90th Division remarks *DELETED*

[Marek_Tucan]

This is covered by the Rally rating, I believe and yes, I think rally rating shall be lower for US troops than for Germans.

EDITED for clarity.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Marek
Glad you made that clear, when you say Rally rating do you mean the 3 Unit "Command" values the Player preferences or the Realism Preferences
Best Regards Chuck.

[Marek_Tucan]

The unit "leader ratings".

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[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?

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[chuckfourth]

Hi Baggypants
There is no evidence that US forces "break contact easily but recover quickly". So stop worrying about any "proper effects"

baggypants said:
Operational level doctrine is the guiding light for tactical level implementation.

This is meaningless statement
The British squad was every bit as aggressive in 44 as it was in 40. this has nothing to do with operational considerations. Something you may have missed, being aggressive reduces casualties.
And of course on an operational level I guess your going to tell me operation Market Garden wasnt aggressive.


[/quote]

baggypants said:
As far as the US being on par with the Germans defensively,

Theirs no need to break it down into defensive and offensive Morale(Rallying) affects Both.

baggypants said:
I was arguing that shortfalls in one division did not reflect the training standard of all the other divisions.

You continue to ignore the Levenworth article
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
, Kasserine, Anzio etc the shortfalls are clearly not restricted to the 90th.
When on a joint training Exercise with the Americans in Hawaii we had many interestig experiences one that is particularily relevent is this.
When we arrived we noticed that the Americans were in the habit of shooting off a few rounds in the morning. This was great fun until it was noticed that somebody was shooting real bullets through the pup tents, though this was a great lark it was decided some action should be taken so the General was called in. We formed up the General got driven up jumped out of his jeep gave a long speech about how great a job we were all doing and took off. If discipline isnt enforced during Peacetime it wont be there when the war starts. Oh yes and we did a lot of section attacks using Laser Equipment, can you guess what methods we used? can you guess who cleaned up the Yanks?
Guess what, you make me sick.
Chuck.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Boggypants

baggypants said:
morale value in SP seems to encompass so much more that the name 'morale' is a bit deceptive and seems to envision so many other things that the aforementioned confidence in leadership is better modelled in rally ratings.

You seem a little confused here perhaps in a similar way to how you dont understand squad tactics.
You mean to say
"Morale value in SP seems to encompass so much LESS" According to help the only thing encompassed by the game Morale rating so far is Rallying ability. I would be pretty sure that Rallying value and Morale value is the same thing
Perhaps the designers could clear this up?
ALso this has nothing to do with campaigns its about what the Morale value really is.
Chuck.