What is the better name?

[Emperor_Taiki]

Two new units are going to be introduced with AAP50. Tactical bombers and what is currently called "Mechanized" Infantry?

However, there are few weaknesses to this name. first this unit attacks at the same value as normal infantry, and that is fine for gameplay, but designating a unit totaly mechnaized( which would indicate that than peice had quite a few armored vehicles accomapying it) and not increasing its attack value I find untrue to the logic of A&A.

I find  the logic behind the name Mobile Infantry is much closer to the logic used detrmined the name for Tactical Bombers. Tactical Bombers indetifies a wide range of weapons(ground attack aircraft/ fighter-bombers/divebombers/light bombers/torpedo planes) that the old fighter and bomber peice did not account for. Mobile infantry does the same thing accounting for both Mechnaized and Motorized infantry as well as even Cavalry. And many nations cerrtainly had more motroized inf and mounted inf than they did mechnanized. The stats of no increase in attack, but more movement also fit better with the name Mobile Infantry.

Obviusly this is a very cosmetic concern, but I think units having the correct names gives important feel to the game and makes the gameplay even more exciting.

So I just want to know what other people think.

[Imperious Leader]

no such thing as 'mobile infantry'

It was Mechanized Infantry ( allies) or Motorized Infantry ( axis)

[Emperor_Taiki]

no such thing as 'mobile infantry'

It was Mechanized Infantry ( allies) or Motorized Infantry ( axis)

No such thing as the tactical bomber class either. It is a made up class of unit that uncompases multiple classes of aircraft.
Mobile Infantry is also a made up designation but it discribes a large veriety of units that up until now have not been reprsented in the game.

[Imperious Leader]

No such thing as the tactical bomber class either. It is a made up class of unit that encompasses multiple classes of aircraft.

Mobile Infantry is also a made up designation but it describes a large variety of units that up until now have not been represented in the game.

I totally agree. The correct generic term is 'Fighter-Bomber'  which can be dive bombers or torpedo bombers.

The generic term used in these times is Mechanized infantry or Armored Infantry and back in ww2 the translation was motorized infantry for both Germany and Italy. Nobody ever used Mobile infantry in any war. Its best to stick with the actual military nomenclature whenever possible.

[Emperor_Taiki]

Well, then the game should be consistent. either the units are called real names from world war 2 or they are called names that were not used in world war 2 but discirbe a range of units not represented.

[Imperious Leader]

yes thats true as well. Most of them are. I don't think tactical bomber will be the FINAL name chosen. They got people who will nudge him and say "hey this name sucks and its incorrect"

[Emperor_Taiki]

yes thats true as well. Most of them are. I don't think tactical bomber will be the FINAL name chosen. They got people who will nudge him and say "hey this name sucks and its incorrect"

ok, thats cool

[Flashman]

I dislike the introduction of "M" infantry, whatever you call it, despite the advent of cool new pieces. I'd have much preferred heavy tanks.

Essentially MI seems to be an infantry piece that can move 2 spaces at a time.  This should be totally irrelevant as ALL LAND UNITS SHOULD MOVE BY RAIL unless attacking over a border.  In which case MI would only be useful in accompanying tanks in blitz/breakthrough moves, hardly justifying the extra cost.

However, we're going to get half-track pieces in future A&A games, so what qualities should they have (assuming you're intelligent enough to get my point regarding land movement).

Towing artillery in blitz/breakthrough?  Command vehicles?

[Emperor_Taiki]

Essentially MI seems to be an infantry piece that can move 2 spaces at a time.  This should be totally irrelevant as ALL LAND UNITS SHOULD MOVE BY RAIL unless attacking over a border.  In which case MI would only be useful in accompanying tanks in blitz/breakthrough moves, hardly justifying the extra cost.

Agreed.

Yah the land movement is messed up, but its part of the games tradition and I doubt it will ever change.

If you did have a realistic game where everything moved at the same rate, the extra cost might be justified if hits from tanks and fighter-bombers and were applied too "M" infantry and tanks first.

[LuckyDay]

Obviusly this is a very cosmetic concern, but I think units having the correct names gives important feel to the game and makes the gameplay even more exciting.

Nobody ever used Mobile infantry in any war. Its best to stick with the actual military nomenclature whenever possible.

Everyone had mobile infantry!!  mobile means that it could move.  Mechanized refers to if nothing else, halftracks and such, even smaller jeeps and whatnot that ground pounders rode in instead of pounding the ground with their boots. Trains would move INF once the rails were repaired, but until then these units would be the motorized/mech INF like Patton had to charge to the Rhine and then up to the Ardennes in 3 days.
   Mech or Motorized Inf would have to win out in this name decision over Mobile.

[Captain Crunch]

Everyone had mobile infantry!!  mobile means that it could move.  

Darn it LuckyDay, you took the words right out of my mouth.  I was going to state that I hope all countries had 'mobile' infantry or they were in a heap of trouble. LOL.  Well, maybe some Russians drinking too much vodka weren't all that mobile!

Regards,
Captain Crunch

[Emperor_Taiki]

Obviusly this is a very cosmetic concern, but I think units having the correct names gives important feel to the game and makes the gameplay even more exciting.

Nobody ever used Mobile infantry in any war. Its best to stick with the actual military nomenclature whenever possible.

Everyone had mobile infantry!!  mobile means that it could move.  Mechanized refers to if nothing else, halftracks and such, even smaller jeeps and whatnot that ground pounders rode in instead of pounding the ground with their boots. Trains would move INF once the rails were repaired, but until then these units would be the motorized/mech INF like Patton had to charge to the Rhine and then up to the Ardennes in 3 days.
   Mech or Motorized Inf would have to win out in this name decision over Mobile.

Well yes, to one degree or another all infatry have mobility, but mobile infantry isnt just a term I have made up( mobile reserve, airmobile). In the military it refers to infantry that have mobility beyond the trains( and there feet, although walking to a battlefeild is sooooooo 1780s) so it refers to cavalry, motorized(turcks), mechanized(armored transport), airborne. So it refers to everything that could posssibly keep up with tanks( which is what this units role is).




After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

but no aircraft was called a tactical bomber either.

If the unit is going to be a halftrack for every nation, it should probably be called mechanized inf, but then the tac bomber should be called a  fighter bomber to be consistent with only using historical names.

[allboxcars]

While I give a nod to the fact that mobile doesn't work well as it fails to distinguish the unit as they all have some degree of mobility...

After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

The problem, I believe, is that even today no unit is called mobile infantry whereas tac bomber is used today promoting players to apply it anachronistically to WW2.

Likewise, airmobile would probably be just as acceptable as an anarchonistic umbrella term for paratroopers, glider-borne infantry and air landing regiments.

[Emperor_Taiki]

While I give a nod to the fact that mobile doesn't work well as it fails to distinguish the unit as they all have some degree of mobility...

After thinking about it longer i understand the problems with a name like mobile infantry(no unit in world war 2 was acually called the ###th mobile infantry reg)

The problem, I believe, is that even today no unit is called mobile infantry whereas tac bomber is used today promoting players to apply it anachronistically to WW2.

Likewise, airmobile would probably be just as acceptable as an anarchonistic umbrella term for paratroopers, glider-borne infantry and air landing regiments.

The name tactical bomber has never been used as an aircraft class. There are a number of classes that fit into that discription, we call them today strike, multi-role, attack or ground attack aircraft. But there is no tactical bomber class recogonized my any major military.


Same thing with mobile infantry. It is not its own class, but mobile is an adjetive that when applied to infantry means that they have a high tactical movement capacity. Infantry on foot are not very mobile at all. Saying leg-proppeled infantry are mobile is almost like saying a blockhouse is mobile( technically its true since one has a factor of very little mobility and the other has a factor of 0 mobility, both have a degree of mobility)



Or its like saying a B-25 is a heavy bomber because it has a degree of heavyness. You cant take military termnology literally because you would be taking it out of context.

Or are crusiers battleships, because they are ships that battle?

[LuckyDay]

i think that the term mobile infantry would refer more to bicycles, cavalry, and even some motorized infantry, but when it comes to mechanized infantry you begin talking about vehicles that had some ability to defend the troops from attack, ie armor, defensive/offensive weaponry, or even maneuverability of things like helicopters.

so we could go back to the roots of just what are we talking about to decide on the right name?  Would it be better to try and classify two different types of Infantry units, or as upgrades, or based on national facts of what countries had, or an umbrella-unit that covers something beyond 'Infantry'?  Germany had more horses in the Polish campaign than trucks to move materials and troops, so a couple units could be represented if more and more detail is desired...

If it is one new unit that we would be after, I'd still vote in favor of the name 'mechanized' because it covers everything up to that while 'mobile' would seem to not cover things like half-tracks.  

a degree of mobility of 0 i think technically would be no mobility...  if one asks how much money you have and you say 0, you do not have a degree of money, you have no money, but that's just my opinion, i could be wrong...