Elites.....

[sven]

Originally posted by General Mayhem:


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?

Yep Afrika Korpse surrendered big time!

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

[Charles2222]

General Mayhem: To quote myself

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.

[ruxius]

To Sven:
Despite you claim you do not argue against anything except the game's feature ...
still your stance can't completely hide a personal disappointement against some political preferences...(which are out of the game's mechanisms obvioulsy!)
(I am ready to bet the designers did not intended in any way to idolize any political side !)
As long as you stealthly used your stance to support your obs (that may be reasonable indeed)you loose credits to me..
Irony you used before (and consider I can't completely understand all the shades of meaning in english ) is not appropriate togheter with your reasons..so I doubt about your reasons !
And I reverse looking only at your political stance..
Your posts demonstrate this ...

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

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
General Mayhem: To quote myself
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I formulated badly. I really ment
that didn't they stop fighting
as there was no sense anymore for?
They could have fought to death, but
what it would have accomplished if
supply lines are unsecure and you're
attacked by all fronts?

Rommel itself said that after El Alamein,
it was too late to get any resuply or
reinforcements that would have made
a diffrence.

Or are you referring to something diffrent
I don't know about?

[sven]

Originally posted by ruxius:
To Sven:
Despite you claim you do not argue against anything except the game's feature ...
your stance still can't completely hide a personal disappointement against some political preferences...(which are out of the game's mechanisms obvioulsy!)
(I am ready to bet the designers did not intended in any way to idolize any political side !)
As long as you stealthly used your stance to support your obs (that may be reasonable indeed)you loose credits to me..
Irony you used before (and consider I can't completely understand all the shades of meaning in english ) is not appropriate togheter with your reasons..so I doubt about your reasons !
And I reverse looking only at your political stance..
Your posts demonstrate this ...

Help me out Ruxius I am at a loss. Earlier in this thread you accused me of only wanting to hurt the German oob. I have stated just as vehemently that I am against the USMC oob being 'all elite', and the US oob being 'all elite', and even gave my idea of an alternative way that 'elite' could be bought that would allow all oobs to have 'elites' in their oob without having the whole oob elite. I guess I am just bashing the so called 'German" bias though right?

I guess it must be my 'hidden agenda'. What is my 'hidden' agenda? I do not know as I am not aware I have one so I need you to let me know what it is.

I think every nation represented in this game had an 'elite' force. I fear for balance when an entire oob is lobbied piece by piece for the 'sainthood' of all elite status. If my logic in making my first outrageous posts in this thread are being called mean, and provocative I am guilty as charged.

My purpose in getting this dialog started was in ascertaining what the consensus of the SPWAW community is on the definition of 'elite'. I apologize to anyone that I have offended. I meant no disrespect to any service member of any nation because quite frankly I am an unapologetic militarist.

I meant to insult no one personally and if I have you have my sincere apology. I have ideas on the matter and so do other people. It was a pleasure to hear them and I look forward to dialog in the future.

Regards,
sven

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

[AmmoSgt]

Hmmmm very thought provoking but..
I think three seperate issues are being discussed
National Characteristics take care of the retreat recover suppresion behavior under fire issues that seem to be clouding the issue ...
And the differences in Experience Morla leadership between nations and years takes care of much of the other stuff ..
That leaves the issue of elite ... I really like the concept that elite is any unit that you have to volunteer for and can wash out of returning to the rank and file Units that have ratings for experience morale and leadership and national characteristics all in place already ... you start with basic national characterists and morale leadership experience and then you try out for an elite unit and you either make the cut or not ..that seems fair ..as long as you are not cut for religious or racial or political reasons , you are either a unit that works with what troops you are issued and you are regular and the soldiers make it out of boot camp alive so they are reg Soldiers or they additionally volunteer and make the cut for an Elite unit..
I think that is simple straight forward and researchable ..less prone to honest nationalistic pride or branch loyalty..
just a thought

[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.

I guess I was imagining those posts showing Hurtgen as compared to say Iwo Jima being used to show USMC "elitehood"?

sven

[Tombstone]

for the most part, I can agree with that ammosgt. That might be a good way to determine elite, unless of course the unit was not historically very effective.

Tomo

[sven]

Charles 22 I really apologize to you. I realized how spiteful one of my posts was. I edited off the offending part. We will agree to disagree.

I am really sorry. I am not saying that the Army is more 'elite' than the corps. They are different beasts. We agree on that.

I want to let this never-ending circle of USMC v USA elitehood die. I realize it may have sounded like I wanted the US Army to be elite, but that really was not my intent. I just think that perhaps the Corps is gaining from its PR.

anyway please drop by chat sometime as I am less of an ogre there,

sven

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

[sven]

Originally posted by Tombstone:
for the most part, I can agree with that ammosgt. That might be a good way to determine elite, unless of course the unit was not historically very effective.

Tomo

Wow I agree with Ammo also.

I still like the idea of purchasing extra exp/mor for any troop type with your sliding cost idea. More research.

sven

[ruxius]

TO Sven :
Ok guy , you now express your reasons constructively...it seemed to me by your earlier posts you had unappropriate sarcasm for a comparative discussion in this forum about elite status of units..your reasons seemed to me based more on a political preference on US side rather than based on a critical eye on the whole SPWAW's characteristics..

I don't like that a game can be used for personal propaganda about WWII...but you now are assuring me this was not your goal..so I can stop my criticism here..

Personally I think that 'buying' some morale and experince during the purchasing phase is
a really interesting suggestion..I would like to see it featured...anyway actually there should still be something which makes the difference between units like paratroopers and line infantry for instance..I think that historical trainings , national characteristics and at least the elite status are the attempt by the designers to differentiate in some way types of units like the ones I described before..That mechanism combined with the year
should balance green SS units for instance..
but even less green that line inf units in
that same period..

[sven]

Originally posted by ruxius:
TO Sven :
Ok guy , you now express your reasons constructively...it seemed to me by your earlier posts you had unappropriate sarcasm for a comparative discussion in this forum about elite status of units..your reasons seemed to me based more on a political preference on US side rather than based on a critical eye on the whole SPWAW's characteristics..

I don't like that a game can be used for personal propaganda about WWII...but you now are assuring me this was not your goal..so I can stop my criticism here..

Personally I think that 'buying' some morale and experince during the purchasing phase is
a really interesting suggestion..I would like to see it featured...anyway actually there should still be something which makes the difference between units like paratroopers and line infantry for instance..I think that historical trainings , national characteristics and at least the elite status are the attempt by the designers to differentiate in some way types of units like the ones I described before..That mechanism combined with the year
should balance green SS units for instance..
but even less green that line inf units in
that same period..

I made a purposely sarcastic post to get people to think and respond.(it worked we have 90 posts) I am glad we see eye to eye on some things. Controversy helps keep the forum lively.

everyone come chat I have BIG NEWS ON STUFF,
sven

[Charles2222]

General Mayhem: Well, yes, now that I remember the detailed accounts of both Stalingard and the Africa Corp, the Africa Corp did do very well as surrenders go.

At present, I look at it like this:
1. The Africa Corp was part of the reguler army, therefore one strike against elite status.
2. At first they were a little green around the gills, but they learned to deal with their condition far better than any elite which may had been shipped there since noone knew how to fight there but them (special filters for desert warfare etc.). One strike 'for' them.
3. They fought very well with the situation they had. One strike 'for' them.
4. They surrendered. Two strikes against them. This has to be recognized, because there were a number of divisions or corps who never surrendered till armistice, or at least had more than the short life they had in Africa. Strictly speaking, I don't know the total life of the 90th Light, 15th Panzer, and so on, but as "The Africa Corp" they weren't really elite, but perhaps just very good. Any of the division's life apart from the Africa Corp, for example the 7th Panzer in France, would have to be based on individual division elan, while clearly the Corp itself didn't last too long and the subject is the corp.
Total?: -1 against elitehood. I don't think I would regard any of the SS corps as being elite, though I haven't studied them extensively, as a corp, but divisionally speaking I would regard them ALL as elite. It's just that some had so little reason for being elite that a number of Wehrmacht divisions would show up as more worthy as that status.

[Nikademus]

hmm, the air feels......"dry" in here

Here's a serious question. The SP series has always considered =>100 exp to be the official "elite" status for a unit, yet rarely is this figure ever given out in designed scenerios (A notable exception is Wild Bill's using 100+ exp for MG teams, reflecting his views on MG lethality in relation to the game engine) and never in random generated scenerios.

Common concensus seems to indicate that most "elite" or highly seasoned combat veterens usually have ratings ranging from the highest 80's to the 90's.

Using the Wehrmacht as a control factor their high point (usually considered late 41) gives ratings in the low to mid 90's and then falls off into veteran status and then finally around 45 to more greenish at the mid 60's level.

I've always wondered if perhaps more 100+ ratings should be used for them and other highly experienced units given the orig parmeters provided by SSI?

opinions? is 100+ 'too experienced' for any nation and should only be used for a few select units (Like Whitman's Tiger group)

Concurently are inexperienced units getting too high ratings now? Back in SP-1 days it was not uncommon to see more than a few sub 50exp units and such. I'm wondering if they wernt raised a tad to make the game more "playable"

Here's the standard as i interpret it.

0 - no experience/untrained

50: fully trained but no experience

60-70 variable: either interpreted as no experience but very highly trained to light seasoning

70-90 veteren

90+ highly seasoned to elite

100+??? Superman? ;p

[Charles2222]

sven: I said in part:

I haven't seen anyone talking about how lousy the WWII US Army was

In response you said:

I guess I was imagining those posts showing Hurtgen as compared to say Iwo Jima being used to show USMC "elitehood"?

You see? Your example isn't working against what I said. I said that noone is saying the "regular army is lousy". You're doing the same thing you did earlier, you attribute calling the marines elite to insulting the regular army and it's just not so. Somehow a lot of people seem to get it twisted in their minds that to exemplify excellent conduct in any manner is to insult everyone who didn't do what the praised did. When someone wants to see someone as elite, and THEN insults the regular person as well, then and only then are you correct. It's entirely possible that someone who praises someone may be insulting (in their head) towards those who didn't achieve the same, but until they say such things you're practicing an uncharitable attitude towards them to believe otherwise.

About your latter post, I'm not a "chat type" and unsure how to work it anyway. From what I've seen of chats people generally say things more impulsive and not very well thought out opposed to forum discussions. There's times in a forum where I might write something with like 8 different attempts, and then give up on it entirely. I have a difficult enough time concentrating on what people really said in forums without their text rolling into never-never land through chat.

[sven]

Originally posted by Charles_22:
sven: I said in part:

You see? Your example isn't working against what I said. I said that noone is saying the "regular army is lousy". You're doing the same thing you did earlier, you attribute calling the marines elite to insulting the regular army and it's just not so. Somehow a lot of people seem to get it twisted in their minds that to exemplify excellent conduct in any manner is to insult everyone who didn't do what the praised did. When someone wants to see someone as elite, and THEN insults the regular person as well, then and only then are you correct. It's entirely possible that someone who praises someone may be insulting (in their head) towards those who didn't achieve the same, but until they say such things you're practicing an uncharitable attitude towards them to believe otherwise.

About your latter post, I'm not a "chat type" and unsure how to work it anyway. From what I've seen of chats people generally say things more impulsive and not very well thought out opposed to forum discussions. There's times in a forum where I might write something with like 8 different attempts, and then give up on it entirely. I have a difficult enough time concentrating on what people really said in forums without their text rolling into never-never land through chat.

Charles the quote said the army was very bad. I resent that. It DOES imply that the Army was bad when put that way.

I shall have to refrain from going through this circle any farther. I have enjoyed your responses and am sorry you will not come to the chat room. It is atypical of 'normal' chat.(meaning we all try to be kind and polite)

yours,
sven

[Flashfyre]

Much as I have tried to stay out of this "discussion", I find myself wanting to say...."ENOUGH!" Enough, people. Cease and desist. To all of those who have posted their opinions and seen them flamed, I encourage you to accept the fact that others will see things differently and disagree with you. Respect them for having an opinion, and let it be. After all, these are opinions....personal observations and conclusions drawn from available data.

This whole issue has been, and will continue to be, debated until doomsday. And I for one don't think a definitive answer "Yea" or "Nay" will be reached.

It's one thing to discuss viewpoints about an issue....it's another to "flame" or deride others for having a viewpoint different than yours. No one is right, and no one is wrong. Accept this, and move on.

This "rant" over elite status has grown tiresome....after all, IT'S ONLY A GAME! As Paul has said before, on other topics,

"If you don't like something about the game, change it. We gave you the tools."

[Figmo]

Sven ,

Just wanted to let you know I'm still around but I had a HELL day and just got home (it's 1am) and I have to get up in 5 hours to go back to work.

So I'll have to catch up on the posts and add some more to this great topic you started. It's interesting to see all the different points of view.

The tired Figmo

[General Mayhem]

To Nikademus:

about MG:

I didn't know Wild Bill used such methods
as I haven't played lot of his scenarios.
But it does sound sensible, as I've always
felt from early days of SSI games that
have used similar engine than as in SP
MG's are far too ineffective.

My common annoyance has been always how
badly MG's cause casualties. It's not so
bad as it has been, but still I feel if
game would be about 1'st world war, lot
more troops would overrun trenches in West
Front.

Morale system:

I agree about morale system. If SP1(never
played it btw.) was anything like
earlier games from SSI, I'd say now troops
are lot tougher than before. Earlier
games both sides could end retreating
in big number easily.

I just another day played
campaign battle in France campaign, where
I slaughtered bit over 1000 british soldiers
in meeting engament while losing only 86 of
my own(germans). My only problem was
that after I had destroyd all tanks and about
500-700 men, I think rest should have retreated away and not try attack anymore.
I found myself shooting them to death.
After battle, there was something below 60 british troops left. And even all of them
didn't seem to have hurry to leave.

Same situation I found myself with poles, which I think were lot harder opposition. In a way, I'd like troops
to retreat bit more easily especially when in attack. Now it feels they just keep coming
not caring about casualties.

In attack on the other hand, I sometimes
get the opposite feeling. Atleast getting
British to back off on defence, seems to be lot easier than to stop them from attacking.

The balance I think should just other way around. I think suppression should affect
bit more than it does now, that way
attackers would have lot harder job, while
defenders would be bit better off.

That is if we want game to be realistic.
Maybe for fun it is diffrent matter?

[Charles2222]

sven:

Charles the quote said the army was very bad. I resent that. It DOES imply that the Army was bad when put that way.

Well, the quote you left in that post said nothing of the sort, though it may had been in that post, only this has got to be quite a sizeable thread and I wasn't going to hunt for it. I thought if the quote you gave was the best example, and certainly if anyone would know where it was you would, then it didn't support the idea that the army was called lousy. I think what you may be doing is overgeneralizing what someone else is saying in their regarding the army crummy in one instance. This isn't helped any by your being a bit inflammatory in seemingly putting the army om a pedestal, such that the reactions you would normally expect would be far worse than they are to date. I believe I read the post in question about Hurtgen and though it certainly didn't sway to your way of thinking it was possibly the worst of what we have seen to date in this thread of what you might call a reactionary response. Generally, with a thread of this size, and so many things disputed, I think it actually fairly unheard of that one could start a thread as radically as you did, and confusing as you did, and basically only get one post that might've been of a reactionary flavor. By reactionary I mean that the statements might charged with "see I told you so" sort of nonsense and not just a discussion of facts contrary to what you're believing, which the latter was what I was attempting.