Varying Quality

[Ancient One]

Do units from different nationalities on the same side have different levels of quality? For example, are Italian or Rumanian forces of lower quality than German, or are they exactly the same.

[Desert Dave]

This is an excellent question.

Units do have variable ratings for soft/tank attack and defense, so it seems logical to suppose that regular Wehrmacht would be superior to Rumanian or other minor units.

Same with air and sea power -- does Britain have an inherent advantage over Italian navy -- or was that mostly due to poor leadership?

[BloodyBucket]

Someone said that different nationalities will start the '39 game with different research already in place. This will give each major some flavor.

Since leaders and units get positive or negative experience bonuses from past success or failure, in the campaigns that start later you could argue for differences based on that.

The '39 game sort of starts with a clean slate, so I am leery of prejudging the combatants. The Italians might have fought like lions for a different leader, and the early German conquests could have been bungled.

[Desert Dave]

As Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The '39 game sort of starts with a clean slate, so I am leery of prejudging the combatants. The Italians might have fought like lions for a different leader, and the early German conquests could have been bungled.

So in a sense you are arguing for letting each game player's skills determine what the attached units' rating will be?

That's an interesting idea -- after all, what exact evidence is there that all that barracks training, in Prussia or traditional German military academies, did any good?

OTOH, you are right to suggest that the HQ ratings (with subjective rating applied to the leaders) DOES establish a hiearchy of some sort.

[Straha]

BB: But I think Ancient One was not asking so much about the majors (even if differences here are of interest, too, of course), but minors like Hungary etc.

So the question still stands: will e.g. a Rumanian corps have different values than a German corps?

Straha

[ May 04, 2002, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[BloodyBucket]

It's an interesting design question. Perhaps a German 10 strenth unit might represent 50,000 men, and an Rumanian or Italian 10 strength unit 80,000 (Just using those numbers as an example).

I would guess that minors could be limited in max strength for a corps or army. We know that research can raise the max strength of major power units.

The HQ will have a big effect, I think. Since HQ ratings are built in, that will make some countries more effective than others.

I just don't think that the historical performance of a particular country should absolutely limit a players chances in the game. Kind of a balancing act for the designer.

No arguement here that German training and doctrine made a difference, I'm just saying that it shouldn't mean the German (or any other) forces in SC always win a battle because "that's how it went in real life".

[SuperTed]

Guys,

The basic units (corps, armies, etc.) have the same ratings. The biggest difference will be found in the quality of the HQ units. As an example, Germany starts with two HQ units (Bock and Runstedt) and Poland has none (I am pretty sure none of the minors have HQ units). Also, France starts without an HQ unit, making them little or no threat to the Germans.

Since HQ units act as a supply point and greatly improve the readiness of attached units, having good ones and enough of them is vital to the success of any nation.

German HQ units are generally superior to their Allied counterparts, especially early in the war. This is probably the biggest single reason why the Germans are so successful early in the war. Oddly enough, some may argue the same thing happened in that little shindig called World War II.

Of course, research will have an impact as well. But this impact is limited to specific units.

So, when you are looking for national "personalities," look no further than the HQ units.

[Straha]

Thanks, SuperTed. But if I understood correctly, then this means that assigning a Rumanian corps to Manstein gives it the same readiness as assigning a German corps to him, while the Rumanian corps under Manstein would be more efficient than a German corps under Bock.

Is that correct? If yes: shouldn´t there still be differences? I mean, where did the line at Stalingrad break?

Straha

[SuperTed]

Straha,

I seem to have neglected a point that you exposed.

HQ units only affect forces of their own nationality. So, the minor allies will be largely ineffective, as they should be. I believe this is the answer to the inexpensive garrison question.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

So, the minor allies will be largely ineffective, as they should be.

Even the Canadians? :eek: Historically, Canadians were the highest quality troops the Allies had.

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:

So, the minor allies will be largely ineffective, as they should be.

Even the Canadians? :eek: Historically, Canadians were the highest quality troops the Allies had.</font>

[Titan]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:

So, the minor allies will be largely ineffective, as they should be.

Even the Canadians? :eek: Historically, Canadians were the highest quality troops the Allies had.</font>

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

Even the Canadians? :eek: Historically, Canadians were the highest quality troops the Allies had.

Ahem...

I'm publicly and loudly declaring that, even though I have posted to this thread, that I, nor any relative of mine, living or dead, nor anyone I know, had anything to do with making Canadians in SC a minor power without headquarters.

The above statement applies to Aussies, Kiwis, Indians, and all other former or present countries that might be considered, or were considered, part of the empire.

The ensuing firestorm of protest and justifiable posting of numerous examples of the fine combat records of said nations, should in no way be aimed at yours truly.

I am now retiring to my bomb shelter to watch the show. :eek:

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SuperTed:

Remember, a game of this scale is going to have a heavy dose of abstraction and many specific ingredients will not be discernible in the "soup" that is the finished product. However, the goal is to make great soup, and not to worry about how much of each ingredient is in it. Trust me; Hubert makes great soup!

At the coming out party, do we have to wear bibs?

I look silly in a bib.

Point taken.

At the individual or squad level, each nation's soldiers were equally brave and valorous, no doubt about it.

BloodyBucket's original insight, which you elaborated on, that HQ units would make all the difference, is a good one.

[Straha]

The solution to let minors not benefit from the headquarters is close to perfect within the given frame IMO. It nicely simulates the quirks in the command structure when foreign units were subordinated under another nations command. Of course it is an abstraction, but a very elegant one.

Straha

[Darren J Pierson]

Hmmm. Perhaps I am confused (which can happen regularly), but I think it would be a stretch to consider the commonwealth troops as being as "foreign" to a British HQ as non-commonwealth countries. I'm not an expert on the era (compared to most people here) but if the commonwealth troops become equal to every other Allied minor (Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, etc.) then I think it will be problematic. I would assume that this would greatly diminish the effectiveness of the British (commonwealth) forces.

I won't get into the debate over who had the best troops (Texas or Canada or the other great Imperial nations), but I do find this decision alarming. I have been looking for a good strategic level game for a long time and I had hoped SC would be it. I'm afraid it might not be. I'm sure it will still be an outstanding game though. Just not my cup of tea.

Of course, I could be confused. Most of the game sounds really good.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

(Please note that BB was not harmed in the making of this post. )

Edited due to confusion.

[ May 04, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[Mr. Clark]

As this has apparently not been a problem in the BETA testing, I don't see that it will be a problem in the game... CERTAINLY not a game breaking problem!

I like the system. It seems to be a good, yet simple answer.

Sometimes the command structure breaks down even within a single countries units! On a much smaller scale, take for example the problems faced with coordinating both the Rangers and the Delta boys in the novel Black Hawk Down.

[Straha]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

Hmmm. Perhaps I am confused (which can happen regularly), but I think it would be a stretch to consider the commonwealth troops as being as "foreign" to a British HQ as non-commonwealth countries.

That's part of why I wrote that it is an abstraction (for it also levels out some degrees of difference which surely were there). Indeed, I can't recall myself right now on how the effectiveness of the command structure Axis/Axis minor fared compared to UK/Canada. Surely, among the Axis itself it would vary greatly depending on the kind of troops, the personal relations of the commanders and subcommanders etc.

And UK/Canada cooperation was probably much smoother than USA/UK!

Straha

[ May 04, 2002, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[Darren J Pierson]

I will have to read the information again on the function of HQ's in the game. I admit that I have not studied the issue in any detail.

Will the NZ, Indian, Aussie, etc. troops be handled as minors as well or will they be part of the British Army since their production centers are off map? (This may have been addressed elsewhere. I shall check.)

Going out on a limb, if I recall correctly the Canadian Army (in Europe) used the British logistical network and didn't create one of their own. Even when Canada finally created the First (?) Canadian Army in NW Europe a large part of it wasn't Canadian at all. It also had Polish and British formations. I have no clue how efficiently the command structure was.

All command structures had personality conflicts, I'm certain. Adding different nations I'm sure made it worse. The unique thing about the British (commonwealth) Army was that they managed to blend the members of the Empire pretty well. There were certainly major issues, but there were also commonwealth officers that served on RN ships w/o serious issues, as an example. I remember reading a book by a former member of the PPCLI (Once a Patricia, perhaps? I can't remember.) He spoke of the discomfort of the watering down of the regiment by war's end. Many of the members didn't really belong to the PPCLI and were only posted there. It broke up some of the feeling of family, but I don't think it affected combat effectiveness.

What's my point after rambling so long? I believe that the designer of this game has very good ideas and this abstraction may work quite well in the end. I just feel that having "one rule" to apply to all minor nations might not be the best way to go. However, this isn't my game, I'm not a designer. I certainly wish the game great success and will be quite happy if my fears do not come to fruition.

Edited due to lingering confusion.

[ May 04, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Darren J Pierson ]

[ropey]

Originally posted by Titan:

I dont know about that,the New Zealanders had a damn good reputation.whenever i think of canadan's during ww2 i think of depiepe or howeveryou spell it.

Kiwis,now lets think. Crete,El Alamein,Monte Cassino(made the breakthrough after many attempts by poles etc) plus many others

Much as Kiwis would like to take credit, our attacks on Cassino were all eventually failures, and it was the Poles who finally took it. Not to take anything away from our fighting abilities, our campaigns are marked by failure as much as success - Greece/Crete, Mareth Line, Orsogna/Cassino vs El Alamein, and the pursuits in Libya and Italy. This makes for a closer comparison between the two countries' performances.

[ May 04, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: ropey ]

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

Hmmm. Perhaps I am confused (which can happen regularly), but I think it would be a stretch to consider the commonwealth troops as being as "foreign" to a British HQ as non-commonwealth countries. I'm not an expert on the era (compared to most people here) but if the commonwealth troops become equal to every other Allied minor (Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, etc.) then I think it will be problematic. I would assume that this would greatly diminish the effectiveness of the British (commonwealth) forces.

I won't get into the debate over who had the best troops (Texas or Canada or the other great Imperial nations), but I do find this decision alarming. I have been looking for a good strategic level game for a long time and I had hoped SC would be it. I'm afraid it might not be. I'm sure it will still be an outstanding game though. Just not my cup of tea.

Of course, I could be confused. Most of the game sounds really good.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

(Please note that BB was not harmed in the making of this post. )

Edited due to confusion.

Darren,

Canada is really the only exception here. However, they only have two units; an army and a corps. So, if these units are used for garrison duty or as reserves, there really should be no problem.

[Hubert Cater]

I'm actually Canadian, does this make it worse

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I'm actually Canadian, does this make it worse

Hubert,

That explains a lot!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ancient One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:

So, the minor allies will be largely ineffective, as they should be.

Even the Canadians? :eek: Historically, Canadians were the highest quality troops the Allies had.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

The British and Canadian armies should be considered as one - all Canadian troops trained in British schools, on British ranges, and learned directly at the hands of Montgomery personally (when in command of SE Army) and the British. Their manuals were British (reprinted in Ottawa), their equipment and tactics were all lessons of the desert, and several Canadians had fought in North Africa with the British Army to gain battle experience.

The Canadians, in a large strategic sense, can be lumped in with the British. First Canadian Army, as suggested, was largely British - in fact, more Brits served in First Canadian Army than in the British 8th Army at El Alamein.

So if the 8th Army is to be considered "British" despite the number of foreigners in it, so too must First "Canadian" Army.