90th Division remarks *DELETED*

[narwan]

baggypants said:
During '42 the US troops should be more fragile and by '44 a little more aggressive than the British while defensively about even with the Germans. The game does this IMO quite sucessfully with the current US values.

That is, as you state yourself, an opinion and not a fact. You are also more or less correct that the game with the current values reflects this. Which is exactly the whole point of this thread. The current US values are under scrutiny because the resulting 'abilities' in the game of US troops are not conform 'reality' according to some.
It's also not very smart to accuse the other side of the debate of 'admiring the germans'. This has little to do with it. We're talking about the US troops here, not the germans. I for one find it very odd you would find that the US would be more aggressive than the british in '44. All I have seen and heard when it comes to small unit performances (which is what this game deals with) suggests the opposite to me. So it would be helpful if you could teel us WHY you think the US was more aggressive (small units wise) than for example the UK and why you think they were on the same level (again small units wise) as the germans? I find both claims highly questionable.

And to get back to an earlier point, training; you say that the quality of officers had more to do with it than training. But isn't the quality of the officers vital for the training a unit receives, not so much the quantity but the quality of it?