Special Corps - maybe for SC II

[Curry]

I wonder if SC II will have anything like this. And I'm sure we have discussed this before in some way but thought I would put it out there again.

Special Units.

- Not just an American Ranger battalion or another elite unit of any country. I think that would be way too small to represent in SC. But what about like the Waffen SS. They were formed not in battalions but in divisions and could fight along side each other. Perhaps for the game purposes a corps that could be raised for extra MPP and have an extra point of strength or starts with a bar of experience. Or, both an extra point and an extra bar of experience.

This came to my mind when Jersey mentioned how in the plains wars with the Americans Indians the US calvary solider would acutally save the last bullet for himself because the Indians didnt take prisoners except for women and children and would torture prisoners.

My father, who fought as a foot solider accross Europe as a part of Patton's army, (If I can brag on my dad I'm proud to say he has two purple hearts and one bronze star) he would say the German's were just soliders doing their job like we were doing ours. We understood them and had respect for them, we always treated them with respect when we captured them. But with the Waffen SS it was different. He said they would quickly find out if they were fighting the SS and it was different. (He never got into the details of what "different" meant but from the context it meant they fought much harder and prisoners wern't taken on either side)

I have also read where on the Russian front the Waffen SS just did not surrender. Because they knew that the Russians did not take Waffen SS as prisoners. Much like the American calvary in the plains wars I guess. Has anyone else heard this?

[ April 01, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Curry ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Russian & Germans take prisoners, heck no. Nowhere to put them. Warm beds & hot meals weren't available in Stalingrad.

How about attaching Leaders to specific units? That would be cool.

[Edwin P.]

Attaching Leaders to specific Units. I like that.

Especially if the leader gave the unit a specific bonus and/or penalty.

For example:

Patton: +1 Action Point (ie move 1 more hex)

Lucas: +1 SD (Soft Defense) & -1 Action Point (move 1 less hex) (A cautious general who commanded the invasion at Anzio)

As for a special corps I would say allow each major power to field one, and only one, Elite Unit which would have a +25% readiness bonus due to superior equipment and supplies.

[Wehrmacht]

Why only one? Corps was about 60000 men, right?

But Germans had 1000000 Waffen SS soldiers in 1945.

But for the leaders, I like that idea very much.

And I think your idea Edwin, that leaders would add bonuses and penalties is great. I hope this will be included in SC2

[Curry]

Attaching a leader sounds like a good idea.

Also, leaders with more in depth ratings would be much better. For instance, I like the idea of giving Patton an extra action point.

Or on Monty: I think it was Churchhill himself that said of Mongomery, "He is inscrutable on offense and insurmontable on defense." Which sums up my feelings on Monty wholeheartly. He should be like a 6 on offense and a 9 on defense. (sorry to my UK friends, just my view, and I think Churchhill's too. ).

[Curry]

Wehrmacht, I think it depends on which army it was on how large a coprs was. I'm not sure but I'm sure someone can fill us in.

I did not mean just one. As many that you wished to purchase but for the extra MMP. It would have to be expensive in MPP I would think.

[Edwin P.]

Perhaps a Corps or an Army that cost 2x normal price to compensate for the superior combat effectiveness/readiness of the unit.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Perhaps only to muddy the waters here, but if not mistaken, Russia was not signed into the Geneva Setup, and as such, there were no bariers it barbaric behaviour.

So it was not that the Germans or Russians were inherently barbaric, there was just nothing saying they couldn't be so, or rather, there was nothing in the way of repercussions in place.

I don't think the Japanese were signed on either, although that is another significantly differing culture as well involved.

But I am not so sure, that units were quiiiiiiite special enough to merit special status.

Otherwise give the British the ability to replace the Canadian counters with new ones if lost. Because we didn't just send one army out eh

Additionally, the Waffen SS took half of the war before they A. had a clue how to fight as well as the regulars, and B did not start off with Corps sized formations possible.

I would not give them a corps much earlier than any campaign earlier than 43.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The uniqueness of the Waffen SS and similar groups within a nations military is a fascinating subject to study. While almost every nation can form unique (I hesitate to use the term "elite") units at a smaller level (company and battalion sized), its very rare for them to be at the higher end of unit organizations (divisions and corps).

The US had its equivalent in WWII, they were called US Marines. What made the Waffen SS and the US Marines unique, were the fact that they were a seperate group, within the military forces of thier respective nations. The German Army and US Army (like any other large organizations), have to enforce a certain standarized way of approaching and doing things. Thats fine for the majority, but what about those mavericks who feel constrained by those rules? Or even worse, want to try it a different way? The Marines and the Waffen SS both gave those individuals someplace to go. And for those organizations to survive, they have to either become better (or be perceived as better) than the norm, else they will be absorbed into the normal military, losing thier identity and uniqeness.

Back to SC... How do you represent this in a wargame? Or should you? Most of us know that the Waffen SS got the better equipment before the regular German Army units. And for the individual soldiers in the Waffen SS, I believe stating that he was more "fanatical" than your typical German soldier would be accurate (and it would be equally appropriate for a US Marine as well). So a "typical" Waffen SS division would have more combat power than a "typical" German Army division. Problem is, the Waffen SS divisions were spread out among the German Army higher formations (Corps and Armies).

So what it comes down to, is that the German military units, should on average, be better than thier opponents. And SC does let us represent that, by the experience bar.

Even so, it still doesn't seem right, not to have a Waffen SS unit on the map. So when I get a German Corp with 3 or 4 bars of experience, I rename them to "Waffen SS". Then I'm happy.

[jon_j_rambo]

German units get 1-bar experience, why? Who were they better than? Maybe the Russians, but not the British & Americans. Read the statistics on the combat results versus the Western Allies. Patton had a 3 to 1 kill ratio, the best survival rate in WW-2 of troops.

The German foot soldier was inferior to the Western Allies. British commandos were deadly against the so called master race. The master race folded like a cheap lawn chair in France.

The United States had the best soldies of WW-2, no doubt about it. Where's the 101st Airborne? Wheres the 82nd? They held off Germany's finest in the Bulge. The Waffen SS hide from the front line combat, & only worked easy areas.

Germans overated, United States & Great Britain deserve the Elite troops in SC.

[kossuth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

[QB] Russian & Germans take prisoners, heck no. Nowhere to put them. Warm beds & hot meals weren't available in Stalingrad

In stalingrad, maybe not. But they took prisorners on both sides. My grandfather where caught in Don river -43, and died in a russian prison camp -47 !!! (Damn communists)

And my brother sold his iron cross, (I NEVER forgive him)

About the SS and Russian not taking prisoners; that is the common story. Question is if it is fiction or fact. BUT its a very common belief.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Rambo

I suspect that I have read more official reports than you have on WWII combat effectivness. So I could say the same thing back about you reading the "statistics on the combat results versus the Western Allies". But I will just say I have and I also recognize the political slant that certain "official" histories have taken.

Its generally accepted by the majority of military professionals, that the German military was more combat effective than the Russians or the Western Allies. The debate is in just how much. The statistical analysis is almost always traced back to the work done by Col DuPuy, who did his work when he put together the Quantified Judgement Model.

Of the 89 or so US Army divisions, you would be hard pressed to find 10% of them that could be considered "better than normal". The US personnel replacement policy made sure that any expertise a division had, was diluted as soon as it received replacements.

Lastly, who do you think the US Army copied after WWII? Not to mention the Russians and Israel.

[Bill101]

Wehrmacht: The Waffen SS might have had a million men in 1945, but that doesn't mean that they were all excellent soldiers. Casualties and the need to find lots of replacements had diluted their quality.

As to Germans being no better than the western allies, pace Rambo, a friend of mine who spent the whole war fighting the Germans doesn't agree. On average, man for man, they were better.

It has to be remembered that by 1944/45 things were changing as the Germans were scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower replacements. Just how many of the German soldiers in France on DDay were fit and able bodied Germans, rather than members of "foot and mouth" battalions, or east european conscripts?

Les is also right about the Waffen SS during the first few years of the war. They got their backsides tanned in Poland, and it wasn't until a few years later that they became good.

As to elite units, they should be both expensive and rare. I think that the current method of gaining experience covers this - the Germans generally have 4 star armies on the eastern front by 1942/43, and the allies can get these too if they play well.