Slitherine

considering the level of abstraction im fine with just pretending that they are there.

Umeu wrote:considering the level of abstraction im fine with just pretending that they are there.

I think that what we can make is to substract all those home troops from the total manpower available

Umeu wrote:considering the level of abstraction im fine with just pretending that they are there.

Well OK, but the "home front" would add another interesting dimension to the game. If we take Britain - apart from the general garrisoning of military establishments and ports (to protect against invasion and sabotage), later on in the war there was the question of labour unrest and the revolt in Ireland in 1916. Other countries, particularly the Central Powers, had very serious food riots and mutinies. So the so-called "Garrison units" in the game really should be for home defence, I feel - if that is what they are meant to represent, that is.

If there is someone with a lot of knowledge about the land armies of WW1 I would appreciate some comments with the issues I am grasping at in a rather muddled way in my thread "Elite Infantry units" in the main part of the forum. How those questions are answered might have some impact on any modding that might be attempted in future. Basically, the idea in my head at the moment (and I have only read a couple of books so far on WW1) is that the distinctions between "regular army" and the various types of "reserves" had largely broken down by the end of 1914 - instead there was just "infantry" at the front and "garrison" units at home.

So if you think that it is OK "to pretend that the home defence units are there" then maybe the game needs only one type of infantry unit - the regular infantry unit. And maybe the starting efficiency of units built while the game is in progress should be low (5) to indicate "inexperience" and that efficiency can only begin to recover back up to 10 once that unit had engaged in combat. Infantry units available at the start of the game could have efficiency level set at 10 - to represent the better training they would have received. If something like this was adopted then players would be less keen to disband units (which is ahistorical - badly mauled units were merged with other badly mauled units to make new units in reality) because their efficiency levels would generally be higher than a new unit of volunteers or conscripted men.

One of the justifications for the two unit types is the lack of stacking in game. Without stacking, we felt we needed variations in the strengths of the base units. If you want to go on the offensive, you need the right (stronger) troops.

Myrddraal wrote:One of the justifications for the two unit types is the lack of stacking in game. Without stacking, we felt we needed variations in the strengths of the base units. If you want to go on the offensive, you need the right (stronger) troops.

Yes, I can see that point. But to go on the offensive anyway you really need to co-ordinate infantry, artillery and aircraft plus you need extra fresh infantry in a second line to exploit any gap you might make, so not having garrison troops in the field wouldn't detract too much from the planning required to attempt a breakthrough.

In the manual the garrison units are actually described as "small units", yet in the MP game that I have just lost two of the columns that broke through my defensive positions were spearheaded by these garrison troops. That is not very realistic, in my view. The spearheads of such a major push would have been comprised of the best soldiers available, not the poorest.

The way field armies were deployed during WWI, I see the games infantry unit as a infantry "Corps" while the games garrison unit is more like an independent, or detached, Infantry "Division". The games scale doesn't really lend it self to anything smaller and I don't think of it as a matter of quality but of quantity.

The games Artillery unit is a more abstract concept of the or a, Army or Army groups conglomeration or organisation of their Corps artillery assets into a "barrage".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Arm ... ire)#Corps
As an example of the organization of the time.

xriz wrote:The way field armies were deployed during WWI, I see the games infantry unit as a infantry "Corps" while the games garrison unit is more like an independent, or detached, Infantry "Division". The games scale doesn't really lend it self to anything smaller and I don't think of it as a matter of quality but of quantity.

Yes, I think that certainly fits the BEF in France in 1914 which had 2 division-corps apparently. So a division was 20,000 men and a corps was 40,000 men. Perhaps it is just the term "garrison" that is confusing me (it doesn't take much! ). Maybe if the infantry units were called corps and divisions then that would be clearer?

Furthermore, if this 2 division-corps is the model the developers have used for infantry in the game (could one of the developers say if this is so please?) then maybe a future development might include the ability to merge two "division" units and turn it into a "corps" unit and vice versa? So, for example, if you had a "division" unit in the frontline that was taking a bit of a battering you could move up a supporting "division" unit into the same hex and it would the two of them would turn into a "corps" unit. Would that be a good idea?

guys were getting off track here, this is supposed to be a modificiation try and keep it limited to things we can mod. i understand that sometimes its hard with all the enthousiasm

Umeu wrote:guys were getting off track here, this is supposed to be a modificiation try and keep it limited to things we can mod. i understand that sometimes its hard with all the enthousiasm

The mod here is to change the names of the two types of infantry units to "infantry corps" and "infantry division" so we lose the term "garrison", which is suggestive of home defence units.

stockwellpete wrote:

Umeu wrote:guys were getting off track here, this is supposed to be a modificiation try and keep it limited to things we can mod. i understand that sometimes its hard with all the enthousiasm

The mod here is to change the names of the two types of infantry units to "infantry corps" and "infantry division" so we lose the term "garrison", which is suggestive of home defence units.

that is possible but if i recall before myrdraal said that garrison and infantry units have the same size.

Umeu wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:

Umeu wrote:guys were getting off track here, this is supposed to be a modificiation try and keep it limited to things we can mod. i understand that sometimes its hard with all the enthousiasm

The mod here is to change the names of the two types of infantry units to "infantry corps" and "infantry division" so we lose the term "garrison", which is suggestive of home defence units.

that is possible but if i recall before myrdraal said that garrison and infantry units have the same size.

In the manual it says that garrison units are "smaller" units though - so maybe we need a clarification here. In terms of building cost the "garrison" unit is half the cost of an "infantry" unit so the "corps-division" idea above might be right. Whatever the cheaper unit is, I don't think they are meant to be "home defence" units.

the description says cheaper units, but they do cost less manpower, so perhaps they are smaller. however they are described to really be garrison units but in game they kinda fill the role of holding the less important parts of the line while infantry holds the key positions or the weak parts of the line.

however i kinda do like how the infantry mechanics work now, im not sure if all infantry is really something we'd want. if we would go for a 1 type infantry system then there needs to be a way to gain experience to distinguish between veterans and raw recruits.

the description says cheaper units, but they do cost less manpower, so perhaps they are smaller. however they are described to really be garrison units but in game they kinda fill the role of holding the less important parts of the line while infantry holds the key positions or the weak parts of the line.

however i kinda do like how the infantry mechanics work now, im not sure if all infantry is really something we'd want. if we would go for a 1 type infantry system then there needs to be a way to gain experience to distinguish between veterans and raw recruits.

Umeu wrote:the description says cheaper units, but they do cost less manpower, so perhaps they are smaller. however they are described to really be garrison units but in game they kinda fill the role of holding the less important parts of the line while infantry holds the key positions or the weak parts of the line.

however i kinda do like how the infantry mechanics work now, im not sure if all infantry is really something we'd want. if we would go for a 1 type infantry system then there needs to be a way to gain experience to distinguish between veterans and raw recruits.

Yes, I think the infantry system is fine - I just want to get rid of the word "garrison" really so this would only be a labelling change.

I think there is a confusion, or maybe it is a conflation, involved in these "garrison units" at the moment. When I first got the game I thought they were meant to be "home defence" units - so being a stickler for my history I tended not to build anymore as I already had enough at the start of the game to garrison my home territory and any forts that I held (I tended not to use them in the trenches at all once I had built enough regular infantry units). This made the game very difficult for me though. In my latest game against the Entente on "Privileged" I am using the "garrison units" as if they were infantry divisions and I am doing much better (about level in mid-1915) - and the layout of the troops is very realistic with trench systems on both main fronts now (and in Palestine too).

I think the "garrison units" are definitely smaller. They use 6 manpower points while the regular infantry unit uses 10. They only take 1 turn to build though while the regular units take 3 so that seems to be a bit inconsistent. Maybe an interesting experiment would be to reduce the manpower cost of the smaller unit to 5 and to reduce the build time of the larger unit to 2 turns? In that way there would be much greater consistency but it would not lead to any more units being on the map as the PP's would be unchanged.

FWIW, I agree that changing the name is the best approach.

Things got a bit confusing because the intended role of the 'garrison' unit evolved through the beta period. When we first went into beta, they were intended as 'home defence' units, hence were called garrisons. They weren't really meant to be frontline units. As we playtested the game, we shifted their stats and roles further towards the frontline.

They require less manpower to build & deploy, and therefore they do represent a unit with a smaller number of soldiers in it. They also represent the less well trained/professional elements of the army, hence the shorter deployment time.

Myrddraal wrote:FWIW, I agree that changing the name is the best approach.

Would this "Corps" and "Division" idea work for you - or is there another way of approaching the issue?

Things got a bit confusing because the intended role of the 'garrison' unit evolved through the beta period. When we first went into beta, they were intended as 'home defence' units, hence were called garrisons. They weren't really meant to be frontline units. As we playtested the game, we shifted their stats and roles further towards the frontline. They require less manpower to build & deploy, and therefore they do represent a unit with a smaller number of soldiers in it. They also represent the less well trained/professional elements of the army, hence the shorter deployment time.

OK, thanks for that explanation. The only thing I would say is that the distinction between professional/less well-trained soldiers diminished very quickly once the war started and the casualties began to rise rapidly. Britain was using volunteer "Pals" units in 1915 and conscripted units by 1916 - I am not sure that they had that much training before going to the front (some of the training they got was when they were rotated away from the front). Most of the other powers had conscripted armies too and must have faced the same problems. So it seems it was only the soldiers who were in the various armies BEFORE the war started that really got trained properly.

stockwellpete wrote:
OK, thanks for that explanation. The only thing I would say is that the distinction between professional/less well-trained soldiers diminished very quickly once the war started and the casualties began to rise rapidly. Britain was using volunteer "Pals" units in 1915 and conscripted units by 1916 - I am not sure that they had that much training before going to the front (some of the training they got was when they were rotated away from the front). Most of the other powers had conscripted armies too and must have faced the same problems. So it seems it was only the soldiers who were in the various armies BEFORE the war started that really got trained properly.

In fact, all the soldiers called from the various reserve echelons (the vast majority of those call to arms) had been trained for at least 2 years. They had to be retrained, but that is way easier than started a training from scratch.
There was a real difference in army corps depending of their intended role, as war progressed those Army Corps marked for offensive operations got the best units and a lot of auxiliary units, especially artillery and engineers, while thos for defensive operations were kept at a minimal strength, sometimes little more than reinforced divisions.

Aryaman wrote:In fact, all the soldiers called from the various reserve echelons (the vast majority of those call to arms) had been trained for at least 2 years. They had to be retrained, but that is way easier than started a training from scratch.
There was a real difference in army corps depending of their intended role, as war progressed those Army Corps marked for offensive operations got the best units and a lot of auxiliary units, especially artillery and engineers, while thos for defensive operations were kept at a minimal strength, sometimes little more than reinforced divisions.

The figures I have for the British army in 1914 are Army reserve 145,000; Special Reserve 64,000; and National Reserve 215,000. So these would have been well-trained as you are saying - but once we move into 1915 and the casualties are starting to take their too, would the Pals Divisions (raised in 1915) or the conscripted men (raised from 1916 onwards) have had very much training before arriving at the front? Wasn't that why somewhere like Etaples was felt necessary by the army hierarchy? By 1918 the British army was 4 million strong (750,000 men had been killed or had gone AWOL; 1,600,000 men had been wounded).

stockwellpete wrote:
The figures I have for the British army in 1914 are Army reserve 145,000; Special Reserve 64,000; and National Reserve 215,000. So these would have been well-trained as you are saying - but once we move into 1915 and the casualties are starting to take their too, would the Pals Divisions (raised in 1915) or the conscripted men (raised from 1916 onwards) have had very much training before arriving at the front? Wasn't that why somewhere like Etaples was felt necessary by the army hierarchy? By 1918 the British army was 4 million strong (750,000 men had been killed or had gone AWOL; 1,600,000 men had been wounded).

No, as I commented to you in another thread, the British Army was the exception because it has no universal conscription system in the prewar years, so there was no reserve echelons like in the other countries. That was a big problem for the British army after 1915, as you pointed, especially the lack of trained officers.
In game terms, we should have a very strong BEF unit, and then much weaker replacements for the rest of the game until they get some experience.