historical proportions of troop quality levels...

[Jeff Heidman]

One of the things that allowed the Germans to keep mounting defenses (and the occasional offense) was the great success they ahd with the cadre system.

They would take these veteran divisions that had been decimated, and use the cadre of NCOs and junior officers to lead divisions of raw recruits, and this actually worked surprisingly well. Of course, this only applies to the "name" units, many of the static and scratch units had consdcript troops led by green officers and NCOs.

This could be reflected in CM by having green and/or conscript squads led by regular and veteran platoon leaders, maybe with a single regular squad in the platoon, but I am not certain that the leader benefits given in CM are significant enough to really make much of a difference. My "gut" feeling is that a green squad led by a veteran leader does not last much longer than a green squad led by a green leader; in either case it breaks pretty quickly, whereas the Germans tended to find that even green troops could approximate regular troops with proper leadership.

Jeff Heidman

[JasonC]

Green units that fought well are actually rather common. The case you mentioned is one. Another is many of the new Germany infantry formations thrown together in the summer of 1944, which held at the west wall (the "miracle of the west"). The new SS and FJ formations in the west (e.g. 17 SS in the Caretan, the FJ in front of St. Lo, 12 SS in Epsom) also gave an excellent account of themselves.

One thing to notice is that if you use greens often, you will get occasional excellent performances from them out of sheer randomness. But some of these cases are arguably better than that. CM gives designers another way to handle them - the fanaticism setting.

You can allow or disallow fanatic behavior for greens, and you can set how often it occurs at rare, 25%, or 50% of units. Greens with 50% fanaticism are very tough. They don't shoot any straighter and they are still slow to react to orders, but many will fight to the last man and never panic.

Such a high setting for greens is probably only appropriate for rare cases, like late war German youngsters who didn't know enough to be properly terrified of combat. But greens with 25% fanaticism can be used far more frequently, and might be the best option for many of the historical cases mentioned. In some cases with high quality manpower, cadre, and reasonable training, regular quality plus 25% fanaticism may be used, even for technically "green" units (meaning no prior combat).

In CMBB, we will have another rating to use, fitness level. By using that for manpower quality (modified by fatigue), quality level for experience, training and leadership, and fanaticism settings to reflect motivation and morale when it is higher than the quality level, designers will be able to depict quite varied types of infantry. Instead of just one scale of quality from bad to good, we will be able to show different sorts of strengths and weaknesses.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Cribtop Gamer:

What I (and others) would like to know is if it will be the same in CMBB?? OR will we be able to have greater freedom and have a 'unrestricted' option for 'Troop Quality' while setting the parameters for a QB? Thank you.

[JasonC]

I have a number of comments on the cadre issue that Jeff raised. As I think I already said earlier, the ordinary form of "regular" quality level units a ways into a war is veteran cadre with green rank and file, simply due to losses. Out of the original privates, a third or a quarter are still around and thus experienced. But they have been promoted to corporal and sergeant. The old squad sergeants are platoon sergeants, and the platoon sergeants are company first sergeants, etc. While a veteran private is almost a contradiction in terms, if the unit has experienced any serious losses.

Meanwhile the same thing happening in the officer corps means "lieutenant" (especially "2nd lieutenant") is virtually synonomous with "green". The experienced ones are leading companies (whether actually promote to Captain or not - 1st Lieus often led companies). Their previous superiors have been wounded, promoted to battalion, or absorbed by the ravenous needs of staff positions.

A unit that has a core of 1/3 to 1/4 of its final manpower from a pre-existing unit with combat experience is said to "have a cadre", because it can fill all the roles above private and 2nd lieutenant by bumping the veteran men higher in the organization chart, filling the lower positions with new green replacements. Thus the term "cadre" comes to mean two distinct things - the leadership of a unit, and a step-reduced remnant of a unit. Because one can be used to create the other, if replacements become available to reverse the loss in size.

As for how to depict this in CM, the platoon HQs should be every bit as green as the line squads, and only regular quality if you think the overall unit should be. Because the 2nd Lieu's are a green position, the same as privates. It is true a cadre unit has a platoon sergeant with combat experience, and that certainly does make a difference. But it is probably someone new to platoon command, used to leading at most a squad.

So, the squads and the platoon HQs should be regular or green, or mixed regular and green platoons in a company, with each whole platoon one type.

The company and battalion HQs can be higher quality, however. Regulars for greens, or even veterans. It is not that hard to fill the few positions involved at this level with capable veteran men, if the unit was formed from a cadre. What difference does this typically make in CM? Depends on how well the player uses it. It can make little difference if he does not use it well. But used rightly, it can increase the flexibility of the overall formation and especially its ability to rally and reform.

Higher HQs, especially ones with good command ratings (star bonuses), can make even green troops move out smartly. They can rally the stragglers (especially if they have morale bonuses, naturally). They will not break under fire as easily as green platoon HQs, and so can restore command function to squads "abandoned" by a panicking or broken platoon HQ. They can command an ad hoc platoon of any reasonable size, drawn from any of the sub-units of a company, if one part of the plan is particularly critical or requires more rapid adaptation of orders.

You can mix the green and regular quality levels to reflect the varying levels of NCO quality available from the old cadre unit, or the presence of a larger number of "old hands" even at lower positions. E.g. one platoon and perhaps weapons section regular quality, two platoons and perhaps the weapons section green, company HQ regular or veteran.

The commander then has tactical options, but must get the most out of his greens to fight as a "full sized" unit instead of a "reduced" one. This works better than mixing quality within each platoon, since a platoon has to move and fight as a unit at the CM scale.

As for the issue of how many cadre cases the Germans had, I discussed that in my first post in the thread. By no means were all the new formations that fought in the west formed from veteran cadres. 5 of the heer infantry divisions that fought in Normandy were formed that way, but the majority were not. As mentioned, 12SS and 17SS had half the number of officers and NCOs they were supposed to, which means that half the men performing NCO duties were completely green. In some of the FJ units, only 1 out of 5 of the NCOs had any combat experience. So it wasn't just the heer infantry as a "poor cousin". There were not enough experienced NCOs to go around.

And some large formations of German units fought quiet poorly because of it. The static units garrisoning the south and west of France, for instance, actually outnumbered the Allied force that invaded from that direction. (Patton turned east too far north to run into them). But they lost half their force getting away, and other than the 11th Panzer fought badly.

These formations included some overage men, some impressed easterners, and very few had any combat experience. Much of the force in the rest of France was similar - units formed for garrison duties in the course of 1942 and 1943, that hadn't moved since. And the part of the force that got away from Normandy - half of the men from the south and west, and almost all of the men from the channel and Holland - were disportionally of this description. The more mobile units were the ones chewed up in the fighting.

There was also a breakdown in the German cadre system after the summer of 1944. The expansion of the army needed to reform both fronts after the enourmous losses of that summer (in France and especially in Bagration in the east) involved throwing away the book and playing catch as catch can. This had some curious byproducts.

For instance, in front of Metz one of the divisions that stopped the northern prong of Patton's 3rd Army in September, was formed mostly around school units stationed at Metz to provide officer and NCO training to experienced enlisted men. One third of the division was overaged reservists designated for fortress defense only. But the other two third were formed respectively from the NCO class and the officer class. These were enlisted men picked out of the whole German army for promotion to sergeant or lieutenant on the basis of combat performance.

In the crisis of September they were thrown into the line as simple infantry regiments. Needless to say they fought superbly in that capacity, but obviously they were not available to the rest of the army when so employed. The schools and training grounds were practically emptied in the fall of 1944, and length of training before commitment to combat was (on average) cut in half.

And sometimes the "cadre" around which a unit formed was not significantly more experienced than raw recruits. Divisions were formed from fortress battalions, signals corps units, Luftwaffe ground crews, excess naval personnel, and militarized police. The enourmous German "replacement army" shrank as the fielded Heer expanded. They emptied the pipeline to just get enough men in front of the Russians and western Allies quickly. These expedients continued through the end of the year; by the begining of 1945 they were played out.

So despite experienced men in leadership positions in some units, by the fall of 1944 the German army in the west was getting pretty green, cadre practices notwithstanding. There really isn't any way to lose 3 million men in 3 months and not have unit quality take part of the hit. It was amazing they managed to put a line back together at all. It was mostly green men that then held at the borders of Germany.

[K_Tiger]

We hade those quality discussions long time before.

I think, the most important part is the leadership. If you have an experienced unit with a bad leadership who send you on the wrong point into combat, you will loose.

Also i do everytime wonder about some guys tryed allways to compare the german with the Allied quallitys or they combat effectivnes. How would the US, Brits, Canadians, Russians...ect. perform, if they were attacked by a comparable overhelming forces like the Allied hade in Air and Arty plus other supporting units??

Not to mention the luxury supply situation (in most parts) the western allies hade. My Grandpa telled me, sometimes they were lucky to get a handfull of ammo, this isnt the way to hold the combat effectivnes to a decent limit. Also to known of the own quality tanks like breakdowns or few capazity of fuel, or to knwo not reach in save conditions the frontline due to bombardments or true partisans...IMHO its really hard to compare both armys without to include those happenings.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

One of the things that allowed the Germans to keep mounting defenses (and the occasional offense) was the great success they ahd with the cadre system.

Was this any different from the British/Canadian LOB system?

[Andrew H.]

I would also point out (as part of my Play Green Troops Education Project) that if you play green troops a couple of times in CM, you'll find that they aren't horrible troops. In fact, while they have their issues, they are much better than CM players who have never played them imagine.

The main thing you have to do with Green troops is use historical tactics -- even more so than is otherwise the case in CM. *Make sure* you've brought up your support weapons and you have plenty of suppressive fire to bring to bear on the units you are attacking. Don't move to close combat too early. Make conservative moves, with plenty of support from other units.

The order delay is a significant difference of course, but being aware of this and giving orders that do not require a lot of tinkering will help a lot in this regard.

And in some ways green troops are smarter than more experience troops -- if they accidently stumble into an ambush, they will very quickly run away. Which is often the best behavior; I don't know how often I've lost almost entire vet squads because they bravely stood their ground while being fired at by overwhelming forces, including HE from tanks.

Your green troops, by contrast, will run after taking a couple of casualties, and essentially remain a cohesive unit for later fighting. So the end result is that the green troops have uncovered the hidden enemy troops at much less cost than vet troops.

And, as I and several others have pointed out elsewhere, if you play green troops, the battles correspond more closely to historical accounts than the vet vs. vet battles you so often see in QBs.

[CombinedArms]

Well, I'm no expert on using green troops, so maybe that's why I find them so difficult to deal with. What I'm wondering is whether we don't need a grade of troops between Regular and Green. I find Regulars in CM to be very, very solid--almost too good for their grade level. Greens, on the other hand, break very easily, run about at random--often toward the enemy--and generally seem a bit too downright flakey and eccentric to correspond to the term "realism."

So Regulars are almost too good and Greens are almost too bad to be the run of the mill troops of everyday combat. What if we had some troops that were in between: less solid than regulars, less flakey than greens? They would break a bit less easily than greens, but be more easily suppressed than regulars and less prompt than regulars to jump into an attack. In short, they'd keep their heads down a lot and want pretty good conditions before launching into an attack.

This seems to me to make sense. Note that we have three levels of high grade troops, veteran, crack and elite, which perform at increasingly Olympian levels. If CM can handle only six levels of troop performance, I'd be willing to give up one of those upper levels (do we absolutely need the Crack/Elite distinction?) for something between green and regular. What do you think? Is this worth suggesting to BTS? (I'm not sure what to call this 'tweener level--any suggestions?)

[xerxes]

Greens are bad? Try playing conscripts. Those lightning quick all knowing redeployments are a thing of the past. You plan your attack/defense and you stick with it. If you abandon an attack it will take quite a while to reform, move somewhere else and try to relaunch an attack. In addition you level of information about the enemy will approach nil.

I find conscript games quite interesting and challenging.

-marc s

[Dave H]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Greens are bad? Try playing conscripts...

I find conscript games quite interesting and challenging.

-marc s

I could not agree more. I played one of SuperTed's scenarios in the Newbie Tournament with a large force of conscript German infantry. I would not have cared to try mounting an attack with them, but on the defensive they made a formidable adversary.

As I told SuperTed, I could very easily relate to the conscript troops. They reminded me of myself. They didn't particularly like following orders and they looked out for themselves. I prefer that kind of realism much more than platoons of Rambos performing heroic deeds until they are eliminated to the last man.