New Units

Nearly all of these have been suggested before and I'm pretty sure uprisers are basically commandos. Also, Poland does not have enough tech to have it's own tech tree.

Create the airborne infantry regiment.

Neuter the ridiculously over-powered commando battalion.

MontanaBB wrote:

Neuter the ridiculously over-powered commando battalion.

Maybe thats why they wear kilts and carry knives.... Easy self neutering

DannyBoyCH wrote:

Cargo Plane- a plane that can carry light tanks, armoured cars and paratroopers as well as motorized infantry.

Paratroopers-They are soldiers that act like infantry but are stronger and faster and can jump out planes, they are in between infantry and commandos

Polish Research Line- The Tankette, TKS-20 mm and others.

Cavalry- This comes with the Polish line that is fast like motorized deadly like a armoured car or a infantry unit.

Uprisers- So this unit has damage and health in between the militia and infantry but say you would put a unit of uprisers and make them hidden (the special feature)if you were Poland in Poznan bordering Germany and the next day Poznan was invaded with the uprisiers hidden then you can activate them with the unit on them.

Thanks for stopping by, and please give credit.

Paratroopers- good idea, but no thanks, they could be capable of ruining a country in matter of HOURS if combined with planes, which i saw in Conflict of Nations...

Polish research tree- absolutely not needed, there are FAR MORE important tech trees that we are missing, like the British or French ones

Cavalry- absolutely NOT needed, cavalry was already obsolete in WW1, let alone WW2...hell, a cavalry regiment should NOT be stronger than a armored car regiment, AT ALL.

Uprisers- not really needed...and its Insurgents/rebels, not "uprisers"

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

DannyBoyCH wrote:

Cavalry- absolutely NOT needed, cavalry was already obsolete in WW1, let alone WW2...

For CoW, this would translate into a unit similar to motorized infantry, but without oil use, extra food use, and fight and/or move bonuses for rough terrain.

cavalry didnt work out so good for the poles, tho....no matter how brave they were, lances didnt work on panzer divisions and stukas

Poland <> Russia

K.Rokossovski wrote:

. . . the Red Army used cavalry extensively, fielding over 20 cavalry corps of 2-3 divisions each . . . They were mostly used in the sparsely populated and roaded (?) regions of the vast Russian plains, where they were far more mobile than ordinary mot/mech formations and needed less supplies.

Despite the name, the horses were primarily used to get to the battlefield, where [the mounted soldiers] would dismount and fight as infantry. Thus "Dragoon" would probably have been a better name.

im familiar bb. and i agree. there will always be specialized units for terrain, weather, etc. i just commented about the bravery of the Polish lancers.

Thats why weather and more detailed terrain parameters would add a lot to the strategy of the game. We could have ski troops and other fun stuff. Naval units could be more detailed, too. We need PT boats, buffaloes, other landing craft, and separation of now-merged aircraft like naval and tactical bombers.

And skins that reflect all the differences. Not everyone should float around in the same Italian cruiser.

dragoons got them feathers in their headgear, dont they? lol.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

In fact, the Red Army used cavalry extensively . . . .

K.Rokossovski wrote:

For CoW, this would translate into a unit similar to motorized infantry, but without oil use, extra food use . . . .

K.Rokossovski wrote:

A very common misconception about WW2. In fact, the Red Army used cavalry extensively, fielding over 20 cavalry corps of 2-3 divisions each, including several with the honor prefix "Guards". They were mostly used in the sparsely populated and roaded (?) regions of the vast Russian plains, where they were far more mobile than ordinary mot/mech formations and needed less supplies. Despite the name, the horses were primarily used to get to the battlefield, where they would dismount and fight as infantry. Thus "Dragoon" would probably have been a better name.

For CoW, this would translate into a unit similar to motorized infantry, but without oil use, extra food use, and fight and/or move bonuses for rough terrain.

did they win a battle?

hell, if they were used, that doesn't mean that they were not obsolete, they were highly obsolete in WW1 because of machine guns.

and in WW2, you had tanks, planes, artillery, mines, much better infantry equipment...

in my point of view, Cavalry in call of war would be basically like a poor man's armored car

The majority of the roster is already underused as is... I almost never see tank destroyers or strategical bombers or rockets fighters on the battlefield. To me the slow speed of tank destroyers is ridiculous, the very concept of an anti-tank-lighter-than-a-real-tank is to make up the lessened defense by augmenting its mobility (and yes i know some countries like Germany had a different doctrine there). They're barely faster than AT canons... The best option still remains infrantry + light tanks + tac bombers, more original combinations tend to fall flat.

Focus should be put on balancing the current available units to make the underdogs more relevant ; this is certainly no time to introduce such a thing as cavalry...

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

Cavalry in call of war would be basically like a poor man's armored car

with movement speed of ??? psst... not as fast as an armored car fer sher

Dixie wrote:

not as fast as an armored car fer sher

VorlonFCW wrote:

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

Cavalry in call of war would be basically like a poor man's armored car

Like an armored car or motorized infantry that would run on wheat instead of oil.

King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

A very common misconception about WW2. In fact, the Red Army used cavalry extensively, fielding over 20 cavalry corps of 2-3 divisions each, including several with the honor prefix "Guards". They were mostly used in the sparsely populated and roaded (?) regions of the vast Russian plains, where they were far more mobile than ordinary mot/mech formations and needed less supplies. Despite the name, the horses were primarily used to get to the battlefield, where they would dismount and fight as infantry. Thus "Dragoon" would probably have been a better name.

For CoW, this would translate into a unit similar to motorized infantry, but without oil use, extra food use, and fight and/or move bonuses for rough terrain.

and tell me Frank, how well did the horses do?did they win a battle?

hell, if they were used, that doesn't mean that they were not obsolete, they were highly obsolete in WW1 because of machine guns.

and in WW2, you had tanks, planes, artillery, mines, much better infantry equipment...

in my point of view, Cavalry in call of war would be basically like a poor man's armored car

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/cavalry/

That's from an American magazine, but you could also pick one of the many, many other links that google will provide you with. If you want a more easy introduction, Wikipedia has a nice overview too on this and several related topics.

Because yes, they were succesful; and yes, they were raised even after some guy on a forum about 75 years later called them "obsolete". They were tailored to a very specific role of course; very much like paratroopers or mountaineers or other specialty forces. They also had a rich compliment of heavy weaponry (including a tank regiment per corps, for example).

It is still a pity that so little is know about the Eastern front warfare in the English-language sources, and that a subject like this is generally unknown in the West. You should be aware though, that over 80% of land combat (personal estimation, but I think it is conservative) took place on the Eastern front, and is a more interesting study than the repetition of the same stories about Normandy and the Bulge.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

It is still a pity that so little is know about the Eastern front warfare in the English-language sources, and that a subject like this is generally unknown in the West.

If the full story of the Great Patriotic War is not known in the West, it is mostly because the full story is not generally known in Russia, either.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

It is still a pity that so little is know about the Eastern front warfare in the English-language sources, and that a subject like this is generally unknown in the West.

MontanaBB wrote:

If the full story of the Great Patriotic War is not known in the West, it is mostly because the full story is not generally known in Russia, either.