Experience levels

[Count Sessine]

I'm playing the new Clash of Armor scenario. After playing both sides, I realised all the units, germans and british alike, are crack or elite. No mediocre run of the mill regulars here, just la creme de la creme on both sides. Nice to know we dealing with the best of both sides, but seriously... hardly realistic, is it? It's actually a trend I seem to remember from the other incarnations of this game, Arnhem etc. Both sides always seemed to have crack and elite units.

What gives? Is this intentional, or just inflation? And what measure do you, scenario designers, generally apply when you have to assign experience levels to units?

[FredSanford3]

I noticed that too. I played as the UK, and managed to get the better part of a brigade into the Germans base's- both panzer div bases, both pz regt bases, and 2 or 3 schtz/inf regt bases all in the same general area. Thought I hit the lottery, but those guys were tough!

Related to this, for the scenario maker people out there, I was thinking about suggesting a collaborative effort to determine "regular" parameter ranges for the different nationalities based upon their average training levels. Obviously, there'd be a great deal of variability from command to command, or even the same command at different times for that matter.

For example, what would be considered "typical" training levels for a fresh UK infantry division? 40-50? 50-60? How about a Guards unit - did they really get additional training to befit their "elite" status, or was it more fluff than fact?

[captskillet]

Well in light of the fact that a good chunk of the troops represented in the first 3 versions of this series are airborne I could see them as 'crack'.......as far as the N Africa scenario goes the 21st PZ was as 'crack' as a regular PanzerDiv goes ..........just ask Monty who had a helluva time taking Caen from them in '44, well with a little help from the 12th SS [;)].

[Arjuna]

Actually there are many scenarios in HTTR where the German troops in particular were "ordinary" at best. As captskillet says above the scenarios depicted involve airborne forces and by their nature they are elite units. But I've been watching the German VG units bash their heads against a proverbial brick wall along the Sauer river in BFTB. That scenario pits poor to average troops against ave troops, with both sides having a few crack units. If variety is what you are seeking the BFTB has it.
 
But I'll just add that there is nothing stopping you editing the values in the ScenMaker. It's really easy. Simply select a unit, select the desired value from the Units menu and its changed. Whatsmore if the unit has any subordinates, then it will ask if you want to apply the change to them. You can even set an automatic variation like +/-10%. then it will apply a random variation between that range to all the units selected. In theory you can adjust the entire side by selecting the superior force and applying the change to all subordinates in one go. Too easy. Try it. And if you like it, post your modified scenario here for others to play.

[Grell]

Hi Arjuna,

That sounds very nice indeed.

Regards,

Grell

[Count Sessine]

I'll get right back. Good idea!
 
 

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

I noticed that too. I played as the UK, and managed to get the better part of a brigade into the Germans base's- both panzer div bases, both pz regt bases, and 2 or 3 schtz/inf regt bases all in the same general area. Thought I hit the lottery, but those guys were tough!

Related to this, for the scenario maker people out there, I was thinking about suggesting a collaborative effort to determine "regular" parameter ranges for the different nationalities based upon their average training levels. Obviously, there'd be a great deal of variability from command to command, or even the same command at different times for that matter.

For example, what would be considered "typical" training levels for a fresh UK infantry division? 40-50? 50-60? How about a Guards unit - did they really get additional training to befit their "elite" status, or was it more fluff than fact?

During the scenario design process I always find it difficult to try and pin down how experience, training, and morale should be applied to the real world situation for a particular unit or formation. There is a bit of crossover between these attributes which adds even more ambiguity. Also, if you don't have the historical back up, what do you use? Perhaps that is where establishing "regular" or base nationality parameters could come in to play.

In "The Clash of Armour" I tried to keep the settings within the realm of realism, considering that most of the combatants had rather good training and mixed experience. While some formations could hardly be considered "crack" (in the manner that we wargamer's have come to idealize the term), a 70% experience level did seem appropriate to me.

When a particular unit showed lackluster motivation on the battlefield either because of bad leadership (like the British) or political considerations (like the South Africans) I gave them a low 'aggro' setting and kept the experience and training in the 70% range. I would venture to say that the British could use a bit more adjusting downward though.

In the BFTB scenarios I did drastically lower the experience and training for many of the formations because for the most part they, expecially the Volksgrenadiers, performed miserably historically. I'll take a closer look at these to make sure they make sense in general.[:)]

[Count Sessine]

Ok, here's the same scenario with reduced levels all around. I tried going by the descriptions and common sense. fx if blooded and veteran is 40-50%, so be it.

My rules:

Regular formations on both sides cannot reach elite status in experience, that's reserved for special forces. The allied forces are blooded or veteran, the Germans are veterans with some crack in the panzer divisions. I think I should probably tone this down even more, but I lack knowledge of the OOB's in this theater to properly judge their experience levels unit for unit.

Fitness reduced: being in a war is bad for your health all round, fighting in Africa is especially bad for your health.

Morale: generally high for both sides.

Aggression reduced: regular army units are regular.

Training: reduced to 'trained', or max 'advanced' for recon units. 'Honed' is reserved for special forces.

I reckon the most important factors for measuring unit efficiency is the staff quality of their HQ's (get inside the enemy's decision making cycle), something the German officers were good at at that time in the war, stubborness and morale. Staff quality depends on the unit, its formation, and the year of the war. Morale and stubborness is something that varied a lot from unit to unit and was independent of experience and training.

PS. how do I upload the file? Its 800 kb.

[Count Sessine]

Btw simovitch, I want to add that it's a great scenario. I had a lot of fun with it so far !
 
 

[Arjuna]

Count Sessine,
 
How bug is your scenario when zipped? Can you zip it and upload it?

[Count Sessine]

Hmm, when I try to upload, it says only images are supported, like jpg's, gifs etc.

[Arjuna]

Ok I know I can upload zip files but then again I have moderator rights.
 
I suggest then that you upload it to the Wargamer's "Games Depot" site:
 
http://www.wargamer.com/gamesdepot/

[Count Sessine]

Good idea (sometimes I'm such a noob, apologies ).

Here it is:

http://www.wargamer.com/gamesdepot/deta ... d=4598&u=1

[JudgeDredd]

I think people who look into scenarios in this depth need to look into creating a scenario. It's extremely time consuming.

The maps, the units, the unit values, unit descriptions, unit placement, reinforcement schedules, air power, weather, tasks, victory conditions for both sides, briefings for both sides, debriefings for both sides...

Not to mention if the scenario is historical...you have to investigate and make it as accurate as possible, which could probably double the time to create a scenario.

The time taken to create a mission is no light undertaking.

I would NEVER create a historical mission...I simply don't have that time to invest. Hypothetical missions allow you to get away with murder

[Count Sessine]

Dont' get me wrong, Judge, I respect the work done enormously. I'm working on a Sealion scenario, and although hypothetical, it truly is a lot of work. I therefore have a pretty good idea what amount of work Simovitch must have put into his excellent scenario.
 
 

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I think people who look into scenarios in this depth need to look into creating a scenario. It's extremely time consuming.

The maps, the units, the unit values, unit descriptions, unit placement, reinforcement schedules, air power, weather, tasks, victory conditions for both sides, briefings for both sides, debriefings for both sides...

Not to mention if the scenario is historical...you have to investigate and make it as accurate as possible, which could probably double the time to create a scenario.

The time taken to create a mission is no light undertaking.

I would NEVER create a historical mission...I simply don't have that time to invest. Hypothetical missions allow you to get away with murder

The biggest problem I always have is trying to get the AI to behave "historical" or at least probable to the scenario. This requires extensive testing of all kinds of situations and tweaking of forces back and forth. Player vs player scenarios are alot easier when you dont have to think about all that mess.
I am currently working on Beda Fomm scenario now when the patch its out, but its a real undertaking to get those italians to behave like they should.

[Crimguy]

I would imagine it would be difficult to simulate the battle in light of the discrepancy in numbers of both sides.

[Mehring]

Any indication when this file will become available?

[Arjuna]

Post #13 above has the link to it at the Gamer's Depot.

[Mehring]

Yes, I got that, but for the last few days it's been saying "file pending approval" and it's still not available for download as far as I can see.