Elites.....

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Warhorse:
Not to put the Army down here at all folks, but just the facts. Look at the PT qualifications for the Marines, and Army, the distance to run alone is more than the Army, and entrance exams alone are more demanding. I wouldn't say elite per se, but we do have a more demanding standard than the regular army. We are called the "Presidents own" ;)If you want to argue it, just get the entrance exam tests, and pt tests, also, in boot camp, we didn't have no stinking soda machines!!! But hey, think what you want to think, all services have there best!!! There are exceptions to all, like Green Berets, Rangers, among others, so....

Semper Fi!!

You know, no army exactly knows what
kinds of people it needs in actual combat.

Stricter qualifications don't tell about
better results. I recall reading of retired Force Recon officer who was in Vietnam saying training had very little to do with actual situation in field. His own comment
was something like requirements were more
physical than what was between ears. And
he obviously think latter was more atleast
important.

Only way to really know who are right kind of people is to ship lot of people to
battle field and look how people who were
there see who did well and look the results.

I'd argue best troops are such that
have no big expectations, no unhuman
physical strenght, but lot of commons
sense and adequate stamina.

Troops that know when to retreat, how
to fight bravely without taking big casualties, generally balanced composition
of stamina, skills and common sense with
good leadership. In long run, such troops
survive longer, gain lot of experience and only fight battles that have sensible chance of ending well.

If troops is considered 'elite', then they can be thrown to places and battles that would be othwerwise avoided. Then they get higher casualty rate for that alone and if they won't retreat as they are taught not to then they get even bigger casualty
rate. Propably this is what happened with
Waffen SS troops in II world war.

Atleast, this is how see it.

[Charles2222]

sven:

I think in order to be elite you should be able to conduct all phases of the operations you are 'elite' at.

I think you may have missed a subtle point of my post, and that is, that those who do retreat, like the BEF in '40, from a certain angle, look better because they don't substain many losses, but they're only not suffering losses because they're so keen on running away. It's hard for a bully to beat on a man running away, but the man who stands and fights may win or not, but he's likely to have bruises all over him when it's over.

So my point is, if your ethos is largely "no retreat" and there are cetainly instances where it's the wiser course, then naturally you'll fail at retreating because you're concentrating so much more on standing your ground. The same could be said for those who retreat at the first sight of the enemy, if they concentrated more on standing their ground their eliteness for retreating wouldn't be so evident. In other words, I wouldn't call someone who doesn't retreat terribly well as being "non-elite" because of it, particularly since retreat isn't the posture of an army which is winning and which nations court martial for men running away when they weren't supposed to, and conversely, reward men who stood against insane odds and refused to retreat perhaps many times against orders and if nothing else against common sense.

Of course the best units will be the ones who use retreat or standing ground as means to gain massive advantage, such as Rommels tanks retreating to put the chasing British tanks into 88flak fire.

As far as attributing that the regulars knock the elites for jeolousy, I see it happen all the time, in the business world and elsewhere. It's stupid human nature. OTOH a lot of elites bring it on themselves by sticking their chest out and acting as though the individual regular couldn't do the same.

BTW, the marine log story and the SS tank story are both not isolated unto themselves. It's specific instances to bring out the idea that certain units are severely trained, so naturally they'll acquire a harder edge, though whether they keep it or not is entirely another story.

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven:

I think you may have missed a subtle point of my post, and that is, that those who do retreat, like the BEF in '40, from a certain angle, look better because they don't substain many losses, but they're only not suffering losses because they're so keen on running away. It's hard for a bully to beat on a man running away, but the man who stands and fights may win or not, but he's likely to have bruises all over him when it's over.

So my point is, if your ethos is largely "no retreat" and there are cetainly instances where it's the wiser course, then naturally you'll fail at retreating because you're concentrating so much more on standing your ground. The same could be said for those who retreat at the first sight of the enemy, if they concentrated more on standing their ground their eliteness for retreating wouldn't be so evident. In other words, I wouldn't call someone who doesn't retreat terribly well as being "non-elite" because of it, particularly since retreat isn't the posture of an army which is winning and which nations court martial for men running away when they weren't supposed to, and conversely, reward men who stood against insane odds and refused to retreat perhaps many times against orders and if nothing else against common sense.

Of course the best units will be the ones who use retreat or standing ground as means to gain massive advantage, such as Rommels tanks retreating to put the chasing British tanks into 88flak fire.

As far as attributing that the regulars knock the elites for jeolousy, I see it happen all the time, in the business world and elsewhere. It's stupid human nature. OTOH a lot of elites bring it on themselves by sticking their chest out and acting as though the individual regular couldn't do the same.

BTW, the marine log story and the SS tank story are both not isolated unto themselves. It's specific instances to bring out the idea that certain units are severely trained, so naturally they'll acquire a harder edge, though whether they keep it or not is entirely another story.

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

Charles are you implying that the US Army are a bunch of cowards because we know how to do a fighting withdrawl? There are situations where it makes sense to trade ground for men, and leave a bad situation. I am certain you know this.

The Marines are a good force. The thing here is that the Marines do not do the same job as the Army. See in the Army we take on the whole enemy force.

Oh wait I get it...

A strategic retreat implies that you are engaged in a war of manuever and that requires I guess in someones estimation a rare blend of cowardice and wimphood. You are absolutely right in that case. The Army beating the Marines at Tank and Infantry exercises PROVES the Marines superiority because after all they are 'too tough' to do the right thing tactically in an intelligent and skilled way.

Thank God our army is a bunch wimpy cowards. we may have actually been able to compete with the SS... oh gosh we did compete with the SS and the Marines did not in any numbers... how about that? All you have to do to beat an 'elite' blockhead is give him a situation he cannot cope with and watch the fun.(Stalingrad for example)

sven

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

[Tombstone]

Stategic issues shouldn't be a part of this discussion. Retreating is usually closely tied to morale, and aside from all the right and wrong choices there are to make tactically a unit that has the option not to retreat can perform better than one that will break only because he is harder to root out in the defense, and harder to repel on the assault. (Ouch, mega run-on sentance there) We have to strip away the arguments over who was elite or not, it's getting us nowhere. I'm certain that any army that has seen serious combat has elite units in it. Who those units are can normally be indicated by the units with the most rigorous training, and others by their combat experience. I think as far as germany is concerned, at the beginning of the war they had a moderate quality advantage (which is modeled in troop quality), after that there was so much going on (Barbarossa) that there were units of all types (regular, veteran, elite, green) I'm sure our view gets distorted from the better units getting a disproportionate amount of the press... but that's natural.

Tomo

[sven]

Originally posted by Tombstone:
Stategic issues shouldn't be a part of this discussion. Retreating is usually closely tied to morale, and aside from all the right and wrong choices there are to make tactically a unit that has the option not to retreat can perform better than one that will break only because he is harder to root out in the defense, and harder to repel on the assault. (Ouch, mega run-on sentance there) We have to strip away the arguments over who was elite or not, it's getting us nowhere. I'm certain that any army that has seen serious combat has elite units in it. Who those units are can normally be indicated by the units with the most rigorous training, and others by their combat experience. I think as far as germany is concerned, at the beginning of the war they had a moderate quality advantage (which is modeled in troop quality), after that there was so much going on (Barbarossa) that there were units of all types (regular, veteran, elite, green) I'm sure our view gets distorted from the better units getting a disproportionate amount of the press... but that's natural.

Tomo

Tomo: there are times when retreating is not caused by a lack of morale. I agree with your post though. The discussion is going circular.

I think our combined purchase Idea was the best.

come chat.

sven

[Charles2222]

sven: Stalingrad's 6th Army weren't elites, that is if you're talking SS as elites. As for wimphood or what not of those skilled in retreating, my posts in this thread have already covered that aspect (see Rommel in desert with 88s). Being skilled in retreat is generally a very bad sign for an army as you know (because they practice it so much on the field). It's being skilled in advance and holding ground that are generally what wins wars, but then we already know this.

I think you're driving up the wrong alley when you try to equate an alleged weakness of the marines, who have a different job than the army, with being non-elite because they don't do the army's job as well. Place the "we retreat real well" attitude to the beaches or Israel, for example, and see how far it flies. Nations such as our USofA may be able to get real skilled at such a thing, since we're so afraid to suffer losses and nobody seems able to attack our mainland. Nations in Europe don't have that luxury, nor do marines when they're trying to aid/invade a small island. Russia showed that even a fiasco of a retreat might work, but then when you have maybe half the world's land mass to fall back on it can make a difference.

So, I ask the general question, if asked of the enemy, who would they fear? The answer would probably be the elites. I don't think the Japanese feared the regulars as they did the marines and of course Europe saw no marine activity to ask it of the Germans.

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven: Stalingrad's 6th Army weren't elites, that is if you're talking SS as elites. As for wimphood or what not of those skilled in retreating, my posts in this thread have already covered that aspect (see Rommel in desert with 88s). Being skilled in retreat is generally a very bad sign for an army as you know (because they practice it so much on the field). It's being skilled in advance and holding ground that are generally what wins wars, but then we already know this.

I think you're driving up the wrong alley when you try to equate an alleged weakness of the marines, who have a different job than the army, with being non-elite because they don't do the army's job as well. Place the "we retreat real well" attitude to the beaches or Israel, for example, and see how far it flies. Nations such as our USofA may be able to get real skilled at such a thing, since we're so afraid to suffer losses and nobody seems able to attack our mainland. Nations in Europe don't have that luxury, nor do marines when they're trying to aid/invade a small island. Russia showed that even a fiasco of a retreat might work, but then when you have maybe half the world's land mass to fall back on it can make a difference.

So, I ask the general question, if asked of the enemy, who would they fear? The answer would probably be the elites. I don't think the Japanese feared the regulars as they did the marines and of course Europe saw no marine activity to ask it of the Germans.

Charles if I am an elite dishwasher that does not make me an elite cook. Your fear factor theorem has as much to do with effectiveness as my post immediately above these. FACT the Army gained more ground and inflicted higher casualties in both theatres.

I do not care if the Japanese feared the Jarheads more the army did more to whip them. I am not saying some marines were not elite, but I am saying not all were elite. The circle the circle of life!

regards,
sven

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
So, I ask the general question, if asked of the enemy, who would they fear? The answer would probably be the elites. I don't think the Japanese feared the regulars as they did the marines and of course Europe saw no marine activity to ask it of the Germans.

Only if it is straighforwardly clear to enemy
that some type of unit is superior.

One could argue that any troops that have
lot of offshore support and better armanement
is feared. Especially if they attack with clear advantage most of time.

Unless I'm mistaken, Army cleaned islands,
kept them guarded and gave support when
needed, mostly relying what they had
with them.

Atleast I've got the impression Army did
use lot less support and not-so-good equipment that was pretty evenly distributed
between units, while Marines went with
huge concentrated support from island to
island.

Or I'm I wrong?

[sven]

Originally posted by General Mayhem:


Only if it is straighforwardly clear to enemy
that some type of unit is superior.

One could argue that any troops that have
lot of offshore support and better armanement
is feared. Especially if they attack with clear advantage most of time.

Unless I'm mistaken, Army cleaned islands,
kept them guarded and gave support when
needed, mostly relying what they had
with them.

Atleast I've got the impression Army did
use lot less support and not-so-good equipment that was pretty evenly distributed
between units, while Marines went with
huge concentrated support from island to
island.

Or I'm I wrong?

the thing is the marines were the dominant assault ground force in the central Pacific theatre. The army conducted more assault ops and were the main force of the drive up the islands near Austrailia and the Phillipines.

USMC gets a lot of glory for getting really bloody.... I don't mind because the Army was a lot more versatile...

regards,
sven

[Charles2222]

sven:

Your fear factor theorem....

I never gave such a thing, I'm trying to get across the idea that being skilled in retreat is the sign, for the most part, of a defeated nation, and as I explained, if you never have to defend your own turf, or have unlimited amounts of it, then it might not hurt you too much, and with the despicable condition of the USSR's commanders, back when, it could've scarcely hurt.

Why are you driving this ever-consuming need to knock elites? It's entirely possible that the regular army whooped the SS in wargames too, but that may have more to do with the SS wanting real-live action instead of pretend. I think the SS actually trained to live bullet fire as well, at least in the earlier days. I know the dreadful All-Star game the college kids used to play against the Super Bowl winners was a joke to the pros and I'm sure a number of the collgiate atheletes were probably lame enough to claim the pros weren't elite as they claimed. I don't see the marines as being that clearly superior, but it does show how your reasoning is a bit lost on me.

General Mayhem: Well we aren't confining the argument to the marines. More particularly, gamewise, we are talking about the WWII marines and SS, among others. And yes, the SS has been claimed to have done better just because they had better support or what not, but those arguments go around endlessly among people who refuse to see that there's some reason for calling elites, elites, and as I pointed out better equipment (or support) would certainly be one of the factors in the making of an elite more so. Generally, the elites get better support and equipment, because they have a specific task which they are felt to be best able to do, and who also need maximum support to exploit their strength. Rommel wasn't stupid enough to give his PZIIIHs to the Italians for example. Certainly the Italians would've made an impact with them, but they wouldn't have had as large an impact as giving them to his German units in panzer divisions.

[Brummagem]

I think it interesting that the way SP handles Elites is very generic. If you keep them alive long enough they become elites. I'm playing a long WWII campaign and All my Armour and Infantry have reached Elite status and I'm not even through 1942. When high command releases the tiger to us this will be a lot of fun.
As to you comments on the Marines Sven, I personally know men who were and still are Elite from all the Branches. You can't tell me that the Marine Lrrp that stays out in the bush for 3 weeks isn't Elite or the Ranger or the Seal or the whatever from whatever land. Even within the Elites of each land you have the occasional screw up that sends his whole platoon to hell in a hand basket, such is life and war. For the purpose of gameplay I think some sort of puchase system would be nice but I don't see how it would work. Right now in the above mentioned campaign I have accumulated over 13,000 points towards replacement and repair, so I could probibly buy the Elites I have built up now anyways.
(I think that's 2 1/2 cents worth)

[sven]

Originally posted by Brummagem:
I think it interesting that the way SP handles Elites is very generic. If you keep them alive long enough they become elites. I'm playing a long WWII campaign and All my Armour and Infantry have reached Elite status and I'm not even through 1942. When high command releases the tiger to us this will be a lot of fun.
As to you comments on the Marines Sven, I personally know men who were and still are Elite from all the Branches. You can't tell me that the Marine Lrrp that stays out in the bush for 3 weeks isn't Elite or the Ranger or the Seal or the whatever from whatever land. Even within the Elites of each land you have the occasional screw up that sends his whole platoon to hell in a hand basket, such is life and war. For the purpose of gameplay I think some sort of puchase system would be nice but I don't see how it would work. Right now in the above mentioned campaign I have accumulated over 13,000 points towards replacement and repair, so I could probibly buy the Elites I have built up now anyways.
(I think that's 2 1/2 cents worth)

I never said that Marine Force recon is not elite. I never said that there are not elite marines. I said that not all Marines are elite.(there is a difference)

I do not understand how that position has been twisted by some into meaning I do not 'respect' Marines. If anything I think that the disrespect being shoveled is towards the US Army. You are right in this Game it(elite) is a very generic term.

I said that Rangers, Special Forces, SeAls and Force recon are all elite. I mean that. I will never believe that all of any force is elite though.

regards,
sven

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

[Charles2222]

sven: I haven't seen anyone talking about how lousy the WWII US Army was, or how awful the Wehrmacht was, other than you perhaps. You seem to think we have no respect for them. Get this clear, seeing some unit that is elite as elite isn't a degradation of the regulars. Now maybe elites themselves would insult the regulars, and the regulars can have ego battles with them, but that's certainly not been the place of anyone on this board. You want to know why elites are elites we try to tell you. If you don't wnat to accept there is a basis for it, then you can resort to saying the regulars are being insulted. Fine, have it your way. I was never part of the military so I certainly don't have an axe to grind. If anything, knowing as many marines as I do, and seeing how so many are VERY undisciplined (the ones I'm around are no longer serving) I would be more apt to be against them. But you know something sven? That's a fairly common trait for someone who once considered themselves elite, they become worse than the regulars when they get out; the discipline vanishes.

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven:
General Mayhem: Well we aren't confining the argument to the marines. More particularly, gamewise, we are talking about the WWII marines and SS, among others. And yes, the SS has been claimed to have done better just because they had better support or what not, but those arguments go around endlessly among people who refuse to see that there's some reason for calling elites, elites, and as I pointed out better equipment (or support) would certainly be one of the factors in the making of an elite more so. Generally, the elites get better support and equipment, because they have a specific task which they are felt to be best able to do, and who also need maximum support to exploit their strength. Rommel wasn't stupid enough to give his PZIIIHs to the Italians for example. Certainly the Italians would've made an impact with them, but they wouldn't have had as large an impact as giving them to his German units in panzer divisions.

I agree with you somewhat, and I don't want to split hair here, but irony is that Rommel itself hardly got best equipment nor support. Thus his force was not clearly considered elite.

Despite this he did achieve a lot.

Still one sees Africa Korps many times
referred as special unit as sometimes
is Rommel's 'Ghost Division' altough
name came only after French campaign.

So, we come to back to issue a full cirlce , what you say is logical, but on the other hand for example Afrika Korps break this rule.
As do many other units who don't have
best equipment available but still have had quite good, if not exceptionally good, fighting status.

So which is first ,egg or chicken? Better
equipment or better ability to carry out
orders? Which defines which really?

My only point that I bit detest the idea
of 'elite' troops. It does not sound realistic and I bit think it also makes
some unit relatively better in game than they were in real life. And as so, it makes
other experienced troops of regular forces
less good than they should be.

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven: I haven't seen anyone talking about how lousy the WWII US Army was, or how awful the Wehrmacht was, other than you perhaps. You seem to think we have no respect for them. Get this clear, seeing some unit that is elite as elite isn't a degradation of the regulars. Now maybe elites themselves would insult the regulars, and the regulars can have ego battles with them, but that's certainly not been the place of anyone on this board. You want to know why elites are elites we try to tell you. If you don't wnat to accept there is a basis for it, then you can resort to saying the regulars are being insulted. Fine, have it your way. I was never part of the military so I certainly don't have an axe to grind. If anything, knowing as many marines as I do, and seeing how so many are VERY undisciplined (the ones I'm around are no longer serving) I would be more apt to be against them. But you know something sven? That's a fairly common trait for someone who once considered themselves elite, they become worse than the regulars when they get out; the discipline vanishes.

Charles I follow you and meant no disrespect to you or anyone. We were all 'elite'(no sarcasm) the day any of us of any nation defended our people by placing our bodies between those people and her enemies...

regards,
sven

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

[Charles2222]

sven: But some are more elite than others, right?

General Mayhem: Actually I don't think the Africa Corp fell into the elite category, particularly because of the nasty masse surrender business, though they are well known and certainly Rommel was an elite. Of course as I was looking at things, you don't have to have the best equipment, that's just one of the common traits. Tanks have more potential for causing damage than frogmen generally, but frogmen are often elite. Elite in the case of frogmen has more to do with an extremely narrow need, more than equipment or lack of losses or ability to cause losses.

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven:

I never gave such a thing, I'm trying to get across the idea that being skilled in retreat is the sign, for the most part, of a defeated nation, and as I explained, if you never have to defend your own turf, or have unlimited amounts of it, then it might not hurt you too much, and with the despicable condition of the USSR's commanders, back when, it could've scarcely hurt.

Why are you driving this ever-consuming need to knock elites? It's entirely possible that the regular army whooped the SS in wargames too, but that may have more to do with the SS wanting real-live action instead of pretend. I think the SS actually trained to live bullet fire as well, at least in the earlier days. I know the dreadful All-Star game the college kids used to play against the Super Bowl winners was a joke to the pros and I'm sure a number of the collgiate atheletes were probably lame enough to claim the pros weren't elite as they claimed. I don't see the marines as being that clearly superior, but it does show how your reasoning is a bit lost on me.

General Mayhem: Well we aren't confining the argument to the marines. More particularly, gamewise, we are talking about the WWII marines and SS, among others. And yes, the SS has been claimed to have done better just because they had better support or what not, but those arguments go around endlessly among people who refuse to see that there's some reason for calling elites, elites, and as I pointed out better equipment (or support) would certainly be one of the factors in the making of an elite more so. Generally, the elites get better support and equipment, because they have a specific task which they are felt to be best able to do, and who also need maximum support to exploit their strength. Rommel wasn't stupid enough to give his PZIIIHs to the Italians for example. Certainly the Italians would've made an impact with them, but they wouldn't have had as large an impact as giving them to his German units in panzer divisions.

I have no problem with 'elites'.

I have a problem with any oob being 'all elite'(be it german US or USMC).

there...

See no arguement, and my whole point in the first post was to get a topic brewing.

It worked... have at it.

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]

[Paul Vebber]

I don't think being adept at a fighting withdrawl is a sign of "defeatism", it was simply the MO of the forwad deployed Army in Europe for decades. Conduct a fighting withdrawl against the Commie Hordes until the counterattack could be marshalled and re-established the Pre-hostilities status quo. It only makes sense that it still is an important take away of Army training

Marines have a tradtion of "taking the objective (often beach) and holding it until releaving forces arrive". Similarly they have tended not to be in position to withdraw much of anywhere.

Simplistic yes, but no more so than other generalizing done in this thread

The notation of "elite" in the OOBs is simply meant for those forces that TENDED to have better combat capability than the majoriy of units. Generalization? You bet, but you get a distribution of values up to 15 points above and below the "base" value.

The games we are working on have a more 'incremental' proficiency bonus that you can apply and the distrubution will be more skewed and lumpy. You tended to get either:

Basically untrained but potentially motivated troops not yet blooded (these are generically termed "green" and have exp 35-65 in the game.

A big hump of decently trained but not significantly combat experienced troops (those from 50-80 experience in the game, termed 'trained' or 'regulars'

Those that are normally trained and combat experienced to a greater or lessor degree (those from 65-95 in the game) generally termed Veteran

and those that were highly trained/indocrinated AND had decent combat experience (note you need both to get "over the hump" into the upper category some would call "elite" but an still have its borderliners... (those are the 80-100+ troops in the game).

Each of these ranges tends to have a skewed, but normal-like distribution within these bands. Also note the overlap in scores (though the new games will use a 10-99 scale vice a 30-140 scale) so an "elite" formation couldhave a fair number of guys withthe same stats as guys in a "veteran" formation.

Currently the "proficiency" of units is overly generalized, but we hope to addres that inthe future along the lines described above - a more contiuous scale with "green", "regular", "veteran", and "elite" lables to characterize the develoopment of players forces rather than to characterize OOB formations.

Same with "historical ratings" they will tend to weight the proportion that falls in each distribution, not limit a nation to one as it does now. Proficency, Supply Level, Morale, Elan, and Leadership will combine to try to broaden the representation of historical forces. But nothing is perfect and any attempt at "historical ratings" is bound to be stereotypical. Those that want to will be able to designate in Specific TO&E files, specific combinations for specific historical units, but that level of research is not possible to give you out of the box.

Those who want to research it will have a way to implement it in the TO&E file format (something seperate from the OOBs - allowing scenario developers to edit and customize larger formations and save them for improt into other scenarios)

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

[sven]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
I don't think being adept at a fighting withdrawl is a sign of "defeatism", it was simply the MO of the forwad deployed Army in Europe for decades. Conduct a fighting withdrawl against the Commie Hordes until the counterattack could be marshalled and re-established the Pre-hostilities status quo. It only makes sense that it still is an important take away of Army training

Marines have a tradtion of "taking the objective (often beach) and holding it until releaving forces arrive". Similarly they have tended not to be in position to withdraw much of anywhere.

Simplistic yes, but no more so than other generalizing done in this thread

The notation of "elite" in the OOBs is simply meant for those forces that TENDED to have better combat capability than the majoriy of units. Generalization? You bet, but you get a distribution of values up to 15 points above and below the "base" value.

The games we are working on have a more 'incremental' proficiency bonus that you can apply and the distrubution will be more skewed and lumpy. You tended to get either:

Basically untrained but potentially motivated troops not yet blooded (these are generically termed "green" and have exp 35-65 in the game.

A big hump of decently trained but not significantly combat experienced troops (those from 50-80 experience in the game, termed 'trained' or 'regulars'

Those that are normally trained and combat experienced to a greater or lessor degree (those from 65-95 in the game) generally termed Veteran

and those that were highly trained/indocrinated AND had decent combat experience (note you need both to get "over the hump" into the upper category some would call "elite" but an still have its borderliners... (those are the 80-100+ troops in the game).

Each of these ranges tends to have a skewed, but normal-like distribution within these bands. Also note the overlap in scores (though the new games will use a 10-99 scale vice a 30-140 scale) so an "elite" formation couldhave a fair number of guys withthe same stats as guys in a "veteran" formation.

Currently the "proficiency" of units is overly generalized, but we hope to addres that inthe future along the lines described above - a more contiuous scale with "green", "regular", "veteran", and "elite" lables to characterize the develoopment of players forces rather than to characterize OOB formations.

Same with "historical ratings" they will tend to weight the proportion that falls in each distribution, not limit a nation to one as it does now. Proficency, Supply Level, Morale, and Leadership will combine to try to broaden the representation of historical forces. But nothing is perfect and any attempt at "historical ratings" is bound to be stereotypical. Those that want to will be able to designate in Specific TO&E files, specific combinations for specific historical units, but that level of research is not possible to give you out of the box.

Those who want to research it will have a way to implement it in the TO&E file format (something seperate from the OOBs - allowing scenario developers to edit and customize larger formations and save them for improt into other scenarios)

[ June 20, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

Thanks for your post and time Paul. I for one hope that any ideas advanced here that are worthy make it into the next game and not this one. We are all waiting for CA/CL with baited breath.

drop by the chat sometime,
sven

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven: But some are more elite than others, right?

General Mayhem: Actually I don't think the Africa Corp fell into the elite category, particularly because of the nasty masse surrender business, though they are well known and certainly Rommel was an elite. Of course as I was looking at things, you don't have to have the best equipment, that's just one of the common traits. Tanks have more potential for causing damage than frogmen generally, but frogmen are often elite. Elite in the case of frogmen has more to do with an extremely narrow need, more than equipment or lack of losses or ability to cause losses.

I agree, but I just disgagree with the
the equipment thing. To me it seems leadership is far more important than the equipment. Training/ahilitiy has to lot do with it, but I think really only school is battle.

I suspect why british SAS is so good, has
lot more do way they are lead, than
with realistic training or good physique.
I suspect there are other troops who practice
even more realistically and harder than SAS, but have not achieved same results. And I think I could generalize this to general forces too.

Common thing with all troops that have fared
well, I think is leadership. Atleast SS division Wiking had gifted leader subordinates trusted as did Africa Korps have. Or let's think energic Patton who
propably got more out of his men than
many other allied General.

On the other hand, I think there are lot
of troops who people would want to be
elite, but who only have better equipment
and support + lot of casualties. It makes
them look like they fough hard in hard places
but should be hard fighting to see evidence
units fough well? Russians fought desperately and bravely, as much as walking
directly to MG fire with big numbers. Should they be then elite too?

Btw. didn't Africa Korps surrender in
big numbers when they could't be evacuated
and Rommel was no more in charge?