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.