RE: U.S. army too srong?

RE: U.S. army too srong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918

Message

anarchyintheuk -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/10/2008 6:14:52 PM)
No reason to apologize. Enjoyed the discussion.

FM WarB -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/10/2008 7:29:56 PM)
It should be noted that a U.S> "A" quality unit is actually rated the same (7) as a German "C" quality unit. The latest four CV reduction to all U.S. units helps.

Kaliber -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/14/2008 3:50:51 PM)
Playing the CP in version 1.3 f I just air recconed Brest, where the first americans have landed. I noticed their corps were still CV 40 and 36. Is this because we upgraded from 1.3 c in the course of the game?

lordhoff -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/14/2008 6:46:41 PM)
quote: The disparity always seemed to me to be more a function of the relative strength of the US Army when it happened to arrive- like Mike Dubost said. The US units were stronger/better merely because they were not the shredded remnants of the armies already there. In other words, a US unit in 1914 against a German or French or UK units would not have been better/stronger....likely much worse. The US didn't enter in 1914 and by 1918 they were "better". The thing is the game already has a mechanic to handle this - exhaustion and the attrition decline of unit quality not to mention that by 1918 neither side will be fielding full strength corps so the US units do not need to be made bigger against the absolute size of the peacetime European forces because they will be bigger relatively even at a more "normal" size. In game terms, Americans were "A" (for America) and British and French units were at best "B" by then. One also has to remember that in organization, a US division at the time was only slightly smaller then a European corp. Keeping to the game definitions requires that US corps be much superior numerically. I'm not really sure how a US "A" corps in the games stacks up to a European corps but I'm betting the relative quality of the US "A"corps is far below that of British or French "A" corps but as is historically correct, much larger numerically. If anything (IF) should be changed, it would be the relative quality of the troops. quote: It should be noted that a U.S> "A" quality unit is actually rated the same (7) as a German "C" quality unit. The latest four CV reduction to all U.S. units helps. That seems about right then - ie - historically correct.

Kaliber -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/15/2008 12:11:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliber Playing the CP in version 1.3 f I just air recconed Brest, where the first americans have landed. I noticed their corps were still CV 40 and 36. Is this because we upgraded from 1.3 c in the course of the game? No, countrary to what has been said, the US first corps still arrives at CV 40 in 1.3 f. Just played the 1917 scenario hotseat to verify this. Frank, where are you please? There are a host of issues here and we haven't heard anything for two weeks.

esteban -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/27/2008 2:10:55 AM)
I agree that 36 strength "A quality" U.S. corps are WAY too powerful. Basically they function as Best to make them 28-30 strength B Quality units and to have them give the Brits and French a morale boost when they show up. Maybe make the 1st corps an A quality corps. But its ridiculous to say that the U.S. should be A quality when they had to practice at home with wooden field guns and then had to get additional training once they landed in France.

hjaco -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/27/2008 8:34:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: esteban Best to make them 28-30 strength B Quality units and to have them give the Brits and French a morale boost when they show up. The Entente receive a humongous morale boost when America enters (up to around 20). You can track this down by using the victory progress screen and click on your countries to see political morale boost for previous turns. There you can also follow morale gain/loss for countries entering/conquered. These numbers are random for each county though.

lordhoff -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/27/2008 7:26:50 PM)
quote: But its ridiculous to say that the U.S. should be A quality when they had to practice at home with wooden field guns and then had to get additional training once they landed in France. Remember, "A" just means the highest quality that the USA had - it is not meant to compare with "A" of another country and indeed, as another poster pointed out, USA "A" is approximately the same as German "C".

FM WarB -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (12/27/2008 11:38:03 PM)
It should be noted that the "corps" units we play with in this game are NOT Corps. They are an approximation of available strength, fudged by the game designer. From past posts, Frank said that the 24 of a German "corps" in 1914 was the standard, and all else was fudged from there. A German 1914 Korps has two inf divisions. By 1918, a Korps could have four or five divisions (not as strong as 1914 versions, landser-wise, but oft stronger weapon-wise). So why is a German four division Korps with some experience that much weaker than a US two division Corps, albeit with alot more green infantrymen? Answer: The US "corps" are NOT corps, either. They are also game designer estimates of available strength.

SMK-at-work -> RE: U.S. army too srong? (1/5/2009 8:13:07 AM)
It's all mixed up because the strengths are not simply a reflection of manpower - life would be much easier if strength points = manpower, and quality = everything else (equipment, perceived quality of the troops, etc)...but alas that was something that was decided early on and is now (IIRC) unable to be changed.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.625