Are veteran units too cheap?

[Bulletpoint]

35 minutes ago, Placebo said:

I am sure i have seen vet's interviewed and they say if you are the target you never hear the incoming round (only the impact).

In that case, why are they shouting "incoming, take cover!" 2 seconds before the shells drop?

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, Placebo said:

I am sure i have seen vet's interviewed and they say if you are the target you never hear the incoming round (only the impact).

I was just thinking about this since it is referred to in the book I am reading "Team Yankee".  I even highlighted the passage because I don't remember reading anything like this before and most of my reading is history/military.  In the book the team members claim that with mortars there is no whine before impact.  So the implication would be you can hear incoming artillery but not incoming mortars?   

Edited November 14, 2016 by MOS:96B2P

[Lethaface]

On 11/9/2016 at 7:30 PM, JoMc67 said:

Yeah, and actually what I'm trying to imply...If Vet Troops can clean the floor vs. Green Troops, then you would think Vet Troops should cost at least 50% as much. 

Which brings us back to; "Why would you want anything less then Good Troops" in a QB Point System. 

What makes a good troop? There are many duties in CM for which green/regular troops with normal motivation are 'good enough'. It all depends on the intended use of troops imo. Basically it comes down to a tradeoff between skill, motivation and the amount of guns.

A few examples to illustrate my point:

For an intense MOUT battle where troops will invariably come under heavy suppressive fire and will take casualties a high motivation is very important. Troops with low motivation will melt away instantly. So motivation is very important: extra rifles don't mean a lot when the users are cowering or running away. Veterancy is a 'different cookie' ;-) because skill vs number of guns is less important. Dishing out suppressive fire is often all that's needed. I generally like to have more rifles versus skilled users in a MOUT battle because heavy shelling doesn't take skill into account for a lot. There are few useful skills when it comes to 150mm incoming on your position, apart from not being there in the first place.
That being said, there can be a lot of difference whether that AT-4 nails an enemy T-72 with the first hit versus the squad taking a 125mm to the face. So I like my main combat troops to be veteran+, if possible. If I expect a lot from my Snipers/At troops/whatever I like them to be more skilled because it increases the chance that they perform good enough. When I expect a decent performance from troops regular/normal is the minimum criteria.

Same principle goes for recon troops: skill and motivation are more important than the number of guns available. However for most 'generic' functions in a CM battle regular/normal works fine for me and often I prefer extra guns over better skilled or highly motivated troops.

Whether 'regular' is a good approximation of real life 'regular' combat troops is a whole different question altogether. I think BF did a good enough job regarding the points for veterancy and motivation. Is it perfect? I don't know, but I do see plenty of possible situations for choosing regular/normal over veteran/high. Nobody wants conscript troops with low motivation because they aren't of any use in actual combat, but I guess those are included more for the allowance of realistic scenario's than for them actually being a relevant choice in competitive QB force selections.

Plus nobody would like to see a conscript/low human wave rush FTW, even in QB's ;-)

Edited November 14, 2016 by Lethaface
no preview possibility

[Bulletpoint]

14 hours ago, Lethaface said:

However for most 'generic' functions in a CM battle regular/normal works fine for me and often I prefer extra guns over better skilled or highly motivated troops.

I can follow your argument, but I come to the opposite conclusion actually. In most CM maps, the map itself is quite small, and the parts of it that offer both cover and useful LOS are at a premium. There will often only be space for 1 or 2 squads at the sharp end. At least in dense terrain maps, and if the map is very open, you generally don't want a lot of infantry anyway, because then the bigger guns dominate.

I think it's worth having slightly fewer but vastly better guys occupying the places that actually make a difference.

If your opponent lands 150mm artillery on you, you have a problem no matter what your troops are.