Paras don't help combined arms?

[BoerWar]

First, the combined arms benefit is for the whole force. I think an army formation composed of armor, artillery and air going on the offensive would be better off for having foot soldiers tagging along, even if they were poorly trained militia. They still can spot the guy with the bazooka waiting to get a shot at the tank's rear armor and flush out enemy positions for air-ground and artillery strikes.

Second, these units represent such huge formations that even the weaker militia units would probably have some useful units attached.

Finally, I think the same argument that Christian made for allowing Paras could be made for militia. They perform the same functions as infantry; unfortunately just not as well. In the game, their penalty for that is, well, they're militia. They get less die rolls to hit and don't survive as well. Giving them a +3 on the die roll still doesn't make them equal to infantry.

The advantage in combined arms is that you have ground pounders available to act as the eyes and ears for and protect the flanks of the armor and artillery. Militia units can still perform that function; just not as well as infantry or paras.

My vote would be to allow all infantry like units (Inf, Airborne, and militia) to act as infantry for the purposes of determining combined arms advantage.

[Tom Grosv]

Gosh, I feel like such a tart - immediately after saying I agree with MrQuiet that Mil should not count for MA, BoerWar makes such a good counter-argument I find myself reconsidering. Ultimately I don't think I really mind either way concerning Mil, just as long as paras do get CA on a ground attack.

[wawawd]

At this level, you could make convincing arguments both ways. But I am against allowing militia for combined arms.

[pzgndr]

First, the combined arms benefit is for the whole force. I think an army formation composed of armor, artillery and air going on the offensive would be better off for having foot soldiers tagging along, even if they were poorly trained militia. They still can spot the guy with the bazooka waiting to get a shot at the tank's rear armor and flush out enemy positions for air-ground and artillery strikes.

Second, these units represent such huge formations that even the weaker militia units would probably have some useful units attached.

Finally, I think the same argument that Christian made for allowing Paras could be made for militia. They perform the same functions as infantry; unfortunately just not as well. In the game, their penalty for that is, well, they're militia. They get less die rolls to hit and don't survive as well. Giving them a +3 on the die roll still doesn't make them equal to infantry.

I have a few comments. Per the manual, Militia are poorly-trained, poorly-equipped infantry. Their only saving grace is that they’re very inexpensive to produce. Militia units that have become Veteran or Elite will be converted to a normal Infantry unit at the end of the player’s turn.

Being poorly-trained and poorly-equipped, by definition here, militia cannot be thought of as being capable of conducting combined arms offensive operations. Yes they can tag along, but that doesn't exactly mean they qualify for a bonus. Let them get converted to normal infantry first and then qualify for a bonus. Paras on the other hand are normal infantry, except on a turn of airdrop, and are trained and equipped for combined arms offensive operations. So it makes sense that they qualify for a bonus.

For militia, since they must be doing something to become Veteran or Elite, perhaps consider 2-3 of them as a minimum requirement for qualifying for a bonus? As BoerWar stated, militia would probably have some useful units attached, so maybe give them partial credit. But a single militia tagging along hardly qualifies.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

...perhaps consider 2-3 of them as a minimum requirement for qualifying for a bonus?

As stated above this would do little to curb the Russian mass militia strat. In other words, if they build hoards of them they will still get CAM without using any real infantry. I just don't like the sound of that.

[christian brown]

Gentlemen,
Without getting wordy here, I would like there to be a a somewhat improved consensus as regards the CAM issue (the better to convince Joel that the code change is worth while - clearly he husbands resources for changes that impact the way the game is played in a meaningful way ONLY.)
It would appear that everyone agrees that Paratroops ought to count toward the CAM equation, that issue need no longer be stressed (thanks everybody!)

An unfortunate byproduct of this thread has been a controversy regarding MIL units' acceptability concerning CAM qualification...........

As we all know, the experience of the Second World War showed all nations how a combination of different combat arms (for purposes of this game, we are speaking of units of armor, artillery, ground-strike capable aerial forces and the "Queen of Battle.") The unique way in which these units were formed into cohesive strike forces made a very potent and destructive tool for the attacker. It is most difficult to find a parallel of this sort of tight cohesion unless we compare it to the armies of Napoleon or perhaps, Frederick. Even with these examples in mind, the utterly disrupting influence (more more so than say, the Confederate cavalry of Nathan Bedford Forest) of airpower makes for a new dynamic entirely. Of a modern combined arms force we speak of units of differing strengths and weaknesses being used in their OPTIMUM role as the situation dictates. Hitting the rear echelon (airpower) to ease the clearing of a built-up area (infantry) in order to enable swifter forces to exploit a weakness (mechanized) while most of these operations are supported by artillery is a perfect example of modern, combined-arms warfare.

Now frankly, who among us will rationally argue that militia forces are/were ever capable of this time-sensitive, well coordinated type of attack? These units lack sufficient radios, training, and above all "offensive spirit" required of members of a combined arms force. There is a reason Gary did not include this modifier as a possible bonus to the defense........

While a good, healthy debate is always welcome (to me at any rate) there comes a time when whim and fancy must be reconciled with honesty and fact. A few tiny tactical examples of a volkssturm unit working well with some panzers and a few 88s is NOT ENOUGH to justify a modifier that effects a force so massive that it occupies an entire region on the AWD map.

IMO, a historical simulation that strives for realism (as abstracted as it sometimes is in GGWAW: AWD) cannot allow militia units to be counted toward CAM eligibility.

The fact that the official rules as published by 2x3 do NOT support the use of non-infantry supported milita clearly shows the true intent of the developers.

My thanks to those of you who have spent the time to read my argument (and sorry if I was too wordy, lol!)

A+

[Avatar47]

This is a game, with balancing issues. I'm not really in favour of what's more historical than what makes for better game balance. Allowing militia to initiate a CAM bonus is unacceptable to me, and would throw the game off balance, probably in favour of the USSR, as their general lack of trained inf at the beginning of barba allows the german player to take more risks. And imo, the german player needs all he can get against an experienced allied player.

[Uncle_Joe]

 Allowing militia to initiate a CAM bonus is unacceptable to me, and would throw the game off balance, probably in favour of the USSR, as their general lack of trained inf at the beginning of barba allows the german player to take more risks. And imo, the german player needs all he can get against an experienced allied player.

 
I believe they give the bonus NOW. So its certainly not going to throw game balance off.
 
This is such a minor issue that I can believe that people are worried about it. Its been out for what, a year now? And people are just figuring out that Paras dont give the modifier? That means that the situation is EXTREMELY rare at best. Ditto for Militia.
 
Personally, I just want some sort of consistancy in the rules. If Militia/Paras/Infantry are all termed 'Infantry', then they should all give the modifier. The odds of it negatively affecting game balance are negligible, considering that the only change that would entail from the current would be to add Paras to the list of 'infantry' that can grant the CAM.

[Avatar47]

Seems militia really can add to CAM.

Regarding Paras, it's not news to me that they don't contribute. It's always bothered me a bit, but I assumed this was because it was too difficult to program Paras to provide CAM during a non-drop as opposed to a drop.

[Uncle_Joe]

 
Well, this is from farther up the thread and posted by Wandering Head so I'm assuming its correct. I had always assumed that all three gave the modifier anyways.
 

out of curiousity, who was aware that militia could take the place of infantry to give CA?

I was not aware of it until a few weaks ago, when I was surprised to see CA in a particular combat.

 
As I said, if its taken this long for anyone to find out and even the beta-testers and tournament players didnt notice, its not some major issue that is going to swing balance at all. So from that point of view, I'd say just for consistancy, let 'em all do it. Its not going to change balance and it makes sense within the game rules (ie, all three are treated as infantry for targeting anyways, and all three are probably what any outside observer would regard as 'infantry').
 
 [align=right]
[/align]

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
As I said, if its taken this long for anyone to find out and even the beta-testers and tournament players didnt notice, its not some major issue that is going to swing balance at all.

I think that the change in balance is that now everyone knows ... I really thought CA was an important reason for Russia to build infantry, now infantry doesn't seem all that important to Russia until the offensive is completely recaptured, and then mostly to reduce supply and rail expenditure.

BTW, I really don't know what the original intent was. I don't remember it ever discussed. I'm pretty sure that the CA code was written long before the targeting was changed to lump inf/mil/airborne together, although maybe it was updated after the fact.

Joel was ambivalent on this issue and left it up to me. No surprise I'm sure, but I think that the arguments against militia in CA are far more convincing.

I plan to change it so that undropped airborne is included in CA, and militia are excluded from CA. the changes will apply to both offense and defense.

[Uncle_Joe]

Well, as I said above, I dont think it really going to matter a whole lot either way. If thats the way you want to change, thats cool with me. I think its going to be a VERY minor change at worst.
 
Of more interest to me is the A-bomb change. Any word on that?

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Of more interest to me is the A-bomb change. Any word on that?

I've coded it up and tested it. It is mod-able, so a scenario can either incorporate it or not. This capability, at least, will be in the next version.

When I mentioned it to Joel he didn't really say anything, but it might not have really registered with him (probably buried in one of my lengthy emails). I'll have to clarify what he wants to do here.

He is very reluctant to change the released scenarios. I recently pinged him again on German NMRC and he said he didn't want to change it. I think his motivation is just not changing things that people are used to, and when in doubt don't make the released manual inaccurate.

I think he can be convinced on the a-bomb since it is partly a balance issue and there was a lot of agreement, but he hasn't budged on NMRC.

[Forwarn45]

I agree with Uncle Joe. I don't think removing militia from CA is a huge change - so I don't feel too strongly about it (but would probably keep it as is and just add paratroops to CA if left to me). But I really, really hope the A-bomb change is included as a standard change for the scenarios in the next patch. As you mentioned, there was broad agreement and I think extensive discussion when schury raised the issue of balance.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I think that the change in balance is that now everyone knows ...

Exactly. It may not have been an issue before but now that it's clear an all Militia no Infantry army can get CAM, it needs to be changed, otherwise we may begin to see the opposite of what CAM was intended to create. It was added into AWD to encurage more balanced builds. But in Russia's case, if Mil continued to get the bonus and players learned to abuse that, then CAM as intended fails, and might as well be removed from the game.