Fred Sanford

I'm not really a fan of the smoke dynamic. They need to image search real DD's laying real smoke screens- in general, they don't lay them for themselves, but to screen others, and it doesn't form a fart cloud surrounding the ship like its a Romulan cloaking device, but would stream out the funnels or smoke generators at the stern to form a 'wall' of smoke (local wind notwithstanding) behind the DD.

All you gamers look alike to me. 🙂

The V-25 was a typical German DD of WW 1. Actually, the Germans did call them torpedo boats, emphasized the torpedo armament over the guns in their designs. British destroyers tended to be larger and equipped with more guns but fewer torpedoes. Late war V&W class DD's were excellent all-around designs and many survived to serve in WW 2.

Mines on the other hand...both sides expended a lot of effort laying and sweeping mines, and they took a steady toll of ships and subs, as well as being effective "area denial" weapons. While fleet engagements were rare, there were regular clashes between light forces deployed to lay and clear mines.

During WW 1, the record for using submarines as scouts was generally poor. A submarine sits low in the water and so has a short spotting range. Once driven underwater by the inevitable escorts accompanying a battle fleet, the sub is essentially blind and immobile. There were numerous technical limitations to radios of the day, and navigation was still more art than science, so your own position, let alone any spotted enemy, may be off by several tens of miles or more, unless so close to shore that an established landmark can be referenced. As weapons to attack enemy fleet units, there were some successes on all sides, especially early in the war before anybody really understood the threat and limitations very well. Subs were most useful in an anti-commerce raiding role, so they may be fairly abstracted in a dreadnought-focused game (RTW does a reasonable job of this IMO). Radio communications in general were problematic as the equipment was fragile- it wasn't unusual for the vacuum tubes inside the radio to shatter upon firing of the ship's own guns, so flashing lights and flags were still used extensively as in Nelson's time. Command and control was really a problem as the fleet sizes had grown, and with the increased weapon ranges and more dispersed deployments it was difficult-to-impossible for a commander to know what his own fleet was up to, let alone the enemy's. Scouting aircraft were really still in an experimental stage. The Germans deployed zeppelins as scouts, but they really didn't accomplish much during any of their major sorties. The British had one seaplane carrier, the Engadine, at Jutland. It managed to launch a scout plane, but due to radio difficulties none of its reports made it up the chain of command, and the plane was forced down due to mechanical failure after less than half an hour aloft. So in game terms I think aircraft may be generally ignored, or handled on a fairly abstract basis- say the occasional (and vague) spotting report from shore-based scouts.

Would a player be able to fight battles the size of Jutland? Is there a chain of command at work in the game including admirals commanding squadrons and divisions?

Not a general, but a Colonel: Colonel Angus

D.H. Hill, right? What do I win?

I've got my eye on Grand Tactician's Civil War. Sounds like it will be just that kind of mix.

AHA! The Great Emu War! I knew it!

Very interesting. Although I'm not sure if "battle value" is really a thing, or if it is simply a matter of numbers. i.e. I wonder if a 500 man 3 star acts the same as a 500 man zero star so far as scaling.

My guess is that it's simply aesthetic.

Ultimate General: Blitzkrieg! Zoom the map out so that instead of individual farm buildings, you have towns and cities. Units become divisions (along with some smaller artillery and specialty units) and the player controls up to Army Group level. Operational/Strategic level. Campaigns, not battles. Real chain of command- i.e. give orders to Corps or Army HQs (or Fleets/Task Forces & Air Forces) to cut down on micromanagement. Includes Air and Naval. Be able to build stuff like fortifications, airfields and the like. Scenarios include Fall Gelb, Campaign for Guadalcanal, Operation Typhoon, Operation Overlord, Mediterranean Campaign. Thread said 'no matter how insane'.

I ate a big salad yesterday and that's what I got.

Sounds like people might want to save the original Data folder in a different location (or copy/rename) so they can go back to the original if desired.

I simply name them in order of formation- 1st Brigade, 2nd Brigade, ... etc. The most senior (lowest number) brigades have the (generally) best stats and get the best weapons. They (generally) get the best commanders, though I make exceptions for units that are on the bubble between levelling up- I'll give a brigade a better general if it will push them up from 1 to 2 star e.g. The higher number brigades have the 1842/Palmettos/Farmers. The few elite brigades that have repeaters get names (Iron Brigade, etc.). So long as I know the number of the 'most senior meatshield' brigade is (i.e. the lowest-numbered Palmetto Brigade) at the moment, I have no trouble distinguishing between (1) elites w/ repeaters & high end weapons, (2) 'regular' shooters, and (3) meatshields (Palmettos and lower). Those are the only 3 distinctions that matter IMO- I don't really care if a regular unit has 1853 Enfields or 1855 Springs or Harpers- they're close enough to be functionally equivalent. Arty goes Battery A (24#), Battery B (whatever equipped with), ... etc. With the gun type in the name, so easy to tell. Cav just goes 1st Cav, 2nd Cav... etc. Since I rarely use melee cav, the same approach as infantry applies- 1st Cav will have the best weapons compared to higher numbered brigades. If I use melee cav, I'll number them 1st Hussars, etc. using the same seniority logic.

I wonder if the 'rotation speed' buff is important for larger arty units? @The Soldier, have you checked whether this matters more for larger units? My thinking is that all other things equal, a large unit firing on a target NOT directly ahead will take longer to rotate into position than a small arty unit, thus having a lower effective rate of fire, thus lower lethality. Even a small rotation could end up having significant delay.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'm repeating 'cuz I'm stubborn:

Send Billy Sherman and his boys to make Europe howl!

Plus, it would be a completely different game in scope and detail. The war in the West was very much a small unit thing- IIR Custer only had 2 companies of the 7th Cav with him at Little Big Horn. So 1 or 2 skirmisher units in game terms. Same problem with American Revolution or War of 1812. Overall the battles were small. A "big" army in those conflicts was 10,000 men. That's 1 or 2 divisions in UG:CW terms. Maybe they could make the base unit a company or regiment, but like I said that would be a different game. 7 years war, Napoleonic, or late 19th century, would be the 3 main candidates that I think would be most suitable for this engine. Probably Napoleonic for most variety and market appeal.

I've noticed this as well

This guy has some good ideas.

I've heard that's why he didn't get along with bible-thumper Jackson.

I'm sure the next game will build on the work done here, whatever the theme/era.

No Leonidas Polk? He should get 3rd Corps. Better yet, Artillery Commander, just for irony's sake.