Airborne Units

[FireDog]

I have had good luck using airborne units on ground attacks against city hexes. Is this part of their special abilities as elite troops, or have I just been lucky.

[Lovenought]

You talking about Fallschirmjäger, or normal WA Paratroopers?

FYI, Fallschirmjäger are just ludicrous superhumans in every respect in this game.

[FireDog]

No, I was referring to the Western Allied paratroopers. That's interesting about the Fallschirmjägers

[Rusty1961]

1st FJ was the toughest and best led formation in Europe.

See Casino battle

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

1st FJ was the toughest and best led formation in Europe.

See Casino battle

That is an enormously subjective statement.

[barkhorn45]

After the 2nd battle of casino Alexander himself stated that no other troops in the word could have survived the attack and that the 1st fj reg were the finest light infantry in military history.

[Omat]

Hi

When you do not want to use subjective statements, afaik the only way is to use Quantified Judgement Method.

The Quantified Judgement Method/Model (QJM) was originally developed to analyze historic battle outcomes and predict future battle outcomes using equations to assess parameters (and impacting factors) influencing results. The QJM looks at factors such as leadership, morale, training, etc., and how they ultimately can assess battlefield success

Here an overview about the Method...

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tndm.htm

here

https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handl ... sequence=1

and here

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a201164.pdf

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

1st FJ was the toughest and best led formation in Europe.

See Casino battle

That is an enormously subjective statement.

Here some Numbers about allied and german troops. I do not write an comment becaue often people do not like such results.. (national pride)

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

When you do not want to use subjective statements, afaik the only way is to use Quantified Judgement Method.

The Quantified Judgement Method/Model (QJM) was originally developed to analyze historic battle outcomes and predict future battle outcomes using equations to assess parameters (and impacting factors) influencing results. The QJM looks at factors such as leadership, morale, training, etc., and how they ultimately can assess battlefield success

Here an overview about the Method...

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tndm.htm

here

https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handl ... sequence=1

and here

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a201164.pdf

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

1st FJ was the toughest and best led formation in Europe.

See Casino battle

That is an enormously subjective statement.

Here some Numbers about allied and german troops. I do not write an comment becaue often people do not like such results.. (national pride)

Interesting. The Germans exceed the Allied average by 23% and yet still lost the war.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps
...


Interesting. The Germans exceed the Allied average by 23% and yet still lost the war.

Thats where Clauswitz becomes very useful [;)] compared to the QJM style of modelling.

The starting point to Clauswitz's approach was Napoleon's defeat in Russia. By every objective measure (apart from artillery) his army was far better than the Russians and - much larger. Add on a substantial part of the better Russian units were embroiled in a war in the Caucasus and with the Ottomans.

Another good eg of the side with clearly the best army losing the war was Charles VIII's invasion of Italy in the 1490s.

Both, as with the German units in Italy in this game, could win almost any battle that happened.

So clearly something other than raw numbers and troop quality was at play in the final outcome.

Clauswitz ends up going on about terrain - but to him this is the combination of physical and human geography, weather and also the way that human actors act on that terrain - as what really matters. Charles VIII lost because while he beat every Italian army in the field, he never gained allies, so had to hold down every captured city and his core, elite, army simply exhausted itself. Here, I'd suggest the Allies altered the 'terrain' by airpower and their naval options.

Realise you know all this, but its an interesting instance where the more quantitative studies are informative but potentially very misleading.

[Sardaukar]

There are also very scathing notes from famous airbourne general Gavin from autumn 1944.

He was very disappointed about US infantry performance in SW Europe (there were lot of exceptions, of course).

[HMSWarspite]

The unit assessment tells you nothing about the situation... yes German units (unit for unit) were better, but they were put in impossible situations. 6th Army at Stalingrad could score 100% on such a scale, but they would still be surrounded, and there would still be Russians to fight. Thus this scale is only part of the deal.

[Omat]

Hello

Very important. These numbers are about not wining or losing. Even if a unit is losing, it can perform well.
These numbers are about their performence and for comparison.



The starting qustion was: Are german Fallschirmjägertroops good.

I think these numbers indicates: Yes. The 4. Fallschirmjäger-Division peformed quite well (that does not mean the unit won all battle). The 1st and 2nd Fallschirmjäger-Division where regarded superior over other Fallschirmjäger-Division.

Interesting is also that normal german Infantry Divisions could perform quite well (94th Infantry Division). Also that the 1st US Armored Division seems to be superior over other US Div...

Omat

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hi

When you do not want to use subjective statements, afaik the only way is to use Quantified Judgement Method.

The Quantified Judgement Method/Model (QJM) was originally developed to analyze historic battle outcomes and predict future battle outcomes using equations to assess parameters (and impacting factors) influencing results. The QJM looks at factors such as leadership, morale, training, etc., and how they ultimately can assess battlefield success

Here an overview about the Method...

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tndm.htm

here

https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handl ... sequence=1

and here

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a201164.pdf

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps




That is an enormously subjective statement.

Here some Numbers about allied and german troops. I do not write an comment becaue often people do not like such results.. (national pride)

Interesting. The Germans exceed the Allied average by 23% and yet still lost the war.

Was it Stalin or someone else who said "quantity has a quality all its own."

[LiquidSky]

These things try to paint something that really depends on different situations with one over reaching brush.


A friend of mine said that winning a game is based on three things: Player Skill, Luck, and Game Balance.

This could also apply to war. Player skill is the one thing being discussed here...it equates to the skill of the division.

Luck...speaks for itself. Napoleon once said he would rather have a general who was lucky, rather then one who was good.

Finally...game balance. In war this is the direct confrontation of the forces involved. The battle of Thermopolye is a good example of the best troops losing....because of balance.

If you can succeed at 2 of the three...you should win.