Experience levels

[zmoney]

How does everyone else judge experience levels? Mine is as follows:

Conscript= taken off the street, handed a gun, shown how to load, aim, shoot.

Green= received some weapons or vehicle training but very minimal or a conscript with a little combat experience.

Regular= Received basic training in a modern military unit. Proficient with their equipment. Or conscript with extensive combat or green with some combat.

Veteran= Received basic training and in unit training with their team/squad/platoon/company/battalion etc. Very proficient with their equipment and good at their jobs. Very well trained. Or combat experience con/green/reg.

The reason I bring this up is because it drives me nuts when I see a western military force in a campaign or scenario etc with green or conscript troops (possibly the Russians as well but I am not familiar with their training requirements). IMO US forces should be nothing lower than reg and most likely vet. Not sure about the Ukrainian or Russians but I can see some instances where it’d be believable to see conscript infantry and green vehicle crews for the Russians and Ukrainians.

 

So what does everyone else think? 

Edited September 13, 2019 by zmoney
Grammar

[Sgt Joch]

for modern, yes, that is about right. NATO forces are well trained, so should normally be regular/veteran, unless you want to simulate national guard or reserve units.

for Russian/Ukranian, well that opens up a can of worms…:)

note you can also play around with leadership factors to fine tune experience level, for example a regular unit with a -1 modifier will act more like a green unit, while a regular with a +1 will act more like a veteran unit.

[grungar]

On 9/13/2019 at 6:24 AM, zmoney said:

How does everyone else judge experience levels? Mine is as follows:

Conscript= taken off the street, handed a gun, shown how to load, aim, shoot.

Green= received some weapons or vehicle training but very minimal or a conscript with a little combat experience.

Regular= Received basic training in a modern military unit. Proficient with their equipment. Or conscript with extensive combat or green with some combat.

Veteran= Received basic training and in unit training with their team/squad/platoon/company/battalion etc. Very proficient with their equipment and good at their jobs. Very well trained. Or combat experience con/green/reg.

The reason I bring this up is because it drives me nuts when I see a western military force in a campaign or scenario etc with green or conscript troops (possibly the Russians as well but I am not familiar with their training requirements). IMO US forces should be nothing lower than reg and most likely vet. Not sure about the Ukrainian or Russians but I can see some instances where it’d be believable to see conscript infantry and green vehicle crews for the Russians and Ukrainians.

 

So what does everyone else think? 

the manuel is very clear on the subject

[zmoney]

2 hours ago, grungar said:

the manuel is very clear on the subject

What does it say? My main point is Western troops, ie US, Brits, Germans, Dutch etc should probably be nothing lower than regulars.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

IMHO, you need to combine a unit's experience (Conscript to Elite) & Training (-2 to +2) and motivation (Poor to Fanatic), so there are conscripts & conscripts:

I might model 'patriotic volunteers' (of whichever side) in CM:BS as Conscript, 0, High.....Conscripted troops so with absolutely no battlefield experience, but reasonably well trained and enthusiastic for the fight.

However if we were talking about a unit conscripted by ISIS or similar unit in CM:SF I'd probably be looking at Conscript, -2, Poor.....Generally unwilling to risk themselves for the cause and keen to surrender at the first opportunity (which, as demonstrated by @MOS:96B2P, they can easily be induced to do in game).

42 minutes ago, zmoney said:

My main point is Western troops, ie US, Brits, Germans, Dutch etc should probably be nothing lower than regulars.

That depends if the wars they trigger got big enough to require conscription.....If they did, I'd be looking at Conscript, -1, Low, to reflect the lack of preexisting training structures for such large numbers of men and the general lack of enthusiasm for such a scenario amongst the populations of those nations. 

Edited September 22, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[MikeyD]

That was actually a standing BFC order, I recall, during the scenario making process. Nobody in the developed nations should be below 'regulars'. Though perhaps the 2007 timeframe CMSF2 Germans might qualify for 'green' with their spotty training and low enthusiasm for foreign adventures. Post-Ukraine invasion Germany would have picked up the training pace a bit.

US Airborne in Normandy was highly trained to the point of 'fanatic' but had never fired a shot in anger. They suffered so horrendously in Normandy that they were pretty much rendered 'combat ineffective' as a force and were withdrawn to be rebuilt. 'Fanatic' in CM has its downside. Instead of bugging-out of a tight situation to fight another day they're liable to stand their ground and die in place.

Training and experience levels can be mix-and-match. I just built a scenario for (redacted) with the (redacted) side healthy, high morale and 'green' while their opponents were weakened, low morale veterans with ammo shortage issues.

A lot of uncons in recent wars are veterans of other conflicts turned mercenary, or perhaps had had at least gone through their term of service as a draftee when young. Most of the ISIS fighter killed in the liberation of Mosel were said to be Russian.

[Erwin]

Given that campaigns can be thought of as taking place over several months (and there could well have been additional battles between the ones depicted in a campaign) it would be nice in CM3 to have the option a campaign designer of enabling units to gain experience over several battles.  

It would add to the gameplay fun to have at least some units go from a low to a higher experience level as a result of several battles and become the ones to watch and/or give the toughest assignments to.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That can kind of be done manually, with trickery in the core units file, but it only really works reliably for a single small unit.....A narrative campaign about a single platoon might be doable and TBH CM:A would probably be the best game to do it with as it has a fourteen year calendar!

PS - This is kind of what I'm doing with Abdul Gul's war.....I'm not increasing the various units' experience, but characters Abdul Gul knows or encounter along his journey may later show up as permanent (assuming the player doesn't get them killed) members of his band (and the larger Mujahideen organization surrounding it).  Mohammed, Abdul Gul's son, is a teenage Spy unit in the very first scenario, but has the potential to return as a Mujahideen commander later in the story, according to the players choices.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[grungar]

23 hours ago, zmoney said:

What does it say? My main point is Western troops, ie US, Brits, Germans, Dutch etc should probably be nothing lower than regulars.

      for instance the manuel says that regs are trained but have little combat experience...how this measures in the game BF has that kinda thing classified.      There are a lot of green troops in the ww2 titles because imo those troops represent fresh replacements or rear erea personnel to replace heavy casusalties sustained. the allies just did not have that many full strength regiments with reliable troops as the war progressed. 

[Erwin]

14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That can kind of be done manually, with trickery in the core units file, but it only really works reliably for a single small unit.....A narrative campaign about a single platoon might be doable and TBH CM:A would probably be the best game to do it with as it has a fourteen year calendar!

PS - This is kind of what I'm doing with Abdul Gul's war.....I'm not increasing the various units' experience, but characters Abdul Gul knows or encounter along his journey may later show up as permanent (assuming the player doesn't get them killed) members of his band (and the larger Mujahideen organization surrounding it).  Mohammed, Abdul Gul's son, is a teenage Spy unit in the very first scenario, but has the potential to return as a Mujahideen commander later in the story, according to the players choices.

Looking forward tho that.  One could always introduce "reinforcements" in subsequent missions that are "new" but higher experience, and named exactly the same as the lower experience units in the previous mission(s).  Would that be a simple method of simulating increasing combat experience?  The only problem is that the new units would not have suffered the same losses as may have previously occurred since the designer would not know about that.  But, one could make a guess...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's exactly how it works and exactly the issue.

In Abdul Gul's War I'm naming the Mujahideen Battalion (there are two) & the Company COs.....These are the characters of major significance to the story (Abdul Gul himself is a Company CO) and the demise of any of them will probably trigger a branch in the campaign script.

At present I'm doing some minor reworking to my big city map, bringing a couple of areas a bit closer to my current style.....With that done I'll remake the early scenarios to a new format (as discussed with @MOS:96B2P) to reduce the risk of a 'RPG Induced Rage Quit'. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[zmoney]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's exactly how it works and exactly the issue.

In Abdul Gul's War I'm naming the Mujahideen Battalion (there are two) & the Company COs.....These are the characters of major significance to the story (Abdul Gul himself is a Company CO) and the demise of any of them will probably trigger a branch in the campaign script.

At present I'm doing some minor reworking to my big city map, bringing a couple of areas a bit closer to my current style.....With that done I'll remake the early scenarios to a new format (as discussed with @MOS:96B2P) to reduce the risk of a 'RPG Induced Rage Quit'. 

I love your idea. But IMO, I think it would probably work better as a series of scenarios. Can’t wait to play it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, zmoney said:

I love your idea. But IMO, I think it would probably work better as a series of scenarios.

That's all a campaign is, but it automatically does the book-keeping between missions.....All the scenarios still have to be built and tested one at a time.  In some cases they can be reused with minor variation in different branches of a campaign story, so there is some advantage to using the campaign structure.

[Pelican Pal]

On 9/13/2019 at 8:42 AM, Sgt Joch said:

note you can also play around with leadership factors to fine tune experience level, for example a regular unit with a -1 modifier will act more like a green unit, while a regular with a +1 will act more like a veteran unit.

IIRC leadership has an effect on their morale, but not their ability to aim?

Generally I lean towards differing morale/experience levels based on the scale of the battle. Low-intensity fighting having higher experience and morale bonuses and hotter battles having lower stats across the board. Reading a number of veteran's accounts what I repeatedly got was that once a battle got to a certain size nearly everyone was physically exhausted, confused, and mentally overwhelmed.

[LukeFF]

14 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

IIRC leadership has an effect on their morale, but not their ability to aim?

Leadership has nothing to do with troops' ability to aim.

[MOS:96B2P]

21 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

IIRC leadership has an effect on their morale, but not their ability to aim?

 

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Leadership has nothing to do with troops' ability to aim.

This is not something that is mentioned very often on the forum so is easy to forget.  However from the v4.0 Engine Manual, page 68: Leadership help "direct fire to be more effective".  To be fair I never tried to test this but it is in the manual.......... 

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 

This is not something that is mentioned very often on the forum so is easy to forget.  However from the v4.0 Engine Manual, page 68: Leadership help "direct fire to be more effective".  To be fair I never tried to test this but it is in the manual.......... 

yep, that´s something I wanted to note as well. In RL that meant a squad or team leader choosing targets more wisely (threat rating) and coordinating concentratet fires more quickly. Haven´t tested in detail as well. More importantly, avoid minus leaders like the plague as all crap of things could happen.