Differences Between Troops of Different Nationalties - Why There Should Be Some

[brucer]

Writes Germanboy:

"...the educational, social and historical system of Japan pre-WW II made it more likely to encounter this behaviour. As there were certain traits in Germany's or the Us's social systems that made it more likely to encounter specific behaviours. The problem is how you quantify these, and I would argue that you can not, because it would create at least as many problems as it solves."

That cultural influences would be difficult, perhaps exceedingly so, to model in CM is a point I do not dispute. That doesn't in-and-of-itself make it *wrong*, though.

The "more trouble than it's worth" argument is a convincing clincher, but it's totally different to say that we're not doing this because the complex nature of cultural influences on small group dynamics eludes this particular game system, and saying those influences did not really exist, or did not have real world impact. We have no problem with removing "choice" from players when we are reasonably certain of our facts (armor penetration, vehicle speed, etc.)

Re the 89th ID vs the HitlerJugend Div: so you're saying that, under combat conditions, soldiers from these divisions were effectively equivalent? That's hard to compute, especially by a Canadian whose view of the 12th SS will always be coloured by its members' apparent propensity for war crimes against Canadian soldiers.

BruceR

[General Panic]

I'm sorry, but the arguments for national modifiers are just weak in my opinion. The realism of CM depends on the scenario designer doing his research and using the tools already present in the game to adjust the readiness of the units on each side.

------------------

Two Rules to Live By:

1. Never Get Out of the Boat.

2. Charlie Doesn't Surf.

[brucer]

Writes Madmatt:

Re "that is your fault, not the fault of the game"

Let's avoid the easy ad hominems (that's twice, now) and keep this elevated, shall we?

Surely you can see the problem with using suppression and fatigue to represent a unit's general level of ability, because those characteristics are so temporal. Keep your troops out of the CM fight, don't move them around, and those effects go away in a few minutes. It stands to reason then, that they should generally be used to reflect initial conditions (surprise, recent forced marching, recent bombardment) rather than lasting characteristics of the troops themselves, like discipline and training.

Buchholz *is* a classic example, in fact... of soldiers who were historically taken by surprise being given appropriate modifiers to reflect that, modifiers that begin to go away once the troops pull themselves together and start fighting at the full level of their ability. But the definition of that full ability is still determined for them, as for all CM troops, by their place on that one 6-point scale.

BruceR

[Major Tom]

Your argument against using other factors, such as exhaustion isn't a very strong one. Ever try to get a unit rested up from EXHAUSTED? It takes a LONG time. Remember, the average CM game is only around 30 minutes, so, the few minutes spent resting your troops will be CRITICAL.

You seem not to be able to register the fact that the national modifiers do not always apply. There were some BLATANT examples contrary to the popular assumption. Having universal national modifiers WILL NOT ALLOW for any 'exceptions' to occur, since, there will be these odds of fanaticism ALWAYS ingraned within the unit.

You really didn't read the post about the comparison of the 12th SS and the 89th Division, did you? He stated that it is impossible to accurately tell the quality of a unit in regards to general facts about its performance. You have to take into account what it was up against. I read up on the 12th SS Division's encounters with the 3rd Canadian Division, and much of the success of the 12th Division was due to the fact that the 3rd Division was without adequate artillery and air-cover. Plus, the 12th Division was fairly tactically incompetent, sending Panzers without infantry support, and vice versa. Sure, they were genrally fanatical (25%) but their success was also due to the fact that the 3rd Canadian Division was unprepared to take on a strong defensive position. From what I understand, the 89th Division was caught moving into position, and by the full weight of around a Corps worth of Artillery. Put the 12th SS in that position, and we might be debating about the relative crappiness of the Waffen SS right now.

In regards to such things at fanaticism with with the Japanese (this doesn't REALLY matter since there is no CM Pacific War planned). He said that the Japanese should be able to get up to a MAXIMUM of 75% or so of the units getting fanaticism. This doesn't mean that EVERY TIME you see the Japanese 75% of them will be fanatics. It just allows you the choice to make them so.

The problem with your argument toward national averages, is, if we find repeated examples of this average not occuring, then it is impossible to implement as a blind policy. We have found repeated examples that not every soldier or unit from one nation will behave the same way in every situation following certain criteria.

The way that BTS created the scenario editor, was, to just have the ORDER OF BATTLE an entire separate entity from EXPERIENCE or QUALITY. You could have a mixed unit of Veteran, Fanatic Volksgrenadiers, and Green Waffen SS if the situation called for it.

To implement a general national qualitative factor for EVERY unit will only serve to seriously limit the qualtity of gameplay, and be a detriment to historical accuracy.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

Re the 89th ID vs the HitlerJugend Div: so you're saying that, under combat conditions, soldiers from these divisions were effectively equivalent? That's hard to compute, especially by a Canadian whose view of the 12th SS will always be coloured by its members' apparent propensity for war crimes against Canadian soldiers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to really misinterpret me, yes. Alternatively I would suggest you re-read my post and try the obvious conclusion that what I am saying is 'We can never know because there are too many intervening factors.'

Where the war-crimes come into this I fail to understand, since we are talking combat efficiency here. The last time I checked CM did not purposefully model shooting of POWs. And before you get all upset, I suggest doing a search with my username and 'Waffen-SS' and 'moral' as cues. That will save us another never-ending discussion and a padlock on this thread.

Also, since you apparently have problems to get my point, I will now spell it out clearly: I do not think that generalisations are bad in every case. They help to learn and to understand more, as long as you keep an open mind. Where they have no place is in a combat simulation of WW II, because they are not quantifiable. End of story.

Or maybe not: we have a thread on the board debating the performance of the 88Lwhatever for about 300+ posts now. That is hard and fast science. Try to even imagine what would go on here if Steve and Charles had decided to use national modifiers based on their interpretation of research done by other people a long time ago.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Oh, and don't take Major Tom seriously, he is Canadian (smiley inserted for the humourless)

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Major Tom]

Don't you mean he's a Canadian stuck in Canada? (Extra Smiley to trump regular smiley for the extreme humourless)

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

Russians would surrender by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, because they didn't believe they could win, or didn't want to fight for Stalin's Red Army. How do you model some squads or platoons giving up without a fight, or hardly resisting at all?? I don't know. But, I'm sure BTS could come up with some ideas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they have, in a way. CM is about the fight. Mass surrendering and the such would have happened outside of CM's scale.

Cav

------------------

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Don't you mean he's a Canadian stuck in Canada? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope! (Double smiley for the humouristically severely challenged.)

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Meeks: On the subject of generalizations, I gotta say that the Union fielded some outstanding cavalry by the end of the war (granted they often fought as mounted infantry). Who dispatched JEB Stuart, the Reb cav legend? Why, the 1st Michigan Cavalry at Yellow Tavern, led by the Yankee cavalry legend... George Custer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Union fielded inept cavalry commanders from start to finish when compared to the likes of Van Dorn, Forrest, JEB Stuart and Forrest's counterpart in Tennessee whose name eludes me. Stuart was no cavalrymen but rather a solid field general given access to more mobile troops and Custer was little more than a fop and a gloryhound more concerned with having his picture taken than executing risky or brilliant strategic or tactical maneuvers. The idea that JEB Stuart being killed by two Union cavalrymen puts Union cavalry on par with Southern cavalry is patently false, rather it displays that throughout the war the North killed an enormous number of general officers, far more, proportionately, than were lost in the North.

This, however, is not the issue. The issue was the quality of the Northern cavalryman vs. the Southern cavalryman, not their generals. It is accepted that, given the known difficulty in mastering the skill of horseriding, Southern men, due to their agrarian lifestyle, were better suited as cavalry than those of the North.

This has no bearing on WWII, as use, competency and mastery of equipment such as tanks, guns and aircraft was not something that were taught to children and which they could practice as readily or as often as horseback riding.

Granted, the Hitler Youth were using panzerfausts at the end of the war but the warrior culture in Germany was far too young to have produced the same level of competency in the handling of an MG42, Tiger II or Me262 as was produced by the aristocratic agrarian culture of the seccessionist states of the US.

------------------

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl

[Guest Madmatt]

Just did a quick test using Last Defense as my benchmark. I took some Veteran SS units and made them Exhausted from the start. It took them 15 turns of COMPLETE inactivity to become fully ready. 17 to be fully rested. That is no movement, no action of any kind.

That represents 2/3 of the average length of battles in CM. Had I ordered them to move, fight or flee the penalty would have been more severe and lengthy.

I am growing tired of repeating myself, but lets do this once more. The game can model what you want, but it was not designed to do it in the way that you want. Nor do we think such a system is appropriate. That was conscience decision from the start and the current implementation does exactly what it was meant to do, namely simulate conditions between the six nations we currently model for actions on the Western Front between June 44 to the end of the war. Is it 100% accurate 100% of time? No, and it could never be so, but by utilizing the power that the editor has built in, and start thinking about the effects of various values instead of the values themselves, you will be able to simulate what you want.

If you want to make a good battle, then you will have to work, we can't do it all for you. All we can do is make the tools available, and player after player has come here and agreed that it can be done with the current system. Can it be improved? Sure and like most things with the game it probably will be, but we do not see the need nor have you given us any reason to feel, that implementing Nationality Bonuses is the way to go.

Let me ask you this question: What is it you are trying to model that you are not able to in the current system? Give me an example of something you want to see and I will try my best to show you how to set it up to get what you are looking for.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 10-30-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

Interesting thread. Three thoughts come to mind:

1) I seem to recall Trevor Dupuy, the king of all military quantifiers, had no problem with calculating and using national troop quality factors, unrelated to other factors such as terrain, tactic, equipment, and so on, in his analyses of actions, including the Second World War. Although I can't recall the numbers off hand, Russians would have their overall ability factor multiplied by 0.5, Germans by 1.3, Brits by 1.0, and so on. So it's not just Squad Leader we're talking about: are we saying Dupuy is wrong, too?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Using numbers like this make re-creating historical events impossible. if German units all had a x's 1.3 modifier and, say, the Americans a X's 1 mdifier, how would ever re-create battle were Germans out-numbered American forces? How does one re-figt battles where grossly out-number American units held off German attacks?

Cav

------------------

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

As far as Regularly trained Japanese troops being more fanatical in battle...

THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY MODELED IN BTS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the Japanese are "modeled" in CM no matter their fanatical levels...

Cav

[brucer]

Writes Elijah Meeks:

"No, the Union fielded inept cavalry commanders from start to finish when compared to the likes of Van Dorn, Forrest, JEB Stuart and Forrest's counterpart in Tennessee whose name eludes me."

John Hunt Morgan, perhaps?

On the other hand, Griffith notes that the Union's Phil Sheridan was the only cavalry commander on either side to be widely praised by knowledgeable European observers.

Again, neither here nor there.

As for "...use, competency and mastery of equipment such as tanks, guns and aircraft was not something that were taught to children," you don't think the much higher rates of motorization and industrialization in American society had any influence at all on the American army's ability to keep its vehicles well maintained and serviceable?

Finally, Germanboy summarizes the argument against in this debate as: "We can never know [which German units put up a better fight] because there are too many intervening factors." As I have said, a fair point... but also generally an admission of defeat for a historian. Many essays I have written would have been much easier if I could have started and ended with that statement alone, but they never get published if you do that, for some reason...

I understand your argument perfectly, gentlemen. Please try to understand mine: I started by asking if saying "American Paratroopers should generally be crack," or "Volksturm should generally be conscript" were not valid statements to make. Your answer, apparently, is that they are not.

I have never suggested that troops of a given unit or nationality must only be a certain quality level, or that they always should have a certain special characteristic, or anything of the sort.

And I agree, there's exceptions to every stereotype. That just follows from any discussion involving ranges of probabilities. But as Dupuy demonstrated, if we add them all up and tie them to measurable indices (rate of advance, casualty-loss ratio, etc.), and abstract out other identifiable factors, you can still demonstrate significant differentiations in the mean between units, nationalities and timeframes. (Nor is it just Dupuy... Marshall did the same thing in his own way, for instance, as did Delbruck.)

It was BTS's choice whether to devote resources to affirming/developing that kind of research itself, or leaving the judgement entirely to the players. I understand why they would not care to open that particular can of worms.

The assumption underscored by that choice though, is that humans from all cultures may (underscore MAY) in fact behave more or less equally under stress, with any variation dependent on their training, experience, and possibly their morale/fanaticism. On any given Sunday in CM, as you have said, an SS trooper or an Irish recruit can act green or he can be elite.

I'm not arguing that that's a wrong theory... just that it is not in tune with much of what all the anthropologists, sociologists and social historians on the "Nurture" side of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate have been telling us for decades. It is, however, remarkably in tune with modern conventional thinking by the citizens of, what did Germanboy call it... our "more educated age?"

And by the way... I'm Canadian too, and quite happy in that fact.

BruceR

[This message has been edited by brucer (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

Lots of stuff I shall now take as serious as he takes mine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I would take your arguments a lot more seriously if you could at least care to remember who posted what. Always the mark of a good discussion, because otherwise it leaves you in a bit of doubt about how closely posts are actually read. Not very, in your case it seems.

'That Fella'

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

As for "...use, competency and mastery of equipment such as tanks, guns and aircraft was not something that were taught to children," you don't think the much higher rates of motorization and industrialization in American society had any influence at all on the American army's ability to keep its vehicles well maintained and serviceable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it that or the American use of "standards"? Did American trucks perform better because Americans were better mechanics or was it because they stuck with a few while, for example, the Germans had 100's, if not 1,000's, of different models of trucks in their army.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

And by the way... I'm Canadian too, and quite happy in that fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what does that have to do with anything?

Aren't Canucks the ones who are always effed off about the other ones living on their half of the continent abusing their flag when going abroad?

(Double big smilies inserted for the humour impaired Canadians.)

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[CKibler]

Having some differences between the various nationalities could be done and is, I feel, a very valid suggestion. The precedent has, of course, been already set in other wargames, both board and computer. Now, I'm not suggesting that you need to hardcode the morale values of a side; the way the game models that now is fine (where the units can range from conscript to elite). The scenario designer (or the person purchasing his units in a DYO) can get the quality type that is realistic to the situation.

What could be done, however, is to try to model some specific *trait* that a nationality is perceived to have had. For instance, (as has been pointed out) perhaps US units should rally faster than others. One way this could be modeled is by the program giving the Amis more leaders with the rally bonus "heart" -- or hard code it otherwise so that recover from Panic status faster. Maybe some British troops should be stealthier than normal? Give more leaders with the Stealth bonus -- or internally tweek the numbers that govern steathiness & becoming spotted. Perhaps German troops should have better attack power. Again, the game could award certain German troops types more leaders with an Attack bonus. Maybe this could only be for June-August of 1944...

Too, a bonus could be given to (dreaming here...) Russian troops to allow them to dig in faster (oh -- but I guess we first need to actually be able to dig in -- but that's another request!).

So, trying to model nationality-specific traits could, I think, be done -- *if* the designers of course really wanted to (and had time to program it). In fact, such a "rule" could be turned "on" or "off" (if all players in a multi-player game didn't agree to it) by it being optionally available.

One thing to keep in mind though -- positive benefits or traits should be balanced out by negative benefits or gamers will be very loath to play a nationality that has all-bad traits.

just my thoughts,

charlie

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

...Custer was little more than a fop and a gloryhound more concerned with having his picture taken than executing risky or brilliant strategic or tactical maneuvers. The idea that JEB Stuart being killed by two Union cavalrymen puts Union cavalry on par with Southern cavalry is patently false, rather it displays that throughout the war the North killed an enormous number of general officers, far more, proportionately, than were lost in the North.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite wrong about Custer's ACW career, though this thread is probably not the best place to complete your education. ( snarley for the humorless drones who may not be familiar with Cesspool etiquette).

Stuart's demise was but one incident (more symbolic than material) in the very real Union victory at Yellow Tavern. If you are really ignorant of Custer's (and the 1st Michigan's) ACW exploits, and really buy the gloryhound-only interpretation of his career, you are missing a lot of good history. And if you feel dead general ratios are relevant, the numbers might have been a little less lopsided if the CSA had refrained from shooting their own.

To spare this thread further embarassment and digression I shall deal with you in the appropriate forum- you know the place.

My work here is finished.

[brucer]

Writes CavScout:

"How does one re-fight battles where grossly out-numbered American units held off German attacks?"

Dupuy would likely point out that they won somehow. They could have been better equipped, or had better artillery support, or better leadership, or better terrain, or more easily obtainable objectives, or were less fatigued... all of which are modelled in CM... or they could have been just better troops, because they were Rangers, or from the Big Red One, or something, and the Germans were new volksgrenadiers. All those things could offset an overall disparity derived from national modifiers alone, and all of them Dupuy tried to factor out. In CM, a "default troop quality" or "fanaticism range" would be just one of many you would factor in to come out with an overall resolution of troop quality.

And Matt:

I frankly don't have a particular scenario in mind... as I said earlier, I just want to be able to suggest "Canadians should generally be green" in CM, or "The 48th Highlanders should generally be crack" or whatever, and have it debated on its merits, instead of being hung up on the "generalization is bad, m'kay?" level of debate we're endlessly circling right now. I could concede the point, if I ever thought I'd been arguing for it...

BruceR

[General Panic]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was it that or the American use of "standards"? Did American trucks perform better because Americans were better mechanics or was it because they stuck with a few while, for example, the Germans had 100's, if not 1,000's, of different models of trucks in their army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, almost everyone in the U.S. services was at least familiar with Trucks or at least farm tractors and similar equipment. Outside the cities in Europe, trucks and cars were far less common than they were in the U.S. I think this had a significant effect. But standards were important too. The Sherman was designed in part to be repairable by any farmboy familiar with fixing up the family tractor.

------------------

Two Rules to Live By:

1. Never Get Out of the Boat.

2. Charlie Doesn't Surf.

[brucer]

Germanboy:

My apologies for the misattribution. Canadians are notoriously poor with proper nouns. It's why we have to keep renaming our mountains...

I have corrected the text accordingly.

BruceR

[This message has been edited by brucer (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

I think at this point the conversation has gotten down to the hair-splitting level, but for the sake of argument...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by brucer:

As for "...use, competency and mastery of equipment such as tanks, guns and aircraft was not something that were taught to children," you don't think the much higher rates of motorization and industrialization in American society had any influence at all on the American army's ability to keep its vehicles well maintained and serviceable?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to who? The British and Commonwealth armies maintained their equipment as well as the American army did. As for the Germans, they ran out of parts and mechanics, and their equipment was generally much more difficult to maintain than American equipment. Difficult to keep stuff running under those circumstances.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I understand your argument perfectly, gentlemen. Please try to understand mine: I started by asking if saying "American Paratroopers should generally be crack," or "Volksturm should generally be conscript" were not valid statements to make. Your answer, apparently, is that they are not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't find where you said that, in fact. Your first post in this thread seems to be a clarification of Dupuy. As for specifics - Volksturm certainly should generally be conscripts...because they were conscript soldiers with no training, no military inclination, and no motivation. As for American paratroopers being crack - when? Were they crack when they dropped in Normany? Remember that CMs 'crack' designation implies both training and a good deal of combat experience. The American Airborne in Normandy were very well trained, but they had no combat experience. So, no, I'd say that, in the context of CM, I would not consider the paratroopers in Normandy crack. As Airborne units gained combat experience, I'd probably consider them veteran or crack units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not arguing that that's a wrong theory... just that it is not in tune with much of what all the anthropologists, sociologists and social historians on the "Nurture" side of the "Nature vs. Nurture" debate have been telling us for decades. It is, however, remarkably in tune with modern conventional thinking by the citizens of, what did that fella call it... our "more educated age?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, I see this as a sort of backhanded way of saying "I'm not going to flat out call you wrong, but you're wrong."

I believe you're incorrectly attributing certain beliefs to those of us who disagree with you.

Cheers,

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I believe you're incorrectly attributing certain beliefs to those of us who disagree with you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to say this, but I believe the Goatsucker has that right. If your spelling skills were a lot worse I would think you are from New Zealand and your name starts with a 'G' like that of the airhead who tried to run some poorly concocted social science by us.

For the record, you were the first person to bring cultural relativisim explicitly into this debate, insinuating that those who don't agree with you were so inclined to be relativists.

Again, tosh! We simply don't agree with you because your argument does not have any merit (notice the absolute value judgement I make, which is totally appropriate in this case).

If you say that Dupuy can explain why a particular unit lost on a given day meaningfully only by taking all the special factors into account that affected the battle, you are in effect saying that Dupuy's figures are not meaningful in the explanation of any given battle, because your have to take all kinds of specifics into account. I am sure you see where the dog starts chasing its tail.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Hamstersss]

I wonder, would it be worthwhile to seperate training from experience?

You could therefor have a unit that was:

Training: High

Experience: None

And achieve a better approximation of an Airborne unit. As well as:

Training: Low

Experience: High

To rate a Volkstrum unit that has seen significant action.

Maybe I am splitting hairs but this would achieve some of the distinction we're looking for, right?

------------------

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl