How were Combat Values (CVs) determined?

[Harrybanana]

I have only recently started playing GoA which I know has been out for some time. As other people have commented the documentation and interface are poor, which has made learning the game more diffcult than it needed to be. However the game has some very interesting features and I think I will enjoy it a great deal, especially once I feel competent enough to take on a human opponent.

But I do have a question for the game's designers (or anyone else who might know the answer) and that is: How were the CV Values assigned to the units of the different nations determined?

I ask this because I agree generally with the CVs assigned to the units of every nation except one. That one is, if you haven't already guessed, the United States. I don't want to upset anybody or start a flame war, but can anyone explain to me why the CVs of the American Army units are the highest of any nation in the War?

[FrankHunter]

Its because the US divisions of the time were much larger so the unit simply represents a lot more well-equipped troops.

[EdinHouston]

I would have thought that stacking limits would be driven by the number of men in a hex, not the number of units called 'corps' or 'divisions' or whatever. I mean, if Germany renamed all their corps into divisions, and their armies into corps, would each of their new 'corps' suddenly have a combat value of 72? In a game where stacking limits are based on the number of units, a unit with combat value 36 is far more valuable than two units with combat values of 18, even if you only get half as many units, because it makes it far easier to attack (and defend) key hexes. It makes the US units into elite stormtroopers, perfect for launching successful attacks against fully-stacked hexes, which is probably about the opposite of what they should be (which is units of lower combat value but lots and lots of them). Now if the US units had a stacking value of 4, that would be fine, because it would give them a reasonable combat value for a fully-stacked hex.

[FrankHunter]

The CV numbers were discussed last year. The problem is I didn't separate equipment from manpower. So that 18 strength Russian corps actually has roughly the same number of troops as the 24 strength German corps. And of course what do you do when you have 4 over-strength and well equipped divisions in a single Canadian Corps?

If I had separated equipment from manpower and simply said every counter is roughly 50,000 men I could have differentiated nationality by the equipment value instead of just the quality value. As I said last year, not doing so is in retrospect my biggest regret.

In the end, the CV's had to be fudged based on basic criteria and what felt about right to me.

[EdinHouston]

I guess that discussion has dropped off the forum history, so I missed it.

I think overall the system you used works pretty well. The only thing that really jumped out at me was the Americans. I didnt even mind the Commonwealth units much, because in one of the WW1 histories I read, it pointed out how those initial Aussie recruits were the best of the best because the recruiters initially picked only a small portion of the Aussie volunteers. Too bad their destination ended up being Gallipoli.

[geoffreyg]

I think also even in 1918 the Aussies were spearheading British Empire offensives because of their high quality.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

The problem is I didn't separate equipment from manpower. So that 18 strength Russian corps actually has roughly the same number of troops as the 24 strength German corps.

If I had separated equipment from manpower and simply said every counter is roughly 50,000 men I could have differentiated nationality by the equipment value instead of just the quality value. As I said last year, not doing so is in retrospect my biggest regret.

In the end, the CV's had to be fudged based on basic criteria and what felt about right to me.

Frank I don't quite understand what you mean by the above explanation. Are you saying that the American units have a higher CV because each American corps had more men in it. If so could this not be "fixed" by giving each corps a 4 stacking value.

I don't want to quibble too much. It is just that as a Canadian I was looking forward to playing a Wargame where the Canadians were the elite units (which in WWI they were) so I was disappointed to discover that the American units are "rated" higher. No disrespect to the American Miltary, but in WWI the American units, for various reasons, were not as effective as the Canadians or Australians. They made up for this in WWII of course.

By the way my Mom was born in the States and I have ancestors who fought in both the American Revolution and the Civil War, so I am really not trying to disparage anyone here. I just thought it would be nice if just for once the Canadians got their dues.

[FrankHunter]

Are you saying that the American units have a higher CV because each American corps had more men in it.

Yes, the size of the US formations is mentioned I'm sure in ever single book on WW1 and I wanted to retain that feel. And yes I could have used varying stacking values for units to represent that sort of thing.

It is just that as a Canadian I was looking forward to playing a Wargame where the Canadians were the elite units

CV does not denote "eliteness". Its numbers and equipment. As you play GoA the value of high quality units should become more apparent, those D quality troops may have the same CV but they're brittle.

As for Canada and Australia, I agree that by 1918 the Canadians and Australians were considered to be the elite units of the Western Front. But, and this is just my opinion, I think the 1914 BEF was perhaps better as were some 1914 German units. The thing is, they had all been wiped out. I will say I think Canada and Australia probably had the two best generals in their histories serving at the time, Monash and Currie, both of whom I would rate higher than John French who commanded the BEF in 1914. (In fact I've read that Currie or Monash may have replaced Haig as commander of the Empire's troops in France if the war had continued and the 1918 offensives had gone like those of 1917)

For game purposes the Canadians and Australians are rated the same as the 1914 BEF in terms of quality which is as high as it gets. Add to that their high CVs due to their numbers of well-equipped high quality recruits (at one battle the Canadian Corps' battallions were as much as 200 men overstrength yet Currie refused to expand his number of divisions and turn the Corps into a small army because Canada didn't have enough officers and would have had to use British officers) and they're both powerful formations in the latter part of the game.

Again, perhaps I should have got rid of CV and replaced it with a straight manpower number and then added a firepower modifier but at the time I believed that would make the units too bland.

[Harrybanana]

Frank, thank you for continuing to address this matter. It sounds like you have already dealt with this once.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the initial BEF and some early German formations being on at least a par with the Canadians and Australians.

As for the CV Value being only in relation to numbers and equipment then are you saying, for example, that the sole reason for an Austrian an "A" Corps having a lower CV Value than a German "A" Corps is because it had inferior/less equipment? And the same thing for a French "A" Corps in comparison to a British "A" Corps? I believe these units were roughly comparable in terms of size, but I am not an expert on this kind of thing.

Also I think I read somewhere that a German "A" Corps is superior to, for example, a Russian "A" Corps. Is this true that the Classes of troops for different Nationalities are different? If so are you willing to reveal the true ranking of "eliteness" (for want of a better word). My own view is that it should go something like:

1. British A (including Cdns and Aus)
2. German A
3. French A
4. All other As plus British, German and French Bs
5. All other Bs, plus British, German and French Cs
6. All other Cs
7. All Ds.

Actually rereading your post, you seem to indicate that even among "A" class units of the same Nationality there are variations in quality, is this the case? Where can I look to find this data.

Is it possible to modify the data file for the US Corps to increase their stacking value to 4? If so how? If not is it possible to change the data file for the US Corps to reduce their CV.

I agree with your assessments of Currie and Monash, though of course I am more partial to Sir Arthur Currie. Unfortunately very few Canadians even know who Currie is. Of course Byng (a Brit) was the commander of the Canadian Corps until I believe sometime in 1917 when Currie (who had been commander of the 2nd division) assumed command, thus being becoming the first ever Canadian Corps commander.

[FrankHunter]

As for the CV Value being only in relation to numbers and equipment...

Yes, the German forces were used as the standard. So once I settled on a CV of 24 for them everyone else was compared against them as fas as firepower and staying power etc.

Is this true that the Classes of troops for different Nationalities are different?

Yes, this question came up early on in playtesting and right after release. The quality levels apply only within that nationality. An "A" class Russian unit has an actual quality 2 points lower than a German "A" quality unit. I'm sure this was posted a long time ago. I don't have a list at hand.

Actually rereading your post, you seem to indicate that even among "A" class units of the same Nationality there are variations in quality, is this the case?

No

Is it possible to modify the data file for the US Corps to increase their stacking value to 4?

No, stacking is hard-coded. I would have to go through all the code and change every single place its referenced.

If not is it possible to change the data file for the US Corps to reduce their CV.

No, there is no editor with the game.


Fact is, its impossible to quantify everything. Just what is the combat value of the Austrian 3rd corps compared to the German 3rd Corps compared to the BEF compared to the US 1st Corps? A few CV difference here or there based on junior officers, soldier literacy, small arms range and rate of fire, days of weapon training, number of machine guns per battallion, number of artillery pieces, efficiency of the supply tail, efficiency of medical personnel and facilities, fatigue level before replaced in the line etc could be argued endlessly. In the end I settled on numbers that felt about right to me and seemed to produce the results I was looking for.

[Harrybanana]

Yes, the German forces were used as the standard. So once I settled on a CV of 24 for them everyone else was compared against them as fas as firepower and staying power etc.

If the CV incorporates things such as "staying power" than, imho, it does have something to do with quality and is not just an expression of the size of the unit or the number or quality of it's weaponry. In my opinion this is not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

Yes, this question came up early on in playtesting and right after release. The quality levels apply only within that nationality. An "A" class Russian unit has an actual quality 2 points lower than a German "A" quality unit. I'm sure this was posted a long time ago. I don't have a list at hand.

Does anyoyne know where I can locate this post or otherwise retrieve this information?

No, there is no editor with the game.

That's too bad, but I guess I'll just have to live with it. Still congratulations Frank on an excellent game.

In the end I settled on numbers that felt about right to me and seemed to produce the results I was looking for.

Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then Frank, because the American CV just does not feel right to me (unless their quality rating is several points less than the Canadians [:D] )

[EdinHouston]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

because the American CV just does not feel right to me

I never would have thought twice about this issue until I saw the CV for the American units. My solitaire games never lasted that long, so when I had the US units attack me in a PBEM game, I thought Patton's 3rd Army had arrived about 25 years early!

[geoffreyg]

Frank says

"Yes, this question came up early on in playtesting and right after release. The quality levels apply only within that nationality. An "A" class Russian unit has an actual quality 2 points lower than a German "A" quality unit. I'm sure this was posted a long time ago. I don't have a list at hand."

However I have noticed that the quality values that come up in the combat report and seem to feed through to the firepower statistics give both Russian A and German A the same quality rating of 9. Is this correct?

[FrankHunter]

Okay I went and looked it up, sure enough, "A" quality Russians have the same rating as "A" quality Germans so clearly my memory is fading.

"B" quality Germans have a rating of 8 and "B" quality Russians have a rating of 7.

"C" quality Germans have a rating of 7 and "B" quality Russians have a rating of 5.

and so on.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Okay I went and looked it up, sure enough, "A" quality Russians have the same rating as "A" quality Germans so clearly my memory is fading.

"B" quality Germans have a rating of 8 and "B" quality Russians have a rating of 7.

"C" quality Germans have a rating of 7 and "B" quality Russians have a rating of 5.

and so on.

I assume you meant "C" quality Russians have a rating of 5 (not "B" quality).

I apologize for continuing to ask the same thing over and over (but I am still waiting for a clear answer) but does anyone know what the quality #s of the "A" rated British, French and American units are? If the Americans are a 9, as I suspect they are, then along with their large CV size they are clearly the "Elite " units of WWI. Again this just doesn't feel right to me, but I guess there is nothing which can be done.

[FrankHunter]

The Brit and German numbers are A=9 B=8 C=7 D=6
The French numbers are 8-7-6-5
Austrians are 8-7-5-4
Russia is 9-7-5-4
Italy is 7-6-5-4
Serbia is 9-8-6-5
Romania is 7-6-5-4
The Ottomans, Belgians, Dutch and Bulgarians are 8-7-6-5
America is 7-6 (they have no C and D class units)
Anyone else is 6-5-4-3

By 1918 most units will be at C and D with a few B's

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

The Brit and German numbers are A=9 B=8 C=7 D=6
The French numbers are 8-7-6-5
Austrians are 8-7-5-4
Russia is 9-7-5-4
Italy is 7-6-5-4
Serbia is 9-8-6-5
Romania is 7-6-5-4
The Ottomans, Belgians, Dutch and Bulgarians are 8-7-6-5
America is 7-6 (they have no C and D class units)
Anyone else is 6-5-4-3

By 1918 most units will be at C and D with a few B's

Thank you very much Frank for digging this info up. It makes me feel a lot better about the game. Now somehow I just have to keep the casulties of my Canadian corps as low as possible so I can relive "Canada's Hundred Days" in 1918.

[FM WarB]

Why are Russian A's rated the same as German and Brits?

[FrankHunter]

It was in the original round of playtesting about 4 years ago that one of the testers put forward the view that the Russians weren't being given due consideration. I can't recall the sources at the moment but he did after considerable discussion convince me to switch them to the present levels. The gist being that the Russians had a number of high quality formations in 1914 and that not all their troops were under-armed conscripts.

[hjaco]

Contrary to popular belief, the standing Russian Army in 1914 was a well equipped and well trained fighting force. Its troops and equipment at least matched the Germans, if not bettered them and the standard was much higher than the average Austrian soldier (hence why Russia managed to defeat the Austrian military several times in the early stages of WW1).