Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

I wonder if you will be able to revert cities back into towns. I may want a settlement to be a city and antiquity and a town in modern. Seems like they talked about some cities becoming towns on age change but were not specific about it.
 
I wonder if you will be able to revert cities back into towns. I may want a settlement to be a city and antiquity and a town in modern. Seems like they talked about some cities becoming towns on age change but were not specific about it.
In age transition you can change the capital and all cities become towns except if you chose a certain economic golden age trait
 
Russian Introduction video

What interested me more, is this.
1736826030859.png
1736825982476.png


Just look at two ships. while a centerpiece is an archaelogist team. Boats behind them looks very much like Galleon to me. it doesn't look anything close to 18th Century vessels. mm they might be at the early evolutionary stage maybe?
 
Has anyone spotted machinegun unit in the game? Maybe @FXS_Gilgamesh can reveal this?
No. No more silly pseudo units like that. Which I like more.

having AT Gun being the most advanced ranged unit in this game is more acceptable though, even Antitank Guns never has been organized as separate regiments. It is still acceptable evolution of field artillery even, at leasts because the name is descriptive


This is the most advanced Field Artillery as it could be in this game. serving both functions of Antitank weaponry and Fire Support Field Artillery. Did US Army or British Army has similiar large calibre Dual Purpose Fieldguns like this?
 
The Soviet Army formed Antitank Artillery Brigades starting in t he spring of 1943, and had over 60 of them by the end of World War Two. Each consisted of 3 regiments, all towed by all-wheel drive trucks (American Lendc Lease vehicles) and had a total of 60 to 72 guns each, ranging from 45mm to 100mm.

As A. B. Shirokorad details in his book Artilleriya v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine (Artillery in the Great Patriotic War), the Russian and later the Soviet Army both used a high percentage of Divisional Cannon, starting with the M1902 76.2mm piece and ending with the 100mm BS-3 which were largely used in direct fire - making them very good antitank artillery as well. The reason was not that they anticipated tanks in 1902, though, it was because direct fire at targets you could see with the naked eye required much less ttraining and technical skill than firing indirectly against targets out of sight that required calculating range and azimuth.

Given that the Russian Army had 50% illiterate or 'semi-literate' draftees in 1913 and the Soviet Army had 50% of its draftees in 1940 with less than 6 years of formal education, simplifying the training and technical requirements was pretty much a requirement for the Russians throughout the 20th century, regardless of what it did to the effectiveness of the military units.
 
Opshchina.PNG

Is this the Obshchina? I don't think it's a plantation, but it could be. There's also a partial view of one in the lower corner of the scene where the Hermitage is completed.
 
The Soviet Army formed Antitank Artillery Brigades starting in t he spring of 1943, and had over 60 of them by the end of World War Two. Each consisted of 3 regiments, all towed by all-wheel drive trucks (American Lendc Lease vehicles) and had a total of 60 to 72 guns each, ranging from 45mm to 100mm.

As A. B. Shirokorad details in his book Artilleriya v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine (Artillery in the Great Patriotic War), the Russian and later the Soviet Army both used a high percentage of Divisional Cannon, starting with the M1902 76.2mm piece and ending with the 100mm BS-3 which were largely used in direct fire - making them very good antitank artillery as well. The reason was not that they anticipated tanks in 1902, though, it was because direct fire at targets you could see with the naked eye required much less ttraining and technical skill than firing indirectly against targets out of sight that required calculating range and azimuth.

Given that the Russian Army had 50% illiterate or 'semi-literate' draftees in 1913 and the Soviet Army had 50% of its draftees in 1940 with less than 6 years of formal education, simplifying the training and technical requirements was pretty much a requirement for the Russians throughout the 20th century, regardless of what it did to the effectiveness of the military units.
Did NATO (or Pre-Nato armies) has anything equivalent to BS3 10cm field gun? What is US Army equivalent that's called 'Guns' rather than 'Howitzers' and has long barrels and same antitank capabilities?
 
View attachment 715019
Is this the Obshchina? I don't think it's a plantation, but it could be. There's also a partial view of one in the lower corner of the scene where the Hermitage is completed.

That tall tower has same style that Krepost civilopedia art has in Civ 5.

Also the smaller cabins look very similar to ones in eastern Finland and Russian Karelia.
 
Russian Introduction video

What interested me more, is this.
View attachment 715013View attachment 715012

Just look at two ships. while a centerpiece is an archaelogist team. Boats behind them looks very much like Galleon to me. it doesn't look anything close to 18th Century vessels. mm they might be at the early evolutionary stage maybe?
The unit in the foreground is presumably the Explorer, which seems to be the Civ7 version of the Archaeologist and is available with the Natural History civic early in the Modern Age.

That there are also Galleons (tier 3 Exploration naval units) in the clip could mean that Galleons don't automatically upgrade to Ironclads at the start of the Age, or it could just be that the clip is not from a real game but rather something edited together specifically for the video.
 
The unit in the foreground is presumably the Explorer, which seems to be the Civ7 version of the Archaeologist and is available with the Natural History civic early in the Modern Age.

That there are also Galleons (tier 3 Exploration naval units) in the clip could mean that Galleons don't automatically upgrade to Ironclads at the start of the Age, or it could just be that the clip is not from a real game but rather something edited together specifically for the video.
But it is a galleon that has a triangular sail rigged from spar to mast directly. but no gaff riggings at the mizzenmasta.
It might be Mid or Late 17th Century Galleons when it began to evolve into Enlightenment Era Tall Ships (Frigates and Ships of the Line, both of which originally began with the same galleon hull before evolving further to be even faster and to accept even more guns, and Ships of The Line of the 18th-19th Century (Age III) are all bigger.
 
It's a different model to the ones we've seen before, and I notice there is a conspicuous lack of crew on deck. My guess is that it's an embarked unit, probably for the Explorer. (The Scout also has a sailing vessel as its Modern embarked graphic).
It would be neat if they modeled the embarked Explorer on the HMS Beagle.
 
It would be neat if they modeled the embarked Explorer on the HMS Beagle.
Beagle is of a Brig type. quite a fine successor to Caravel (Civ6 system)

And it is a tall ship, far evolved from galleon. open gun deck.

Exactly an ideal design for Age III naval units or embarkments.
hms-beagle-4.jpg
 
Re: Machineguns

Yeah maybe they dont need a full unit to represent them but I just like them representing the lethal battles of world wars.

Maybe an infantry unit could include machinegun graphics in single soldier, like how some soldiers seem to hold a pistol instead of a rifle/musket.
 
Re: Machineguns

Yeah maybe they dont need a full unit to represent them but I just like them representing the lethal battles of world wars.

Maybe an infantry unit could include machinegun graphics in single soldier, like how some soldiers seem to hold a pistol instead of a rifle/musket.
I agree. Machine gunners should be integrated into the standard infantry graphics to represent how they actually functioned, same as soldiers using portable AT weapons.

At the very least we have units using manned machine guns on vehicles like with the Marines unit.
 
Re: Machineguns

Yeah maybe they dont need a full unit to represent them but I just like them representing the lethal battles of world wars.

Maybe an infantry unit could include machinegun graphics in single soldier, like how some soldiers seem to hold a pistol instead of a rifle/musket.
This is a must. Tier 2 Infantry should graphically represented with an MG support in addition to standard riflemen. grouped in one hex.
one MG team (2 men) and the rests being riflemen.

And tier 3, a bazooka team (of two men) is added, replacing two riflemen in the same element, also half of the remainder carried SMGs.
 
Top Bottom