Originally posted by 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?
I'm actually partially in agreement with ol WB, but then again i was weaned into SP:WAW off of SP:WWII and after playing a few campaigns with it's greatly reduced INF scores i was ready to be converted as even INF standing out in an open field and advancing would be lucky to score a single casualty in a fire round. I think WAW is much more realistic in terms of casualties. Players who recklessly expose or charge their infantry out in the open suffer the consequences while units under cover usually are afforded better protection.
I'll admit though that the tendancy for that '1' casualtied to death factor still tends to rear its head from time to time, though i've found this is more often than not due to lower experience on the part of the defender.
As for the topic of this thread. I find myself strangly bemused at the raging tide it is causing. It must really make the designers scratch their heads in puzzlement. Why all the controversy? Have we all forgotten that this is one of the most customizable games on the planet? If you want to fight with green or unseasoned troops, you can lower their numbers on the preferences panel. Conversely if you want fight with seasoned elite, you can raise the exp level accordingly.
As for the general issue. "Elite" status i define it mostly as a combination of high and/or intensive training and motivational indoctorination coupled with actual battle experience.
By that definition, yes, the Germans should get a larger share of scenerios/campaigns/battles etc etc in the midwar period because their troops have seen the most combat. Does this include all of the Wehrmact? no of course not. Even the mighty German Army had "lines of communication troops" and other 2nd line and reserve units.
Then of course there were the Luftwaffe divisions......hoo!
I agree with others that the USMC was'nt "elite" by default, though i do think their morale and exp ratings probably should be higher in the established divisions before the start of hostilities. Correct me if i'm wrong here, but being a smaller org did'nt the Marines have a larger contingent of "Lifers" vs drafted personell in the Army?
If so, this would exp the generally higher exp and morale ratings for the USMC. Recent canned scenerios i've played with USMC give exp ratings usually in the 70's and low 80's. Not elite by mine (or the game's) definition but veteran or perhaps the better word is "competent". That would track with what i've read.
I've also heard it somewhere that whereas the Army stressed group tactics reliant on technology, the Marines stressed individual prowess and proficiency. For example marksmenship.
Moot anyway. Again, the preferences allow customization.
As for the US army. With the exception of peacetime units already in existance and that hav'nt been flooded with hordes of Joe Everdayman i would also expect decent exp rates. However for conscripted divisions filled with men who dont do this job for a living i would expect them to have green exp levels (50's and 60's) Thoroughly trained and motivated but with little seasoning. That only comes with experience on the field and in combat.
Because of the game's diversity, "Elite" status though cant be left strictly to the above mussings as certain units did recieve special training that differentiate them from the larger organization.
Take Paratroopers. Pretty much considered "elite" by all the nations that possessed them. There seems to be some truth in this. Look at Crete. Look at the Ranger's preformance at D-Day?
other formations are more murky. The worst probably being "Guards" units. I like how "War in Russia" handled this aspect as it clearly showed the twin edged blade of this term. In the game only units that achieved 80 exp (on a scale of 10-99) were granted this status. All fine and good, however if that unit later found itself gutted in combat, and had most of its troops replaced by raw recruits resulting in a drop in exp as high as 45-50%, it nevertheless retained its "Guards" status.
I've read too that during the dark times Stalin was fairly gracious in his doleling out of this title for morale purposes.
Bottom line i guess is that yes, no OOB should be Elite in it's entirely. Better point is if one disagrees with how the game is setting things up, use the Preference screen for pity's sake!!!!
and i still hav'nt gotten any feedback on 100+ exp units. Should this be considered the "True elite" of SP:WAW?
oh yeah, one last thing. Paul? I dont suppose its possible in the code to have a seperate preference for Morale? I'd like to face off once in a while against highly motivated if not exactly proficient troopers but invariably with random battles the Morale rating matches closely the exp rating of the unit in question.
:p
