That does seem strange. Especially considering that WW1 tanks were incredibly slow. 4 is the number that Arioch provides. I wonder what his source on that is.
I would say cut the range in half for the landship and give it a 2. He probably assumes it would be the same movement as a WW2 tank, which is 4.
Early WW2 M3 tank speed 16 mph.
Speed for WWI tanks, Mark IV tank 6.4 mph and FT17 tank 7.2 mph. Based on this, cutting the range in half makes sense. Landships should represent the technology present during WWI. If they do give the landship a 4 they then will need to up the WW2 tank and modern armor. Which may be the case. I suppose it depends on how they have adjusted unit ranges to balance the new combat changes with unit HP etc.
Hmmmm....not 100% sure about your tank speeds. I thought the FT-17 was a bit faster than that. I'll ask my buddy, he's the world expert on French WWI tanks (no exaggeration).
Any decision on the stats of the Landship would've been primarily based on gameplay considerations. Perhaps it was thought that they required higher movement than Infantry/Machine-Guns
I'ts definitely based on gameplay! If landships would be too slow, nobody would upgrade cavalry, as speed is the most important trait of this unit type! Landships would only be an annoying intermediate step when upgrading to faster WWII tanks.
I'ts definitely based on gameplay! If landships would be too slow, nobody would upgrade cavalry, as speed is the most important trait of this unit type! Landships would only be an annoying intermediate step when upgrading to WWII tanks.
Sure, it depends on the strength increase. We don't know, how much it will be, at present. But the strenght increase should be huge, to compensate the loss of speed and flexibility. I don't think, we'll see such a big strength increase in G&K.
Movement can also be seen as a measurement of endurance. Even if a WWI-Tank is slow, it doesn't become fatigued the same a soldier does. So the slow mph of such unit can also be reflected of its strength.
Movement can also be seen as a measurement of endurance. Even if a WWI-Tank is slow, it doesn't become fatigued the same a soldier does. So the slow mph of such unit can also be reflected of its strength.
If it's about endurance than WWI tanks shouldn't move at all!
Fully 1/3 of heavy tanks could be expected to not function in a given attack. A further 1/3 would generally ditch out during the attack, or be taken out by enemy artillery and small arms fire. This was the problem with most tank designs of the war, it was practically a one-use weapon (within the context of a days-long battle).
Hmmmm....not 100% sure about your tank speeds. I thought the FT-17 was a bit faster than that. I'll ask my buddy, he's the world expert on French WWI tanks (no exaggeration).
You are right ask him. That was the speed of the early model. There were several modifications over time. I do know that the Polish army in 1939, still used them.
I have read that in many cases bullets from German rifles were able to penetrate the armor and bounce around inside the tank. They were very susceptible to artillery, because a tortoise could run circles around them. In short a death trap and widowmaker.
I'ts definitely based on gameplay! If landships would be too slow, nobody would upgrade cavalry, as speed is the most important trait of this unit type! Landships would only be an annoying intermediate step when upgrading to faster WWII tanks.
Players do upgrade theirs horsemen to Elephants as Siam, so the increased strength for landship may still be tempting enough for the upgrade. Personally I would go for 3, more realistic than 4 moves & not making them too weak, instead they can slightly increase its strength compared to current landship stats.
Barbi, of course you are right about the elephants and I think, that 3 would be a great compromise between game usability and realism - a slightly higher strength to compensate for this loss would be reasonable by all means. (But then, we only know that WWI landship will be 60 , but nothing about the cavalry's new strength. So, maybe the increase will be high enough already. We still need more information for a valid judgment.)
Because the landship falls in the "mounted" upgrade path, I think that 3-4 movement makes sense. In reality, that's not very accurate (correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that they were cumbersome and actually slower to move across long distances than infantry). However, Deggial is completely right: from a gameplay perspective it would be very awkward to upgrade cavalry into a slower unit, and then back into a faster unit again (WW2 tank). It would trhow off your army composition completely. That said, I think 3 movement tiles is the best. But really, we don't know nearly enough about how strength/movement has been adjusted, so I think it's safe to say Firaxis has better judgement than us at this point.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
, more realistic than 4 moves & not making them too weak, instead they can slightly increase its strength compared to current landship stats.
, but nothing about the cavalry's new strength. So, maybe the increase will be high enough already. We still need more information for a valid judgment.)
.
