Hi Manstein,
Cool stuff. Thanks for sharing:+1:
Veteran Infantry
-
Just thinking about importing this idea from my Conquest of the Empire mechanic:
Infantry can be promoted to “Veteran” units (attack at 2?) with combat experience, that is
After a battle, a number of basic infantry which survived on the winning side can be promoted. The number promoted can never exceed the number of enemy units eliminated in that combat. Units on transports are not eligible.
I prefer this to proposed systems where “elite” infantry can be bought.
Some nations would begin with a number of veteran units depending on the scenario.
-
would there be a cost for promoting?… it could be done the way factories get upgraded.
-
Infantry can be promoted to “Veteran” units (attack at 2?) with combat experience, that is
I prefer this to proposed systems where “elite” infantry can be bought.
The name chosen say pretty much what is what.
Veterans are experienced, battle harden units.
Elites are better trained, skilled and motivated units with few or no real combat experience.I like your idea for veteran units.
-
It is correct that a unit get experienced and battle hardened after surviving combat, and it reach the peak after 100 hours of combat, then flat out to 400 hours and after that the fighting spirit decline because of combat fatigue and exhaust, not to mention most of the men got traumatized. A good example is the Desert Rats of 8th Army, they knocked Rommel out of Africa and fought as lions during El Alamein, but in Normandy some years later they were old men worn out and the kids in Hitlerjugend had no problem pushing them back.
So to keep this rule rational, after 3 or 4 battles the veteran unit is again promoted, but this time back to a retirement unit with 0 as combat value.
Not to forget that any specific army unit would keep getting fresh replacements of unexperienced recruits to keep up the steady loss of combat hardened veterans. So I say lets keep the units at the current values. Besides, modern weapons, high fighting spirit and morale, good training and skilled leaders, and not to forget a working supply line, have way more impact on the units combat effectiveness than some veterans that accidentally survived a battle and got battle hardened.
-
That’s correct. New (“green”) soldiers thrown into combat are initially not very effective. As they gain experience, and learn how to react correctly to which situations, they become more confident and eventually reach peak effectiveness. With continuous exposure to combat, that effectiveness gradually declines. Kept in combat for too long, to the point where they develop things like the “thousand-yard stare,” troops eventually break down completely. In WWII, in theatres where the ground fighting was continuous, the breakdown point would tend to be reached in about 200 days. The harsh irony was that, given the typical casualty rate of about 2% per day, soldiers in a hard-fighting infantry unit were statistically likely to be killed or wounded before they reached the 200-day breakdown point. Hence the need (as Narvik mentioned) to keep bringing new men into a unit to make up for its losses. So the “veteran infantry” concept would actually apply not to individual soldiers but rather to a unit that has the optimum ratio of experienced men at peak efficiency relative to the new guys who have just joined it and to the burned-out guys who are near the end of their tether.
-
@CWO:
That’s correct. New (“green”) soldiers thrown into combat are initially not very effective. As they gain experience, and learn how to react correctly to which situations, they become more confident and eventually reach peak effectiveness. With continuous exposure to combat, that effectiveness gradually declines. Kept in combat for too long, to the point where they develop things like the “thousand-yard stare,” troops eventually break down completely. In WWII, in theatres where the ground fighting was continuous, the breakdown point would tend to be reached in about 200 days. The harsh irony was that, given the typical casualty rate of about 2% per day, soldiers in a hard-fighting infantry unit were statistically likely to be killed or wounded before they reached the 200-day breakdown point. Hence the need (as Narvik mentioned) to keep bringing new men into a unit to make up for its losses. So the “veteran infantry” concept would actually apply not to individual soldiers but rather to a unit that has the optimum ratio of experienced men at peak efficiency relative to the new guys who have just joined it and to the burned-out guys who are near the end of their tether.
……you’re really smart.
-
Nice idea,
but this “elite” or “veteran” Status should not be limited to infantry since all other branches of your forces gain experience too.
And there remains one tiny practical problem: how to tell veterans from raw recruits on the game board? (If you dont want to paint your miniatures or place a huge amount of markers on the board.)
Greetings,
Lars
Suggested Topics
