Flames and Steel (official thread)

Cernel

@KurtGodel7 said:

The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

Having the "light_mortars" or "infantry_mortars" as a unit, decoupling it from "infantry"? (I guess currently the "infantry" unit comprises mortars like the American 60mm and 81mm ones, which would be the mortars I'm talking about?)

However, assuming same number of men, that cannot cost much more than the infantry unit.

My suggestion for PUs use would rather be having ammunition consumption (especially for artillery). However, you could make the "light_mortars" unit enough costlier than it should be by just assuming a lot of ammunition consumption being implied in the initial cost (if there is no ammunition consumption in the game).

(However, adding ammunition consumption - even if comprising any related consumption like barrel's wear - is of course going to open for a lot on many respects, not last the ammunition consumption for AA artillery and of course bombs consumption and so on, then one would also say why not fuel consumption and so on and so on.)

One possibly nice thing of having "light_mortars" is that then you could represent the Japanese Type 89 grenade discharger (maybe).

Cernel

Or, instead of anti-tank, having light artillery (like the German 10.5 cm leFH or the Soviet 76-mm divisional gun M1939/M1942 - the latter is actually lighter and is almost an anti-tank gun) for that role. I'm not sure. It would definitely feel better as a "universal" unit which can take out tanks too without having any special anti-tank rule.

Vendetta

@KurtGodel7 said:
The mechanics of the game require a cannon fodder unit. To a large extent that's infantry. But because I gave each nation an MP cap, a PU-only cannon fodder unit was also needed. I will grant your point that calling it an "anti-tank gun" could be confusing for people unfamiliar with the map. As you say it has no anti-tank properties. But I needed that unit. I needed to give it a name which a) did not imply fast mobility, b) did not imply it was a type of infantry, and c) did not imply it was a very powerful unit. Calling it an "anti-tank gun" checked all three boxes. If anyone here has a better suggestion for a name I'm all ears.

How about Infantry Gun then? That was a pretty common term and it creates less confusion with the unit’s purpose.

The concern you're expressing here is that the infantry buff could make the game unbalanced between Axis and Allies. As for the latter concern: if play testing does reveal this latter source of imbalance there are ways it can be corrected. Starting units can be adjusted. The magnitude of the Allies' early game income nerfs can be altered. I can change technologies. Lots of levers I can pull to create game balance.

There are lots of ways to mess with the balance and compensate, I was just warning you that you’re about to make a lot more work for yourself. The more common a unit is, the higher the impact any change on it has. The impact is higher as well when the starting stats are low to begin with. A unit that gets a stat bump from 3 to 4 increases its hit rate by 33%, but a 2 to a 3 is a 50% increase, and a 1 to a 2 is 100% increase.

KurtGodel7

Vichy France has been added in. Upon further reflection I decided to have Vichy France own both southern France and its colonial territories.

Half of Vichy French income goes to the Axis. The other half disappears. Japan benefits from Vichy French income in Indochina, Germany benefits from Vichy French income elsewhere. Vichy French territory can be attacked by anyone, at any time, with no diplomatic consequences whatever. Think of it like neutral farming, except that the half to the Axis part reduces the Axis economic incentive to farm, while increasing that of the Allies.

KurtGodel7

Infantry

Tier 1: China. Conscript. Attack 0, defend 1. Cost 1 MP
Tier 2: Italy, USSR, Japan. Infantry. Attack 1, defend 2. Cost 1 MP and 1 PU.
Tier 3: UK, USA, Germany. Infantry. Attack 2, defend 3. Cost 1 MP and 1 PU. The USSR can have this unit also, called "Revolutionary Guards," cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.
Tier 4: Sturmtruppen. Germany. Attack 3, defend 4. Cost 1 MP and 3 PUs.

Japanese Marine-equivalent. Attack 2, defend 2. Cost 1 MP and 2 PUs. Special: gets to fire on the first round of amphibious assaults.

Marine. America Pacific only. Attack 3 defend 3. Cost 1 MP and 2 PUs. Special: gets to fire on the first round of amphibious assaults.

Tech for Japan: Tadamichi Kuribayashi. Causes Japanese infantry to attack on a 2 and defend on a 3. Japanese Marine equivalents attack and defend on a 3. Two stars.

All units described above can receive support on both offense and defense.

KurtGodel7

Tanks

Light tank: attack 2, defense 1, cost 5 PUs
Tank: attack 3, defense 3, 2 hitpoints, cost 8 PUs

Improved light tank: attack 3, defense 2
Improved tank: attack 4, defense 4, 2 hitpoints

Britain's tank techs
Churchill tank (a heavy tank): attack 5, defense 5, 4 hitpoints
Centurion tank (improved heavy tank): attack 5 + 5, defense 5 + 5
improved tank
Comet tank: Britain's tanks attack and defend on a 5.

Japan's tank techs
Medium tank: allows it to build medium tanks
Improved tank

Italy's tank techs
Medium tank tech: allows it to build tanks

USA tank techs (both halves)
Pershing tank: allows the US to build heavy tanks. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4+ 4, 4 hitpoints.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks

Soviet tank techs*
KV-1: Allows the USSR to build heavy tanks. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4 + 4, 4 hitpoints.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks
IS-2 (improved heavy tanks). Soviet heavy tanks attack and defend on a 5 + 5.
Simplify the T-34. Soviet medium tanks now cost one less PU

German tank tech
Panther: Allows Germany to build Panthers. Attack 4 + 4, defense 4 + 4, 4 hitpoints.
Speer's industrialization: every other turn, Germany gets a free Panther at each of its SPCs.
Improved medium tanks
Improved light tanks
Improved Panther (E-50): Germany's Panthers attack and defend on a 5 + 5
King Tiger: allows Germany to build King Tiger tanks. A King Tiger attacks and defends on a 4 + 4 + 4 and has 6 hitpoints.
Improved King Tiger (E-75): King Tigers attack and defend on a 5 + 5 + 5, and have 7 hitpoints.

Note that heavy tanks (Churchill, Centurion, Panther, Pershing, KV-1) and King Tigers are special units. These cannot be purchased with PUs, but can only be produced at SPCs. I acknowledge that Germany has the best SPC tanks in the game, just as Britain has the best tanks purchased with PUs. Germany needs the better SPC tanks to balance Soviet conscription techs. Conscription 4 results in the Soviet Union getting +4 infantry per turn for five of its factories (assuming none of the five factories have been conquered). Assuming both Germany and the Soviet Union are maxed out on tech, and assuming the Soviet Union still holds Moscow/Stalingrad, then every turn the Soviet player gets 20 free infantry. Germany would get 5 free Panthers every two turns. If you're looking at free units received every two turns, that's 40 Soviet infantry compared to the 5 Panthers. In terms of raw hitpoints received this benefits the Soviets by a 2:1 ratio. The superiority of the King Tiger over the IS-2 helps balance out some of that 2:1 ratio.

KurtGodel7

@Vendetta said:

How about Infantry Gun then? That was a pretty common term and it creates less confusion with the unit’s purpose.

After hashing this out with Claude, I've decided on light gun. I wanted a name which would set expectations nice and low. "Anti-tank gun" fails in that, as you pointed out, because it implies that it does something special against tanks. Putting a word like "infantry" in the name might imply it's a type of infantry.

"Light mortar" would have been a good name too. But when I bounced the idea off of Claude, it gave me back the following.

I’d still pick light gun.

A light mortar is an infantry weapon. Light mortars like the 50 mm and 60 mm were carried and fired by ordinary infantry squads. That suggests the unit should cost MP, which undercuts the reason it exists: it’s the cheap unit that doesn’t need MP. A gun is equipment, which explains the PU-only cost much better.
Mortars exist to support infantry. Players would expect a light mortar to give infantry a bonus, the way the field gun does, and this unit gives none. A light gun has the same issue, but less of it, because guns already come in a ladder where the smallest can reasonably be the weakest.
“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.

Light mortar does have one thing going for it: it’s a very modest weapon, so nobody will expect much from it. But “light gun” already does that, and it avoids the two expectations above.

Cernel

@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).

Vendetta

@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.

KurtGodel7

@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.