Jump to content

All veteran+ units = overall better game play?


Recommended Posts

I personally enjoy a bit of mixed game play. Veteran units really shine when they are put next to green units. In a single company, I will generally have a veteran HQ (unless my head is roleplaying something different), and at least one vet squad, with regular and green fleshing out the mix. This way, I can really appreciate the skill veteran and above experience levels bring to the fight. When dealing with AFVs, more often then not the low rarity vehicles will have green and regular crews, with the more expensive/effective one having much higher skill level crews. This is an attempt to simulate a crack Stug crew moving up to the one JgPzIV the company has on hand. Or for a veteran crew who has earned their place in a Tiger or Sherman 76.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that playing green troops in CMx1 led to more realistic gameplay - you really needed to stay back and soften up the enemy before you could advance, which struck me as being eminently reasonable. It also often led to better results, as troops that ran into an ambush or unexpectedly strong opposition would usually break and run before they were completely destroyed...meaning that few turns later you could put them back into the line.

I don't yet have a good handle on how this plays out in CMBN yet - although when mortars start falling on my squads in WEGO, I really do want for them to break and run early - before the platoon is competely demolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that "veteran" soldiers in CMN, much more behave like what I would expect from "regulars" under battle conditions. They react better from "hide" and generally show more of something I would think of performing true "battle drills" (=regulars).

In CMBB we had the reds (russians) dumbed down one skill level (until 1943/44 I think) and I would suspect, that in CMSF the "reds" also have some noticable restrictions and lacking certain capabilities, compared to "blue" forces. Has something of all that been ported over to CMN? I don´t mean the "reds" (germans) in CMN beeing "weaker" compared to the US, but rather find the "skill/experience" levels generally for both sides one step low of what I´d expect battle field preformance wise.

Regulars = Green

Veterans = Regular

and so on

Green CMN units appear to perform rather like Conscript CMX1 units IMHO, so I limit their use for guarding the field kitchen at best.

I´ll do some more testing with pitting same experience units at each other, but when I think of using regulars (in my scenarios), I´ll use veteran instead, or crack to substitute the games veteran and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played the "Buying the farm" scenario, with green germans, and above all, took care to maintain strong C2 link for the units in combat situation, and to expose them to enemy suppression for short periods. They performed very well!

One of my section HQ was killed, and there was nothing left to do with his section until the end of the game, except for a few men under Co. HQ command.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently playing a QB in which all my infantry platoons are crack. This was unintended; I had meant for them to be regular with a sprinkling of green and veteran squads, but I didn't discover the slip-up until I had started play. I really didn't want to go back and start from scratch, so I decided to go with it. What I noticed is that they fire their weapons a hell of a lot more. On the one hand, they lay down some pretty good suppressive fire, but on the other, they burn through a lot of ammo rather quickly. I'm not sure if they hit what they are shooting at any better than, say, regular troops would. It's a dawn battle and the light is still poor.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use experience to get a higher rate of fire for troops and better 1st-shot results from guns. It is more of an observed results thing than any hard and fast testing. I dislike Greens due to their tendency to throw a huge wrench in even the most basic plan.

If I want the units to stand fast ... I use Motivation tweaks rather than taking Regulars to Veteran. Extreme/Fanatic troops usually aren't going anywhere until you pry the guns from their cold dead fingers.

Now I suppose you could(within reason) get green/fanatic troops to use less ammo yet hold their ground... if they were well led and in C2.

Conversely one could supposedly get Cracks that are just at the end of their rope and put them at Low Motivation. Blast away, then run away.

Defenders may want to consider High/Extreme Motivation for crucial troops. It may be more useful than Veteran/Crack troops.

Nothing hard or fast, as I believe that both metrics(Exp/Motivation) share some effect variables.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing hard or fast, as I believe that both metrics(Exp/Motivation) share some effect variables.

And then there's Leadership rating. Someone did some tests on how fast squads crumpled with low squad leadership but high platoon leadership vs high squad leadership but out of C2, and squad leadership was reported as having a solid effect on the resilience of the unit.

Anyone have any feeling about whether high experience or leadership actually makes troops harder to kill? On the face of it, it might sound a bit silly, but if you consider that there's a "microcover" abstration (operated as a 'saving throw' mechanic, AIUI), it might be reasonable to give the high experience troops an easier saving throw factor, as they could, potentially, be expected to make better use of the cover that's abstracted. I'm not saying such a factor exists, but wonder if anyone's got any solid facts. Maybe I'll do some tests for myself, but I really should finish Courage and Fortitude :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use experience to get a higher rate of fire for troops and better 1st-shot results from guns. It is more of an observed results thing than any hard and fast testing. I dislike Greens due to their tendency to throw a huge wrench in even the most basic plan.

If I want the units to stand fast ... I use Motivation tweaks rather than taking Regulars to Veteran. Extreme/Fanatic troops usually aren't going anywhere until you pry the guns from their cold dead fingers.

Now I suppose you could(within reason) get green/fanatic troops to use less ammo yet hold their ground... if they were well led and in C2.

Conversely one could supposedly get Cracks that are just at the end of their rope and put them at Low Motivation. Blast away, then run away.

Defenders may want to consider High/Extreme Motivation for crucial troops. It may be more useful than Veteran/Crack troops.

Nothing hard or fast, as I believe that both metrics(Exp/Motivation) share some effect variables.

-

Yes, the net effect is quite important off course. Did all that alot in CMX1, i.e getting tenacious russian defenders, by setting fanaticism high with leaders having +2 for camouflage (well prepared defenders & russian dig in skills).

But my main point was, leaving all net effects aside, that CMN "veterans" behave what I would expect more to be performed by "regulars" already. Not to be mistaken, I do not want to see "by the book" results and like the great varity that the various experience levels might offer, but on the basic squad and vehicle level, I find the CMN "regulars" more performing and acting like "green". Thus I opt changing for "veterans" and above instead. "Conscripts" are more or less useless and beside german "Volkssturm", I can´t see any use for having them in the game at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally enjoy a bit of mixed game play. Veteran units really shine when they are put next to green units. In a single company, I will generally have a veteran HQ (unless my head is roleplaying something different), and at least one vet squad, with regular and green fleshing out the mix. This way, I can really appreciate the skill veteran and above experience levels bring to the fight. When dealing with AFVs, more often then not the low rarity vehicles will have green and regular crews, with the more expensive/effective one having much higher skill level crews. This is an attempt to simulate a crack Stug crew moving up to the one JgPzIV the company has on hand. Or for a veteran crew who has earned their place in a Tiger or Sherman 76.

Hey Sakai i ve sent you a private mail concerning ur dissapearance from the FGM Cup.

Do you still want continue the game,we are waiting for you in order to continue the tourney.

Not polite at all from your part to disappear without a note, not answering to private messages and not answering your emails.

This is not a sportsman's behaviur at all

PS Apologies for highjiking the thread to the rest of the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I enjoy about playing the scenarios vs quick battles is I get handed a force and a task and I then have to review my force to figure out relatives strength and weaknesses of the various leaders and teams to figure out who is suited best for what role. It feels more like a new command assignment where you don't really know your men and you have to guess at how well they will do. In the quick battles you get to tailor your force and it has a different feel.

Playing PBEM Bois de Baugin as the Germans for me was very interesting as my leadership modifiers and general troop quality were not great reflecting a unit that was burning out from continuous combat. In trying to decide who would be my reserves who was going to be assigned critical defensive positions I spent a lot of time checking out individual leaders and squads. It made the whole battle a lot more personal and led to me writing up the AAR.

Having better quality troops is definitely going to be better from a command perspective, however having variable troop quality can add a whole other dimension to making a battle interesting- even if you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I enjoy about playing the scenarios vs quick battles is I get handed a force and a task and I then have to review my force to figure out relatives strength and weaknesses of the various leaders and teams to figure out who is suited best for what role. It feels more like a new command assignment where you don't really know your men and you have to guess at how well they will do. In the quick battles you get to tailor your force and it has a different feel.

Playing PBEM Bois de Baugin as the Germans for me was very interesting as my leadership modifiers and general troop quality were not great reflecting a unit that was burning out from continuous combat. In trying to decide who would be my reserves who was going to be assigned critical defensive positions I spent a lot of time checking out individual leaders and squads. It made the whole battle a lot more personal and led to me writing up the AAR.

Having better quality troops is definitely going to be better from a command perspective, however having variable troop quality can add a whole other dimension to making a battle interesting- even if you lose.

Yes, in a pre made scenario I don't mind lower quality troops because (hopefully) the designer has taken everything into consideration to make a battle that either side can win. In my mind, this is more akin to a role playing game with the scenario designer as dungeon master. Sorry Michael Emrys....Roll a D6.

In a QB, I'm going to pick higher quality troops, because I would rather have a platoon of Chuck Norris's than a platoon of Pee Wee Hermans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CMBB we had the reds (russians) dumbed down one skill level (until 1943/44 I think) and I would suspect, that in CMSF the "reds" also have some noticable restrictions and lacking certain capabilities, compared to "blue" forces.

No, there never was such a thing in CMBB. What you're thinking of is command delays, which were dependent on experience. CMx2 does not have command delays at all. There's a few game specific restrictions, like in CMSF the Syrian regular army units cannot split squads (their special forces can), and artillery call times will differ depending on doctrine. But a regular is a regular is a regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a QB, I'm going to pick higher quality troops, because I would rather have a platoon of Chuck Norris's than a platoon of Pee Wee Hermans.

But would you rather have a platoon of Chuck Norrises or a company of Pee Wee Hermans?

In CMBB infantry-only attack QBs, if the Russian player chose green troops and the Germans made the mistake of choosing "crack," you would end up with something like three companies to 1. You then hide one company in the woods and attack with two. After 15 minutes or so of heavy fighting, both sides will be pretty shot up...and, more importantly, the German squads will be out of ammo. At which point you bring up the untouched 3d company with full ammo and just march over the surviving German platoon.

Showing that it was just as easy to be gamey with greens as with cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Regulars act regular enough under most situations. If they are in C2 of a non-minus leader and have better than Low Motivation, they are effective. Conscripts are there so designers can make your lives a living hell on Earth. (mwuhahaha)

Now these are just my personal preferences, and are subject to modification as circumstances require...

Leadership means never having a moron in the chain of command. Minus leadership numbers are for scenarios(make 'em squeal). Zero or +1 is fine for me.

Regular/High Motivation is about as low I like to go when I have a choice in the matter. Usually initial presentation units like scout teams and the like. Nothing will save them, so why waste points? :)

Vet/High for offensive combat troopen, 'schreks/zooks, and first wave armor. FOs Vet/Norm.

Reg/Extreme or Vet/Extreme make dandy defensive units. If V/Es stay in C2, they will usually stay in place to the bitter end.

Crack/High or Crack/Extreme for towed guns or if a single tank is all that can be purchased in the vehicle category.

Elite Experience and Fanatic Motivation are what I call "quarter-dropper" options. Arcade settings. :D They have their place in certain scenarios in single units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

With CM as no doubt with other wargames different players are looking for different features.

Better game play/good game play means historical accuracy to me. My interest in CM comes entirely from its historical accuracy, as a form of military history. I have never taken part in high-intensity warfare in the real world but am strongly of the view that our digital heroes tend to be too heroic, too competent rather than less so. Thus I like units to average Regular in experience and Normal in motivation. With experience levels never going over Veteran and motivation never over High. As an average within a unit. The most “crack...” units on any front I would never set to great than an average of Veteran experience and High motivation. And only that very rarely.

Do remember that in WWII all units were effectively conscript. There was not the down selection you may find in some professional units today.

A very competent Corps commander from WWII, Brian Horrocks, believed in every ten man rifle squad there were two leaders, seven who would follow and one who wished he was anywhere but where he actually was.

But each to their own.....

It’s great to have experience and motivation as different settings.. will help the realism a lot when we reach the Eastern Front.

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Regulars act regular enough under most situations. If they are in C2 of a non-minus leader and have better than Low Motivation, they are effective. Conscripts are there so designers can make your lives a living hell on Earth. (mwuhahaha)

Now these are just my personal preferences, and are subject to modification as circumstances require...

Leadership means never having a moron in the chain of command. Minus leadership numbers are for scenarios(make 'em squeal). Zero or +1 is fine for me.

Regular/High Motivation is about as low I like to go when I have a choice in the matter. Usually initial presentation units like scout teams and the like. Nothing will save them, so why waste points? :)

Vet/High for offensive combat troopen, 'schreks/zooks, and first wave armor. FOs Vet/Norm.

Reg/Extreme or Vet/Extreme make dandy defensive units. If V/Es stay in C2, they will usually stay in place to the bitter end.

Crack/High or Crack/Extreme for towed guns or if a single tank is all that can be purchased in the vehicle category.

Elite Experience and Fanatic Motivation are what I call "quarter-dropper" options. Arcade settings. :D They have their place in certain scenarios in single units.

Hmm I'll try some of this in QB. Makes sense sort of :D

I just randomly spend my points :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Better game play/good game play means historical accuracy to me. My interest in CM comes entirely from its historical accuracy, as a form of military history. I have never taken part in high-intensity warfare in the real world but am strongly of the view that our digital heroes tend to be too heroic, too competent rather than less so. Thus I like units to average Regular in experience and Normal in motivation. With experience levels never going over Veteran and motivation never over High. As an average within a unit. The most “crack...” units on any front I would never set to great than an average of Veteran experience and High motivation. And only that very rarely.

Do remember that in WWII all units were effectively conscript.

I completely agree if we are talking about scenarios, or QBs with pre-arranged parameters between opponents.

A random QB with someone ... not so much.

Unless you have your tactics down cold, a historical purchase could have difficulty with a gamier purchase, especially if the gamey player knows his business.

Tweaking can yield very nice benefits for a reasonably small increase in price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Experience and Motivation are separate settings now.

I think higher experience level DO make some aspects of the game a bit more "as expected". Such as snipers missing all the time for example or artillery delivery time.

However poorly motivated troops also seem to behave more realistically, getting pinned sooner rather than dying to a man etc. Motivation seems to be the "deathwish" setting, and arguably the grizzled veteran has much less of a deathwish than the enthusiastic greenhorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...