HUBERT! Reconsider Ev:s c3 tech option!!!

[Kuniworth]

Ev posted this which would solve many problems eg commander ratings, what russian player should do(invest) when not yet in the war etc. Please add this tech level.

Ev's suggestion

I would like to see a technology that boosts the capabilities of HQ's. I propose the creation of a Command, Control, and, Communication Technology.

Increase in C3 tech would have the following effects:

1. An increase in C3 would increase the number of units that can be attached to a single HQ. I would suggest that at level 0 only three units could be attached to a single HQ. But, with the increase of each tech level, an extra unit could be attached to a singley HQ. Hence a level 8 HQ could serve 8 units.

2. An increase in C3 would result in an increase in the readiness level of units attached to that HQ.

3. An increase in C3 would result in an increase of all units even if they are not attached to any HQ - to represent improvements in the internal C3 of the individual units.

The main advantage that the Germans had over the Russians was better C3. Through out the war the Germans repeatedly defeated superior numbers of Russian troops even if the Russians had better tanks, more submachine guns, more artillery support, and more of almost everything else. This Russian troops fought bravely, incurring in the unimaginable casualty rates. There is no doubt that the Russians fought hard, but, despite of their sacrifice, they were not as effective as their German counterparts.

The Russians were plagued with many problems. Lack of well trained officers after Stalin's purges of the officer corps was one of them. Lack of radios was another. I mentined elsewhere that most Russian tanks did not have radios, and they had to resort to flag signals in the middle of a battle. That was suicidal and ineffective. Under this circumstances, tactical finesse was simply not an option.

The advances of the German, and later the American and British armies went beyond the technical. Before the war, the Germans developed very effective radio communication procedures which allowed multiple units to effectively communicate by radio during the heat of battle. Shortly thereafter, the Americans and British also developed such procedures. The German procedures for stating and communication mission orders and objectives were far superior to those of any other nation. In fact, current US army procedures for stating orders are based on the German WWII model.

I would give the Germans a higher C3 level at the begining of the war. Say Germans start at level 2, Brits and US at level 1, and Russ at level 0. This would simulate the superior German C3 at the begining of the war, and, would also allow the Allies the option to invest in C3 research and upgrades to catch up with the Germans.

The intial cost of HQ's could be a little lower. Upgrading each individual HQ to a higher C3 level should involve some expense. However, most advances in C3 represent better combat tactics, communication procedures, unit composition, and the like. So, I would be inclined keep at a minimum the cost of upgrading the individual HQ's or units.

...as far as how much should it cost to research C3, I really don't know. Much like any other area of reseach it means taking a whole bunch of competent people form other tasks, giving them custom made facilites and equipment, and allowing them go on their own until they find something useful. My guess is that it should not be substantially more or less costly than research on any other area.

[ev]

Thank you Kuniworth. I really think this would add a new dimmension to the game.

There is a good paper Mark J. Calhoun, Maj. US Army on the Defeat at Kasserine: American Armor Doctrine, Training, and Battle Command in Nortwest Africa, WWII. I encourage you all to read it. You may down load it for free at:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/

Some excerpts of this paper:

One of the most remarkable charactristicss of the Tunisian campaign is the abysmally poor leadership displayed by many of the American and British commanders.... p62

The author goes on for several pages listing glaring mistakes made by commanders from corps down to regimental level. Some of the most glaring examples:

The corps commander had a battalion of engineers build a bunker for his headquarters 100 miles behind the frontline... those engineers should have been building cover for the front line troops, and the corps commander should have been visiting the frontline.

The Corps Commander sidestep the Division Commander and split the 1st Armored into 4 combat groups and spread them out so each combat group could not support the other.

The commander of the 1st Armored gave conflicting orders: order Combat Command A to make attack on a German possition without weakening the defenses of the possition they were currently holding. He was indecisive and slow to react.

Many of the 1st Armored Division officers "displayed poor leaderhip at Kasserine." The commander of Combat Command A "moved at an extremely slow pace, finally deciding to bivuoac for the night only seven miles short of his objective - providing the Germans ample time to prepare for a strong devense... When McQuilin finally attack, he ignored 26th Infantry Div intellingence reports of dug in Germnan 88's..."

In other areas of this paper, the author empasizes how americans consistently failed to use combined arms tactics at Kasserine. The author explains that American units had never trained in combine arms tactics and their doctrine did not call for it... The most glaring example of this was the fact that there was no way for armor commanders at the from to obtain air support.

All of this mistakes were the more costly because the Germans were fully exploiting the benefits of combined arms tactics. The Germans did not have their Tigger tanks at Kasserine. The Germans defeated the Americans at Kasserine because of combat doctrine, trainning, and C3.

The officers responsible for the Kasserine fiasco were immediately sacked. ...as they should. But, the US army also had to review doctrine, trainning, and communication procedures to allow combined arms tactics and tactical air support.

The battle of Kasserine took place in 1942. The Normany invasion was two years later. By 1944, the US had gone a long way at correcting the mistakes that resulted in the Kasserine fiasco.

[SeaMonkey]

Isn't there a tech called "Infrastructure"? This could be C3,.....Hubert, Dave, Bill?

[ev]

...not sure there will be an infrastructure tech, but I think these would be two very different specimens.

By C3 I mean Command, Control and Communications. This regards the development of communication equipment, as well as communication procedures, command structures, doctrine, etc. Effective use of combined arms required better C3.

Many US and British historian equate Guderian to Fuller and other military thinkers of Great Britain and the U.S. My humble opinion is that these historians are missing the most important contribution made by Guderian. Guderian picked up the ideas of Fuller and others about mechanization. He understood the importance of machines, whether in tanks, planes, or in transport. But he added two more things:

Guderian was the champion of combined arms tactics. Guderian did not advocate for the development of Tand Units. He advocated the development of Armored (Panzer) Formations in which all services would be mechanized (Tanks, Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, etc.). And, furthermore, all the services would fight support each other in battle, including tactical air bombers! The Germnas entered WWII with a state of the art combined arms doctrine because of Guderian.

But Guderians contribution did not stop there. Guderian realized that combined arms tactics could only work if adecuate command, control, and communication procedures were establihed. Guderian himself was a communication officers, and serve as such during WW I. Guderian was directly responsible for the development of C3 necessary to quickly coordinate the different elements of the Panzer Formation as well as the tactical air support.

Ironically, the Russians could have been the first to copy the German combined arms doctrine, and the supporting C3. The Germans and Russians held joint maneuvers in the late 30's - part of Hitler's effort to appease the Russians prior to the Polish invassion. The Russians learned much during those maneuvers. The T 34 was a direct result it. And, it is clear that officers within the Russian Armored Corps were calling for reform. Unfortunately for them, and for Russia, most of those officers were massacred during the Stalin Purges.

If C3 tech was made part of this game, one insteresting variation would be to assume Stalin Purges never occured and allow better C3 for the Russians...

C3 levels would be defined as follows:

C3 Level 0 no combined arms tactics.

C3 Level 1 combined arms for infantry and artillery.

C3 Level 2 combined arms for infantry artillery and tanks.

C3 Level 3 combined arms for infantry artillery tanks and air.

C3 Level 4 faster paced maneuver combining with mechanized infantry.

C3 Level 5 faster paced maneuver combining with armored recon.

Am I confusing C3 with mechanization? I hope not. Better equipment is worth very little without the procedural and organizational capabilities to take full advantage of it. You can have great halftracks. If you use them as trucks you have improved some strategic deployment speed (action points in SC), but you have done very little to imprve the tactical performance of your fighting men. But the Germans did not use their halftracks as trucks. Due to superior C3, they used their halftracks as an effective fighting plataform for their infantry.

My default C3 startup levels would be.

Germans start with C3 Level 3. They also start with one research chit invested. HQ's and Panzer Units have fully implemented C3 Level 3, but Infatry is kept at C3 level 2.

French, British and Americans start with C3 Level 1.

Russians start with C3 Level 0 if the Stalin Purges occured, but C3 Level 1 plus without the purges.

Why do I give the Germas a C3 Level plus one research chit invested? First, the Germans Panzer Formations clealy applied combined arms tactics in Poland 1939. However, during Poland, and France 1940 recon was made by motorcyles. During Poland and France the Germans realized infantry travelling with tanks needed cross contry armored transports to.effectively keep up with the tanks. We find substantial numbers of infantry bearing, halftracks with machine guns mounted on top in 1941.

[SeaMonkey]

ok ev, check out the bumped thread. You see there is something important in "infrastructure" which, although it includes C3, is vital to the performance of your combat units. Ever heard of the saying "an army runs on its stomach", well that's not quite correct either, it needs ammunition and fuel if it is mobile. Conclusion: "infrastructure" contains the parameters of C3 as well as other important aspects, don't forget we already have Hqs.

[ev]

I checked out the bumped thread.

I like the idea of including an infrastructure tech. It makes perfect sense for Germany to buy more locomotives to transport troops to the front. ...or the US may build more liberty ships to transport equipment to England. This sort of investment, in turn would result in lower "operational costs". Perfect.

But my C3 is something different. During WWII there were huge different in performance between different armies that resulted, not from equipment, but from:

Better Command

Better Communications

Better Organizations

Better Doctrine

Better Procedures

Better Coordination Betwen Different Arms

All the technologies that we have proposed cover either the equipment, or the economy that makes that equipment.

I propose just one technology that will represent all the intangibles that result in better tactical performance. You may call it C3, Combined Arms Doctrine, Modern Warfare Tactics, I don't care. But there were enormous difference in performance between the Germans (at one extreme) and the Russians (at the other end) with everyone else in the middle. These performance abyss was not just the result of superior equipment. It was there even when the equipment was lacking.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm in agreement with this theoretical C3 representation, I like the idea. Only one thing, there seems to be a lot of Tech categories and if it costs 250 MPPs to get a chit then we're going to be severely limited as what to invest in, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[pzgndr]

Isn't there a tech called "Infrastructure"? This could be C3,.....Hubert, Dave, Bill?

There is a new infrastructure tech, but it doesn't address C3. Maybe it could, or maybe Hubert will consider a change. Things are not final yet by any means. We'll have to see what Hubert wants to do.

HQs are an interesting unit in SC and it takes some skill to employ them well. The big change for SC2 will be a player's ability to make manual HQ link changes and be able to focus your leadership bonus to best support your main effort. I understand the interest in a new C3 tech, but IMHO if you want more HQ capability in your game you need to break down and buy another HQ. That's a pretty simple decision. A random C3 tech could produce some odd results from game to game, as we have all seen with other research efforts. :eek:

With the new Editor, we can experiment with revised force pools giving countries more or less HQs at start. The new Unit event script can add HQs to the game based on triggers, like the Siberian transfer, and this could be used in some situations. Also, with Italy, USSR and USA starting as active neutrals and able to buy or not buy HQs by war entry provides additional options for players to consider. What I'm getting at is that there is a bigger "forest" of options available in SC2 to better represent a country's overall strategic C3 capability rather than worrying too much about the HQ "trees" and what they do individually at an operational level.

[ev]

I don't think players should be able to invest in each and every cathegory. A player should carefully devise a strategy and figure out which research areas better fit his strategy.

Having said that, I would reduce the initial (starting) cost of reseach to 100 MPP's but then require an additional 1 MPP per week (52 per year) to continue research.

If I want to invest a second research chit in a given research area, I would require an additional 50 MPP on the week you want to increment research levels, and, then increase the weekly allowance by another MPP for a total of two weekly MPPs (104 per year).

If you work out the math running a basic research program for three years would cost 256 MPP's. Two research chits for three years woulc cost 456. (I am assuming a year has 52 weeks).

Now, if you run a research program for five years it will cost you more. ...but probably you will get more out of it.

If you discontinue a program for only a few weeks due to lack of funds, you should be able to re-start the program at a reduced "starting" cost, say 10 MPPs.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Isn't this more of a function of doctrine, rather

than "tech"? Or am I misreading this? I think

all countries tended to refine their C & C as the

war went on (except maybe the Axis, who got a bit

complacent).

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Eeeeuh....

This is going to sound really stupid.. but..

what are force pools? :confused:

[pzgndr]

Force pools are just a country's order of battle (OOB), what they start with and what they are allowed to build. SC1 had no force pool limits, allowing you to build massive air fleets or packing Corps all over the place.

SC2 will offer optional limits to keep force pools within historical proportions.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Thx!

[ev]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Through 1942 the allies were way off in terms of warfare doctrine. I mean, all of the allies: Russia, France, G. Britain, U.S. The Russians knew they needed better tanks and developed the T 34. The French and some tough heavy tanks. Heck, I recently read an article explaining how good the Polish tank forces were as of 1939. The problem is that neither of them, nor the British, nor the Americans knew how to use the tanks they had.

As of 1942 the official US doctrine called for tanks to attack alone, so they would not be slowed down by infantry or artillery. Tanks were thought of as some sort of cavalry from the good old days, charging against the enemy flank or rear.

The Shermans were about as good as the Mark IV. Yet the Shermans were slaughter at Kasserine Pass. The top ranking officer in North Afrika was Eisenhower - an excellent general. In SC jargon, the Americans had a very good HQ at Kasserine Pass. The problem was not lack of HQ. Even with an excellent HQ, US 1st Armored could not match the Germans because of a faulty combat doctrine.

Perhapps you are right. Perhapps tech is not the right way to think about it. But what then? It is not a matter of supply. It is not a matter of experience - German raw units were adequately trained in combined arms doctrine and performed better than raw units from other countries.

Perhapps we could have all German Units start as elite in 1939 to represent a better tactical doctrine. But this would make German reinforcements more expensive. Perhapps we could play with the cost each nation has to pay to make his units elite:

Germany would have a reduced cost to make units elite to account for better combat doctrine.

Britain would start with very high cost for making elite units, say until Summer 1942. By the time of the second battle of el-Alamein, the British had already made substantial improvements on their combined arms doctrine. They were still not up to the level of the Germans, but they were starting to get the hang of it. I would still draw a small distinction in the cost of making elite units for British and Germans but not as big a difference as prior to Summer 1942.

US would also start with very high cost for making elite units, but until Spring 1943. Kasserine was a rude awakening for the US. Clearly the change occured before Normandy. Spring 1943 is just an arbitrary midpoint between Kasserine and Normandy. Again, I would still make it a bit more expensive for US to make elite units than for Germany.

Italy, France and Russia... well sorry but their record was notriously bad here. I have the highest regards for all people in all countries, and particularly for people from this three countries. But, damn it, they screwed up really badly.

I would make it extra extra expensive for any of this countries to raise any elite unit.

Within this model, I would expect Axis players to make all their Panzer Units elite, at least while things are going ok and they can afford to. Now, foget about SS crap. The German Panzer Forces of 1939-1943 were much much better than the equivalent forces of any other country at the time. Even when the Russians had superior T 34's they were no match for the Germans. At least by this standard, we could fairly say all Panzer forces on 1939-43 were elite.

Now as per may model it should be too expensive for the US to make top quality elite units prior to 1943. Only after they learn the lessons and develop and train in new tactics could they start buying at a more reasonable cost the more elite (read better trained in combined arms tactics) units.

Now, this is not as good as my propsal for a C3. But if it is too late to start adding new techs. And if we have to do with what we already have: meaning HQ's, etc. Then this is my best shot at how to model the real historical gap in warfare doctrine between the Germans and everyone else during WWII.

Now, what ever happened to SS units? Well, I think the SS are highly overated. Yes they were "elite" units. Yes they performed well in combat. Panzer Leher and 10th Panzer were just as "elite" and performed just as well when you consider the differences in equipment and the lack replacements A fully reinforced Wermacht Panzer force would have been just as "elite" as any SS unit. Any Axis that wants to have SS units as per Hitler's recipe can keep at 20% below strengh all your Wermacht Panzer Forces, and, reinforce to 100% those units in which he writes in the funny SS symbol.

To sum up:

The Germans had a superior Combat Arms Doctrine. The German Panzer Forces had the training and C3 to implement it. Arguably the German Paratrooper and a couple selected infantry units also were up to this standard.

At the begining of the war, there was a huge gap in this area between the Germans and British and American. Halfway through the war the British and Americans had already reduced the size of this gap. The French, Italians and Russians never managed to substantially reduce this gap.

SC should find a way to model this historical fact. One way to do so is through tech. But there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Another alternative is through tweaking the cost of upgrading units to elite ...making it cheaper for countries with better Combat Doctrine and C3, to upgrade selected units to "elite" status.

Now, say all this tweaking with cost of making elite units is too complicated for your taste. Well, as a last ditch effort to get some of this through I would propose the following:

Make all German Panzer Units elite from day 1. Do not allow US and Britain to make elite Armored Units until 192 or 43. Do not ever allow Italy, France, and Russia to ever make elite Armored Units. Make it cheap... once you have devolped the appropriate combat doctrine, implementation should not be that expensive.

[ev]

The following quote is from Major Bryan E. Denny's "The evolution and demise of U.S. Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII". He in turn is quoting from S.L.A. Marshall, Armies on Wheels.

"The observer of things in the present has becomse so fascinated by Blitzkrieg's thundering chariots that he ignores, or discounts the extent to which the excellence of the co-operating services made possible victories seemingly won by the tank."

And quoting from William B. Ziff's The coming Battle of Germnay, Denny tells us:

"It is not a single weapon and its not even a new kind of warfare. It is simply a more ingenious development and use of every kind of modern weapon that has hitherto been seen."

Denny explains:

"German success... rested on a continuation of storm trooper tactics developed during... WWI. The backbone of this team lay in the fast-moving German armor...

"German storm trooper tactics... combined with the mobility of armored... forces proved an almost unstappable combination in 1939 and 1940.

"...the unit that committed the biggest infractions with their tank destroyers was the 1st Armored Division. From the Kasserine Pass through to the closing fight at El Guettar, the 1st Armored Division routinely piece mealed the [tank destroyer battalions] into combat."

That was 1942. In 1943 we have the first instance where a US unit succesfully stops a major Panzer attack. On 23 March 1943, the 1st Infantry Division succesfully stopped the 10th panzer division through much better use of their tank destroyer battalion.

Denny's work regards the development and demise of Tank Destroyers. Although that area is not of much interest to us in SC, it does show how faulty was Allied combat doctrine at the beginning of the war.

[Edwin P.]

Wouldn't assigning HQs to the unit give them the readiness bonus that simulates this effect? Of course since Germany will have more HQ at the start of the war they would derive the greatest benefit. Later in the war as the other sides build HQ units their advantage in this area would decrease.

In addition, RE:

1. An increase in C3 would increase the number of units that can be attached to a single HQ. I would suggest that at level 0 only three units could be attached to a single HQ. But, with the increase of each tech level, an extra unit could be attached to a singley HQ. Hence a level 8 HQ could serve 8 units.

The like the concept of a HQ related tech; however, I would limit it to affecting just one aspect of a HQ unit - Units a HQ unit can support. I would also limit the Max Tech Level to 2. Thus a HQ(0) supports 3 units, HQ(1) supports 4 units and a HQ(2) supports 5 units. Then Germany starts off with a 5:3 advantage over the allies and the allies need only achieve 2 tech advances in this area to match the German's.

This would also alone one to closely recreate the more limited supply and control abilities of nations which sometimes had great commanders but a more a limited C3 and supply capability.

[ July 02, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[ev]

Thanks for your response Edwin.

I proposed C3 tech would have 3 separate effects on the game:

Effect #1: An HQ could serve more units as per your quote above.

Effect #2: The combat readiness contribution that an HQ gives to its units would be higher.

Effect #3: Combat units with higher C3 tech would have higher combat readiness than regular units.

Insofar as Effect #1 is concerned, you are right - more, or less, HQ's would do the job.

However, I think the real value of C3 tech lies in Effects #2 and #3. These would allow low tech German Armor to perform better than higher tech Russian Armor.

Now, I hear you, but what iff the Russians or the Americans do not have HQ's?

Well the fact is that the Americans will most likely have an HQ when they land in North Africa in 1942 or 43. And, the Russians will have Zuhkov to defend Moscow and Stalingrad. Because HQ's are also the source of supply in SC, you cannot denny HQ's to the Allies.

However, historically, having adequate supply (read HQ's) did not do the job. Through the first half of the war, fully supplied Allied armored formations regularly underperformed their German counterparts despite adequate supply. And, Russian armored formations continued to underperform pretty much through out the war.

[Liam]

Ev, interesting concept. I don't think that the Allies lacked the leadership. I think they lacked the experienced and organization of the GHC. That was a Key Factor. The Doctrines that were radical and until Poland and finally France and LC Unproven could've put them in a bind. The Germans took a new Tactic Blitzkrieg and took a Huge Risk but not to say that the Allies didn't have their advantages as well. The Allied High Command was not as New Age at the time and adapted and grew with the War. Sadly for us too slowly to stop Hitler. Historically the Allies would've had Leadership and the Russians would've been scamp due to more than one reason. The Old Saying Russians are bad Leaders is I believe untrue. They have fine leaders and those willing to give it their all to the death just as much as any other Nation. Their weaknesses was their Tyrannical Goverment that Hitler eventually adopted himself. In America or England for instance saying the Wrong Word would get you shot. While in America it would get you reprimanded<or dismissed> at worse. In Germany it wasn't so bad initially been when Hitler starting losing and losing his mind the punishments become more severe. I.E. Rommel's Self assisted Suicide due to something that may or many not have been true. The Freedom the West allowed for much mobility for their leaders to express themselves and go out and show what they had. Whilst the Russians and Germans<not so much, depending as Hitler was not as likely to order executions for losing> I feel were more worried about reprisals. The Germans were very hardened veterans by '43-'44'45. All the Years that great Allied Offensives were launched. In Many cases, Like Kasserine, Op Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge and the Notable Eastern Front Battles that were like Mass Graves the Allies took heavy Losses cause the Germans were good by this point. They had great equipment, well trained men and leaders and they were on the defensive... Both sides pretty much were level on the playing field aside from some basic facts. Supply, Numbers and ultimately One was a defeated people and the other a Winning One. Average German Soldat who knew half a bit about the War felt doomed by '43-'44...

Soviets didn't care about losses as much as the West and more about Victory which should give them their own sort of bonuses, Fanaticism

All in all, I think Leadership quality is big deal but Rate them accordingly to more than just technology. Rate them for the Wins/Losses/and a Dice factor of Learning Which SC does superbly but a bit too uberly I think in some cases

[Edwin P.]

EV, in my view your Effect #2 and Effect #3 duplicate each other as both increase the readiness of units. I would do one or the other not both as the HQ already gives a combat bonus.

The key difference between the German units and the Russian/Italian/French units for example was that the German commanders were expected to show a high degree of initiative as compared to their oppoenents who were dependent on following orders from above. Whether this should be refered to as training or tactical doctrine can be debated. Futhermore the amount of this superiority for the Germans deteriorated as the war progreessed and the training programs were shortened.

The simplest way to recreate what you want to do is to give the Germans a lower cost of units.

Another option is to just create doctrines which players can research and then adopt for their units.

For example: Have an Armored Warfare and a Trench Warfare Doctrine and a Combined Arms Doctrine. At tech level (0) doctrines a player can select only Trench Warfare, at tech level (2) a player can select Armored Warfare or Trench Warfare for its land units.

Trench Warfare - Gives Armies a 5% defensive readiness bonus.

Armored Warfare - Gives Armor Units a 10% Readiness bonus when attacking .

Combined Arms - Gives Armor Units and Infantry Units a 10% readiness bonus.

A nation that knows Armored Warfare can adopt it for a cost of 100MPP. If they switch to Trench Warfare it costs them 100MPP. Russia would most likely adopt a Trench Warfare doctrine which would benefit them while on the defense. Germany on the other hand would likely select an Combined Arms/Armor doctrine which would boost its offensive powers. Just an idea.

Also, the HQ units represent not only supply but also the capabilities and experience of its Army Group Commanders which HQ reflect via their Command Ratings. German units performed better because they had better and more experienced commanders.

[SeaMonkey]

I think this thread had a foregone conclusion before it started with HC's introduction of the combat modifiers that SC1 HQ's ratings represent. It worked, its simple, so why mess with success. A little tweak to allow for dedicating units to an HQ was all that was needed. A more diversified editor should satisfy any players' discretions as far as military doctrine advantage for one side or the other, ie. just change the ratings.

[ev]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

EV, in my view your Effect #2 and Effect #3 duplicate each other as both increase the readiness of units. I would do one or the other not both as the HQ already gives a combat bonus.

True enough, one or the other would do.

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

The key difference between the German units and the Russian/Italian/French units for example was that the German commanders were expected to show a high degree of initiative as compared to their oppoenents who were dependent on following orders from above. Whether this should be refered to as training or tactical doctrine can be debated. Futhermore the amount of this superiority for the Germans deteriorated as the war progreessed and the training programs were shortened.

...well, it is not quite that simple, there was more than meets the eye behind this:

First, it is true that the German officers were expected to have more initiative. It is also true that C3 was set up to allow for that kind of initiative. Take for example the manner in which orders were given. In most other armies a commander would order a subordinate to take a hill, a town or a bridge. In the German Army the commander was expected to explain to the subordinate officer orders the commander had received from his superiors. The commander was also expected to explain where the main effort of the attack or defense would be. Finally, the commander was expected to explain to the subordinate the "effect" they were trying to have on the enemy (to flank, to supress, to overrun, to breakthrough, etc.). In this manner the lower ranking officers could understand the larger scope of things and take initiatives that made sense within the larger context of the action.

Second, the German Army practiced combined arms tactics, including armor, air support, infantry, artillery, engineers, etc. The German Army was the first to do so, and they were very good at it.

Third, the German Army was an army that moved. They were alway looking for ways to maneuver around the enemy. And, again they were pretty good at it. Evidence of how much the Germans valued maneuver was how many men they dedicated to recon. A German Panzer Division would have three time as many men in Recon as the American counterpart.

Fourth, the German Army polished their radio communication procedures to allow more effective communications between units during the fast paced armored engagements.

Fifth, the German Army was the first army to stablish procedures to allow armored spearheads to call for artillery and air support while on the move. Most often the Germans used this support to suppress the enemy while the tanks and infantry closed in for the kill. So they did not need very accurate or very prolonged bombing. Short bursts at the right moment would do.

Now, many of this things may be common place in the US Army today. But, the U.S. learned a lot of this from the Germans. It was not quite this way prior to WWII.

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

...Another option is to just create doctrines which players can research and then adopt for their units.

For example: Have an Armored Warfare and a Trench Warfare Doctrine and a Combined Arms Doctrine. At tech level (0) doctrines a player can select only Trench Warfare, at tech level (2) a player can select Armored Warfare or Trench Warfare for its land units.

Trench Warfare - Gives Armies a 5% defensive readiness bonus.

Armored Warfare - Gives Armor Units a 10% Readiness bonus when attacking .

Combined Arms - Gives Armor Units and Infantry Units a 10% readiness bonus.

A nation that knows Armored Warfare can adopt it for a cost of 100MPP. If they switch to Trench Warfare it costs them 100MPP. Russia would most likely adopt a Trench Warfare doctrine which would benefit them while on the defense. Germany on the other hand would likely select an Combined Arms/Armor doctrine which would boost its offensive powers. Just an idea.

This is a good idea. As I mentioned earlier, I do not care whether you call it Combined Arms, C3, or whatever...

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Also, the HQ units represent not only supply but also the capabilities and experience of its Army Group Commanders which HQ reflect via their Command Ratings. German units performed better because they had better and more experienced commanders.

True, but someone suggested reducing the number of the HQ's the Allies have (at least at the begining), as a makeshift alternative to a C3 tech. This I don't like because it woud force the allies to keep their armies close to the cities, and essentially prevent them from attacking even the Italians.

Now, I believe that the German Panzer formations had superior C3 and combat Doctrine, which gave them and edge over their allied counterparts. But, I also realize that the Allied armies could give adequate supply to their armies even if they were halfway accross the globe. To remove the HQ's would reduce movement, and would reduce combat readiness by too much (unless the Allied plaber stays put in his/her cities).

...so, I do not support the idea of reducing the number of HQ's the allies have. ...the remedy would be worse than the illness.

However, I like the idea of reducing the HQ ratings of the Allied HQ's. Along this line, these other alternatives could work:

Alternative #1, restricting the apperance of better Allied HQ's until later in the game. ...so the first allied HQ's are not their top generals.

Alternative #2, give veteran status to the German HQ's that start up the game. The Germans conducted more extensive excercises prior to the war. They gained a lot of good experience in these excercise that lead to the development of a better combat doctrine. Besides, the German's experience with storm troop tactics in WWI proved most important - that is where Rommel came from.

Alternative #3, start the game with the best German HQ's. Manstein was not a Field Marshall, but he was in the General Staff and he drafted the plan for the attack on France.

I am not very enthusiastic about Alternative #1 since it is kind awkwardl. Alternatives #2 and #3 achieve the same results in a smoother way.