Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 12/24/2020 2:18:16 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
Is this anything but a homer pick? I seriously doubt any German cared who was shooting at him, whether that be a Romanian or a Portuguese. Perhaps more likely he might be offended fighting against colonial troops....

In any case, it seems to me that ANZAC should be more of a "morale" burden on the Entente, not the Germans. For imagine how badly it would affect support for the war in Sydney if the entire ANZAC corps were wiped out!
Post #: 1
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 12/24/2020 8:44:26 AM   
BillRunacre

 

Posts: 4514
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
The ANZACs were good on the attack and used frequently as assault troops, so this is a way of building it into the game.

Otherwise there would be no difference between them and regular British Corps, which I don't think would be right.



_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 2
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 12/25/2020 2:37:19 AM   
Patrat


Posts: 107
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: offline
IIRC, they were so good and used so consistently that the Australian government complained that their constant use in assaults was causing undue casualties in relation to other UK controlled troops.

(in reply to BillRunacre)
Post #: 3
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 12/25/2020 11:41:45 AM   
1775Cerberus

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 8/11/2019
Status: offline
This was one of Pershings fears in the use of American troops by the British. The "élan" of new "enthusiastic troops" would make them excellent "shock" troops. Also as a general observation, The "Dominion troops" were often commented on as "bigger and more fit" than the English troops, especially once you get to the Bantam battalions.

A thought I have had while reading/researching is that the more "independent national spirit" that the Australians were known for allowed for a more initiative peer led battlefield instead of the very set piece "by the numbers" style of the English. It is a thought, not presenting it as fact, that arose from other research. (IE: USMC in WW1) This might be one of several factors that led to the view of the Australians and New Zealand troops as a bit of an "elite".

(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 4
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 12/25/2020 6:10:17 PM   
The Land

 

Posts: 765
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline
All the observations about the ANZACs being 'good' troops was right. After all, they were volunteers - and a relatively select group of enthusiastic volunteers with high physical standards of entry. But they weren't the only 'good' troops in the British Army, let alone in the whole conflict, and there's a certain amount of mythology around them.

By and large other 'good' formations are the ones that start with experience points - the British I Corps starts with two experience, for instance, which is exceptional.

Personally I would be tempted to have three tiers of Corps, maybe called "Guards", "Regular" and "Reserve" - roughly, both sides' commanders divided their units into several quality grades with the lower ones not to be trusted with any offensive action and this would reflect that.

_____________________________


(in reply to 1775Cerberus)
Post #: 5
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/20/2021 10:11:59 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

All the observations about the ANZACs being 'good' troops was right. After all, they were volunteers - and a relatively select group of enthusiastic volunteers with high physical standards of entry. But they weren't the only 'good' troops in the British Army, let alone in the whole conflict, and there's a certain amount of mythology around them.

By and large other 'good' formations are the ones that start with experience points - the British I Corps starts with two experience, for instance, which is exceptional.

Personally I would be tempted to have three tiers of Corps, maybe called "Guards", "Regular" and "Reserve" - roughly, both sides' commanders divided their units into several quality grades with the lower ones not to be trusted with any offensive action and this would reflect that.



I second this.
In WW1 gold, a long forgotten and abandoned game, they had 4 levels of troops -
ELite - Each country got between 1-3 corps (these were troops like Guards, Anzacs, Canadians etc). Eg: Elite can be corps like Alpenkorps/Prussian Guards or the Anzacs/Canadians. These should be no more than 5/10% of total troops.
Cavalry mobilised pre war was always veteran or elite, whereas Artillery was always reservist.

Veterans - These were troops which were trained pre-war, Most countries got 30% troops in this category, very good troops on attack and defense, though slightly below elite in terms of attack.

Regulars- These were reservists trained pre-war, they were weaker than elite in attack and defense, they were good troops, formed over half the total troops.

Reservists - These were mostly mobilised in a hurry, Russia and the minors as also Italy, Austria and Ottomans had these troops. Useless on attack and ok on defense to an extent.

(in reply to The Land)
Post #: 6
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/20/2021 12:19:50 PM   
Pocus


Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
Are Stosstruppen in the game? They could have been a special type of troops of Germany, as there are ANZAC for the Brits & Cmw.

_____________________________

AGEOD Team - Lead Developer
Makers of Empires, ACW2, EAW, WIA, WON

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 7
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/20/2021 12:25:30 PM   
stockwellpete

 

Posts: 582
Joined: 12/20/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shri


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

Personally I would be tempted to have three tiers of Corps, maybe called "Guards", "Regular" and "Reserve" - roughly, both sides' commanders divided their units into several quality grades with the lower ones not to be trusted with any offensive action and this would reflect that.



I second this.
In WW1 gold, a long forgotten and abandoned game, they had 4 levels of troops -
ELite - Each country got between 1-3 corps (these were troops like Guards, Anzacs, Canadians etc). Eg: Elite can be corps like Alpenkorps/Prussian Guards or the Anzacs/Canadians. These should be no more than 5/10% of total troops.
Cavalry mobilised pre war was always veteran or elite, whereas Artillery was always reservist.

Veterans - These were troops which were trained pre-war, Most countries got 30% troops in this category, very good troops on attack and defense, though slightly below elite in terms of attack.

Regulars- These were reservists trained pre-war, they were weaker than elite in attack and defense, they were good troops, formed over half the total troops.

Reservists - These were mostly mobilised in a hurry, Russia and the minors as also Italy, Austria and Ottomans had these troops. Useless on attack and ok on defense to an extent.


I find these ideas very interesting about a Veteran - Regular - Reservist categorisation.

My grandfather, who joined the Coldstream Guards in the British army in 1911, would be classed as a Veteran in this categorisation. He was badly wounded in late October 1914 and was invalided out of the war (and the army in September 1915). By the time he was wounded those Guard and other units (to be classed as Regulars) that had made up the BEF in August 1914 had suffered terrible casualties and these men were not replaceable in terms of their military experience. Kitchener's army that was mobilised from 1915 would be classified as Reservists in this scheme and presumably most other regiments posted to the front from 1915 onwards would be classified the same way. There would be very few Regulars and absolutely no Veterans to be added in these new mobilisations. I did read in Stevenson somewhere that over half the soldiers on the Western Front when the war ended were teenagers so a lot of them would have been relatively inexperienced.

So once these Guard and Regular units are "destroyed" in the game, maybe they cannot be replaced at 135 MPP's? Perhaps it would be full cost to replace these two types of units, with Guards units possibly being a bit more (say 250 MPP's?). Reservists could always be replaced at 135 MPP's. I don't actually know how regiments like the Coldstream Guards went about replenishing their numbers. Did they drop their standards or could the best soldiers from other regiments apply to join them?


< Message edited by stockwellpete -- 1/20/2021 12:28:05 PM >

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 8
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/21/2021 5:59:03 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

Are Stosstruppen in the game? They could have been a special type of troops of Germany, as there are ANZAC for the Brits & Cmw.


No, not there. The Germans should have something like that starting from early 1917 is the demand being made.

(in reply to Pocus)
Post #: 9
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/21/2021 6:22:11 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3865
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

Are Stosstruppen in the game? They could have been a special type of troops of Germany, as there are ANZAC for the Brits & Cmw.


No, not there. The Germans should have something like that starting from early 1917 is the demand being made.


Agreed they should be in game and the reasoning they are not is that the German troops have more experience. But in order to get the stars you have to sit them and upgrade them and there is just no time for that in this game. You have to keep the pressure up from the start or the game is lost!


_____________________________


(in reply to shri)
Post #: 10
RE: Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization - 1/21/2021 6:57:08 AM   
Pocus


Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
Yes, this would be more flavorful I believe than generic elite points. 2 corps of Stosstruppen as part of the German roster, like you get ANZAC would be a nice touch.

_____________________________

AGEOD Team - Lead Developer
Makers of Empires, ACW2, EAW, WIA, WON

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> Logic behing ANZAC inflicting extra de-moralization Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.155