanks, but their HP should be relatively low in gold to HP ratios. Maybe hardly that high as WC3 tanks, and even maybe a little lesser than calvary in unmodded EW4. I could look up stats to compare how much tons the early-era tanks to the conventional tanks of inter-war and WW2. The differences were pretty big, if I recall correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 20:01:12 GMT
To Ivan KolevHmm in my mind, I was thinking of almost all units have relatively weak attack stats in comparison to large HP stacks. The biggest HP would go to the MG crews, of course. So I wouldn't make MG crews that cheap, but not that expensive either, giving the best gold to HP ratio but still cost a bit more gold per unit than the average infantry. Tanks, agreed to that idea of strong attack, but you have to remember that early tanks being developed weren't nonewhere close to the armored beasts capable of doing 50 mph, shooting 70mm, laying out damage as a monstrous angel of death. That would be more of post-war development for tanks to finally transition into true tanks that we're familiar with the WW2 movies (which uses tanks that were developed like 15 to 20 years after those tanks that were used in WW1). Ww1 era tanks were clunky, unreliable, mildly armored (the engines at that time couldn't carry that much of tons of armor), slow, and barely could turn around. The caliber of their cannons were quite small, nonewhere near to what you would normally envision poking out of a turrent on a tank. That said, I'm still supportive of the idea of expensive high-powered attacking tanks, but their HP should be relatively low in gold to HP ratios. Maybe hardly that high as WC3 tanks, and even maybe a little lesser than calvary in unmodded EW4. I could look up stats to compare how much tons the early-era tanks to the conventional tanks of inter-war and WW2. The differences were pretty big, if I recall correctly. Tanks firstly showed up in battle in 1915(firstly used by Russians, built in Riga in RVR factory) By that time most units seeing that monster ran away, I think it should have drop morale attack (if I'll find out how). And Angel of the death is my nick in fps games. |
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Jul 19, 2016 6:23:15 GMT
To Ivan Kolev Hmm in my mind, I was thinking of almost all units have relatively weak attack stats in comparison to large HP stacks. The biggest HP would go to the MG crews, of course. So I wouldn't make MG crews that cheap, but not that expensive either, giving the best gold to HP ratio but still cost a bit more gold per unit than the average infantry. Tanks, agreed to that idea of strong attack, but you have to remember that early tanks being developed weren't nonewhere close to the armored beasts capable of doing 50 mph, shooting 70mm, laying out damage as a monstrous angel of death. That would be more of post-war development for tanks to finally transition into true tanks that we're familiar with the WW2 movies (which uses tanks that were developed like 15 to 20 years after those tanks that were used in WW1). Ww1 era tanks were clunky, unreliable, mildly armored (the engines at that time couldn't carry that much of tons of armor), slow, and barely could turn around. The caliber of their cannons were quite small, nonewhere near to what you would normally envision poking out of a turrent on a tank. That said, I'm still supportive of the idea of expensive high-powered attacking tanks, but their HP should be relatively low in gold to HP ratios. Maybe hardly that high as WC3 tanks, and even maybe a little lesser than calvary in unmodded EW4. I could look up stats to compare how much tons the early-era tanks to the conventional tanks of inter-war and WW2. The differences were pretty big, if I recall correctly. Tanks firstly showed up in battle in 1915(firstly used by Russians, built in Riga in RVR factory) By that time most units seeing that monster ran away, I think it should have drop morale attack (if I'll find out how). And Angel of the death is my nick in fps games. Like Cavalry in Ew4 |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 5, 2016 15:16:42 GMT
To Ivan Kolev Hmm in my mind, I was thinking of almost all units have relatively weak attack stats in comparison to large HP stacks. The biggest HP would go to the MG crews, of course. So I wouldn't make MG crews that cheap, but not that expensive either, giving the best gold to HP ratio but still cost a bit more gold per unit than the average infantry. Tanks, agreed to that idea of strong attack, but you have to remember that early tanks being developed weren't nonewhere close to the armored beasts capable of doing 50 mph, shooting 70mm, laying out damage as a monstrous angel of death. That would be more of post-war development for tanks to finally transition into true tanks that we're familiar with the WW2 movies (which uses tanks that were developed like 15 to 20 years after those tanks that were used in WW1). Ww1 era tanks were clunky, unreliable, mildly armored (the engines at that time couldn't carry that much of tons of armor), slow, and barely could turn around. The caliber of their cannons were quite small, nonewhere near to what you would normally envision poking out of a turrent on a tank. That said, I'm still supportive of the idea of expensive high-powered attacking tanks, but their HP should be relatively low in gold to HP ratios. Maybe hardly that high as WC3 tanks, and even maybe a little lesser than calvary in unmodded EW4. I could look up stats to compare how much tons the early-era tanks to the conventional tanks of inter-war and WW2. The differences were pretty big, if I recall correctly. Tanks firstly showed up in battle in 1915(firstly used by Russians, built in Riga in RVR factory) By that time most units seeing that monster ran away, I think it should have drop morale attack (if I'll find out how). And Angel of the death is my nick in fps games. Modern tanks were invented in the UK and were first used by them. France, Germany, Italy(2 tanks by Fiat) and US followed soon after. Russians did have armoured vehicle prototypes but scrapped them; they also have some conceptul tanks that I can't find. Austro-Hungary had a guy that had a brilliant design for an armoured vehicle, perhaps better than the British ones, in 1911, but the government rejected it. Therefore, IMO, only London, Paris, Berlin, Washington should be able to build tanks. Italy only built two tanks that were never used in WWI, Russia only had prototypes, and A-H's never got built. Sources: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstyn-Motorgesch%C3%BCtz for the A-H tank it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_2000 for the Italian Tank www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/Vezdekhod.html Russian Tank web.archive.org/web/20080709014139/http://www.landships.freeservers.com/lebedenko_info.htm weird Russian Tank |
|
