What is the better name?

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:

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.

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:

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:

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:

@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.

@Imperious:

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…

@Emperor_Taiki:

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:

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… :-o

right, and if you were out of a job and had 76 dollars in the bank( you have little wealth like regular infantry has little mobility) you would say I do not have wealth just like regular infantry would say they do not have mobility.

And I am not saying infantry could not move on there own, in WW2 there are many cases where infantry marched at amazing rates, it is just that they did not march at a rate such that the Militaries of the time thought they should be considered mobile.

Heinz Guderian was appointed Chief of Mobile Forces in 1938, Mobile in this case meant all panzer, panzer grenadier and motorized divisions(which included halftracks(SdKfs251s) although I do not think any divisions at that time were labeled mechanized just panzer grenadier.

@LuckyDay:

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…

thats an interesting idea, do you care to expand on that? i am just as interested in rules for logistics as new combat units

@Imperious:

NEVER DID anybody use the phrase “motorized infantry” . I have no idea why so many on these forums don’t just call them Mechanized Infantry or Armored infantry

Thats just not true, I have a copy of Panzer Leader in my had, Guderian regularly talks about motoriszed infantry and has many divisions labeled motorized on his maps.
And many American and British divisions were motorized, infantry is only mechanized when it has halftracks or other armor transporting it, I am pretty sure fare more infantry were transported by truck than halftracks.

“the only good bug is a dead bug”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faFuaYA-daw