Why I hate Green troops

[History Buff]

I just finished a game of Fear in the Fog and can tell you why I hate Green troops. They die to easily. (But probably realistically).

Funny, I look through the units and the regular units and the few veterans are truely making a punch, while the green troops are useless in the battle, and the only really good purpose I saw for them was as multiple targets to confuse the opponent. At lease the difference in experience is evident. But in any QB I'd take very few Green and below level troops, how about everyone else????

[Priest]

Of course better units are preferable.

Personally I think green units can be effective, you just have to be patient, careful, and make sure CnC is maintained. Are they as good as vets or even regs? Of course not that is why they are green!

[Triumvir]

I'd rather take greens on the attack. The sheer weight you can bring on the enemy, especially in larger games, is enough, especially when you come to artillery. HE kills, not bullets. All you have to do is, well, treat your troops realistically. This means no 400m charges over open ground. No assaults without first softening up the target positions. CAREFUL recon.

I'll be more than happy to take you on in a PBEM if you'd like.

On defence, though, greens have issues. Strangely, the better the enemy attackers, the better it is for the green player since the opposing infantry will run out ammo that much faster and become vulnerable to counterattacks.

[Panzer Leader]

When am defending, I actually prefer greens, since I cn buy so many more of them, thus bringing the balance if not into my favor, at least closer to it.

The goal is to have them concealed and in good contact with HQ, with a Company HQ waiting in fall-back positions. I create fall-back positions by splitting squads, with half-squads in the second line of defense behind the first. (This creates foxholes.) Then on turn 1, I sneak the half-squads back to their brothers, hopefully without being detected.

It works - sometimes

[lcm1947]

Sounds like a good idea Panzer Leader I'll have to try that. I hate spliting my troops up normally seems they get chewed up too much but like you said if they can make it back in one piece that sounds like it may be a good tactic. Thanks for the idea.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by History Buff:

I just finished a game of Fear in the Fog and can tell you why I hate Green troops. They die to easily. (But probably realistically).

Funny, I look through the units and the regular units and the few veterans are truely making a punch, while the green troops are useless in the battle, and the only really good purpose I saw for them was as multiple targets to confuse the opponent. At lease the difference in experience is evident. But in any QB I'd take very few Green and below level troops, how about everyone else????

"I just finished a game of Fear in the Fog and can tell you why I hate Green troops. They die to easily. (But probably realistically)."

Sure Green troops are harder to work with, yes they die and break more easily, BUT their strength lies in numbers and I really do beleive they behave in combat FAR more realitically than their more "experienced" brothers who have the uncanny ability to stand to the last man and then he is REALLY hard to kill.

If I understand the hints correctly reg units in CMBB will behave MORE like green troops in Cmbo so you might want to think about that

-tom w

[PiggDogg]

ICM,

Generally, don't fight with split squads. Use the splits to dig first & second line foxholes.

After the splits dig their holes, send one half of the splits to the other half of the splits. Let them join together. Then defend the forward line for one shot (and only one shot) & immediately withdraw to the second line.

Cheers, Richard

[xerxes]

Greenies seem much more realistic to me. They don't charge mgs across open ground. They hit the dirt when under fire. They really like good cover. They dont' respond like uber-soldiers. If they break, they don't return to battle in 2 minutes. I prefer green troop battles.

On defense in a QB, greenies have a definite advantage due to their numbers.

Try attacking with conscripts, you'll be dying for a couple of "elite" green squads.

[Ron]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Try attacking with conscripts, you'll be dying for a couple of "elite" green squads.

Lol! I recall one computer-generated QB where I was assigned a Conscript horde and I couldn't even get off of the start-line! :eek:

Ron

[Warmaker]

Personally, I hate green/conscripts. I prefer regular and veteran units with an occasional, small, elite formation for the hard hitting reserve or to take on important objectives.

The green/conscripts have their uses though... artillery and bullet sponges. Not much else. I've personally had a platoon of veterans repel the close assault of a company's worth of greenies. Now THAT was satisfying.

[Capricornelius]

You should read Paul Fussell's Wartime: Understanding & Behavior In The Second World War. He says that men in combat go through 3 stages, veterans exhibiting Process #3. First of all they think "It'll never happen to me" and have never seen what bullets, mines, etc. do to flesh.

Then they think "It might happen, but if I take more cover, keep extra alert, etc. I can avoid it."

Stage 3 involves them thinking: "It WILL happen to me - I can avoid it by getting out of here!"

Green troops, he goes on to say, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature.

To quote Sergeant Carwood Lipton of Screaming Eagles: "I took chances on D-Day I would never have taken later in the war." And remember - this Division had never seen action prior to D-Day.

Just a little extra morsel to chew on .

[ July 04, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Capricornelius ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Capricornelius:

You should read Paul Fussell's Wartime: Understanding & Behavior In The Second World War. He says that men in combat go through 3 stages, veterans exhibiting Process #3. First of all they think "It'll never happen to me" and have never seen what bullets, mines, etc. do to flesh.

Then they think "It might happen, but if I take more cover, keep extra alert, etc. I can avoid it."

Stage 3 involves them thinking: "It WILL happen to me - I can avoid it by getting out of here!"

Green troops, he goes on to say, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature.

To quote Sergeant Carwood Lipton of Screaming Eagles: "I took chances on D-Day I would never have taken later in the war." And remember - this Division had never seen action prior to D-Day.

Just a little extra morsel to chew on .

"Green troops, he goes on to say, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature."

That is a VERY interesting comment and post!

How the hell can you model that behaviour in Green troops in the game???

"To quote Sergeant Carwood Lipton of Screaming Eagles: "I took chances on D-Day I would never have taken later in the war." And remember - this Division had never seen action prior to D-Day."

I'm sure that was true, but how to model brave and risk taking behaviour in green troops.

it seems just the opposite in CMBO the Vets, Crack and Elite troops "seem" to be ALOT braver in combat conditions, they last longer and don't get hit or killed as fast as green troops doing the same mission.

This notion of:"Green troops, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature" would be VERY hard indeed to model, maybe the "health/youth/stamina" factor in CMBB will be a factor here but I doubt that will make those green troops "brave" with a "youthfully naive zeal", Just try to model that?! How the hell could green troops in CMBB model and display that "youthfully naive zeal"?? :confused:

oh well

VERY interesting comment!

-tom w

[sebastian]

Originally posted by Capricornelius:

Green troops, he goes on to say, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature.

AFAIK the first us-units to hit the beaches on d-day were completely unexpierenced national guard boys. exactly for the reason named above.

[xerxes]

You can make greenies behave like what you've described in a scenario. Just put in greenies and set fanaticism to maximum. You'll get a pretty close match to what happened on D-Day.

Some of the greenies hung on to the Land craft, others froze in the water, others made it to the beach and got in cover and stayed there. Those are the greens that didn't happen to go fanatic.

The greens that stormed the mg nests, advanced under a hail of bullets and mg fire across open terrain, scaled sheer cliffs knowing there were Germans at the top, etc, those were the ones that were "fanatical".

[Capricornelius]

I suppose you could use "stubbornness" and "aggro" levels like I have noted Airborne Assault does:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/aa/Images/AA2.jpg

[ July 04, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Capricornelius ]

[Andrew H.]

The green troops that Fussel is describing are the "green" paratroopers of the 101st Airborne. I don't think that they would be modelled as "green" in CM...

But *most* US infantry troops in the first several months following D-Day probably should be modeled as green. First, because they were, and second, because CM battles with green US attackers look a lot like the real thing.

Of course, if you're attacking with green troops, you probably need to use vaguely historical tactics - suppression, artillery, coordination. Rushing green troops into hand-to-hand combat vs. unsuppressed entrenched troops will not work. (Although your greenies will probably break after taking just a few casualties, so they may be useful in a few more turns).

[ryddle]

I would like to use greenies more (with supression, etc), however I always feel under the gun with the time alotment for each game. If I only have 30 turns in a 1500point QB, I'm conscious of every turn that it takes me to scout, get into position, supress, rally troops, etc.

Is it just me or does anyone else find the time constraints tough when using green troops? If not, how do you do it?

-R

[Warmaker]

Well, greenies will always take a while to act. They'll move after picking their noses and eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Seriously, when leading the greenies/conscripts, keeping them within command and control of their HQ is absolutely crucial, not to mention any HQ with morale bonuses.

With veteran/better units, you can gamble by sending detachments without being in C&C of a HQ since they can act better independently than say a lone green rifle sqd.

Again, while I dislike greenies/conscripts, they've got uses and I don't mind some extra men to supplement my veterans. It's also a matter of making do with what you've got...

[russellmz]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I'm sure that was true, but how to model brave and risk taking behaviour in green troops.

it seems just the opposite in CMBO the Vets, Crack and Elite troops "seem" to be ALOT braver in combat conditions, they last longer and don't get hit or killed as fast as green troops doing the same mission.

This notion of:"Green troops, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature" would be VERY hard indeed to model, maybe the "health/youth/stamina" factor in CMBB will be a factor here but I doubt that will make those green troops "brave" with a "youthfully naive zeal", Just try to model that?! How the hell could green troops in CMBB model and display that "youthfully naive zeal"?? :confused:

oh well

VERY interesting comment!

-tom w

study the holy scriptures handed down by the bfc ones in the cmbb faq: they plan to make lower level units have the "human wave" command where morale stiffens to a point. higher level units will probably use the "assault" command in its place.

[CRSutton]

Historically Green troops can be strong on attack but to say they are better at attacking than veteran troops is a poor generalization. Green troops if well led and well organized,and if they actually find the correct jumping off point, and if they don't break from a counter barrage and so on, might drive a quick attack home. There are historical examples of this. However, I would venture that there are more and better historical examples of green troops just screwing up and dieing rather than pulling off a sucessful attack.

I speak on this more as a student of the American Civil War, where green soldiers frequently were thrown into battle. Usually, they possessed high elan but they were faster to check and break due to the initial shock of battle. ("Seeing the Elephant") I don't think many generals would opt for green over veterans.

[Redwolf]

Also don't forget HQ bonusses. A green unit under a 2+ morale HQ has the morale of veterans. If needed, attack under a company or battalion HQ if the platoon officers are too braindead.