I'm down with this if we play CSO or UCCS, not a fan of Nazi-esque factions myself. I'm sure you guys don't need me if you do go with the Hegemon, so no pressure.
I'm down with this if we play CSO or UCCS, not a fan of Nazi-esque factions myself. I'm sure you guys don't need me if you do go with the Hegemon, so no pressure.
Russia was never an ally, they just had a (swiftly broken) non-aggression agreement. But they did have an alliance with Japan and Italy. I don't think it's very accurate to downgrade that to a colleagueship or something.
Russia was never an ally, they just had a (swiftly broken) non-aggression agreement. But they did have an alliance with Japan and Italy. I don't think it's very accurate to downgrade that to a colleagueship or something.
Russia was more of a tense ally than the more friendly relations with Italy and Japan. Ultimately, however, Hitler began to look down upon Benito Mussolini, who he rightfully viewed as a weak, toothless dog. Italy was not truly a threat in the grand scheme. Greece, a country that has had more civil wars and internal conflict than a regular Taco Bell customer, managed to take them down before big brother Germany had to step in and finish the invasion.
I really wanna play the Hegemon for the technology. Nazi Germany, for all of its... Quirky stuff, had a pretty good grasp on ridiculously zany weaponry. They built a cannon constructed to fire over the English Channel, and actually succeeded in bombarding London with it. Not to mention that they were the first to build an assault rifle, though the Russians perfected the art of it.
I am familiar with the state of Israel, and the unfair power it possesses in the Middle East given the influence of its allies, but also acknowledge the precarious position it occupies in the region, and how the actions of the state of Israel are influenced by the harsh nature of their surroundings.
I am also aware that the state of Israel is renowned for its weapon-making. But, despite their skill, the AK-47 and subsequent variants far outclass the Israeli Tavor assault rifle, if not in power, then in practicality. Its cheap production value, adaptability, reliability, and general adequacy makes it superior to the more expensive and complicated weapons of the Israelis if used correctly. In a firefight, the Tavor may win. However, for a nation like the Soviet Union or, in this case, the UCCS, the AK-47 would be fielded in large numbers with a large army. The cost efficiency would allow the UCCS to field more troops with more rifles, and would ultimately outshoot someone with more powerful tech.
If it comes down to choosing between nations, I'll take the UCCS if the Hegemon is unpopular, simply because I'm a fan of Russia.
The AK-47 and its variants, while incredibly reliable and cheap to produce, is, as you stated, only generally adequate. More expensive firearms, while generally not as reliable (the AK does demand posterity for its ability to fire under nearly any condition) generally perform better in all other aspects. The cartridge used by the Kalashnikov is one of the few advantages it has over other firearms, and the Galil far outclasses it on its own, matching caliber.
So yes, the AK is ideal for a large army, but it has little tactical use - and we're going to be focused on tactics, small squads, and being more skilled and precise than your enemies, winning even when outnumbered.
The AK-47 and its variants, while incredibly reliable and cheap to produce, is, as you stated, only generally adequate. More expensive firearms, while generally not as reliable (the AK does demand posterity for its ability to fire under nearly any condition) generally perform better in all other aspects. The cartridge used by the Kalashnikov is one of the few advantages it has over other firearms, and the Galil far outclasses it on its own, matching caliber.
So yes, the AK is ideal for a large army, but it has little tactical use - and we're going to be focused on tactics, small squads, and being more skilled and precise than your enemies, winning even when outnumbered.
An adaptable weapon is most certainly tactical. Even if it is only average, the AK is far from useless. It's most ineffective range is its max range, 300+ meters. Using it at a closer range, say 150-200 meters, is far from out of the question. As well, given the setting, where many of the features of the Tavor are likely to have not even been invented or incorporated into such a compact form yet, a simple and cheap weapon would definitely be useful. Not to mention how resources seem to work, where we have to manage how we spend them. Requisitioning 400 Tavor rifles would likely be more expensive than 400 AK-47s.
As for tactics, it's my understanding from the initial post that tactical, small-scale engagements will not be the only forms of attack. While effective at waging bleeding attacks, defending or assaulting a base requires more than just a few troops.
However, I understand your points. More specialized and efficient troops and compact squads are definitely a plus in any engagement. Your viewpoint is valid and undoubtedly effective. However, we're both ultimately on the same side. Tactical differences are to be expected. The trick, I suppose, is finding how they work together. Something I'm looking forward to with an old RP buddy.
Daaaaaaamit I just finished writing up the info about the CSO and GH and said to myself 'oh hey, me, since those are the only two nations that people have expressed interest in joining, why not just go ahead and post the OOC and have the UCCS be a non-playable faction?'
And me said 'oh hey great idea, me! I'll just skip over to Iwaku and- oh, new posts. Oh... interest in the UCCS. Okay then, back to writing.'
Huh? No, this is Strategic War! You'll be commanding dozens of squads, and vehicles and a base and that's just the start. Remember? Katamari Damacy of war? Na naaa na na na nana na naaa na na na nana naaaaa~ Okay if you haven't played the game you won't get that but basically the premise is starting small in scope and gradually getting larger. Only, in the later levels 'small in scope' means rolling up houses and 'getting larger' means rolling up entire countries. So yeah, small squads may be a thing at first, especially if you focus on special forces, but this is war, and wars are won with blood and bullets.
Closer to Romance of the Three Kingdoms than Dynasty Warriors but yes, you aren't wrong!
And yes, it's not nearly as simple as Dynasty Warriors with guns. xD Just to prove it... The in-game economy will be a function of several things, including Resource Gathering (utilization of natural resources), Processing (turning those natural resources into usable materials), and Manufacturing (turning those materials into finished products, or components used in more complicated finished products). The only resources I'll be tracking are Crude/Fuel and Ore/Metal, which means oil fields and ore mines are points of interest that must be captured/defended. As are Refineries and Factories. That's one of the disadvantages of the GH- limited Production facilities of all three types, and they are vulnerable to attacks.
Luckily for you, all of this will be handled 'off screen' so to speak, and all you have to worry about is how much final purchasing power you have. And keeping your vehicles fueled, of course. Which again, will be handled automatically so long as you maintain your supply lines and protect your fuel depots.
And, for the fun of it, have a look at the stats that units have!
Accuracy- ability to hit
Damage- destructive potential of each attack
Armor Piercing- negates damage resistance
Rate of Fire- number of attacks per turn
Area Effect- attack splash radius
Range- attack distance
Defense- ability to avoid getting hit
Damage Resistance- decreases the power of incoming attacks
Armor Durability- resistance to armor degradation
Toughness- susceptibility to injury or damage
Speed- ground covered per turn on open terrain
Travel Type- method of movement, determines impact of terrain on Speed
Discipline- reduces impact of morale damage
Morale- unit cohesion, decreased Morale hinders performance
Status- health (for infantry) or condition (for vehicles), decreased Status hinders performance
And with this as well, you won't need to worry about how these interact, since I have a handy-dandy spreadsheet tool to calculate the results of combat based on a normally distributed dice roll!
I'd recommend, for terminology's sake, replacing Defense with Profile, as Defense sounds more like armoring than ability to not be hit, while Profile in a military setting is just that - the ability to not be hit, or more specifically, how hittable it is.
This is a semantic thing, though. I've played enough XCOM to understand that definition of Defense.
Closer to Romance of the Three Kingdoms than Dynasty Warriors but yes, you aren't wrong!
And yes, it's not nearly as simple as Dynasty Warriors with guns. xD Just to prove it... The in-game economy will be a function of several things, including Resource Gathering (utilization of natural resources), Processing (turning those natural resources into usable materials), and Manufacturing (turning those materials into finished products, or components used in more complicated finished products). The only resources I'll be tracking are Crude/Fuel and Ore/Metal, which means oil fields and ore mines are points of interest that must be captured/defended. As are Refineries and Factories. That's one of the disadvantages of the GH- limited Production facilities of all three types, and they are vulnerable to attacks.
Luckily for you, all of this will be handled 'off screen' so to speak, and all you have to worry about is how much final purchasing power you have. And keeping your vehicles fueled, of course. Which again, will be handled automatically so long as you maintain your supply lines and protect your fuel depots.
And, for the fun of it, have a look at the stats that units have!
Accuracy- ability to hit
Damage- destructive potential of each attack
Armor Piercing- negates damage resistance
Rate of Fire- number of attacks per turn
Area Effect- attack splash radius
Range- attack distance
Defense- ability to avoid getting hit
Damage Resistance- decreases the power of incoming attacks
Armor Durability- resistance to armor degradation
Toughness- susceptibility to injury or damage
Speed- ground covered per turn on open terrain
Travel Type- method of movement, determines impact of terrain on Speed
Discipline- reduces impact of morale damage
Morale- unit cohesion, decreased Morale hinders performance
Status- health (for infantry) or condition (for vehicles), decreased Status hinders performance
And with this as well, you won't need to worry about how these interact, since I have a handy-dandy spreadsheet tool to calculate the results of combat based on a normally distributed dice roll!
