Mehring
Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: morvael I think it would be good idea to restrict both sides to historical units, with the option to recreate any if they are destroyed. So a unit becomes available at a given date and can be disbanded at will. Destroyed and disbanded units should be put on a list of units available for rebuild. Meanwhile other fronts should be represented by off-map boxes with CV/number need waxing and waning with time, with full freedom to select which units should go there. I like that idea too, but as per kch's point and the one I made earlier about allowing units to deploy within so many hexes of their historical locations, maybe have a margin of, say 2-5% beyond historical builds to reduce ahistorical foresight and formulaic play. Existing production limits should check some excesses but if manpower were graded for abilities like in real life, and each element were composed of different types/combinations of manpower types, you could lift artificial restrictions and let historical resources determine what each side built. Probably one for War in Europe, if at all, but that way, varying according to national level of culture, there would for example generally be less educated recruits with specialist skills to, say, fill HQ posts, than regular cannon fodder. I can't give sources or verify any of this- perhaps someone can confirm or refute- but I read in various places, for example, that Russia didn't even have enough people trained to a sufficiently high standard in maths, to use European style artillery fire control systems. The US put a disproportionate number of their "intelligent" or highly educated recruits in the artillery, armour and paratroops came second, leaving infantry formations somewhat lacking in educated grey matter. Generic manpower could certainly be improved upon.
_____________________________
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.” -Leon Trotsky
|