Army Take III

[ctwaterman]

Honestly I think our Income Doubles at the Standard Tax rate in 20 or 25 years ?????   I honestly think you can try your 34 Capital Ships as long as they are not all 40K ton ships if you frugal early lower tax rate.  And carefully build some good overseas trading enclaves or even just some good trade agreements with minor powers. 

I admit that 34 Capital Ships is alot and honestly WW1 Germany and the UK were the only nations to do it and for Balance purposes no PC or even Mod Power was starting quite that large.  But if that is 34 Ships Armored Cruiser and Larger you might be able to do it if you skimp on things like Logistic support ships, Tenders, and even Light Cruisers and Destroyers.

Heck your fleet might look alot like the USN going into 1936 All Battle Ships, Carriers, and a few Cruisers.  Most of the Destroyers in Mothballs and just enought Tenders and AO, and AP ships to meet minimum needs.   Once war became Obvious well then the building programs kicked in and in 1940 the Two Ocean Navy started building huge numbers of Supply Ships, Tenders and more War Ships.

But honestly the scope of our game was supposed to "SMALLER"  We are all Medium Powers there are no Major Powers.   No UK or US to dominate the world and force people to do things their way.

Charles

[TexanCowboy]

I heard New York got hit by a hurricane and the entire city shut down for over a week :P

[miketr]

If you have a 2% growth rate your economy doubles in 35 years, 2.5% doubles in 28 years and 3% doubles in 23 years.

Michael

[Tanthalas]

a question even if your breaking your army down to Brigades, if your paying for a full Corps worth of Brigades shouldnt the combat power come out to the same ammount as the Corps?  I only ask because I wanted to mix and match my units and as it stands that isnt looking very plausable.

Example
1860 Infantry Corps Cost 20.00  Rating 2.2
1860 Infantry Diviso Cost 10.00 Rating .9

wouldnt it make more sence if that was a 1.1 for the Div since it costs half as much as the Corps?  I agree with the smaller units, especialy since I was always one of the people that thought a Corps was just to bloody big for our smallest unit.  Just feals like we should be geting equivilent value not taking a serious hit.

[miketr]

a question even if your breaking your army down to Brigades, if your paying for a full Corps worth of Brigades shouldnt the combat power come out to the same ammount as the Corps?  I only ask because I wanted to mix and match my units and as it stands that isnt looking very plausable.

Example
1860 Infantry Corps Cost 20.00  Rating 2.2
1860 Infantry Diviso Cost 10.00 Rating .9

wouldnt it make more sence if that was a 1.1 for the Div since it costs half as much as the Corps?  I agree with the smaller units, especialy since I was always one of the people that thought a Corps was just to bloody big for our smallest unit.  Just feals like we should be geting equivilent value not taking a serious hit.

A pair of independent divisions is not equal to a corps unit; this is by design.  I did this for a couple of reasons.

1) I feel that there is historic support for this type of synergy effect.
2) I want to force people to use larger formations and not see the world overrun with brigades.  I expect that Divisions would be the most commonly used formation to be honest but we will only know for sure when we see the game in action for what people do

Does this make sense / sound reasonable?

Michael

[Tanthalas]

oh its reasonable realy, I just think for the period we would be better off for the period making our Divisions out of mixed Brigades.  Posibly somthing like 2/3 of our troops as short service Conscripts with 1/3 as long service Regulars.  I may have the Ratio off but its what I was loosley shooting for with Deserets Forces, untill I discoverd im esentialy paying for 1 Corps of Regular Infantry and 2 Corps of Conscript Infantry.

Im all for playing it out, but wouldnt say a 1.00 instead of a 1.1 for a Division make more sence? the Current Ratio just feals like to big a hit to me.  Especialy since unless my impresion is wrong most people are going to be happy to just buy Corps and ignore the land game as much as possible.

[miketr]

The way that conscript units of the late 19th century and early - mid 20th worked was something like this.

A conscript division would have maybe 50% of its manpower out of conscripts doing their nation service.  Plus officers and long service NCOs.  When mobilization occurred troops with most recent experience would be called back to the colors and bring the conscript formations to full readiness.

Very few nations kept units at full strength in peace time.  UK being the big exception but they had a small professional army and not a mass army.

So for a nation with conscript system entire divisions / corps were setup this way.  They HAD to mobilize to be combat effective, all the leaders and specialists were ready in peace time but the rifles required mobilization.

As to having the Division being the base unit.  Might I suggest we see what people  do in terms of units and placement?  Then re-open the topic?  I agree that many people will just ignore their armies as much as possible but again this is navalism.

Michael

[Desertfox]

I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.

[Korpen]

I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.

I think it is a bad idea to move away from corps as the basic unit as it allows for a simple and easily overview composition of the army, and much easier bookkeeping.
But I do not think one should be fixated on the fact that awhile the cops is the main administrative formation it might not represent the operational realities. For example if one out of five divisions in every corps is a light infantry  or cavalry division one would then simply add one LI corps for every four ordinary despite the fact that it might be dispersed all over the country.

[miketr]

I second the idea of using Divisions as the primary units, I for one will not be ignoring the Army, if anything it will be the navy that will be ignored.

I think it is a bad idea to move away from corps as the basic unit as it allows for a simple and easily overview composition of the army, and much easier bookkeeping.
But I do not think one should be fixated on the fact that awhile the cops is the main administrative formation it might not represent the operational realities. For example if one out of five divisions in every corps is a light infantry  or cavalry division one would then simply add one LI corps for every four ordinary despite the fact that it might be dispersed all over the country.

I think people want the numbers to base around the division scale and not the Corps Scale.  Its an easy enough change for me to make.  Lets see what people do and then we can bring it up.  I am not looked into the current Corps Base; I thought it would be the easiest for book keeping is all.

Michael