Troop experience levels

[Childress]

I noticed something in Gustav Line. Having dabbled in a number of scenario it seems that BF designers have ramped up troop quality- both Allies and Germans. Was this intentional? Example:

SPOILERS

I fired up Men with Suspicious Hats. I disregarded the author's advice and parked my Panzers on top of the hill with a panoramic view of the city. Bad decision: the Allies were shrewd enough to defend the interior ring of buildings. So I plowed on without them. My Fallschirmjagers have, less than 20 minutes in, penetrated close to the Victory locations. I saved and checked out the stat screen; the paratroopers have suffered less than 15 casualties while inflicting 70+; they're supermen. Against a force defending from stout and densely grouped buildings. The Americans units are demoralized; many broken. Virtually the the entire German side is rated Crack. I was under the impression that exalted ratings like Elite and Crack were meant to be sprinkled around sparingly; the legendary sniper, Wittmann, etc. These guys were tough hombres but...

I've seen this in other GL scenarios- though I haven't tried them all. Units are juiced up in experience from CMBN without a doubt. A marketing decision? They do require less babysitting. Thoughts?

[John Kettler]

Childress,

There can be such people. At Benghazi, for example, two ex-SEALs, Tyrone Wood and Glen Doherty, working nearby on another assignment, rushed to the fight unarmed, picked up AKs abandoned by Ambassador Stevens's guards, got into cover and went to work on some 200 attackers. They were subsequently enraged to discover that a mere two men killed 60 of their people. Unsurprisingly, the deadly duo was shot to death.

The above is what superbly trained and motivated fighters armed with automatic weapons can do. Yours may've been battle-hardened survivors of Crete or other operations.

Here's some info on the post-Crete FJ situation, together with two remarkable pics of the FG-42 in Normandy! Also, the sound of the FG-42 was apparently a kind of presence attack and quite unnerving to those on the receiving end, rather like the ripping sound of the MG-42's firing was on those receiving fire from it.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=15978

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

Interesting! I knew there was some resistance but hadn't heard of Doherty and Wood. Their heroics were no doubt clouded over by the controversy and subsequent finger pointing.

[John Kettler]

Childress,

I don't have a direct link, but if you drop me a PEM, I'll forward you the account I got.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Interesting! I knew there was some resistance but hadn't heard of Doherty and Wood. Their heroics were no doubt clouded over by the controversy and subsequent finger pointing.

or you can believe this version on wiki. It actually has footnotes and other documentation that reputable sources usually supply. It is also well...a lot more believable. In no way does that detract from their heroism. Note Ambassador Stevens and his bodyguards were killed at the consulate. Doherty and Woods were killed at the CIA annex. Not sure how they were supposed to have picked up weapons dropped by Steven's bodyguards who were in another building over a mile away and several hours earlier. They were also not shot to death, but died from mortar rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

Assault on the CIA annex Just after midnight, an attack on the CIA annex began, which included machine gun, rocket and mortar fire. The CIA defenses held off the attack until the morning of September 12.[19]:45-46 Early in the morning, Libyan government forces met up with a group of Americans (reinforcements from Tripoli including Glen Doherty[67]) that had arrived at the Benghazi airport. The team, which included two active-duty JSOC operators and five CIA personnel, had commandeered a small jet in Tripoli by paying the pilots $30,000 and forcing them to fly the team to Benghazi.[19]:43 After being held up at the airport for a few hours, the Libyan forces and newly arrived Americans went to the CIA annex at about 5:00am to assist in transporting approximately 32 Americans at the annex back to the airport for evacuation. Minutes after they drove through the gates, the annex came under heavy fire. The team immediately took up defensive positions. With a lull in the fighting, Glen Doherty began searching for his friend, Tyrone S. Woods, and he was told he was on the roof manning a MK46 machine gun. He found Woods on the roof with two other agents, they quickly embraced, filled each other in, and retook defensive firing positions. After only a few minutes, a mortar round hit Woods' position, fatally wounding him. As Doherty attempted to reposition and take cover, a second round fell on him, killing him instantly.[19]:46-47[68] 31-year-old David Ubben suffered shrapnel injuries and several broken bones in the mortar attacks, and according to Ubben's father, "The first [mortar] dropped 50 yards short and the next two were right on target."[69]

Immediately, several agents ran onto the roof to assess damage and help the wounded, who were taken from the roof with a ladder. At the same time, a JSOC operator was using a hand-held device displaying images from a Predator drone above, which had been sent by the DOD's Africa Command after request. The operator told the Chief of Base, "There's a large element assembling, and we need to get everyone out of here now!" Evacuation was agreed upon, and everyone was notified to collect their personal security items and evacuate. Within minutes, vehicles were loaded, and they headed to the airport. On the way, they were hit with small arms fire, but arrived with no further injuries.[19]:47-48

During the fighting, the CIA had successfully rescued six State Department personnel, recovered Smith's body, and had evacuated about thirty Americans out of Benghazi alive. Most news accounts do not mention the number of attackers killed. "Benghazi: The Definitive Report" claims that just under 100 attackers were killed.[19]:46, 48

[LukeFF]

Can we stay on topic instead of getting derailed by yet another Kettlerian derailment?

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

The issue was high end performance of rigorously trained warriors. I provided an example, to which you abreacted. Your problem, and you had no need to snipe at me. How does that advance the discussion?

sburke,

I haven't read the Wiki, other than what you provided, but I shall seek clarification of the issues you raised. We can continue this in the GDF, if you like.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Back to the discussion of unit experience. Its possible the scenario was playtested from both sides and it was found that lesser-experienced AI-directed troops could make no headway. The new model for mg suppression is murder on AI assaulting troops. Often stops them in their tracks. You either have to alter the unit balance or increase troops experience to guarantee movement.

[LukeFF]

The new model for mg suppression is murder on AI assaulting troops. Often stops them in their tracks. You either have to alter the unit balance or increase troops experience to guarantee movement.

I've seen that in one of the early KG Engel missions, in particular the one before Waffen SS units show up. With the new MG modeling, the player is really never in danger of being overrun, as the briefing warns. If ever there was a campaign in need of some revisions, it'd be this one.

[Childress]

Back to the discussion of unit experience. Its possible the scenario was playtested from both sides and it was found that lesser-experienced AI-directed troops could make no headway. The new model for mg suppression is murder on AI assaulting troops. Often stops them in their tracks. You either have to alter the unit balance or increase troops experience to guarantee movement.

It's not the AI-directed troops that are making no headway- it's about our guys, who are attacking, making too much headway.

[ASL Veteran]

It's not the AI-directed troops that are making no headway- it's about our guys, who are attacking, making too much headway.

What if the AI is the side you are playing ...? You can play as the British in that scenario after all. Anyway, there are some pretty extensive designer's notes on that particular scenario so perhaps if you read that you might understand what the scenario is depicting a little better. Also, there are no professional scenario designers working for BFC so it's a little off the rails to assume that making Fallschirmjager crack in a scenario is a marketing ploy. There are also quite a few veteran troops on the German side so that's not accurate to say they are all crack. The German side is attacking a British battalion located in a town at 1 to 3 odds so even though you killed or wounded 70 British soldiers you are only barely one third of the way through your enemy.

For those who have read the designer's notes, in that particular battle a Fallschirmjager battalion had been reduced down to about 120 men after about a year of almost continuous combat with no replacements in between, so the men who were left were all 'survivors'. They attacked the town of Battipaglia which was held by a full battalion of British troops who had seen no combat. According to the Germans, the end result was no German casualties and 455 British prisoners. The entire British battalion was annihilated so I think the historical result speaks for itself.

[JyriErik]

I've seen that in one of the early KG Engel missions, in particular the one before Waffen SS units show up. With the new MG modeling, the player is really never in danger of being overrun, as the briefing warns. If ever there was a campaign in need of some revisions, it'd be this one.

In fairness to the system, after the first playthrough, I was never in any real danger of being overrun in that sceanario even before the change in MG effectiveness. It was simply a matter of putting the proper unit in the proper spot to get the kill zones set up and waiting for the AI to bleed itself dry. Tank ammunition was my biggest worry in that battle.

Jyri

[Childress]

What if the AI is the side you are playing ...? You can play as the British in that scenario after all. Anyway, there are some pretty extensive designer's notes on that particular scenario so perhaps if you read that you might understand what the scenario is depicting a little better. Also, there are no professional scenario designers working for BFC so it's a little off the rails to assume that making Fallschirmjager crack in a scenario is a marketing ploy.

Let me say this scenario is excellent with a convincing, detailed map. Bravo to the author. The marketing comment was a bit tongue in cheek, one doubts BF inspects these things with an eye to corporate purity. The initial thought was that the quality of the of the Fallschirmjagers was raised to overcome the new, steelier defense brought in with 2.01 without a-historically inflating their numbers. But, as you say, the real battle was, apparently, a wipe out.

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

One can only conclude that British battalion was Green, if that. By this stage of the war, how long was British infantry training? Maybe those poor blokes got less training, which showed in their rather shocking combat performance. Is there an online account I could read? Certainly not the expected outcome, and the prisoner count says all that need be said about unit collapse. Over half a battalion!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ASL Veteran]

ASL Veteran,

One can only conclude that British battalion was Green, if that. By this stage of the war, how long was British infantry training? Maybe those poor blokes got less training, which showed in their rather shocking combat performance. Is there an online account I could read? Certainly not the expected outcome, and the prisoner count says all that need be said about unit collapse. Over half a battalion!

Regards,

John Kettler

The designer's notes lists a reference called "Yea though I walk" which is available online. It's a personal account of a British soldier from the unit in question, although apparently most of it is about his time in POW camps so it's probably not thrilling reading.

[John Kettler]

ASL Veteran,

Perhaps the most maddening combat account I've read.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108512146/YEA-THOUGH-I-WALK-by-Len-Lees#page=11

It details the landing, the mission, the frightful losses (two tiers of command cut down in his unit, so he got the job as platoon leader) sustained during the landing, talks about being under quite sudden close range (100 yards) fire from a Tiger 1, leaping from a second story window just as the shell hits, then cuts to the retreat from Battapaglia, coupled with a remark about how a unit whose biggest weapon was a PIAT couldn't stand against a highly trained enemy equipped with tanks and lots of automatic weapons (mentions superior German SMGs and automatic rifles explicitly). Interestingly, the Royal Fusilers City of London Regiment were combat veterans and known to Rommel as Hell's Kittens from their black cat shoulder patch. Later, Lees talks about the impossibilities of defending against tanks and infantry with empty rifles.

What I have learned, though, is that the men were exhausted from lack of sleep (nil since leaving the troop transport), hungry and had been sniped at continually during a four mile hike from the beach in full kit. The German attack came crashing down on the hapless battalion at false dawn, against exhausted men who'd expected to be relieved the night before that fateful dawn by American troops, who got hung up at the beach and never arrived.

Also, his platoon was at 50% strength from landing casualties and action before arriving at Battapaglia, but I have no idea whether the same was true generally. What I do find of considerable interest, though, is how this relates to S.L.A. Marshal's notion of the forwardmost unit as being analogous to the sensitive fingertips and on up the chain. Using that perspective, it would seem that the fingertips got unexpectedly burned and recoiled. In turn, this caused a rippling effect back up through the successive units.

Restated, the British apparently didn't have much of a defense in place on the sharp end, and what was there was apparently in bad shape when hit (says he stood down the platoon for the night and posted sentries), so didn't even try to stand its ground. Another indicator of how bad things were lies in the fact that the Regimental CO, by the time the retreat was well underway, was wounded and had turned over command to his XO, a Major. I believe, too, the characterization that "ammunition was low and morale lower" to be telling.

Regards,

John Kettler