Experience Questions

[C'Rogers]

Here is something I have been thinking about in regards to soldier experience, both for CM:SF and in the real world.

Situation: Two companies of infantry are about to clash. One company is from a relatively poor country though they are well armed. Each man was enlisted one year ago. They have received no real training except basic lessons in their weapons and overall manuevers. However they have had extensive combat experience and are used to firing in combat, getting shot at, and watching comrades die.

The second company is from a rich country. Each soldier was also enlisted one year ago. Since then they have seen no combat, however they have received extensive training. Most of the soldiers are excellent marksman and have been trained to be in top physical conditions. The soldiers have also learned a lot of tactics and strategies, though they have never seen real world use.

Which company is in better position, all else being equal (unrealistic but is a hypothetical). A well trained unit with little experience, or a experienced unit with little actual training.

Second thing, experience in the CM series. Generally the abstracted experience system is pretty solid. To my understanding there are few parameters associated with experience. How quick a unit will respond to commands and their ability to stay cool under fire are effected by experience (as well as a host of other things I believe).

It's only main problem is that all parameters go up as a unit gains experience. A veteran squad is tougher, faster, and shoots better than a regular squad. However I am sure there are military units in the world where soldiers may be willing to take a lot of incoming fire before retreating, but our crappy shots (and vice-versa with excellent shots who don't stand well under fire).

Will the new game be able to handle the concept of a squad of soldiers with the courage of a crack squad but the response time and firing ability of a green squad? Or is this issue to minor to spend time on and clogging up the user interface with?

[Battlefront.com]

Depends on the type of experience. It is likely that the poor country's force was fighting similar forces or, more likely, inferior forces (inexperienced militias, unarmed civilians, etc.). So in the average case a well trained unit from a rich country will likely fare better overall, even with no experience. At least on a unit by unit basis in a like engagement with similar equipment (which would not generally be the case).

It only really starts to get interesting when you turn the tables and allow for one side operating in ways that it is more comfortable with and the other is less comfortable with. I'd take a few motivated, experienced insurgents over a green Rifle Squad any day.

No times can be given, either in CMx1 or CMx2, because time is a cumulative result of many factors, never a single one.

Motivation is separate from Experience. Perception is also important. A force that believes it will be defeated probably will be. Iraq is a perfect example of this. The Iraqi Army largely didn't fight. Not because it wasn't capable of inflicting a lot of pain on the attacking Coallition forces, but because it didn't care to test that theory out for real

Steve

[JT Fox]

A few years ago I would put my money on the guys who had seen live fire.

I have read a number of books in which Squad Leaders would have to go round the troops and remind them to shoot back when they experienced a fire fight for the first time.

Today I'd back the trainned troops. The realism in training now would override much of the initial shock of combat for the first time. Those who did panic or become confused would rally much faster as well.

[Sixxkiller]

Laso it needs to be said that you never actually know what someone is going to do in a battle situation, no matter the experience or training. CM represented this by panic. Its no different in a real world situation. Even if its only for a short time, having one less man on a fire team can make a marked difference. I have even seen guys refuse to fire cause they dont want to shoot another human. Thankfully this never caused me to lose my life but I guess looking back it could have come to that.

[J Ruddy]

I think the immediate advantage might go to the combat experienced troops. This would quickly wane as the better trained troops got over their opening night jitters though...

[Imperial Grunt]

Hmm, how bout an example, say in Liberia.

The well trained but combat in-experienced 26th MEU and US SOF versus the very combat experienced and virtually untrained militias...

Liberian Rapper Shooting Tactics

[Andrew H.]

I think - as Steve and others have suggested - that it really depends on what the units are doing. If the inexperienced unit from the rich country has trained to, say, conduct a certain type of assault in a specific way, and they are placed in a situation where they are required to conduct that assault - they will do very well.

Similarly, if the experienced but poor unit is experienced simply in exchanging desultory fire with similarly armed skirmishing units, their experience won't help them very much when they are faced with a combined arms assault or need to conduct a combined arms assault to achieve an objective.

Accordingly, the objective of both units should be to maximize the opportunity to engage in the kind of fights with which they are most (and their opponent is least) familiar.