Green, Veteran, Crack, Elite - Is there all that much difference?

[meade95]

What exactly are the differences in attributes for the varying values of soldiers - Be it from Green to Elite -

I've been doing some playtesting and I don't find there to be all that much difference? Though, maybe my playtesting is too limited...up until now.

Do elite soldiers fire more accurately? (which I would assume) Do they tire less frequently? (which I would assume). Do they spot enemies sooner? Do they seek better cover? Are they less likely to be hit?

Thanks

[Paper Tiger]

I'm afraid I can't provide you with a detailed statistical analysis but I can definitely tell you that, yes, quality makes a big difference to weapons accuracy. Green and conscript troops throw up a lot of very inaccurate fire, scary to watch but at medium to close ranges, almost ineffective. Raise the experience level and you'll find their fire is more accurate.

With regards to other things, ATGM team's fire definitely becomes more accurate as their experience level increases. Lower experienced crews crash their missiles more frequently while Crack almost never do that. I have noticed that higher experience level troops also spot faster, especially vehicle crews. Conscript tanks don't spot a lot even when up close. Crack tanks tend to spot extremely quickly and react to threats faster.

Can't say about finding better cover or getting hit less frequently. Probably not.

[meade95]

Thanks for the additional info - Glad to hear it -

I think I would like to see some further differences (improvement) of elite soldiers especially in weapons accuracy, spotting of units and maybe even in sometype of way (formula) as to being less of a likely target to be hit....

[hoolaman]

I believe setup times for HW are supposed to be modified too.

But the biggest one is morale. Green troops are very fragile.

[Clevinger]

Suppressing green troops is very easy, and you can lose control of them if incoming fire is too high. Conscript are even worse : they rout after a few shots.

BTW, more experienced troops stay "pinned" less time after suppression.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Paper Tiger touched upon it casually so it might easily be missed, but inexperienced troops "spray and pray" a lot. Large volume of fire, low accuracy.

[meade95]

Thanks again for commments / observations - Good to know -

Though, I really think the "elite" solider class should be (used unfrequently) but these soldiers should have a higher value within the game - Than currently are -

Added weapons accuracy, better at spotting, and a morale/tweak rating that keeps them steady under fire......

[Battlefront.com]

It's pretty much the same as it was in CMx1 in terms of the cause/effect stuff. However, units now have Suppression separate from Morale, which makes a pretty big difference in how units behave. You can now Suppress the heck out of a unit without it Panicking, or you can make a unit Panic without Suppressing it.

The big differences is with shooting accuracy and ease of suppression. The better the unit is, the less likely it is going to be phased by incoming fire and the more likely it is going to deliver accurate fire.

One time when I was testing Battle 1 in the Campaign I got my butt handed to me; 2 Marines still effective by the end of the scenario. I couldn't understand it... I mean, I don't suck that badly So I looked at the setup and not only did they out number the Marines, but they were 2 levels better Experience! Yup, there was a goof up and the Syrians were set to Crack... that is my excuse for losing and I'm sticking to it!

The Manual has some guidance on what the various Experience levels mean in real world terms. Within the game "Typical Experience" selects the levels that we feel best represent the particular formation.

Steve

[thelmia]

Yes, it matters. I goofed when making a scenario and had everyone set to "Crack." Total holocaust, no one ran, and they just killed each other. When I fixed it the less experienced troops got pinned and then whittled down to nothing.

Where it's really, really noticeable is artillery observers. Even setup planned artillery is noticeably slower with lower quality observers.

[Other Means]

IIRC even stuff like stopping to pop off shots while moving, seeking cover under fire etc increases with level. Quite cool.

[meade95]

Have been doing some playtesting with scripting new scenarios and learning the AI - Small scale games while trying to get a feel for things....and in doing so brings me back to this topic -

I really believe "elite" level troops need a tweak up (in performace), as does the effects "morale" for those units not to enter "cowering" levels so quickly. Especially those units given "fanatic" levels.

As such units do enter the "cowering" phase too often in my playtesting. Surprisingly so. I understand the realities of units / men going into such a mode. However, with the differing levels of traning and morale options.......aren't these there to allow for creating of such units / groups that don't so routinely under fire.....(be it on the red side as well).

[Alan8325]

I recently modified the Al Huqf engagment scenario by making the Syrian squads roughly equivalent in experience, leadership and motivation to the U.S. squads. This consists of 1 regular, 1 veteran and one crack squad and a veteran HQ on the U.S. side, so I made the Syrian AT squad veteran, one rifle squad regular and the other crack, and the HQ veteran. Both the Bradley and BMP were left as regular.

After playing from both sides, it is still extremely difficult to get anything better than a draw with the Syrian side, although I did achieve a major victory once, while with the U.S. side I can almost always achieve total victory with little or no casualties. These results, given roughly equal experience on both sides and short engagement ranges, lead me to believe that weapon quality is a little unrealistically biased towards U.S. superiority. I haven't served in the military, but I have a little trouble believing that an M4 with upgraded sights is THAT much better than an AK-74 at short range and in equally capable hands. The U.S. does have a small advantage in numbers in this scenario, but it shouldn't give that much of an advantage.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Also, is BMP armor really that crappy? It is shown on the protection tab on the bottom of the screen to be even worse than that of an up-armored HMMWV.

[Apocal]

I haven't served in the military, but I have a little trouble believing that an M4 with upgraded sights is THAT much better than an AK-74 at short range and in equally capable hands.

Speaking from an individual weapon perspective, the AR series of weapons, all geared-up with stuff like ACOGs, foregrips, reflex sights, lasers and other goodies, is ridiculously easier to use. Mainly because of the ACOGs, EOtechs, and other "point-and-click" sights. I put the dot on the target. Squeeze trigger. Target goes down.

The only reason I shoot my AK more than my ARs is because the ammo is cheaper.

[Sergei]

These results, given roughly equal experience on both sides and short engagement ranges, lead me to believe that weapon quality is a little unrealistically biased towards U.S. superiority. I haven't served in the military, but I have a little trouble believing that an M4 with upgraded sights is THAT much better than an AK-74 at short range and in equally capable hands. The U.S. does have a small advantage in numbers in this scenario, but it shouldn't give that much of an advantage.

Don't forget the difference in protection. The Interceptor body armor, while not as good as Superman's spandex, is better than the Syrian vest.