Basics of determing unit's experience

[Secondbrooks]

Okaaaaaaaaay. Now as CMSF is moving to model other armies than just US and Syria. We will get brits soon, and might have Germans and so on in the future, so this issue has started to bubble in my mind.

I've been wondering under which conditions i or someone other could determe which experience level to give to units. Back in days of CMx1 this seemed to be much more simple, nowdays with all these training aids like Miles kits, other simulators and much longer and better guality training give to units, even to conscript ones. Well Syria might not be the case... But that ain't Western... Oh yeah. Western basically can mean anything other than Syria. I'm referring more to training stadarts which i'd believe atleast in west are rather equal, but i'm not saying that west is only place having such. It's just that i'm so damn lazy and word 'western' is so short and easy to write. Sorry if someone's blood pressure raised because of that.

What are requirements for unit to reach level of veteran? Does it necessarily need combat experince or can nowdays training standarts and training aids be considered to grant veteran level of experience? How long, intense and effective training they should have behind them? Is there some basic requirements by how veteran unit should be determed.

How abut regular experience in western army? Western regular sounds like unit which has been deployed in middle of it's training, or it has been severly lacking resources in training. Right? And I believe Syrian regular is typical Rebublic guards which has had good training in Syrian standarts? Maybe some Mechaniced infantry units too?

What would be western green army? just 10-15 weeks of basic training or reservist unit not trained but few days while it has been years from service?

I belive Syrian conscript is unit's have had their poor level training several years ago and after that spending in reserve and then just maybe few days of training in new wartime-unit at dawn of war? Personel have not been able to create much anykind ponds between each of other, officers and NCO's maybe knows just name of their men or their commanders. Maybe they even haven't had change to zero their rifles.

How about crack units? How many western units could be condered to reach crack level? in CMx1 this was stated to be rare, but after that training standarts have rised and armies spent much more effort to create solid squads etc... yet there probably isn't as much combatexperience to be gained as there was in WW2. With Syria i'd believe crack level is pretty rare, mabe few squads from Special Forces reaching that. No?

And elite still remains as elite, only creme of the creme reaching that, few squads from brigade, division, corps at most. No?

I dont' know how professional armies handles this stuff, how their personel leaved their unit to move back to civilian life and how often and in how big "heards" fresh recruits comes in. Would it be possible to sent units (squads, platoons even companies) which can be considered to be green to conflict zone like Syria is? Or would that result WW2 German kind veterans and "wet-ears" getting mixed into one unit.

How about Syrian SF or Airborne, these guys are better trained and selected than Rebublic Guards, but still after all what has been said about Middle-Eastern militaries it seems odd that they could reach veteran level. 50% veteran 50% regular... Right?

Anything other or corrections points of view etc. Am i giving veteran status far too easily, basically not requiring anykind real combat experience at all?

How about familiarity to ground and terrain etc. Could think that Syrians or western on defence in terrain to which they have had time to familiarize with for days or even weeks would get major(ish) boost to experience level? This seems to be lacking in CMSF or in CMx1 for that matter. To me it seemed major improvement if we were able to spent night in particular terrain, run guard duties, practice few times how to move into positions, or to back-up positions, getting familiar with kill zone, fireposition cards etc. After another night it got even better. Ofcourse same stands for going into attack, how if men are prepared well they get change to study the terrain, ask questions from their paltoon leader (or whoever was getting familiar with terrain where their attack will be conducted), maybe they have tried failed attack earlier etc. Bonus from this however should be smaller than it's for defender. Or what do you think should these kind soecial bonuses be used at all? In campaign it's impossible to do for players core troops, but for individual scenarios?

[Apocal]

EXPERIENCE – determines the experience and training level of

the soldiers of the formation. Options include:

- Conscript: draftees with little training and no combat experience

whatsoever.

- Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience

or reservists with some training and no combat experience.

Green can also represent professional soldiers whose training

is substandard in comparison to another force.

- Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive,

quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or

Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training

that have a fair amount of combat experience.

- Veteran: professional soldiers with standard military training

and first hand combat experience. Alternatively, it can be professional

soldiers who have trained to a slightly higher standard

than Regulars, yet lack combat experience.

- Crack: exceptional soldiers with more than the average training

and plenty of combat experience.

- Elite: the best of the best. Superb training, frequent combat

experience, and generally all around tough guys.

Straight from the manual.

[Secondbrooks]

Yes. I'm just hoping we could dive bit deeper than that, sure it's probably pointless as well... What is average training and what is higher quality training than regular, who gets it, what are requirements etc. For a starter.

[meade95]

I still believe "elite" units need to be bumped up from where they are - In terms of firing accuarcy (under pressure) SA (situational awareness) and fatigue levels....... As is now, there is not enough seperation between the units ....

[GSX]

Whose average training? The US I suppose. What about UK Marines then, have the toughest basic training of any infantry unit in the world. Add to that a fair bit of combat experience and they in the elite box all the time. Even most of the UK Army will almost certainly be crack under that definition. The Brit module should be interesting then.

[Darkmage]

I guess you just have to think of the match up you want to fight and think comparatively who would have the better training. If you want to fight a US vs UK army but think the UK has better training then I guess you plump the UK as vets and US as regular, or go for crack and vet respectively.

[MikeyD]

For WWII unit experience could get endlessly complex.

U.S. infantry squads comprised of 80% raw recruits and a hard nut 20% that had seen every battle since Kasserine - led by a '90 day wonder' NCO with a shine still on his boots. German 'elit' SS units comprised of either 15 year old boyscouts, convalescing invalids back from the Russian front, or former Hungarian criminal gangmember!

[Sgt Joch]

If you look at the bigger picture, part of the problem is that the current experience levels were conceived in a WW2 setting where the German, US and Commonwealth armies trained in about the same way and combat experience had the biggest impact on combat performance.

Arab armies are completely different. For many cultural and other reasons, units rarely receive the type of ongoing training which is standard in western armies. Individual soldiers also receive only the barest instructions in operating the weapons they have and are often unable to use the more advanced functions. For example, egyptian F-16 pilots in Gulf War I relied only on their eyes and guidance from ground controllers to find their targets and did not use any of the onboard sensors.

Arab armies are also excessively centralized with almost all decisions being taken by senior officers which leads to a very weak NCO corps. This has a substantial impact on small unit tactics where having strong NCOs makes all the difference.

If you look at the Israeli army in 1967 and 1973, their capability was roughly similar to that of a typical western european army. Their spectacular tactical results, which make them look like an elite army, were all due to the very poor Arab peformance.

The Syrian army also have another problem. In the late '70s, after they realized their army could not compete with the Israelis, they started concentrating their best men, training and equipment in elite units, such as the Special Forces and Republican Guards. This gave them a certain number of troops which had a capability comparable to western units with unquestioned loyalty to the regime. However, this also had the side effect of lowering the overall quality of the rest of the army.

I would guess the quality gap between US and Syrian troops is probably as high or higher than the gap between German and Soviet forces at the beginning of Barbarossa.

So if you take all these factors into account in picking the proper experience level, my best guess on the Syrians would be:

-Special Forces/Airborne: mostly Regulars with Veterans for certain crack units;

-Republican Guards: 1/2 Regulars, 1/2 Green;

-regular line units: Green;

-Reserve Units: 1/2 Green, 1/2 Conscripts

-Militia: all Conscripts.

U.S. regular Army units/marines are different since it is an all volunteer force which trains regularly and has well trained and motivated junior leaders, so for these units a mix of 1/3-1/2 regulars, 1/2-2/3 veteran is probably correct.

[Alek]

Yes. I'm just hoping we could dive bit deeper than that, sure it's probably pointless as well... What is average training and what is higher quality training than regular, who gets it, what are requirements etc. For a starter.

In my opinion in fact

Not war (as a whole a skvad-company):

1) Conscript: has about 2 months of diligent training (not simply military service!!!). Approximately 1-3 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)

2) Green: has 2-5 months of diligent training approximately and 6-8 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)

3) Regular: 6-10 months of diligent training approximately and 18-25 days of high participation of training (maneuvers, tactics, a lot of shooting, a field training)

4) Veteran: 10 + months of diligent training approximately and 30 + days of high participation of the doctrine (maneuvers, tactics, it it is a lot of shooting, a field the doctrine) the Veteran is necessary to study constantly - without training - again Regular

5) Crack and 6) Elite - it is impossible to make without war. There can be a diligent minority (no more than 5 %) can become Crack in the middle Veteran

It is the ready scheme - ONLY for such army - where there is already ready teacher (officers and / or NCOs) for training (Regular army, the Recruit Camp, the combat training Center)

In that case it is possible to do competent trainings.

But, for example the full recruit and the reservist of a part - equivalent Syria reserve BDE (or Soviet Division category D) , will spend three and more times for equivalent learning

As a whole typical consript army (service 2 years) average has REGULAR experience (to mix - 20 % the coscript , 30 % of green, 40 % regularand and a bit veteran - before dismissal home)

When the reservist is not trained every year (Israel MILUOM , for an example) - And past year or two it same as no-well as Conscript

But usual Conscript Army division will have an additional appeal in a wartime (Number of people - TOE for the peacetime and TOE for wartime a miscellaneous)

Number of people for typical Syria Armored Division - approximately 6-8 thousand - the peacetime, approximately 11-12 thousand for wartime

It is necessary to think - that there where few people in TOE for the world (Soviet TOE for division category C, for an example) regular soldiers сьанет sergeants for became reservists. It as will lower level - the man there was a good soldier - there was becam an average sergeant

But to consider if there is a war cloud - the consript army begins mobilisation and quickly to train at all level,- if there is time, ofcourse

In my opinion

Syria

SF - 80 % Veteran of 20 % Regular, a bit of Crack

RG 10 % Veteran, 70 % Regular, 20 % Creen

Army-20 % Regular, 60 % Green, 20 % Coscript

Reserv Divisions (best of Reserv Units)-20 % Green, 80 % Coscript

Reserv and Militia - 100 % Conscript, a bit Green and Regular

USA

Army-70 % Veteran, 30 % Regular, a bit of Crack

USMSC - 90 % Veteran, 10 % Regular, a bit of Crack

National Guard Reserv (after additional preparations at CONUS)-20 % Veteran, 40 % Regular, 40 % Green

My opinion - only for Land Forces

I do not know - as will be for aircraft

When unites at battle:

Transition from Level to level

Coscript-Green - 3 days for fight

Green-Reg-7 days for fights

Reg-Vet-30 days for fight

Vet-Crack-4 month for fight

Elite - very rare for talent men

When the person is wounded and there is back after long treatment-

Person there is back at unit - it has a minus one level - there was a Veteran became Regular, for example

When the unit goes to front-back - to have anew formation - a proportion for levels an skill same as well as above for training

Veterans mix up with recruits, green and further

Excuse me

It only my opinion

[SlapHappy]

Keep in mind there is a setting there called 'typical'. If you use that setting it will assign a slightly variable quality assessment to each squad based on the type of unit mechanized, militia, etc. Not all squads will be assigned the same setting even within the same platoon. However, the variance will only be about +/- one grade level. Using this setting, for instance, Syrian militia will be typically assigned a rating of conscript with a sprinkling of green, especially amongst the HQ units.

Of course, you may not agree with the typical grades as defined by BFC, but it does provide a baseline to measure from.

[Paper Tiger]

Because of the huge disparity between the two armies, in my opinion, even the very best units the Syrians have, Republican Guard, Special Forces or Airborne, should rarely rate better than Regular when fighting with the US and everything else they have should be green at best but mostly conscript. Meanwhile, US troops, especially Marines, should really start as veteran with a fair mix of Crack units and for the best US formations, crack/elite.

I posted this a couple of days ago in the 'Run for your life' thread. After a bit more thought, I would like to amend those settings for Airborne and Special Forces to make them veterans and also allow them a few more Crack units. However, in spite of their receiving the best of the equipment and standing head and shoulders better over their 'regular' Syrian counterparts, I don't really believe that a Republican Guard unit is any match for a standard US military formation and so they should mostly be regular when fighting the US. Certainly they will display more 'balls' than the regulars when facing US forces but from what I've seen in-game, regular performance is about how I'd expect them to perform in real life against a western army. Set them higher than that and you're just playing a game. BTW I'm not saying that they should NEVER be Crack or Elite, just that it should be a VERY rare occurrence.

Plese note that I'm only talking about Syrian vs the US or Brits or Germans etc and not vs other Syrian units. In a Red v Red situation, I have no problem with setting Republican Guards to Crack with some Elite because they really are very good compared to their lesser trained brothers in arms in the regular arm.

With regards to US experience levels, we ARE talking about a conventional war and therefore I see no reason to set US forces at anything LESS than Veteran, except to play a game, as they really are much better trained than the Syrians. And besides, your government isn't going to stick untrained US units into a shooting war in the Middle East just yet. However, against Uncons, well, I can certainly see some justification for lowering their experience levels to regular for such situations as it's no longer a fully fledged shooting war.

BTW, Steve, you also said somewhere that we couldn't set US troops experience to conscript. I've definitely played missions with conscript US troops v Elite Syrian forces and I've just checked the scenario editor and found that I can still buy conscript Stryker infantry. You may want to disable the conscript setting for the US as that really is fantasy land.

[Alek]

[i

...

With regards to US experience levels, we ARE talking about a conventional war and therefore I see no reason to set US forces at anything LESS than Veteran, except to play a game, as they really are much better trained than the Syrians. And besides, your government isn't going to stick untrained US units into a shooting war in the Middle East just yet.

My opinion

division at US Army - are very well trained and coordinatedunits

"Big Red One" or "Irone Horse" - it is very good trained, it is important - they have good fighting traditions which can help take training highly

But for example NG?

National Guards Division have the big role on CONUS - order protection, the help of police, the help when natural catstroha will be, other important and dangerous tasks

They have only few training.

But I do not think that name "weekend warriors" - has been received for NG for good training as result

No more than 100 days in a year on all milytary service per 1 NG-man.

I think Green - usual level for US NG.

But I as know - that nobody go to the battlefield - only simply goes

It will be necessary to prepare - especially for unexercised soldiers.

However divisions NG were in GW1 and right after Saddam take out.

It is a lot of guys from NG in Kosovo now .

I know, for an example, 28th Infantry Division NG "Keystone-Bloody Bucket", had a few months of training and have gone to Iraq.

(For an example, about 3-4 months on aktiveted, formation and training - was in whol enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_Infantry_Division _ (United_States) #2nd_Battalion.2C_103rd_Armor

"In January, 2004, B and C Companies of the 2nd Battalion, 103rd Armor were activated and, with attachments from several other PAARNG units, reconfigured as military police companies and trained at Ft. Dix for deployment to Iraq. They were designated as companies of the 89th MP Brigade and left for Iraq in March 2004 with days of each other."

"In June 2004, the 1st Battalion, 103rd Armor was activated at Fort Bliss, Texas and deployed to Iraq in November in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom")

it is final a few months they had good training, but it was a little for to compare with 1st Cavalry Div.

Nevertheless - I cannot say that guys from "Keystone" as are good as well as "The First Team".

That Syria has training time (a legend for SMSF) the unexercised Syrian divisions will quickly try to prepare for war. As the National guards a unit now try to prepare to a trip to Iraq

PS

It is necessary to understand - that 4 years trainings - the unit in 4 times better than 1 year of training does not mean.

As in sports it is possible to look

At first the newcomer does exercises and trainings - and each employment is better and better.

But after a necessary line quickly to reach - then the basic skills are received.

Each step for a highest level becomes shorter and to take each step more hard.

To make good state of itself health - some weeks are enough to run. To win the city on employment on run - it is necessary to train some years. To become the champion - it is necessary to do sports all life.

As and in military employment

Beginner learns every day a lot of new and to study very quickly

Veteran does training not to forget that it is able already. And a little slightly does new skill.

[MikeyD]

Alek does have a point. A 200+ pound 42 year old U.S. national guardsman with bad knees from playing highschool football in the 80s - and carrying 60 pounds of kit - is a different fighter than a 140 pound eighteen year old wearing Nike shoes and sprinting with an AK through the back alleys of his own neighborhood. A lot of percieved U.S. 'superiority' is based on institutional memory - its the sargents and NCOs that supply the bulk of unit 'experience'. And its a major handicap on the Syrian side that their army doesn't have a 'sargent' class between the men and the officers.

[Sgt Joch]

In CMSF, I believe it is assumed the Army/marines units participating in the initial invasion are regular line troops, however reserve or national guards units would be easy to simulate by giving them lower than average physical fitness and/or morale so they are more brittle.

[Paper Tiger]

So what are you saying here? That the average US soldier is less fit and less trained than these young Syrian tigers? :eek: Besides, aren't we talking about a company level game where leadership and NCO's are already factored into the design and not one where individual soldiers are important, except as far as casualties are concerned.

Against Uncons, by all means make 'em green if you think that's fine. But in the front line of a shooting war? Well if you guys say so. I'm Scottish, not American, so who am I to argue with you. Don't expect to see any 'regular' Brits in my forthcoming missions though.

Also please note that I'm not talking about 'police actions' or rear area security but at the cutting edge of a conventional shooting war with the Syrian Army. If I'm wrong, I'm very happy to be corrected. we have 'Territorial Army' units in the UK and we don't send them into front line action.

[Paper Tiger]

Further, aren't Syrians receiving training to use 80's equipment and outdated doctrine as well? They still don't have T-90s yet. Old Joe 'Quarterpounder' with the wrong kind of six-pack there may not be as fit as some spunky 18 year old kid in the back alleys of Damascus but he's received at least a modicum of training to fight a war in the 21st Century.

I think there's a bit of wishful thinking here about the quality of the opposition in this title which gives rise to the occassional bit of grumbling about how RPG-7s are much more lethal than they are shown to be in the movie 'Blackhawk Down' (PLEASE!)

[MikeyD]

Paper Tiger:

So what are you saying here? That the average US soldier is less fit and less trained than these young Syrian tigers?

Not less trained. But not supermen either. At least awhile ago U.S. forces were notorious for being road-bound when maneuvering and being overly fond of the comforts of the mess hall. But we've had several years of hard war(s) since I last heard that comment so its not really fair to bring it up. About the 'young Syrian tigers' - no proper NCO to guide them means they most probably don't know their arse from their elbow on the battlefield, no matter how many engagements they've survived.

[LukeFF]

As far as National Guard units go, with the amount of "usage" they seeing these days on the front lines, I would rate them as most often "Regular" in the game. As I found out soon after reporting to my NG unit, gone are the days where the troops just sit around on drill weekends doing nothing much. At least in my unit (an armor battalion) we were out in the field (Fort Irwin) nearly every month training, and almost always our drill weekends started on Thursday evening, not Saturday morning, thus allowing for more training time. Our battalion commander was big on making sure we were a combat-ready unit.

As far as age and physical fitness goes, on average most of our front-line troops (especially our armor and infantry companies) were not all that much older that regular Army formations.

[Sergei]

Do note that experience is separate from motivation and fitness. So you don't need to factor those into experience, you can have weakened or unfit elite troops if you feel so.

[Alek]

As far as National Guard units go, with the amount of "usage" they seeing these days on the front lines, I would rate them as most often "Regular" in the game. As I found out soon after reporting to my NG unit, gone are the days where the troops just sit around on drill weekends doing nothing much. At least in my unit (an armor battalion) we were out in the field (Fort Irwin) nearly every month training, and almost always our drill weekends started on Thursday evening, not Saturday morning, thus allowing for more training time. Our battalion commander was big on making sure we were a combat-ready unit.

My be Im whorng

Fort Irwin - is the training centre?

Is not present unitsfor NG or Army it is constant. All units go at Fort Irwin there for some time. Really train very intensively. Then leave home. Rate of trainiges is not enough at the house. I agree - that readiness after Fort Irwin good. Therefore 20-Vet, 40-Reg, 40-Green for . NG usually there are no trainings constantly such intensively. And also speed to take new level it is a little when fast training on Fort Irwin less than at typical Army.

My be Im mistake

[Apocal]

I don't know if I'd call very many people green after a NTC rotation, nor the training leading up to it.

[Alek]

I don't know if I'd call very many people green after a NTC rotation, nor the training leading up to it.

That's good!

Who that thinks so

The red soldier cannot learn well for two years of constant service for regular experience, but the blue NGman can have 100 days of service in year, 2-3 months for training and to be ready as Regular

The blue NGman was going to Iraq and trained a few months in Fort Ivin before, but the red soldier before the big war will not train - will sit under a palm-tree

Everyone will have the own opinion

[LukeFF]

Fort Irwin - is the training centre?

Is not present unitsfor NG or Army it is constant. All units go at Fort Irwin there for some time. Really train very intensively. Then leave home. Rate of trainiges is not enough at the house. I agree - that readiness after Fort Irwin good. Therefore 20-Vet, 40-Reg, 40-Green for . NG usually there are no trainings constantly such intensively. And also speed to take new level it is a little when fast training on Fort Irwin less than at typical Army.

My be Im mistake

Yes, Fort Irwin is also known as the National Training Center (NTC). My unit, an armor battalion, trained there just about every month, to include maneuvers with our Bradleys and Abrams, plus regular firing time for our mortar crews (my particular unit was the HQ company, so we had everything from snipers with M24s and 50cal sniper rifles to heavy mortars and Bradleys ). Like I said, gone are the days when the Army NG just laid around all weekend at the armory doing nothing. Units train as much as they can with the limited time allowed each month.

Translated into CMSF, I think it would be fair to make formations representing NG units be about 75% Regular, 25% Veteran. Note as well that, to date, only one NG brigade has been equipped with the Stryker, the 56th Brigade of the 28th Infantry Division (according to Wikipedia).

[Alek]

Very well

As I have understood this place - San Bernardino County, California

And those NGmen - which do not stand in 40th Division (CA NG)

For an example - Florida or Pennsylvania so every month fly in California on training?

Can be eat such special centre in each part CONUS

I really do not know

[Battlefront.com]

Sergei makes an excellent point:

Do note that experience is separate from motivation and fitness. So you don't need to factor those into experience, you can have weakened or unfit elite troops if you feel so.

When we made CMBB we created the Fitness rating. This was primarily done to properly simulate conscript Soviet infantry. You see, when we made CMBO there wasn't much difference between the basic quality of the forces involved. Just experience. But on the Eastern Front, we had a much greater difference between forces.

We wanted the scenario designers to be able to do things like simulate highly experienced German troops who have been cut off from their supplies for weeks and in constant combat. Experience should be high, but Fitness should be low. And if they were being attacked by young 17 and 18 year old Russians with no training, they should have low Experience and very good Fitness. This matters because the Germans would be largely immobile due to physical weakness, but the Russians could move wherever they wanted as fast as they wanted. Then when they engaged in combat the Germans would be better at first, but would tired from fighting quickly. The Russians, on the other hand, would not necessarily fight well, but they could fight all day long without a break.

In CMBB we had "Fanatic" setting which made units randomly fight better than their statistics said they should. In CMx2 we took this further and created Motivation, which allows for more subtle differences.

Take "average" US units and fight them against Syrians with the highest Fitness and Motivation levels, but with Green or Conscript Experience. I think you'll notice that the Syrians do very well with such settings, especially if the battle is infantry based, in an urban setting, spaced out over an hour or two of game time.

Steve