SS are overpriced hamsters!

[thomasj]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost:

quoting thomasj here: Weren't experienced SS troops getting a little thin on the ground by late '44.

Squads and vehicle crews were increasingly being made up of children - hardly veterans in any sense of the word.

Sure all divisions may have seen combat but certainly not all the frontline troops !

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly what I am talking about, the timeline we are in is the 1941 when the SS was at its strongest before attrition(SP?) and green recruits lowered their effectiveness. If we were talking about 1944, then I would agree that most of the SS were green, non combat veterans.

Over all though we are talking about why does the SS troops cost more if they run like little girly men.

[This message has been edited by thomasj (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Short clarification: in my QB against Berli the Waffen-SS were regular while my trusty Canucks were vets, which I think must have made the difference in the night fighting. Of course, leadership also makes a difference...

As for the price of Waffen-SS compared to Wehrmacht, a Vet Wehrmacht Rifle Coy costs 456 points, while a Vet Waffen-SS Rifle Coy costs 465. Not that much of a difference. They have a slightly different TO&E on squad level and a bit higher fire-power, that should explain the price. If you expect them to be better fighters b/c they are Waffen-SS, it is probably your reasoning and not BTS' reasoning that is at fault. You can of course always buy them at a higher level.

As for the general experience of the troops. Yes by 1944 most German divisions had seen combat, but that is irrelevant, b/c in very few cases were they still made up of the same guys who went to war against Poland in 1939. And if you start drafting an 18-year old in 1944 into a unit, it does not matter whether the unit has a lot of combat history, he is still green. 12th SS HJ had AFAIK no combat experience as a division, but the NCOs and officers were vets. The grunts were green, although fanatical. There is a website specifically about the Waffen-SS somewhere, and the guy seems to know his stuff. It might be 'Elite Forces of the 3rd Reich', and I don't have the URL on this machine at the moment.

Sorry, what was my point? Ahh, if you want seasoned soldiers you have to pay for them. Regardless of what arm of the Wehrmacht they belong to. The cost difference comes down to TO&E, IIUC. There is no inherent bonus because they belong to some elite force. They just have nicer uniforms to look at.

ThomasJ, just read your last post. We are in 1944, not 1941. The game is called 'Beyond Overlord', not 'Beyond Sea-Lion'.

Please note that all smilies on this iBook were swallowed by Moby Dick.

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Smaragdadler]

Elite Forces of the Third Reich 1933-1945

[Count Sessine]

In June 1944, 1SS, 2SS, 9SS, 10SS, 12SS and 17SS were all experienced outfits (I would label them veteran and crack in CM, esp. 1 and 2SS), withdrawn from the Eastern Front specifically to counter allied landings in France. After the Falaise collapse, however, these divisions were destroyed and what the allies encountered in the winter 1944-45 was a different story. At this point the SS drafted 'ordinary' people in large numbers, and was not, morale wise, to be considered 'elite' troops any more. Until the end, they retained their an edge in equipment compared to ordinary Wehrmacht formations.

In his memoires, General Guderian has much praise for the combat value of the Waffen-SS divisions, which he thought should be differentiated from units of the regular SS, ie. the Dirlewanger Brigade, that was nothing more than thugs (Guderian writes that he's overheard SS-Brigadefuhrer Fegelein telling Hitler this. Fegelein was Hitlers brother-in-law and SS representative in Fuhrer HQ).

Does CM model different behaviour for different unit types?

/CS

[This message has been edited by Count Sessine (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Count Sessine:

In June 1944, 1SS, 2SS, 9SS, 10SS, 12SS and 17SS were all experienced outfits (I would label them veteran and crack in CM, esp. 1 and 2SS), withdrawn from the Eastern Front specifically to counter allied landings in France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smaragdadler, thanks for the link.

CS, I am sorry but I have to disagree with such a blanket statement. 12th SS had no combat experience before 6th of June as a division. It had not seen combat on the eastern front. Go to the link above and check it out.

1st SS: the following is taken from Reynolds ''Steel Inferno', a book dealing with 1st SS Pz Korps in Normandy (p.20):

"[...] by 28th of February 1944 it had been reduced to little more than a Kampfgruppe[...]. Two weeks later, after retreating into Galicia, the Division had ceased to exist as such - its combat strength was 41 officers and 1,188 NCOs and men. [...] On 18th April the pathetic remnants of the 1st SS Panzer Division left the Eastern Front. [...] The few remaining veterans of the divsion would once more become the nucleus around which a new Leibstandarte would have to be built."

p.24 "The fact that [the 12th SS] was overstrength while the 1st SS was desperately short after being bled white in Russia, made it necessary to transfer 2,055 men, including 13 officers from the HJ to the LAH in May 1944." These must have been new drafts, except for the officers.

And finally p.27, about 1st SS after arrival in Belgium: "The main task however was [...] the training of new soldiers."

The myth that all the Waffen-SS were seasoned vets is just that, a myth. And I am bit concerned that scenario designers who just buy into it will make scenarios that are much worse than they need be b/c the Waffen-SS soldiers are given experience ratings that have no ground in reality. If you want to reflect their fighting attitude, by all means give them fanatic ratings, but don't just make them crack or elite b/c you fall for this myth.

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

Andreas

[Count Sessine]

Okay Andreas, point taken on the LAH division. But don't underestimate the 1200 troops left from the original division. Such a nucleus would make the difference in battle as well as in training, and they would certainly raise the divisional expertise (meaning logistics services, artillery, all the technical stuff) far above that of the mostly untried allied divisions they were facing.

The 2SS, the Das Reich division, was very experienced having fought at Kharkov, suffering heavy but not ruinous losses, before moving to France in April. Veteran, with some crack units.

The 9th SS came directly from Russia, near Koval, where it had been refitting with new vehicles, before it moved west on June 12. It hadn't suffered particularly high losses. Very experienced. Veteran, with some crack units.

The 10th SS had been in France until March 1944, when it was send to Russia, only to return with the 9th on June 12. Also very experienced. Veteran, with some crack units.

Of course you're right about the 12th SS. They were all new. But don't forget that had been trained in the Beverlo area in Belgium since spring 1943 (thats more than a year), by a cadre of about 1000 men from 1st SS, who were included in the division. In CM, I would make this a regular, interspersed with veterans. And adjust the fanatism levels to suit the Hitlerjugend mindset as it turned out at Caen.

AS for the 17th SS, Mitcham calls this an elite division. It was formed in October 1943 in Western France, as such had ample training and lots of veterans in its ranks. As a formation it hadn't seen combat. Regular, with veterans, or just veterans to compensate for its historical performance. Or perhaps even better...

Which is another discussion: should scenario designers give units experience levels based on facts (the 17th SS had never seen combat as a formation: make it regular), or based on historical performance (17th SS turned out to be an elite formation: make it veteran/crack). Without wanting to become too philosophical, it must be the last: as far as experience levels goes, we are dealing with history as it turned out to be, not what it could have been..

/CS

PS. Is there any unit behaviour difference (ie. between SS and Wehrmacht)?

[Count Sessine]

Well, I just peroused the above mentioned site. Its interesting to see how different historical opinions are. Samuel W. Mitcham in his Order of Battle of the German Army, states that 17th SS was considered an élite division (its the only SS-division of which he says this), whereas this website pretty much says the opposite... I noticed that the website uses von der Heydte's (of the 6FJ regiment) memoirs, and his disparaging comments on the 17th division, as its primary source. One could question Heydte's objectivity in this matter.

/CS

[Darstand]

I believe that BTS's view on The SS are we will give them the equipment they had historicly, but leave it up to the player/scenerio creator on what thier experiance level is.

I was playing a quick battle as US vs Germ SS. The SS(regulars) contiunied to Assault my postion until all opposition was dead. By the time I was done. US Squad had 34 kills (should have got a screenshot of that)His brothers in the same platoon had 14 and 16 kills. And the SS troops never faultered. But neither did my Verteran US troops

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Count Sessine:

One could question Heydte's objectivity in this matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CS, I totally agree - von der Heydte had a bit too much reputation at stake to be considered objective in this matter, methinks. As for the rest of the assessment, I would agree with settings at veteran or regular with added fanaticism, in most cases. Throw in some crack HQ units and that should do it. I also agree that going by historic performance is better for scenario design. What I would not want to see are design decisions a la ''Uh they are Waffen-SS, lets make them Crack with Elite HQ units." That would give them too much of a bonus I think.

One other thing that should not be forgotten is that many of the UK divisions at least had had a lot of training before the invasion, in some cases years. The initial poor performance of many of these units is IMO better traced back to poor leadership at brigade and higher level, something which is not modelled in CM. Units like the 49th and the 43rd were apparently well respected by their opponents. The 3rd ID had trained in the UK for three years before assaulting the beaches on D-Day.

US divisions also suffered from poor leadership, and sometimes inadequate training. The 90th ID is an example for that.

And I don't think that CM gives an automatic bonus to Waffen-SS or other 'Elie' units. IIUC that is a scenario design decision. CM only models the difference in TO&E. But I could be way off the mark here. Charles or Moon, care to comment?

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

Andreas

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

I am thinking that my expectations of the SS troops were more along the lines of "fanaticism" than being more "elite". I *did* have a couple of squads hold their ground and kill a lot of American squads, but they were an exception. Because of them I ended up with a "tactical victory".

My subjective gut view is that I have gotten at least similar, if not better, performance out of regular Wermacht infantry. As someone said, it could just be my unrealistic expectations of SS over Wermacht, not something for BTS to address. If the price difference represents the better equipment and smarter uniforms than I guess that's okay as long as I realize that.

There must have been some differentiation between Wermacht and SS troops at the recruiting level, and possibly training. I had always thought the SS were better trained and more highly motivated - like comparing British Paratroops against regular British army. If there was a difference in training and motivation, I am not seeing it in the game.

Which could be more a symptom of my fervent desire to have my troops crush all before them, than what is really going on.

Oh, and the scenario is set in October 1944, after the Falias gap etc so the troop quality may be down. If this is in fact being modelled, I guess I'd like to know that.

Oh, Oh...someone asked if the troops were under the benefit of command and control. They would have been, except the PL burst into girly tears and ran away looking for mummy.

OGSF

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!:

My subjective gut view is that I have gotten at least similar, if not better, performance out of regular Wermacht infantry. As someone said, it could just be my unrealistic expectations of SS over Wermacht, not something for BTS to address. If the price difference represents the better equipment and smarter uniforms than I guess that's okay as long as I realize that.

There must have been some differentiation between Wermacht and SS troops at the recruiting level, and possibly training. I had always thought the SS were better trained and more highly motivated - like comparing British Paratroops against regular British army. If there was a difference in training and motivation, I am not seeing it in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SS troops recruited in Germany were selected on the basis of "racial purity" and political reliability, neither of which automatically translates into competency on the battlefield. SS formations raised from other nationalities mostly did not appear on the Western Front and so do not directly concern us here. But in passing I may say that they were fairly crummy.

As to training, that could vary considerably from formation to formation. The SS did not receive particularly better training than Wehrmacht soldiers. Indeed, at the outset of the war, it was rather worse. All the tactical expertise was in the Army (Heer). But some formations learned quickly, such as 1st. LAH, and became formidable fighting organizations. It was upon them that the reputation of the Waffen SS was largely built. Not all SS units came up to this standard. Some of them were pretty rank. They did tend to get their pick of equipment though, and lots of it. Again, the exception being the Fremdtruppen which were often armed with captured weaponry.

So...no, the SS were not 10 feet tall. Sometimes they weren't even 5'8".

Michael

[Gary T]

Sorry Count Sessine but I have to disagree with you about the evaluation of the WSS divisions in Normandy:

2SS:

*the Das Reich division, was very experienced having fought at Kharkov, suffering heavy but not ruinous losses, before moving to France in April. Veteran, with some crack units.*

Das Reich had suffered serious losses in the Ukraine over the winter of 1943/44 and, according to Dan Reinbold's Das Reich site, by the spring of 1944 it "was largely comprised of conscripts, many or most of whom were not of the same standard as the original volunteer corps (now consisting of 2,500 survivors of Battle Group Lammerding, recently extricated from the Eastern Front)."

9SS/10SS:

The 9th SS came directly from Russia, near Koval, where it had been refitting with new vehicles, before it moved west on June 12. It hadn't suffered particularly high losses. Very experienced. Veteran, with some crack units. The 10th SS had been in France until March 1944, when it was send to Russia, only to return with the 9th on June 12. Also very experienced. Veteran, with some crack units.*

Neither of these divisions was experienced - in fact quite the opposite. They had at most a month's combat experience. They arrived in the Ukraine in early April 1944. They participated in the link up with 1st Panzer Army as it broke out of the Kamenets-Podolski Pocket and then in the abortive attempt to relieve Ternopol. By early May both divisions had been withdrawn from the front. So about a months experience at most. In fact upon their arrival at 4th Panzer Army in April the commander had to be dissuaded from taking their full tank and vehicle compliment to replenish his depleted Army panzer divisions. He, possibly quite rightly, believed they were wasted on the two totaly inexperienced W-SS divisions and would be put to far better use by his veteran Army panzer divisions.

17SS:

*AS for the 17th SS, Mitcham calls this an elite division. It was formed in October 1943 in Western France, as such had ample training and lots of veterans in its ranks.*

I assume that you are referring to Mitcham's book Hitler's Legions. I would take any information from that book with a large pinc of salt unless you can check the information as it contains a large number of errors (even basic stuff like what front a certain division fought on). This stems from him using other sources with no attempt whatsoever to verify the information.

I don't think anything about 17SS performance makes it elite at all (not that it performed badly). There were other formations in Normandy (Army infantry divisions 352/353 etc) who performed just as well but they are not considered elite.

As for von der Heydte's objectivity you are porobably correct. But ask your self where the information about the W-SS performance comes from? Just about every book written on the W-SS in English has used W-SS divisional histories written by W-SS veterans. Hardly the most objective of sources.

If you use BTS's reasoning all the above divisions should be regular at the level we are talking about i.e. trained recruits with a sprinkling of veterans. The same as some of the other German divisions. Of course you could put a few veterans in there (especially amongst the tank crew's - even some crack/elite). Of course you could push up the the W-SS fanaticism level (esp. with 12SS) to reflect better motivation.

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

*I laugh in the face of Fear and tweak the nose of Terror* (Edmund Blackadder circa 1570).

[Mark IV]

I am thinking that my expectations of the SS troops were more along the lines of "fanaticism" than being more "elite".

I think that nails it perfectly- that would be my expectation. "Fanatically incompetent" is a distinct possibility, and my limited knowledge is that some (but not all, or even most) SS units fit that description.

Generally they should be less likely to break. That doesn't necessarily translate into more effective, especially on the assault.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary T:

But ask your self where the information about the W-SS performance comes from? Just about every book written on the W-SS in English has used W-SS divisional histories written by W-SS veterans. Hardly the most objective of sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep - Reynolds quite nicely dissects Panzermeyer's claims that his division was destroyed before Caen by anaysing the actual force returns. Every other book I read just goes with his claim that the division was destroyed completely, which according to Reynolds simply is not true.

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

Andreas

[Echo]

Jack those SS troopers up to crack or elite, and make a good percentage of them fanatic. You'll learn to hate the little bastards then.

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

As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton)

[jdmorse]

To all Gentlemen on this thread+++++++++ I wish to extend a hearty and heartfelt congratulation on your resoned discourse. You were and are able to treat each other with respect and reason which (once we got past the girliemen part) has provided us non grog types with a pleasurable nad informative experience. Again congrats and you have shown us what this forum can be

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

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

-- King Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, sc.2, l.86

[von Lucke]

I set up a scenario, set at night --- based on the assumption that SS units are afraid of the dark --- and chose a representative of *every* flavor of German squad available to participate. Each platoon consisted of an Vet, Crack, and Elite squad led by a single Crack HQ. There was Volksturm, Volksgrenadier, Rifle, PanzerGrenadier (armr), Fuzilier, Sturmme, Escort, SS PzGdr (mot), SS Rifle, Gebirgsjaeger, Falschirmjaeger. I also threw in a few Vet AC's, HT's, Wespes, and Hummels for support.

I then lined them up on one side of the (large) map and Moved them toward the American (Vet) defenders... And that was all I did --- march across the map, never halting until every American was dead, captured or surrendered. Took something like 10 turns. Never once did the Germans panic or break. Even the Volksturm --- who ended taking about 50% losses --- marched forward into the teeth of the enemy with nary a flinch.

What does this prove? That the units have no inherent ability to withstand fire beyond what you assign them --- Vet, Crack, Elite, preferably, with a touch of Fanaticism. BTS provided the TO&E, it's up to you to determine the level of fortitude.

On that note, I'd say the best bang for your buck would be a Fallschirmjaeger platoon --- tho I might go for the Gebirgsjaegers if I expected more close-up work.

The SS are a bit over-rated. Sure, they had their pick of recruits and weapons, so their rosters would be closer to full than most "regular" units --- and, most likely, a higher percentage of Vets formed the training Cadre. But it was SOP to mix vets with recruits in a single unit, and since CM doesn't model the experience of every man in a zug, the average SS squad would tend to level out at Regular (by late '44 anyway).

[Henri]

I'm enjoying this discussion and learning a lot, but I have a comment or two.

Hey guys, Combat Mission is first and foremost a game, not a simulation .It appears that the editor allows the scenario designer the a wide choice of options for troop quality. So what if a designer wants to give a Volkstrum unit an elite performace? Or US paratroopers a conscript performance? All of those probably happened at least once...It is to the designers' credit that the game can also be used as a pretty good simulation , but one should not have unrealistic expectations.

Speaking of US performance, I remember when the US module of Squad Leader came out and was greeted with hoots of anger from players who were outraged at the ease with which US units would break. Don Greenwood and other designers had to write a long article in The General to prove that the performance of US soldiers was as modeled in the game.I still have the article at home. In short, the argument was that since the US had such overwhelming air control and artillery support (there were exceptions), the standard procedure when met by strong resistance was to back off and blast the German positions with air and artillery, then to mop up with infantry . This doesn't make very good John Wayne movies, and it doesn't make very interesting wargames...

One thing that is difficult to model is incompetence of higher command; for instance, the Canadians generally fought well and generally had excellent commanders at lower levels (all Canadians who went into combat in Europe were volunteers; some conscripts were sent to England, but none were sent into combat), but the higher level commanders were among the most atrocious of the whole war (probably due in part to inexperience and in part because many were there through political connections). For example, it took a number of disasters before General Keller was sacked, although his removal had been previously recommended all the way up to Montgomery, who didn't bother to hide his contempt for the Canadian generals.

I am not sure how one could model this in Combat Mission . No player is purposely going to send his reinforcements up the wrong road, then wait for two days before realizing that he is in the wrong place.

Henri

[Spook]

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

Speaking of US performance, I remember when the US module of Squad Leader came out and was greeted with hoots of anger from players who were outraged at the ease with which US units would break. Don Greenwood and other designers had to write a long article in The General to prove that the performance of US soldiers was as modeled in the game.I still have the article at home. In short, the argument was that since the US had such overwhelming air control and artillery support (there were exceptions), the standard procedure when met by strong resistance was to back off and blast the German positions with air and artillery, then to mop up with infantry . This doesn't make very good John Wayne movies, and it doesn't make very interesting wargames...

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, what a blast from the past. The Squad Leader module in question (1982) was "GI: Anvil of Victory" (GI:AOV) and the General provided, at the time, a article of dissent called "Glass Anvil" with counter-arguments following afterwards from the SL design/test team.

One of the reasons for the dissent was the application of an "experience level rating" which at the time was applied mainly to US troops. It wasn't just that US troops were easier to break in the SL system; that always existed in SL from the get-go in '77. Rather, it was the added possibility with GI:AOV that US squads failing the "ELR" check in breaking would also drop to some version of a lower-quality squad type.

I think that the dissenting writer had a pro-US bent. He went on to argue that the US tanks & halftracks were now portrayed too much as "rolling junk" which I didn't agree with at the time.

But I also think that the SL design team, at that time, also operated with a little bit of a pro-German bias in that the Germans and other nationalities were spared from the effects of ELR (except for '45 German conscripts). The SL design team also seemed to accept the arguments of Weigley ("Eisenhower's Lieutenants") as gospel, in that US combat troops, usually filled out from the lower draft grades and thus tended to be "uninspired", never developed too much tactical prowness on average. So the correlating opinion is that it depended mainly on US material than on US manpower to keep US forces moving ahead. More recent arguments by authors like Doubler, however, don't completely refute the arguments of Weigley but do challenge the stock "US quantity over quality" argument. Doubler's compelling argument is that US combat troops could not always count on "quantity" or mass and had to learn how fight with combined arms just like everyone else, regardless of the inherent problems in the US Army on initial training and loss replacements.

Even the SL team ultimately acknowledged the "anti-US snowball" a bit with the revised ASL system. With ASL, the ELR rating didn't go away, but now applied to ALL nations, and could vary based on specific unit and war timeframe. And US infantry got a morale boost when in "broken" state", thus not being so vulnerable to "double-break" loss. So with ASL, the playing field did seem to get more level than with the GI module.

The BTS team, for now, seems to have made the right decision in staying away from "nationality distinctions" for CMBO, although I think CM2 MIGHT be a bit more of a challenge to repeat this design thought. (For example, it'll be interesting to see how CM captures the Soviet "human wave" tactic and the inherent ability of most Soviet infantry to rapidly dig in.) With a good number of experience ratings, leader attributes, supply settings, and a "fanaticism" switch, CMBO seems to give good enough options for the scenario designer to create "nationality" effect without resorting to hard-code stock modifiers.

[GhostOne]

I play as SS troops quite often and have found them to be consistently effective and tenacious under fire. I haven't observed the type of "hamster" behavior mentioned. I beleive it's going to be a factor of how one utilizes them and also maintaining appropriate command control.

Ghost

[Doug Beman]

von Lucke has it right. Troops in CM have no modifiers or whatever beyond the experience level they're given by the scenario designer. Regular SS troops will act the same as any other Regular troops, all other factors being equal.

In short, there is no magical "SS modifier" that applies to all SS troops across the board.

DjB

[tailz]

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

-SNIP-

One other thing that should not be forgotten is that many of the UK divisions at least had had a lot of training before the invasion, in some cases years. The initial poor performance of many of these units is IMO better traced back to poor leadership at brigade and higher level, something which is not modelled in CM. Units like the 49th and the 43rd were apparently well respected by their opponents. The 3rd ID had trained in the UK for three years before assaulting the beaches on D-Day.

-SNIP-

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, training is NOT the same as experience. General Foulkes (cmdr 2nd Canadian Div) confessed... "For all it's years of training, it took two months of combat to turn the 2nd into a fighting machine." It's also interesting to note that Foulkes rejected psychiatric testing for the 2nd's recruits... resulting in a substantial number of "battle fatigue" casualties after its encounters with SS around Caen.

[RMC]

Spook,

Interesting that you bring up the "Glass Anvil" articles in The General. I was getting ready to put them on line as part of a discussion on another forum. That discussion focused on some of the issues that you posted about: Quality vs Quantity in US units. I tend to accept that on average the German soldier was better trained and led than the average GI. It's not just Dupuy, Weigley, and Ellis. It's also Ambrose and Joseph Balkoski that point to the atrocious "repple depple" system that fed barely trained recruits into units where they were consumed all too rapidly.

Comparing ASL to CM is problematic for many reasons. ELR was a neat dynamic that tried to capture what happened when a unit that was held together by a few wily veterans lost those vets. In ASL only some units lost quality when they broke. In CM it seems all units are weaker after haven been broken once (the red !).

In any case the SL/ASL team did have a pro-German bias to which they freely admitted as being a cornerstone of the design. The German Heer was the standard against which others were measured. US had lower morale, SS had higher. Russians had fewer leaders, inferior tank optics, went berzerk more often etc. Everything was in relation to the German "standard."

I am not sure if I agree about leaving national distinctions out of CM. For me they gave the game much of its flavor.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I am not sure if I agree about leaving national distinctions out of CM. For me they gave the game much of its flavor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just design them into your scenarios. Or play scenarios by people who have proved that they are good designers - I would expect that to be taken care of in them. What is great about CM is that it gives me the possibility as a scenario designer to decide for myself and not have it foisted upon me by the prejudice of the game designers. B/c, let's face it, it is difficult if not impossible to get agreement on the technical details of some things, e.g. the dreaded Nahverteidigungswaffe, and we could all argue until the cows come home about the correct morale of this or that unit type. Case in point: According to Steidler's 'Lost Batallions', the Gebirgsjägerbataillion 202 was rushed into battle without adequate preparation and met the very combat experienced 36th ID and the 100th Batallion (Niseis). Now any hard-coding to reflect the general elite status of the Gebirgsjäger would screw up scenario design here. Therefore I like it as it is and I think it adds tremendously to the game.

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

Andreas

[Spook]

I wouldn't really say that nationality effect is totally "left out", RMC. Rather, the burden of "nationality" is left to the scenario designer. For example, to maintain the German edge in earlier timeframes of CMBO (like Normandy settings), I lean towards tweaking the individual German leaders to give them higher attributes over Allied leaders in most cases----combat, morale, command & stealth. And the AVERAGE German unit experience will be higher too in my designs for this same timeframe.

On the flip side of the coin, the Allied units may get a "supply boost." At the least, the US/UK artillery spotters will usually get more rounds when left to me.

It's because of the "closeness" of the opposing combatants in CMBO's setting that gave BTS some allowance to stay away from hard "nationality" rules for now. So it's left to us scenario designers to provide the game "color", which is my preference anyway. However, again, steering away from nationality may be a bit more daunting for the East Front setting of CM2.

As to Weigley et al, RMC, I stated earlier that Doubler didn't completely refute the findings of Weigley, Creveld, and SLM Marshall, among others. (Marshall, for example, ascribed the view that only 15% of US infantrymen were actually willing to fire their weapons in combat, but never substantiated the view with data or comprehensive field study, as Doubler also pointed out). But Doubler presents his arguments in the more recent "Closing with the Enemy" in a compelling way to state that there was more to the US "sharp edge" than just sitting back to let the artillery and ground-attack aircraft do all of the work. The bocage-busting tactics developed by 29th Division in Jul '44 stand as one stark example of contrast to the generalizations of Weigley & Marshall on US ground combat effectiveness.

So again, I prefer that "nationality" design be left to me. I concur that on average, the German soldier of '44 was more proficient than his Allied counterparts, but historically at the small-unit level, there can be a WIDE scatterband from the "average" for both sides.

(As I edit this, maybe I should've deleted instead as you've posted my exact views before me, Germanboy. )

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 07-17-2000).]