Military Unit: Trucks

[Georgi Stomana]

The basic idea is that you would have a new military unit the Truck, each one carries a certain number of troops. They also carry your munitions (though this wouldn't mean anything different in gameplay terms). The same as tanks they would consume Gasoline per battle, because they are transporting your soldiers to the battle area with any tanks that accompany them. It really doesn't make sense that your soldiers WALK to every battle dragging tonnes upon tonnes of munitions to fight.

 

I think the Trucks with gas should be needed for both offensive and defensive battles, because even when defending your troops would still have to be moved to where (what city) the enemy is attacking to meet them. In modern (conventional) warfare a unit that can't move back and forth across territory quickly is essentially useless.

 

Trucks would have similar/lower cost and upkeep to tanks.

 

Because this game doesn't have the concept of distance in war, and troops essentially "teleport" to battles, this would make more sense.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Filthy Fifths]

why

[Georgi Stomana]

because

[Vincent]

Make sense but not really a nice idea, it make us spent more money on military. Those money could have been better spent elsewhere. Example , getting more infras and etc. 

[Fox Fire]

The idea is nothing but a money pit.

[Pwnius Scrubius]

In AtWar an infantry unit in fact has trucks, possible helicopters or some other transportation, and anti-tank units. While a tank unit obv has a infantry unit with it to defend it (although in the game stats it has 8 atk 4 def while inf get the opposite)

[WISD0MTREE]

Nope. Overcomplicates the game. 

[Destroyer]

-1from me

[iljohn]

dont worry in a years time there wont be a thing called ground battles only missiles and nukes because by that time troops and tanks and aircraft  will be useless sadly

[Morgan]

dont worry in a years time there wont be a thing called ground battles only missiles and nukes because by that time troops and tanks and aircraft  will be useless sadly

I've thought the same thing. Eventually ground troops will be a waste. 

[TheNG]

dont worry in a years time there wont be a thing called ground battles only missiles and nukes because by that time troops and tanks and aircraft  will be useless sadly

Not necessarily, ground forces are still needed to win wars, and blockades will still be useful. Think about it, would you rather just throw missiles back and forth for 5 days, or use your ground forces to end a war early and avoid excess damage? I think many people would prefer the latter, and it will be a long time before a majority or even a sizable number of nations have missiles, so I wouldn't sell your tanks and soldiers yet.

[Morgan]

why

Because it would make the war system more realistic. 

[Calm Dragon]

Because it would make the war system more realistic. 

Then let's add in a MLRS unit that will kill three hundred soldiers with one attack per MLRS. And flatten 100 infra at a time...

[Fox Fire]

Then let's add in a MLRS unit that will kill three hundred soldiers with one attack per MLRS. And flatten 100 infra at a time...

Yeah. We can also add IFVs, APCs, SRBMs, IRBMs, ICBMs, ASBMs, MRVs, MIRVs, LaWs, etc.

[Georgi Stomana]

Nope. Overcomplicates the game. 

How does it over-complicate the game? It's one unit, it's extremely simple

[Georgi Stomana]

Then let's add in a MLRS unit that will kill three hundred soldiers with one attack per MLRS. And flatten 100 infra at a time...

It's not about "realism" so much as consistency, Tanks drive to battle, Ships sail to battle, Aircraft fly to battle, Soldiers..... ????

 

EDIT: Also what's with the mentality around here that the addition of ANY feature, no matter how small, is over-complication? Adding new options can make the game more fun and they don't necessarily have to make things too complicated. If Trucks aren't the right way then you could have Transport Ships or Aircraft instead.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Fox Fire]

How does it over-complicate the game? It's one unit, it's extremely simple

Because all it does is cost money, make war completely impossible without gasoline, and adds nothing to the game.

If it actually added something, it wouldn't be so bad.

[Georgi Stomana]

War IS completely impossible without gasoline, well conventional war anyway. You could say the same thing about munitions, should they remove munitions because they're a "money pit" too and presume all soldiers have guns and infinite ammo? I mean (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) doesn't have munitions so might as well do that too right?

 

And it could add something sure, if your Trucks are taken out you might be forced into a defensive posture without the ability to attack. Someone could focus on naval forces and instead use Transport ships to launch ground attacks, things like that. Transportation would probably be a better term.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Fox Fire]

War IS completely impossible without gasoline, well conventional war anyway. You could say the same thing about munitions, should they remove munitions because they're a "money pit" too and presume all soldiers have guns and infinite ammo? I mean (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) doesn't have munitions so might as well do that too right?

 

And it could add something sure, if your Trucks are taken out you might be forced into a defensive posture without the ability to attack. Someone could focus on naval forces and instead use Transport ships to launch ground attacks, things like that. Transportation would probably be a better term.

1. People were waging war, and still do, without the use of fuel or bullets.

2. A game is a game. You can try making it as realistic as you want, but it will never be realistic. The.more variables you add to the overall equation of the game, the harder it becomes to predict. And there are limitless variables in RL.

3. Making war impossible without fuel sounds like a terrible idea. Wars are already one sided enough, and effectively predetermined by whoever had the larger army when the war was declared.

 

I just don't see what this really adds other than inconvenience, particularly for small nations.

[Georgi Stomana]

1. People were waging war, and still do, without the use of fuel or bullets.

I'm not saying anything in absolute terms, you could use troops without transport/gas but they would fight with reduced efficiency, or you could make it that gas/transport is needed to attack but not defend. Which would give an advantage to the defender.

2. A game is a game. You can try making it as realistic as you want, but it will never be realistic. The.more variables you add to the overall equation of the game, the harder it becomes to predict. And there are limitless variables in RL.

I never said anything about realism nor do I think realism in an abstract game like this would be good. But that said P&W is a "Nation Simulation" game is it not, I don't think too much harm can be done by trying out new features to see if they work out, and tweaking them or removing them if they don't work out.

 

3. Making war impossible without fuel sounds like a terrible idea. Wars are already one sided enough, and effectively predetermined by whoever had the larger army when the war was declared.

As I said above, you're taking this in absolute terms. The constructive response to an idea is to point out it's flaws and offer alternatives or ways to improve it, not trash it altogether. It doesn't have to make war impossible without gas,  as an alternative you could make it that you only need Trucks/transport to launch attacks, so a new nation could concentrate on just troops defending their nation, and the attacking would be the one forced to keep a fleet of trucks fueled to continue attacks, imo this would add an interesting component to the game, and it would certainly address the issue you brought up of wars being won by whoever has the biggest army at the start (which is usually the aggressor).

 

EDIT: You could also specifically target enemy Trucks with airstrikes, robbing your enemy of his transport and forcing him to the defensive, or stalemating the war/truce.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Georgi Stomana

[Garrett Tipton]

War IS completely impossible without gasoline, well conventional war anyway. You could say the same thing about munitions, should they remove munitions because they're a "money pit" too and presume all soldiers have guns and infinite ammo? I mean (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) doesn't have munitions so might as well do that too right?

Munitions are not just a money pit. They increase the efficiency of the soldiers by 75%.

 

The constructive response to an idea is to point out it's flaws and offer alternatives or ways to improve it, not trash it altogether.

Sometimes an idea is just not worth trying to fix. Don't stop offering suggestions though. Keep digging, you'll strike gold eventually.

[Fox Fire]

I'm not saying anything in absolute terms, you could use troops without transport/gas but they would fight with reduced efficiency, or you could make it that gas/transport is needed to attack but not defend. Which would give an advantage to the defender.

I never said anything about realism nor do I think realism in an abstract game like this would be good. But that said P&W is a "Nation Simulation" game is it not, I don't think too much harm can be done by trying out new features to see if they work out, and tweaking them or removing them if they don't work out.

 

As I said above, you're taking this in absolute terms. The constructive response to an idea is to point out it's flaws and offer alternatives or ways to improve it, not trash it altogether. It doesn't have to make war impossible without gas,  as an alternative you could make it that you only need Trucks/transport to launch attacks, so a new nation could concentrate on just troops defending their nation, and the attacking would be the one forced to keep a fleet of trucks fueled to continue attacks, imo this would add an interesting component to the game, and it would certainly address the issue you brought up of wars being won by whoever has the biggest army at the start (which is usually the aggressor).

 

EDIT: You could also specifically target enemy Trucks with airstrikes, robbing your enemy of his transport and forcing him to the defensive, or stalemating the war/truce.

1. I hate that idea as well. Think of the new nations for a split second.

 

2. You shouldn't just add crap to the game to test it and then remove it if it doesn't work. That's not fair to anyone playing.

 

3. Again, I don't like that idea either. Gasoline is already needed for everything but soldiers. I'd prefer not to take a a very basic mechanic away from anyone.

 

Edit: Still not sounding any more interesting.

[Georgi Stomana]

Did you even read what I wrote, not being able to ATTACK without trucks/gas would help new nations. Indeed raiders/attackers would be at a disadvantage because they would be the ones who would have to pay for keeping their trucks all fueled consuming tonnes each attack, while a defender could spend everything on their forces.

[WISD0MTREE]

Did you even read what I wrote, not being able to ATTACK without trucks/gas would help new nations. Indeed raiders/attackers would be at a disadvantage because they would be the ones who would have to pay for keeping their trucks all fueled consuming tonnes each attack, while a defender could spend everything on their forces.

No. Raiding is a good source of income for lower levels. 

[Georgi Stomana]

I don't even know what I'm arguing against now