@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 said:
The USSR can have this unit also, called "Revolutionary Guards," cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.

That one’s definitely an error, Revolutionary Guards is an Iranian term, not a Soviet one.

Guards Infantry, Gvardiya, or just plain Guards.

Thanks for the correction. I've fixed the naming error. From Claude:

The Revolutionary Guards are now Guards Infantry, in draft 113. It’s installed in your TripleA maps folder and ready to load, though I haven’t run the game.

The unit’s stats are unchanged: attack 2, defense 3, 3 PU + 1 MP.

@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 I doubt anyone is going to be confused by “Infantry Gun” if it has what is clearly an artillery looking icon. Infantry Gun was a term that was actually in common circulation for a specific type of weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_support_gun

That said, Light Gun would be preferable to Anti-Tank Gun if that’s what you like better.

Italy should probably be able to tech into the better infantry class as well. The ARMIR performed a lot better in Russia than the Italian forces had in Libya and Greece. Giovanni Messe is a good candidate if you want to name the improvement tech after a general like Japan’s.

Italy is already poor and has crap tanks and slow research. Seems like a completely hopeless faction to play if they’re permanently stuck with bad infantry as well.

Okay, if I allow a nation to buy normal infantry (1 MP, 1 PU) and receive a tier 3 infantry unit in return (attack 2, defense 3), then what I'm basically saying is that this nation's infantry were roughly as combat-effective as the Americans. I do not believe that Italian infantry were as combat-effective as the Americans. From Claude:

My examples were elite or exceptional units: Folgore, the Alpini, Ariete (which was an armoured division) and Messe’s army in Tunisia. That shows Italian troops could fight well. It doesn’t show the average Italian infantry division matched American infantry, and I don’t think it did:

Most Italian infantry divisions . . . had little motor transport, weak artillery and anti-tank support, and a thin corps of NCOs.
Morale was uneven. There were mass surrenders in 1940–41 and again in Sicily in 1943.
On the other side, Japan’s case for tier 3 is much stronger. Man for man, Japanese infantry were skilled, well-trained and extraordinarily tenacious, as at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

To address your point, I've decided to give Italy an elite infantry type, called the Alpini. Conceptually similar to [edit] the Soviet Guards Infantry. Cost 3 PUs, 1 MP. Attack 2, defend 3.

In New World Order, Italy is a very important Axis power. The same is not true in Flames and Steel. In Flames and Steel, Italy will pick a local project, such as defending Gibraltar, or pushing east against the British in North Africa. The value of the area near Cairo is modest, so Italian success in Northeast Africa does not create a seismic shift in favor of the Axis. It's a few extra PUs.

Italy has 6 MPs, and those allow it to punch a little above its weight. Research isn't very exciting for Italy. It wants the income-increasing techs, of course, but there's little else in its tech tree that it feels truly excited about.

The City of Reno, NV, describes itself as "the biggest little city in the world." My description of Italy would be similar: "the biggest minor power in the world." In my test games, Italy's local projects had gone well, at least for the early game. That made me feel as though Italy was pulling its weight. Italy's life would become harder once America Atlantic has fully mobilized (on round 10).

@KurtGodel7 said:
The USSR can have this unit also, called "Revolutionary Guards," cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.

That one’s definitely an error, Revolutionary Guards is an Iranian term, not a Soviet one.

Guards Infantry, Gvardiya, or just plain Guards.

@Cernel said:

@KurtGodel7 said:

“Light gun” fits the units you already have: light gun, field gun, heavy gun, getting stronger in that order. “Light mortar” would stand on its own, with no heavier mortar to compare it to.

I see that you are using "field" as a "medium" classification, but some terms like "field gun" can change wildly in their meaning. For example, a field gun can be something like the Soviet 76-mm divisional gun M1942 (a light gun) or the American 155 mm gun M1 (a heavy gun) or both depending to whom you ask.

Also the term "gun" is questionable. In classic artillery classification, that may indicate a relatively long barrel, akin to the meaning of cannon. If you have light gun, field gun and heavy gun and no other artillery units, are you excluding howitzers this way? I'm not sure if it would be advisable using the term "artillery" instead of "gun"?

Maybe ask Claude what would be the best way of dividing all World War 2 artillery above infantry mortars but below 200 mm calibres into 3 categories only, lighter to heavier (if this is what you actually want).

Some of the names I'm using were taken verbatim from Domination 1914 No Man's Land. Field gun for an offense-oriented artillery. Heavy gun for defense-oriented artillery. Sturmtruppen for German elite infantry. Conscript for an inexpensive infantry-like unit that attacks on a 0 and defends on a 1. Trench. Some of the technology names are also the same, such as working women, industry, and victory bonds.

All this being said, I agree that you have a point here. A large portion of WWII artillery consisted of howitzers. A gun would have a long barrel and would fire at a relatively low arc. But a howitzer would have a short barrel and would fire at a higher arc. Calling it a "field artillery" or "heavy artillery" would be more vague about whether it's a howitzer or gun being described.

If I use labels like "light gun" "field gun" and "heavy gun" this would be accurate, because WWII had plenty of examples of all three weapons types. The objection to this would be that howitzers represented a large portion of overall artillery during WWII, and a label like "gun" deliberately excludes all howitzers.

But howitzers are not the only excluded unit category. My map does not have sea planes, escort carriers, battle cruisers, fighter-bombers, or helicopters. It classifies all ground attack aircraft as "dive bombers," even if a particular ground attack aircraft was not, in fact, a dive bomber. My map does not have nuclear weapons, it does not have computers or code-breaking, it does not have cargo transport aircraft. It does not have kamikaze strikes.

I take the point that “gun” strictly excludes howitzers, and that most WWII divisional artillery were howitzers. But the unit names are labels for abstractions, not exact equipment. The field gun stands for a division’s artillery, guns and howitzers alike, the same way “dive bomber” covers every ground-attack aircraft whether or not it actually dove. I’d rather keep short, familiar labels that Domination 1914 NML players already recognize than switch to “field artillery” for precision few players would notice in play.