hello cincinatus,
you must have your Conquests version updated to 1.22.
You will find useful info in the readme
you must have your Conquests version updated to 1.22.
You will find useful info in the readme
Rhye's of Civilization - the fastest loading mod Expanded
- Thread starter Rhye
- Start date
- Status
Cincinatus
Chieftain
Thanks for the quick reply.
Can I have the difference between the following terms:
-mobile infantry
-mech infantry
-halftrack
-APC
I need the definition, the difference in role, the difference in when they were invented and were used
-mobile infantry
-mech infantry
-halftrack
-APC
I need the definition, the difference in role, the difference in when they were invented and were used
Chukchi Husky
Lone Wolf
APC means Armoured Personnel Carrier. A halftrack could be one, but sometimes they have full tracks and armoured like a tank, defended by a machine gun.
and what's the difference between mobile and mechanized inf.?
Let's see:
I try to throw in a proposal:
mot. transport allows the Halftrack (which seems to be the oldest of the listed units, except for the armoured car), 6/8/1 + ATAR.
Upgrades to IFV (an heavy APC, the mech inf. animation should be OK), 10/12/1 + ATAR
remember that now it is:
Armoured car: 7/7/2 -> mech inf: 13/13/2
I try to throw in a proposal:
mot. transport allows the Halftrack (which seems to be the oldest of the listed units, except for the armoured car), 6/8/1 + ATAR.
Upgrades to IFV (an heavy APC, the mech inf. animation should be OK), 10/12/1 + ATAR
remember that now it is:
Armoured car: 7/7/2 -> mech inf: 13/13/2
Mobile Infantry: Soldiers transported from a non-combat zone to another non-combat zone by trucks. Soldiers dismount some distance away from the enemy and deploy on foot before engaging.Rhye said:
Mechanized Infantry: Soldiers, normally equipped for assaulting defended positions, they travel in half-tracks or fully tracked APC's as supporting infantry for armoured (tank) units. They travel right up to the point of engagement in their armoured vehicles and dismount only when contact is made. Receiving supporting fire from heavier weapons carried on the fully-tracked APC or half-track APC.
OK, now, I'd like to know the years when those have been used.
That is important to choose which two of the list should go in the game.
From an historical point of view, what's better between "mobile infantry upgrading to mech infantry" and "halftrack upgrading to IFV (or APC)"
That is important to choose which two of the list should go in the game.
From an historical point of view, what's better between "mobile infantry upgrading to mech infantry" and "halftrack upgrading to IFV (or APC)"
Rhye said:
Using trucks to move your soldiers around didn't really become common until around 1943, a lack of trucks was the only thing delaying every infantry battalion being so equipped. Many German, Russian and some British Divisions weren't motorized at all during the war, whilst some were obviously using trucks to get about in the 1930's they weren't standard equipment. (BTW Having a division wholly mobile in trucks was a new concept during WWII and units so equipped were called Motorized Infantry not Mobile.)
Mechanized infantry was perfected by the Germans in 1940. Small numbers of "Panzergrenadier" (armoured infantry) mounted in lightly armoured half tracks would accompany the Panzer Divisions into combat. By the middle of the war Panzer Divisions would include 4-6 battalions of mechanized infantry using half-tracks and armoured cars. (The trouble for the Germans was the lack of APC's, if they were lucky the battalions which didn't have enough APC's would have trucks, otherwise they would be walking with heavy equipment pulled by horses.) This concept was eventually copied by every other army.
Motorized Infantry became the norm during the 1950's (especially during Korea). During the late 1960's as armies got smaller and more specialized it became standard practice to move your forces into combat using APC's. (Vietnam being a major exception simply because it wasn't possible to operate APC's or tanks in many jungle locations.) Most armies still maintain forces which are not equipped with APC's and are more lightly armed so that they can be moved faster by air and operate in areas where vehicles cannot.
Motorized upgrading to mechanized kinda misses the point as both infantry units perform different tasks. Simply put, all infantry eventually become mobile (i.e. motorized) to some extent. Whilst Mechanized infantry is equipped specifically to conduct more offensive operations or maintain control over large areas.
This doesn't alter the fact that the unit you are considering is another 1940's development which you want to put in a slot you say is reserved for something from the 1920's.
IMHO (and I promise this is the last time I'll say this!) Half Track Infantry upgrading to Mech Inf isn't necessary but the upgrade path Tank>Heavy Tank>MBT is.
(BTW APC, IFV or Mech Inf are describing the same thing.)
Yes it has to be something from the 30's maximum.
If you prefer an early tank instead of mob. inf. or halftrack there, it has to be an early light tank. (well, we could consider the halftrack a light tank anyway)
Then, two possible upgrades are possible: to the tank or to the mech inf.
To mech inf is correct: I read that many APC were old obsolete light tanks re-adapted.
So, it could be:
Light tank (Renault FT17 animation) -> Mech Inf.
If you prefer an early tank instead of mob. inf. or halftrack there, it has to be an early light tank. (well, we could consider the halftrack a light tank anyway)
Then, two possible upgrades are possible: to the tank or to the mech inf.
To mech inf is correct: I read that many APC were old obsolete light tanks re-adapted.
So, it could be:
Light tank (Renault FT17 animation) -> Mech Inf.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I just suggested a half track because I realized that you guys have a problem with the word car. These things lasted well towards WW2; the American Tank Corps started in WW1 virtually died out because these cars were cheaper.
Its a lot closer to Armored Truck than armored car.
The real problem isnt history, its perspective. Some of you are sitting there thinking subconciously that these things are Honda Civic size machine gun carrying widgets. Not exactly.
Here is a site with a Russian Armored Car http://www.battlefield.ru/fai.html
that includes a picture
A modern day example would be the Humvee
I have to get my political statement ready or I would do some more research, but you guys can go hit up google and find a ton more on your own!
Its a lot closer to Armored Truck than armored car.
The real problem isnt history, its perspective. Some of you are sitting there thinking subconciously that these things are Honda Civic size machine gun carrying widgets. Not exactly.
Here is a site with a Russian Armored Car http://www.battlefield.ru/fai.html
that includes a picture
A modern day example would be the Humvee
I have to get my political statement ready or I would do some more research, but you guys can go hit up google and find a ton more on your own!
At the moment your tank path is:
1940's Tank > 1980's MBT
Your Aircraft path is:
1915 Biplane > 1940's Fighter > 1975+ Jet Fighter > 1980's Stealth Fighter
Infantry path:
1880/1900 Rifleman > 1916 MG > 1970's AT
1916 Inf > 1980's Inf
1970's Mechanized Inf
The progression in the late industrial to modern eras just doesn't seem right to me and the holes are just too big between some and too small between others.
1940's Tank > 1980's MBT
Your Aircraft path is:
1915 Biplane > 1940's Fighter > 1975+ Jet Fighter > 1980's Stealth Fighter
Infantry path:
1880/1900 Rifleman > 1916 MG > 1970's AT
1916 Inf > 1980's Inf
1970's Mechanized Inf
The progression in the late industrial to modern eras just doesn't seem right to me and the holes are just too big between some and too small between others.
Asclepius said:
Who said that the jet fighter is 1975+? It can be 1960, too. Even if the animation shows a mig-29, the unit is intended to cover from the 50s on.
If you prefer another animation, just tell.
The stealth units entered in service in the 90s. The date of invention is another matter. The F-117 was used in the gulf war and in Kosovo. Before that, there was the F-19.
In any case, it is enough distant from the jet fighter.
Asclepius said:
This is not correct. The rifleman covers from post-Napoleonic/mid-800 until the end of the Century. The animation shows an American Civil War rifleman.
[/QUOTE]
I've been following up on the whole armored car/halftrack discussion and honestly, I don't see why a unit of that type is even necessary. Who, exactly, is going to build them? You can immediately begin researching for tanks and have a vastly superior unit within a few turns. Plus, with the stats the car has been given, it isn't really a large improvement over the best cavalry units.
I'm all for flavor units to add variety but these seems pointless.
Another unit that leaves me scratching my head is the machine gunner. I *really* liked the earlier builds where all the foot units converged at fusiliers and then went to infantry. It seemed more realistic to me and made sure that all civs could have a chance to regain defensive unit parity before the industrial era. I recommend that those lines be made to converge again and then that rubber be removed as a requirement for infantry. The reason for this is that I've played literally 100+ games of Rhye's and have rarely seen more than a small handful of civs ever colonize rubber. You wind up with tanks vs rifleman which destroys the balance of the game. Let infantry go to around 8/10/1 and allow it to become the dominant unit until the advent of armor.
Last thing, what are we supposed to use for defensive units in the modern age? The mechanized infantry tops out at 14 defense and is clearly no match for the modern armor units with their 20+ attack. This is a huge issue as cities become basically indefensible. There will simply be no way to stand up to any sizable AI SoD late in the game. There needs to be a defensive unit within defense points of the best attacker units or balance is destroyed.
I'm all for flavor units to add variety but these seems pointless.
Another unit that leaves me scratching my head is the machine gunner. I *really* liked the earlier builds where all the foot units converged at fusiliers and then went to infantry. It seemed more realistic to me and made sure that all civs could have a chance to regain defensive unit parity before the industrial era. I recommend that those lines be made to converge again and then that rubber be removed as a requirement for infantry. The reason for this is that I've played literally 100+ games of Rhye's and have rarely seen more than a small handful of civs ever colonize rubber. You wind up with tanks vs rifleman which destroys the balance of the game. Let infantry go to around 8/10/1 and allow it to become the dominant unit until the advent of armor.
Last thing, what are we supposed to use for defensive units in the modern age? The mechanized infantry tops out at 14 defense and is clearly no match for the modern armor units with their 20+ attack. This is a huge issue as cities become basically indefensible. There will simply be no way to stand up to any sizable AI SoD late in the game. There needs to be a defensive unit within defense points of the best attacker units or balance is destroyed.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
Less than the stats of the best attack; remember that the defense has all those little city defense benefits, and the AI cannot remember what button to push to make the artillery work (honestly, this is the ONLY game I have EVER heard of where it is ok for the AI to not understand how to use parts of the game. RIDICULOUS!).
I have been saying the same thing about infantry infrequently (in that a change from the original was... ill concieved ;p), but it seems that the prevailing blasts of hot air ;p are in favor of it. Sheer volume stands with an infantry change, and thats how cheer-ocracies work! Speaking of which... can we add a government called cheerocracy? It could super suck, it would just be entertaining to someone of my feeble intellect ;p
As to HTs and ACs, why not have the darn thing in there. Its already there, it serves some kind of purpose... maybe... and it looks cute ;p
Can anyone think of a compelling reason to get rid of it?
Oh, and are the Cavalry units upgrading to some kind of mechanized infantry? If they dont, they should! Go check out unit designations; there are still Cavalry units around in the modern world, but they are usually equipped with helis and other hyper mobile bits of equipment.
From what I know, the current military definition of cavalry is that it is a tactic, not a a dude on a horse. It is the idea of a hyper mobile (strike) unit that can attack rapidly without the encumbrance of heavy weaponry. Usually they do their best work on the flanks, where they can tear into a force already engaged with a primary unit, like a general infantry group or a tank corps.
***IDEA***
Also, thought of a way to implement invisible units. Make the guerrilla line invisible, but make it so that all units can detect invisible. That way these guerilla units can run around causing havoc, but do not require a special unit to hunt them (something which never made sense to me in other games).
This means that they can sneak around, but cannot attack any cities without being spotted. It also increases the value of patrolling the countryside (something France, and later the US, was forced to do in Vietnam).
So surprise attacks are possible, but the units capable of executing them are better suited to the fifth column activites for which they were designed (cutting rails and killing villagers and generally making PITA of themselves)
I have been saying the same thing about infantry infrequently (in that a change from the original was... ill concieved ;p), but it seems that the prevailing blasts of hot air ;p are in favor of it. Sheer volume stands with an infantry change, and thats how cheer-ocracies work! Speaking of which... can we add a government called cheerocracy? It could super suck, it would just be entertaining to someone of my feeble intellect ;p
As to HTs and ACs, why not have the darn thing in there. Its already there, it serves some kind of purpose... maybe... and it looks cute ;p
Can anyone think of a compelling reason to get rid of it?
Oh, and are the Cavalry units upgrading to some kind of mechanized infantry? If they dont, they should! Go check out unit designations; there are still Cavalry units around in the modern world, but they are usually equipped with helis and other hyper mobile bits of equipment.
From what I know, the current military definition of cavalry is that it is a tactic, not a a dude on a horse. It is the idea of a hyper mobile (strike) unit that can attack rapidly without the encumbrance of heavy weaponry. Usually they do their best work on the flanks, where they can tear into a force already engaged with a primary unit, like a general infantry group or a tank corps.
***IDEA***
Also, thought of a way to implement invisible units. Make the guerrilla line invisible, but make it so that all units can detect invisible. That way these guerilla units can run around causing havoc, but do not require a special unit to hunt them (something which never made sense to me in other games).
This means that they can sneak around, but cannot attack any cities without being spotted. It also increases the value of patrolling the countryside (something France, and later the US, was forced to do in Vietnam).
So surprise attacks are possible, but the units capable of executing them are better suited to the fifth column activites for which they were designed (cutting rails and killing villagers and generally making PITA of themselves)
horton, the separation of the lines was made in order to make something upgradeable to machine gunners.
You made me notice many times of the importance of the upgrades; now, isn't that important?
What do you think if I make infantry a non-resource unit and leave everything else unaltered?
You made me notice many times of the importance of the upgrades; now, isn't that important?
What do you think if I make infantry a non-resource unit and leave everything else unaltered?
I'd prefer to see both the foot lines converge at fusiliers and then upgrade to infantry and then mechanized infantry. This allows for fusiliers to take on a larger role than merely defenders as they would be the only 4+ attack foot unit available besides colonial marines and those marines have to be built from scratch. Once fusiliers are upgraded to non-resource dependant infantry, they become the dominant unit available until armor comes onto the scene. This allows for the AI to "catch up" unit wise and achieve parity with each other since few AI ever manage to get their hands on rubber. Machine gunners are just too specialized for my taste. They are useless for anything besides defense so even if the AI mass upgrades it's fusiliers to them it will not use them effectively.
One great change in the X-Pack from original Rhye's and civ in general is the increased versatility of most gunpowder units. Why put in a 4/10/1 machine gunner that possesses none of that versatility? Who would build them when you can have 8/7/1 infantry? Especially considering that you're likely only facing offensive units from the AI that have attack ratings of 6-8?
Also, I made a typo in my last post. I meant to say that the best defender unit's defense rating needs to be within 3-4 points of the best attacker's attack rating.
One great change in the X-Pack from original Rhye's and civ in general is the increased versatility of most gunpowder units. Why put in a 4/10/1 machine gunner that possesses none of that versatility? Who would build them when you can have 8/7/1 infantry? Especially considering that you're likely only facing offensive units from the AI that have attack ratings of 6-8?
Also, I made a typo in my last post. I meant to say that the best defender unit's defense rating needs to be within 3-4 points of the best attacker's attack rating.
argh. Where were you when we made those changes?
In this moment there are 4 foot unit lines:
the offensive (from swordsman to marine)
the ranged/defensive (from archer to TOW)
the versatile (from warrior to modern inf.)
the cheap (from urban militia to guerrilla)
And this makes sense. In general terms, the player has the very subjective choice of building offensive and defensive or only versatile units.
This means that one can choose between swordsman+archer and spearman and this goes on until modern: which is better? 1 marine+ 1 machinegunner or 2 all-purpose infantry?
The rubber has been a problem since early times. Few civs are up-to-date in industrial and modern; however it seems that most of those few civs reach rubber.
In this moment there are 4 foot unit lines:
the offensive (from swordsman to marine)
the ranged/defensive (from archer to TOW)
the versatile (from warrior to modern inf.)
the cheap (from urban militia to guerrilla)
And this makes sense. In general terms, the player has the very subjective choice of building offensive and defensive or only versatile units.
This means that one can choose between swordsman+archer and spearman and this goes on until modern: which is better? 1 marine+ 1 machinegunner or 2 all-purpose infantry?
The rubber has been a problem since early times. Few civs are up-to-date in industrial and modern; however it seems that most of those few civs reach rubber.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,995
I do not agree with you about the rubber.
All the AI who should hit up Africa, South America, and the Indies for rubber do so; I have never seen an in-game industrialized nation NOT build a colony or two for rubber. It forces humans AND ai to engage in the colonialism that was so important in the real world; it allows the savvy sea-dog the advantage of being the only one with access to it.
For the sake of imperialism, leave it that way! ;p
All the AI who should hit up Africa, South America, and the Indies for rubber do so; I have never seen an in-game industrialized nation NOT build a colony or two for rubber. It forces humans AND ai to engage in the colonialism that was so important in the real world; it allows the savvy sea-dog the advantage of being the only one with access to it.
For the sake of imperialism, leave it that way! ;p
- Status
