Rethinking Infantry

[Feltan]

As I posted in the mod section, I am working on a WWIII scenario based on more realistic orders-of-battle. One of the early lessons is that non-mech infantry in 2010 needs some tweaking. I have to do a lot of substitution and rationalizing in order to fill out many areas troop deployments.

The classes of non-mech infantry need to be changed. I think this is a rather modest suggestion that would not be too difficult to implement.

I suggest the following types/classes of infantry be available world wide:

Conscripts: Same as 2010. Troops with less than a year tour with limited training and equipment.

Garrison: Same as 2010. Covers a multitude of units to include: internal security forces, post garrisons, border guards, police, training establishments, static headquarters, etc.

Dismounted Infantry: Really need to add this. Leg infantry is probably the most common unit in the world. This unit does not suck, but it is slow and with generally reduced stats as compared to mech infantry.

Motorized Infantry: Same values as dismounts, but rides in trucks. Another very common unit worldwide.

Light Infantry: More elite that dismounted infantry, moves slightly faster but is still dismounted, weighs less, slightly lower anti-tank stats than dismounted. Not parachute capable. Includes the many air-assault organizations around the world.

Airborne Infantry: Same stats as light infantry, but is parachute capable. More expensive than light inf, and takes longer.

Marine Infantry: Same stats as light infantry, but is amphibious. More expensive than light inf, and takes longer.

Mountain Infantry: Same stats as light infantry, but moves faster in mountain and hills or jungle terrain. More expensive than light inf, and takes longer.

Commando: Elite unit. Both parachute and amphibious capable. Stats better than regular dismounted infantry. Ranger, SEAL, SAS, covered by this type of unit. Very expensive and lengthy to produce.

Special Forces: Elite unit. Both parachute and amphibious capable. Stats better than regular dismounted infantry. Affects loyalty in enemy territority and can/may spawn partisan/guerilla units friendly to the SF unit. Very, very expensive and lengthy to produce.

Units like "elite," "green beret" and "national guard" should be eliminated. Green beret is the exact same as special forces; elite is a funtion of training and combat experience, and national guard is a reserve classification not an equipment classification.

The mechanized units in 2010 are very good and cover a wide range of possibilities and equipment types. These suggestions do not apply to them.

Regards,
Feltan

[Balthagor]

Some interesting ideas, I'll float it around and see what comes of it.

One comment;

Mountain Infantry: Same stats as light infantry, but moves faster in mountain and hills or jungle terrain. More expensive than light inf, and takes longer.

That would be light infantry with Alpine training.

[Feltan]

Some interesting ideas, I'll float it around and see what comes of it.

One comment;

Mountain Infantry: Same stats as light infantry, but moves faster in mountain and hills or jungle terrain. More expensive than light inf, and takes longer.

That would be light infantry with Alpine training.

Yes it would -- you can delete that from my suggestion list.

Regards,
Feltan

[Il Duce]

At the very least, perhaps adding a classifier - even if just a literal label, on the variety of units we saw in 2010, would probably help a lot of us less familar with the fine distinctions between unit types.

I think the OP is a pretty good set of classifiers.

[Draken]

I like it...

Only one comment: SAS and Seal are more like your Special Force type rather than Commando...



What about adding an ability to Special Forces Units the ability to demolish structures without capturing the hex first and/or DOW and remaning anonymous (the attacked will not know the identity of the attacker - this feature could be very interesting in multiplayer)?

[tkobo]

Oooooooooooo- i like Drakens off topic suggestion.

[Feltan]

I like it...

Only one comment: SAS and Seal are more like your Special Force type rather than Commando...

Depends.

Special forces are trainers. This is often misunderstood. They are not assault and raid troops (like commandos).

In the US, SF soldiers need to speak at least two languages with proficiency and under go training in medicine, explosives, communications, maintenance and other areas.

Inserted behind "front lines," the small SF teams are there to train indigineous people as partisans and participate in operations. The SF teams assisting the Kurds prior to the last Gulf war is a prime example of their proper use. You may recall a video clip showing an SF soldier dressed in Kurd clothing participating in an actual horse mounted charge -- this is a poster for what SF troops do.

SEEL teams on the other hand are raiders. Covertly inserted to kill people and blow things up. As I understand it, the SAS and SBS are more closely related to this type of activity than SF training of indigeneous people.

Regards,
Feltan

[Draken]

I like it...

Only one comment: SAS and Seal are more like your Special Force type rather than Commando...

Depends.

Special forces are trainers. This is often misunderstood. They are not assault and raid troops (like commandos).

In the US, SF soldiers need to speak at least two languages with proficiency and under go training in medicine, explosives, communications, maintenance and other areas.

Inserted behind "front lines," the small SF teams are there to train indigineous people as partisans and participate in operations. The SF teams assisting the Kurds prior to the last Gulf war is a prime example of their proper use. You may recall a video clip showing an SF soldier dressed in Kurd clothing participating in an actual horse mounted charge -- this is a poster for what SF troops do.

SEEL teams on the other hand are raiders. Covertly inserted to kill people and blow things up. As I understand it, the SAS and SBS are more closely related to this type of activity than SF training of indigeneous people.

Regards,
Feltan

I was thinking more on the size and unit structure than on their missions... SEALS are, as you said, raiders, but I think that SAS is also use in trainning of indigenous forces (I read it somewhere...I'll look for the info)... Not sure about SBS, but you're mots likely right about them.

[Feltan]

Some interesting ideas, I'll float it around and see what comes of it...

Chris,

How is the floating proceeding? Any interest generated?

As I am finishing up scenario development, I am more convinced that this is needed. Oddly, the issue wasn't as pronounced playing the game -- but when you try to translate OOB's into SR2010 units, the lack of certain infantry types is a significant issue.

Regards,
Feltan

[Balthagor]

Nothing concrete yet, I would expect some of your suggestions to be used. We won't be in the equipment file for a bit still so not really making many decisions about this stuff ATM.