[MA] Units

If you have any idea/suggestions on the following here would be the place to comment it
-New units that should be added
-New Unique Units
-Pedia Entrees
-Changes in Unit Stats
-Better/Different Unit Art
-Which Civs UU's are For

In the future there will be a list here of unit that are being added in the next update. I am not doing it for this update since the units are being completely redone, there are hundreds of new ones.

List of UU's
Medium Tank

Spoiler :

Fiat m13 40 - Same stats as light tank, one extra combat, couple more cost
M4 Sherman - -25% cost, -10% tank
M26 Pershing - stats between medium and heavy tanks
M40 Turan I - I think -10% vs tanks but dont like to add only negative stats since then no reason to be built
Panther - +15% flatland, -10% forest/jungle, +1 combat, -10% vs infantry tanks
Panzer 38t - +20% light tank, -10% tanks (so overall 10% vs light), similar stats to light tank
Panzer III - n/a
Panzer IV - +10% tank
Sherman Firefly - -1 combat, +30% vs tank
T-34 - +10% tank, -10% cost, +tundra, snow
Type 97 - -35% vs tanks, -10% vs vehicle

 

@ aob
What where WW1 planes engines ran on? I know nothing about engines and I was thinking about it and I do not think they used coal or oil, so what did they use?

Also I added a bunch of units, some off the top of my head
-Early Attack Submarine
-Gun Howitzer
-Midget Submarine
-Missile Jet Bomber (Jet bombers post 1970)
-Tactical Nuke (Replaces MRBM and SRBM)
-Improved Light Cruiser (WW2 Light Cruiser)
-Improve Biplane (WW2 Era)

Edit: what should Monoplanes upgrade to? The Peashooter is what I am using as the default unit. Obviously i thought fighter first, but that means monoplanes would be outdated cerca 1937 and that seems a bit early - seems a couple years to early. But if I have it upgrade to 1st Gen Jet Fighter than it would be used untill 1945 - too late

Also: Are there any other worthy biplane torpedo bombers? I mean you being British I know you know of one . Only other one I can think of is the Fi 167. Where there others (WW2 era) Because if so I might add a seperate class for them since difference between the biplanes and monoplanes is big enough for its own class

And for the third edit: Which other planes should be able to travel on carriers? Torpedo Bombers yes, Heavy bombers no correct? Any others should go on?

 

they used rotary engines(early internal combustion engines) which ran on petroleum

problem is which they planes is the different types cross over, due to limited budgets lots of countries were still making and using biplanes until the late 30s even early 40s in some cases but i think it should go
biplane - monoplane - late 30's/early ww2 planes - later ww2 planes - first gen jets.

the most famous biritsh one we had was the Fairey Swordfish - sank 2 italian battleships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish

 

Of course I know of the swordfish, thats why I said you being british you should know But are there any other examples? Since I like usually atleast 3 or 4 countries to use something if I put it in.

I agree, and thats the way i placed it to except for the later WW2 planes. I dont have those in yet but I plan on them but I dont think early ones should upgrade to it. Because Earlly WW2 planes weren't always worse than later ones, and im sure many were better, and the later ones definatly did not obsolete the creating of early ones. I think I will have monoplane upgrade to both and then both upgrade to 1st Gen Jet

Ill re-ask because i don't think you saw the last edit in the post
Which other planes should be able to travel on carriers? Torpedo Bombers yes, Heavy bombers no correct? Any others should go on?

Units are almost done (Half way done with fighters, then rest of planes) - they should be done today

 

i couldnt really find any other in big enough numbers worth mentioning, i think the swordfish was the exception.

i see what you mean about the later ww2 planes, would also stop everyone upgrading all there earlier fighters to the later ones so yes i think thats a good call there.

no i didnt see your last edit.
Torpedo Bombers/dive bombers yes and unless you want to add in the doolittle raid in some how then no other bombers no.

 

I want to adventually add Doolittle raid, and it would be easy beside the fact I need to make sure all the B-25's die which would be hard so not in the future

how about other fighters? (Heavy fighter, fighter-bombers?) Both no?

Yeah like I said Fi 167 are the only other ones I heard of but thats probably only because of their connection to the Graf zeppelin carriers - assuming your opinion about adding biplane torpedo bombers (ww2 not ww1) would be no than?

 

no to heavy fighters and fighter bombers

obviously being british i'd like to have the Swordfish ingame but from a mod point of view its not worth adding, you could run it by kiwitt see what he thinks.

speaking of the Graf zeppelin carriers, could do with something in the ww2 scenario so countries like cuba dont start building carriers.

 

Swordfish is already in the game as a torpedo bomber, its just wether or not I would seperate that into its own class of biplane torpedo bomber

There are things we can do, but none I want to do. I can make it so cuba can never build carriers - causes problems obviously in custom game. It can be coded so if it is this scenario, this civ, this unit can;t be built - but then thats a lot of code since you want a bunch of countries and units like that. And that code gets brought up everytime someone goes to build something in their city - not worth lag.

The best thing we can do is make it accurate. Realisticly Cuba could of made a carrier if they wanted - but if they did it would take up to much resources, time etc when they only have 3 cities creating things it would not be worth it. We just need to duplicate that in the scenario, so they could create it if they want, but if they do they will it will probably do more harm then good - since that is the real reason they didnt have one

 

FNP (Former Navy Pilot) was a significant contributor to the accuracy of my RTW version.

Please consider his comments carefully in the development of all things "Naval"

 

WW2 Carriers carried generally three or four types of aircraft: fighters for air defense and escort, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. A fourth minor class consisted of scouting aircraft, or the IJN embarked horizontal bombers.

 

Proplen with scouting aircraft is theres nothing for them to do really. Already have UAV and AWAC and stuff like that and there really isnt a point to them sadly in cIV - any ideas how?

 

Sorry didnt see the post you made about the ships, so i will respond now

@Upgrade ships - doesnt suprise me you dont like upgrades since you are pretty historical. I dont really think of it as converting the ship though. I think of it like how you can rush a unit build - it costs close to the same (not sure if its the same, never took time to look) to upgrade it as rush it so it is like you are recycling the ship, using the scrap to help build the new one and you are hurrying it.

@Carriers
So I will give any carriers that are wooden a minus against aircraft. I can give escort carriers a bonus vs submarines but it was really the aircraft that should get the bonus correct? I cant really do that, a bonus while on a ship and not while on others. Beside that other points not much I can do in CIV

@ LPH/ LPA/ LPD
Sounds good

@ CA / CL/ armored-protected cruiser
Not sure how to put that in

@ BC
So a negative % vs battleships and a high withdraw chance?

@Frigates
What would you put the WW2 frigates under than? Ex. Loch class frigate where would you put it under?

@Techs, mos tof them had in mind but I will definatly add all of those

 

Forgot to add ASDIC - Sonar

 

CVE's ... yes it is the aircraft. Doesn't matter if the aircraft are embarked or shore based. Capability vs subs is the same. CVE just provided an "airfield" in the middle of the ocean.

 

BC's: In the game, the best method of showing their strength is increased withdrawal chance vs BB. But if they are hit by major caliber it goes very badly.

 

FF class. I would recommend dropping it altogether and using a DDE instead.

 

Only America used Destroyer Escorts though - while frigates where much more widely used regardless of wether the name was used back then. Predreadnoughts where obvoiusly not called predreadnoughts then so can't say the names are to important as long as the purposes are down

 

A rose by any name ... My bust on DDE the WWII term was DE.

Approx 1022 DE's built in WWII. My references list 311 UK WWII flower and castle corvettes, and 151 river class frigates. Additionally the UK converted all remaining V and W class WWI DD's to destroyer escorts for WWII.

Pick a name you like for small anti-submarine sea going class ships.

 

destroyer escort does make a lot more sence than escort destroyer - but either way they basically are the same just the name is different so either way don't think it will matter all to much