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

[CavScout]

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

In my first post, on page 2, I made three implied statements: one, attacking another game for its flaws is, as always a bit of a straw man and you should really be attacking the historical underpinnings (such as Dupuy) that ASL is based on. Two, I suggested we should keep accusations of racism out of this as unproductive.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we need to attack the "underpinnings" that ASL was based on, such as Dupuy, or should we question your use of those "underpinnings". Are these numbers by Dupuy that you are brandishing indicative of a unit's national make-up or are they, as someone has pointed out to me, actually representative of a units firepower? Perhaps you can place these numbers into context.

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]

[brucer]

Writes CavScout:

"Are these numbers by Dupuy that you are brandishing indicative of a unit's national make-up or are they, as someone has pointed out to me, actually representative of a units firepower?"

Personally, I think they're open to interpretation, like all statistics. But this thread all started when people started slamming ASL for including subtle differences in the average performance of its different armies and types of units in battle. I was just suggesting that maybe instead of attacking a game, which is an easy target because it's just that, a game, we look at the historical scholarship the game's assumptions was based on.

If we want to roll into a rollicking debate on the Dupuy theory, and what all that data really means, right on! I was just suggesting we can't discard a whole body of work out-of-hand just because it goes against our common sense notions of "Any Given Sunday." The theory has apparent probitive value, is logical and fleshed out, and is widely respected, as Snapdragon said. That it was apparently not used as a foundation for CM (as much as it was for ASL, anyway) is not in any sense a failing of that game, but it is significant in our understanding of that game's dynamics.

I can't speak for anyone else on this thread. But I have merely asked from the beginning if doctrine and other artefacts of a given military subculture should not have an influence on the troop qualities we *generally* select for those troops. Remember, at the beginning of this thread the opposing argument was "it's bad to make Poles crack and Brits regular, or give better leaders to Germans as a rule, because people vary too widely to be categorized that way." I suggested that no, we should feel free as scenario makers to make generalizations about the quality of a particular unit or army sometimes, if there was good evidence for it. I did not call for CM to limit our freedom to pick our own troop quality, as removing that freedom would definitely not be an improvement.

That said, if BTS were ever to hardcode some subtle national differences in the game to reflect some quantifiable tendency in that population (for instance reflecting Americans' demonstrably higher literacy or automotive aptitude by increasing their troops' chance very slightly of un-immobilizing a vehicle, or being able to use a captured weapon), I can't say I would mind... so long as there was some rationale for it. I certainly wouldn't see it as offensive or an "insanity," as PeterNZer said about 100 posts ago.

BruceR

[ASL Veteran]

The Iraqi army was different than the 'coalition force' that was ranged against it, not just in terms of equipment and morale, but doctrinally as well. There is an interesting study on both the Iraqi and Iranian militaries during their war called "Iran Iraq war: lessons learned" or some such title. It was pointed out time and again in their analysis that the Iraqi military was not able to use its armored assets as well as a 'western' nation could. Poor training of the Iraqi leadership was the root of the problem I suppose. I don't have the book in front of me so I can't get into specifics, but it explained a lot about how the Israelis were able to fend off numerically superior Arab forces for so many years (my own conclusions drawn from that book, not a comparison made in the book itself). The Arab armies simply didn't know how to use their tanks and mech units to their fullest advantage.

[ASL Veteran]

Once again, I believe the differences in ASL were meant to add flavor to the game and I don't believe these differences were added because the game designers thought the differences were quantifiable. Lets just look at the French for example. There are several differences between French troops and the other nations in ASL dealing with ELR and equipment etc. Just focusing on the morale aspects specifically though, ASL assigns French squads an average morale on the good order side and a lower morale on the broken side. This makes French troops slightly more difficult to rally than German troops after they are broken. This also ONLY applies to the French forces in the campaigns in 1940 and Vichy French forces, not any Free French troops.

Ok, now using this example, for ASL purposes the idea is to show that the French were demoralized by the circumstances surrounding the 'Blitz' and that once the French troops broke, they were less likely to rally because they were all running around screaming about the Germans in their rear etc. Problem with CM is that, in this campaign in particular, one could consider the French troops to be green and many of the German troops to be green as well. So if both sides are green then how does one simulate the 'state of mind' of the French troops who, even if they did fight well in some areas, still may have been suffering to some degree or another from the 'overall collapse' of the military situation. This, as opposed to the German forces, who were not suffering from this state of mind.

Since CM does not currently cover this time period, I don't think that this sort of a thing is really relevant to CM 1. It would certainly need to be explored for CM 4 though because a Green French squad would certainly not have the same 'factors' when considering their state of mind as a Green German squad. Now I would not call this a 'Nationality trait' of the French. I would call it a 'Situational trait' of the French brought upon them by the circumstances of the campaign in which they participated.

[brucer]

The ASL rationalization, from the rulebook, may be germane at this point:

"Nationality Distinctions vary troop capabilities from one nation to another, and while patently unfair in their application of stereotyped and oversimplified traits to all troops of a country without exception, nonetheless do serve to give the game much of its flavour."

To be clear, an ASL scenario designer could easily manipulate troop quality and ELR and leadership quantities to make a 1940 French set of squads equal to or better than a German set, just as you can in CM, but the system's "hardcoding" did imply that the *average* real-life German squad would display a higher level of combat ability than the *average* French squad. (Note that is not contradictory with the belief that "some French fought well," or "some Germans fought poorly.") The result, and the explanation given above, shows both the advantages and drawbacks of simplification through hardcoding, an approach BTS chose, perhaps wisely, not to pursue for CM.

I have not yet heard of anything in the way of a Dupuy-like statistical study of the 1940 campaign.

BruceR

[Major Tom]

Regarding the 1940 French aspect, the reason that they were harder to rally was purely due to a certain situation, that being, their lines were broken by the German spearhead. Without this factor the French forces in 1940 would have been easier to rally. It wasn't there to begin with.

This is just what happened to the Germans after the breakout of Normandy. Most German units caught by the Allies were too disorganized to resist. Is this a national feature? No, but a situational feature. Stick any nation in the strategic position of France in 1940, and Germany in late 1944 and you will get generally the same result.

I stated this point around 5 times now, and you seem not to notice it. BUT, the problem with instituting these national factors into the game, as hard-coded, is that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to sway from this. You wouldn't be givent the choice to make an SS unit fanatical or not. The question you SHOULD be asking, is, is it possible to create units to follow the standards deemed. And the answer is YES. You can make a German unit more flexible by making their HQ's experience greater (thereby they get more 'command' bonus'). Logic states, that a more experienced/trained HQ will be better able to control their troops in battle. You can have an official doctrine in place, but, if the troops aren't trained in it, or, are smart enough to use it, then it is pointless.

You can make a worn out and useless veteran unit by placing its readiness at exhausted (most units at low morale were usually physically exhausted by over extension).

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ok, time to weigh in here As I think has been pointed out well enough by many, the argument FOR national biased factors has not been made very well. There have been many SITUATIONAL or DOCTRINAL examples trotted out, but as Major Tom just described so well, these have very little to do with national identity.

When two units bump into each other, the following factors detail how well each unit will fight in relation to the other:

1. Experience

2. Training

3. Equipment

4. Physical condition

5. Morale

All other unit specific factors, in a one on one battle, are totally irrelevant. The better a unit is in each than its opposite number, the better it should do in battle. This is not a sure thing, but it does weight the odds in its favor. It is also interesting to note that each factor is not necessarily equal to another, for example equipment might be far more important than Experience.

In any case, CM simulates these factors. At the moment #1 and #2 are combined into one factor and #4 is only relative to the particular state of the unit instead of a seperate inherent factor. We will most likely change this for CM2. But the point is that how you, or the scenario designer, chooses to utilize them is not up to us. We can only provide the tools and advice on how to use them.

There might be factors that CM does not currently simulate that might be usefull to helping model some types of situations that people are thinking of when they think "nationalistic traits". One that has been suggested for a long time is some sort of scenario Morale level. This would be very helpful when simulating something like the 1940s France example above, or a late war German unit that knows for sure the war is lost. But as stated before, these are situational factors, not inherent national ones.

As for simulating Doctrine, this is probably the WORST argument for national hard coding. Instead, the game should be changed to make sure that different types of national doctrine can or can not be carried out depending on the side and year of the conflict. In other words, it is utterly silly to make the Germans have a "1.5 firepower modifier" versus the Soviets in 1941 simply because the Germans had, arguably, better tactical control. Why? Because it does NOTHING to simulate the doctrine of the day. In other words, you will have German and Soviet units using 50 year hindsight tactics equally well, but just giving the Germans a bit of a boost in terms of firepower. Ugh... horrible way to do things!

No, the best way to simulate national differences is to simulate the core elements of a nationality's organization, equipment, and national doctrine of the day directly. And this is what we have done in CM1 and will do in CM2 as well. Don't worry... Soviet platoons will not be running around the map like 1990s NATO units on peacetime training excercises

Steve

[brucer]

BTS writes:

"In other words, it is utterly silly to make the Germans have a "1.5 firepower modifier" versus the Soviets in 1941..."

Bit of a straw man, isn't it? I don't know of any tactical level game that does that, or any post on here that has called for it here.

"As for simulating Doctrine, this is probably the WORST argument for national hard coding..."

and

"No, the best way to simulate national differences is to simulate the core elements of ... national doctrine of the day directly."

Leaving aside the possible incongruity of those two statements, I would be curious to hear more about how you see the major accepted subunit-level national doctrinal differences (such as British "battle drill," or the German emphasis on initiative at all levels) being simulated in the current game. I had thought no such national variations in training or tactics were currently reflected in CM.

BruceR

PS to Major Tom: "I stated this point [the impropriety of hardcoding nonquantifiable national differences] around 5 times now, and you seem not to notice it..." Assuming "you" means "me," I have not once in over a dozen posts said ANYTHING about wanting to hardcode nonquantifiable, generalized characteristics in CM, so I'm not sure what you want me to say. That you're right? Okay, you're right. (But if you weren't talking to me, please disregard.)

[Guest Big Time Software]

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

Bit of a straw man, isn't it? I don't know of any tactical level game that does that, or any post on here that has called for it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean what I said literally, but rather as an example. Arbitrarily boosting ANY factor (firepower, morale, whatever) to achieve some notion of superiority/inferiority of a given unit, for whatever reason, is the wrong way of doing things. It has been suggested that we in fact do things this way, and it is how ASL did things too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Leaving aside the possible incongruity of those two statements, I would be curious to hear more about how you see the major accepted subunit-level national doctrinal differences (such as British "battle drill," or the German emphasis on initiative at all levels) being simulated in the current game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have several national differences in the game, such as command and control time differences and time to target for artillery. But these are based on rather quantifiable doctrinal differences and not some sort of possible, though likely mythical, inherently superior/inferior set of human traits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had thought no such national variations in training or tactics were currently reflected in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not as such. There is nothing hardwired to simulate national differences in training or tactics. However, there is the inherently limiting factor of Experience to contend with. Try and assault a Veteran US Company with a Battlion of Green Volksgrenadiers and see how well you can execute textbook doctrine of the German Army circa 1941 You are likely to experience the frustration of lack of control and dismal combat results.

As others have pointed out, most of the differences between the sides at this point in the war on the Western Front were rather minor (compared to, say, 1939 Polish and German doctrine). More importantly, the human player is able to benefit from 50 years of post WWII tactical study, meaning that a British player is more likely to command his forces more like an American formation.

The more subtle the differences between national doctrine, the harder it will be for us to simulate since the differences can be undone by the human player. However, when presented with MAJOR differences in doctrine, as seen on the Eastern Front for example, we can make some rather significant design decisions that will largely simulate the differences.

How are we going to simulate doctrinal differences in CM2? Too early to talk about. We have many good ideas that are being kicked around right now, but the time to share is not yet here. Remember, the game is not due out for about a year, so no point rushing into things

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

More importantly, the human player is able to benefit from 50 years of post WWII tactical study, meaning that a British player is more likely to command his forces more like an American formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the customers who elect to purchase CM should have a partial lobotomy according to their stated preferences of side they play, to make them forget all these lessons. Only by destroying the informed parts of the players' brains can true historical accuracy be achieved. I also think it is incumbent upon BTS to make inquiries to provide a cheap and reasonable way (probably involving a spoon and a saw, not necessarily in that order, but you are welcome to try) to achieve this.

Thank you very much for your attention.

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

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 10-31-2000).]

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that the customers who elect to purchase CM should have a partial lobotomy according to their stated preferences of side they play, to make them forget all these lessons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germanboy: this is a brilliant suggestion! How better to recreate historical stupidity than to impose it on the players?

Yet another example of typical Teutonic efficiency (+2 on the innovation table), and standard Hunnish sadism (-1 on the human values table). Good to see you living up to your national characteristics.

(It's also good to see a sense of humour creeping back into the thread.)

Quite seriously, this does touch on a real issue - the advantage of hindsight. The only way to really simulate the learning curve is to play a game against someone whose tactical knowledge of a particular situation (eg uncertainty how to fight in hedgerow country) is comparable to the original participants.

Namely none at the outset, and learning primarily through trial and error.

Or through the liberal use of alchohol. That is a reasonable surrogate.

[brucer]

"We have several national differences in the game, such as command and control time differences..."

Sorry, could I get the specifics on that? I'm not fully versed on what you refer to.

"...not some sort of possible, though likely mythical, inherently superior/inferior set of human traits."

So does that mean you and Charles reject that annoying 1.2:1 Dupuy German-Allied troop quality ratio? (Which, by the way, he attributed to organizational and doctrinal innovations by the German army that encouraged greater leadership, intercommunication, and the taking of initiative at all levels of command, not any national traits.) Or are you just leaving it up to the players to implement themselves when and how they choose?

BruceR

[Guest Big Time Software]

Brucer,

I have two books from Dupuy concerning the "qunatification" studies, as well as many of his statistical studies. Great stuff, even if the predictability aspects are a bit unscientific and some of his generalizations have been taken too litereally.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So does that mean you and Charles reject that annoying 1.2:1 Dupuy German-Allied troop quality ratio?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You actually answered your own question. The "superiority" that Dupuy talks about comes from a huge number of factors. Some are not within CM's scope (like quality of supply systems and so forth) and some are. The figure itself is a generalization and product of all of these factors. CM, on the other hand, is a small slice of the factors that make up Dupuy's number.

This number might be right, or it could be wrong, but it is in any case not relevant to CM since we are not looking at the big picture as he is. Also, trying to apply a generalization, based on vastly different data sets, works only when talking in generalities (if at all). But if you try to apply overall generalities to a microcosim within the larger system... generally it will not work. Not in a diverse system like frontline combat. This is what many people have been saying over and over again. Put in a national modifier and you undermine the pecularities found in this or that unit in this or that situation. Which brings me to...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or are you just leaving it up to the players to implement themselves when and how they choose?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh... yes. How else would we have a diverse and realistic game if we chose a few set examples and forced them upon the designer for any and all situations? CM has just about all the tools necessary to simulate any realistic situation in the area it covers (NW ETO, 44-45). If someone tries to recreate a historical battle without propperly setting up the unit attributes, he is as guilty of messing up the historical relevance just as much as if he used a map of Arnhem for a battle in Normandy.

I guess at this time I have to ask... what exactly is the point of this thread? National modifiers are a bad thing to include. We have stated this and others have done a darn good job explaining why. Even you have said you are not advocating national modifiers. So I am at a loss as to understand what it is that needs to be discussed.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

One confusing thing is that different people are referring to differemt studies done by Dupuy et al and discussed in different publications.

Dupuy and the Army War College found that US artillery was 4-6 times more powerful than German (not sure, I am pulling this number out of my butt since I read it a long time ago). Reason: there was so much of it. So do we simulate this by making US artillery dirt cheap? Of course not, because on the tactical level this just did not happen, and if your scenario calls for a bombardment then you can fix one up with the scenario editor.

If CM had a campaign editor, I would throw more weight behind some of the national differences because of pragmatic and practical reasons. But I think we should avoid random dolt bonuses or superman bonuses applied BEYOND those modeled by leadership and morale.

[brucer]

Steve:

Funny, you and I read this thread differently. I saw someone (not me) expressing their opinion and being jumped with the "generalization is bad, m'kay?" line over and over. When I stepped in to mention a legitimate set of scholars who might have disagreed, their work, which informed the post-Nam recreation of the American army, among other things, was called an "insanity."

Since then, I think we've identified between us all kinds of cases where wargamers and historians can, even should, use generalizations for a given army: related to literacy, or mechanical aptitude, or to reflect doctrinal differences, or strategic situational ones. They even include some cultural effects, such as Japanese bushido. The only valid argument made here against using such modifiers, assuming they can be quantified, and are in the right historic time frame, is that CM's at the wrong scale for that. Which is fine with me, personally. It's certainly a much better argument than we'd been hearing 150 posts ago.

I'm still hoping you can enlighten me on the national differences you said CM does use, related to command and control. I wasn't aware previously there was such an animal.

Re Dupuy: oh, there's all kinds of problems with Dupuy. And I personally don't believe he'd be in favour of general, across-the-board modifiers at this scale, either, if he were asked. (BTW, I'm not familiar with that reference to supply effects you made... could I get that citation?)

I say that because Dupuy's own Italian and Lorraine figures are a compilation of his own often widely varying "Dupuy numbers" for the individual divisions in-theatre. For instance there was a British division (whose number eludes me) in Italy whose performance he tracked over a long period and concluded was simply appalling: an opinion, incidentally, shared by the commanders in theatre at the time.

Now that's pretty good evidence for me... good enough that were I to see a CM scenario involving that one division where its troops were all Veteran, say, or at 20 per cent fanaticism... well, if the designer tried to justify it for reasons of play balance, or because "every division had its good days and bad days," I'd question the value of spending further time on it, without the troop quality being altered somewhat. And I don't think I'd be alone, there.

BruceR

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Since then, I think we've identified between us all kinds of cases where wargamers and historians can, even should, use generalizations for a given army: related to literacy, or mechanical aptitude, or to reflect doctrinal differences, or strategic situational ones. They even include some cultural effects, such as Japanese bushido. The only valid argument made here against using such modifiers, assuming they can be quantified, and are in the right historic time frame, is that CM's at the wrong scale for that. Which is fine with me, personally. It's certainly a much better argument than we'd been hearing 150 posts ago.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think now the time has come to call this debate off, hold hands and sing kumbaya (or whatever Seanachai proposes for a sing-song). Oh, and if anyone has any suggestions on how to model the specific characteristics of the 442nd RCT, I am all ears.

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

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 11-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

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

Since then, I think we've identified between us all kinds of cases where wargamers and historians can, even should, use generalizations for a given army:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree provided the generalizations are qualifiable as well as quantifiable. Or at the very least, evenly applied to all sides. However, I am very much against trying to generalize cultural aptitude for war, especially at the tactical level. But when looking at the strategic picture, one can generalize more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm still hoping you can enlighten me on the national differences you said CM does use, related to command and control. I wasn't aware previously there was such an animal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is minimal right now, but there will be a lot more of it in CM2. At the moment the only two things I can think of, off the top of my head, that are "national" based are the delays for artillery strikes (Allies have shorter times) and increased chance of leadership bonuses for German HQ units vs. an Allied HQ of the same experience rating. We felt fairly safe in doing both of these since the former is largely quantifiable and the later is one of the few "quality" issues that all sides of the war appear to agree upon (i.e. that German lower level leadership was superior, all things being equal, to that of the Allies).

This means that a German Platoon is more likley going to have a HQ unit with some sort of attribute advantage. This can mean either a superior ability to rally its men, greater command radius, etc. Notice though that there is no RULE that all German HQs have a bonus or an advantage over their Allied counterpart. They are just more likely to have a bonus. This means you can easily have 2 companies going up against each other and the Allied one has the better HQ units.

The above is an example of how things SHOULD be done at the tactical level. Instead of us making some hard and fast rule that German HQs are "better" and therefore should have x benefit vs. an Allied HQ, we simply increased the chance that they might be better. The hard and fast generalization is harmfull to tactical level historical accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Re Dupuy: oh, there's all kinds of problems with Dupuy. And I personally don't believe he'd be in favour of general, across-the-board modifiers at this scale, either, if he were asked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. He made it clear that his approach was designed to predict outcome at higher levels and that it would not work at lower ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(BTW, I'm not familiar with that reference to supply effects you made... could I get that citation?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been about 5 years since I read, in detail, "Numbers, Predictions, and War" so I can't say for sure. After reading this work I, like others, found little mathematical value in his studies. However, the areas he identified, and their relative importance and interconnection, is still quite usefull for a strategic level wargame (IMHO).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now that's pretty good evidence for me... good enough that were I to see a CM scenario involving that one division where its troops were all Veteran, say, or at 20 per cent fanaticism... well, if the designer tried to justify it for reasons of play balance, or because "every division had its good days and bad days," I'd question the value of spending further time on it, without the troop quality being altered somewhat. And I don't think I'd be alone, there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't think you would be. However, warfare is a very chaotic environment, and therefore being too analytical can lead to discounting some of the extremes of the battlefield as being "unrealistic". Implicit in any sort of average, norm, or generalization is the understanding that it is the culmination of a wide range of results. Therefore, if one only pays attention to the "norm" they will miss out on a lot of interesting, and realistic, things that don't fit that definition.

Thanks,

Steve

[PeterNZer]

Lets review some points of Brucie's from the bottom to the top.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For instance there was a British division (whose number eludes me) in Italy whose performance he tracked over a long period and concluded was simply appalling: an opinion, incidentally, shared by the commanders in theatre at the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question: Did Duprey hear that comment -before- he made the numbers, or after? If before, (and it's likely, since he would have heard such stuff in his research), well of course his numbers will show it to be a poor division, he'd look a fool if they didn't.

Secondly, any scenario designer isn't going to be consulting Duprey to work out what his troop qualities are. A simple review of AARs and other sources would give you a good idea. Sounds like these guys would equate to 'green'.

Simply because Duprey's numbers agree with commonly held views does not 'prove' his numbers in any wider sense to be accurate, or more importantly, useful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think we've identified between us all kinds of cases where wargamers and historians can, even should, use generalizations for a given army: related to literacy, or mechanical aptitude, or to reflect doctrinal differences, or strategic situational ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And there's nothing mentioned there that is even relevant on CM's scale! Sure, generalizations are useful. In general, I've never been run over when I cross the road. That doesn't mean I don't check each time I do. In the specific, the general doesn't always give you that accurate a picture of what's going on. How does any generalization of those variables listed then applied to CM improve

CM?

If you want to look at tactical doctrinal differences, well sure, if the AI is playing the AI you might want to code one of the AIs to be a better player, since one said could handle their assets better. Coding one AI better would give you the kind of Duprey bonus you're looking for? Make the German AI good at combined arms stuff. Make the Allies rely on their infantry more, hey, there you go, ingrained doctrinal differences in the game! But, if I'm not mistaken, the point of this game is to -play- it and have fun, hence using two AIs would be kind of pointless don't you think?

We could go with Andreas' solution, and since I'm about to play him on the defense as an American, perhaps I should play badly and thus effectively simulate the 1.3 or whatever ratio of superiority the Germans had. I'm sure Andreas would be pleased.

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

"We have several national differences in the game, such as command and control time differences..."

Brucer

Sorry, could I get the specifics on that? I'm not fully versed on what you refer to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you own the game? I certainly hope so. If you do, I am surprised you haven't noticed that different units respond with differing speeds to orders you give. I see you are building a scenario so I guess you do. Perhaps you don't play it much?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would be curious to hear more about how you see the major accepted subunit-level national doctrinal differences (such as British "battle drill," or the German emphasis on initiative at all levels) being simulated in the current game. I had thought no such national variations in training or tactics were currently reflected in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shall we speak slowly?

We model it through the.. P L A Y E R

Yes!

This is a game!

Players control units!

Golly gee, things have come a long way eh?

Initiative at all levels is easily modeled. You charge your men at the bad guys and if a lone platoon out of earshot of companyHQ has a chance to kick some ass, you use it to do so, wow.

Of course, we could simulate that the poor organization you want, or rigid chains of commands and soldiers without initiative. In which case, perhaps as the French I should write notes on pieces of paper requesting authority to move and then write replies to myself to wait for the baguettes and then not move the unit for a few minutes. Intriguing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>. Remember, at the beginning of this thread the opposing argument was "it's bad to make Poles crack and Brits regular, or give better leaders to Germans as a rule, because people vary too widely to be categorized that way." I suggested that no, we should feel free as scenario makers to make generalizations about the quality of a particular unit or army sometimes, if there was good evidence for it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever the valiant hero?

Your first post mentioned no such defense of the freedom of scenario designers. In fact, EVERYONE ELSE was mentioning that scenario designers are free to set units how they want, and they could follow history, or not, as they saw fit (don't like the scenario, don't play it). Nowhere AT ALL was it said 'its bad to make German leaders better as a rule'. If you've played many scenarios you'll notice many designers already do as you so kindly suggest, simply because it's historically accurate in the situation portrayed. They certainly don't do so through some misguided idea about the applicability of Duprey or overall superiority.

What was said was it is bad to hard code these differences into EVERY unit on one side. A good scenario designer does EXACTLY what you suggest already (wow), and does look at the history and model units as close as they can. A point highlighted by everyone else BUT you. In fact, you stick to the whole 'x army was better/worse/more/less whatever' line. About as small-scale you get is dividing up the nationalities and say they were better or worse than your average brit. And as everyone else has repeated endlessly, you can simulate that already in CM by making them Vets or give them better leaders. And such differences, whether or not they come from 'national' qualities are only relevant to CM's scale when it comes down to the skills and experience of each unit.

Conscript, Green, Regular, Veteran, Elite, Crack. Clever huh?

It seems you're really here to defend ASL, and in your words as you summarize a post

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was a fun system <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course! Most of us have played it and know it was fun. We're only saying it wasn't -that- accurate, and the logic it's based on isn't -that- good. Doesn't stop ASL being a great game.

As for national qualities, where do you draw the line? Perhaps German command squads with Prussian names should automatically an extra bonus to all traits since it was 'well known' that the Prussians were good officers, (Guderian etc). Perhaps people from the west coast of the US should get different bonuses from those on the east, or the south. Obviously a southern marksman is going to be better because in general, the south is more open and agrarian so in general you'd get more crack-shot farmboys.

Perhaps north English should be different from the southerners? And the scots, they should get a bonus handling tanks since they're all such great engineers. And Aussies and kiwis should have better cooperation between leaders and squads since we don't have much of a class system, and of course, NZ'ers would be better again because Rommel thought he could take over the world with an Army of us. Not being facetious. You can see once we start on this track, you can go on and on..

Anyway.

PeterNZ

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Keith]

To add my 2 cents in, I am currently designing a scenario that involves the 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division assaulting the U.S. 100th Infantry Division in the Vosges during operation "Norwind". My sources clearly state that the 17th SS was a completely rebuilt unit with highly inexperienced leaders. This was reflected in their attack technique, which basically involved using human wave assaults of fanatical SS troopers. The CM game system perfectly enables me to model this by allowing the SS troops to have "Green" experience level with fanaticism set to 50%. Incidentally, I imagine this is how many early war Russian units can be modelled.

Bottom line is the system works fine.

[Maj. Bosco]

Kind of OT but it's close enough I don't want to start a new thread. Aren't there already some differences in the nationalities in the officer department? I've noticed when I play QBs the axis officers are really generally superior to the allied. Also, UK officers are generally better than Amis. Just curious if I'm seeing something that's not there. I play the Amis a lot so it might be a case of greener-grass syndrome.