Because, it's annoying for my divisions and stack to constantly change its ID from 18th division to 7th division because I split a unit to garrison a city.
Motorized infantry spam is the best way.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Kalrakh wrote:
Those numbers get generated automatically. The next free number gets assigned and I suppose it is the best way this way.
737373elj wrote:
It'll also be more interesting to name units: gives you a sense of attachment to them. And hopefully prevent rushers, because those people are the worst.
The post was edited 1 time, last by Vincenator ().
Vincenator wrote:
Imagine having an armored division called "Emperor's Scythes" and another the "Death's Demise". Which you could do with officers but only in a few divisions.737373elj wrote:
It'll also be more interesting to name units: gives you a sense of attachment to them. And hopefully prevent rushers, because those people are the worst.
737373elj wrote:
Technically units get named numbers. So you have to do with the 501st. But you can always call them awesome names... in your imagination. Trying to implement names (as in, what you said) for all units would be cool, but that may be a bit too much for the servers. Come to think of it my suggestion may also be too much.Vincenator wrote:
Imagine having an armored division called "Emperor's Scythes" and another the "Death's Demise". Which you could do with officers but only in a few divisions.737373elj wrote:
It'll also be more interesting to name units: gives you a sense of attachment to them. And hopefully prevent rushers, because those people are the worst.
Vincenator wrote:
True, but it does put a smile on my face when the enemy sees a nigh invincible doom stack called "Harbingers" going to their capital,while others annihilate their units. But still, would manually setting a unit's number really put on a strain on their servers but a noticeably amount? Fro me, it would a nice QoL feature for organization.737373elj wrote:
Technically units get named numbers. So you have to do with the 501st. But you can always call them awesome names... in your imagination. Trying to implement names (as in, what you said) for all units would be cool, but that may be a bit too much for the servers. Come to think of it my suggestion may also be too much.Vincenator wrote:
Imagine having an armored division called "Emperor's Scythes" and another the "Death's Demise". Which you could do with officers but only in a few divisions.737373elj wrote:
It'll also be more interesting to name units: gives you a sense of attachment to them. And hopefully prevent rushers, because those people are the worst.
Fereyd wrote:
Khal is right,
and afaik the Numbering is deep in the anciend code no one dares to touch
Besides that, individual names could lead to sideefects with the Damagesplit and healinig when two "individual" units are piled up.
For famous Units i suggest Name your Airborne Officer 101. Airbourne, your Tankofficer 1st. guards Tank Army, your Subofficer Red October or your Fighterace Maverick
737373elj wrote:
Why doesn’t anybody just stick with the Red Baron?