morale/veterans in future game?

[unmerged(2539)]

My only proble with the current morale system is in its poor
documentation that results in lost playing time in trial and error to
find the best practical use of troops, what i see as a common complaint
is the desire of many to judge the odds and know what the likly outcome
will be of those odds.This no doubt as a result of many coming from
a bg or wg background and being used to having it displayed and prosented
for easy understanding,the reverse is true in real terms,for much of
history being able to acertain on the battlfield the enemys numbers
was beyond many let alone divine their actual perforamnce beforhand.So
settling disputs was always a risky undertaking when resorting to war,
only repeated exposure gave the commanders any idea of what was needed
to achieve their war aims against what could be many and varied types
of opponents.So as a simulation the current model works well enough
for the most part.

Morale consideration in history.
What is a veteran and how does he perform
All nations feel they are up there with the best of them this is true
throught human history,what efects its national army morale is tied to
this in the following way.
winning the first battle is second in importance only to winning the
last,even if the loser has other factors in his favour the restoring
of self confidence is a long process.conversly the victor flushed with
reafirmation of his superiority imagines himself invincable, which goes
a long way to making him so,if he gains further victorys his morale
becomes almost unbreakable.
It has been found in many wars that troops enter a campaign with plenty
of enthusiasim but little skill,their abilitys being the result of the
peace time drill,which may be completly inapproriate for the task in hand
Then as they mature in combat their skill level improves to reach a peak
of effiecency around3 or 4 battles but their enthusiasim fades away.
Why?because regardless of the time frame or technolgy involved they get
to know to much of the risks that combat intails,with the result they take
measures to keep out of it where possible.
They lose a sharpness and edge they had before,experiance has shown them
what is possible,and at what cost.they do their part,but no more than
that.

So what does this equal in a morale model for a simulation that can be
used regardless of time frame.

For units
raw troops/ should produce more extreme combat outcome results to
represent their unpredictableness,whilst the veterans results will be
confined to a narrow band of above average results.Obvously the list
can be extended to include as many classifications as needed.

For nations
So instead of a single crt we need several to represent the current
military ability of the nation,they move up or down in a chart that
reflects there military victorys against different military systems,
this will reflect a greater versatilty in its own military as it has
the experience/abilty to adapt its tactics to new methods of war.
continued victory against the same enemys will be a slower advance
through the chart.new leaders can be applied from here, after all
leadership/tactics only evolves to meet new threats.

anyone care to add their 2 cents?

Hannibal
SpenNick@aol.com

 

[unmerged(2714)]

My two cent are this

You are 100% correct.

 

[Sidney]

Veterans buy you nothing. Well drilled troops buy you everything.

Troops should get better from creation but not max out for 5 years, and maybe more. The repetition of drill made the soliders better and better to handle the combat manuevers and the elaborate load/firing drills

Veterans should not exist in the game. Troops are either well drilled or not. The Early Moden (EM) age is not like the modern era where veterans count as much. Why?

1. Lack of an empty battlefield. The US Army estimated in Korea that roughly 10% of its solder's effectivly discharged their weapons in combat. This is probably a good figure for any non-close order unit. Veterans troops who have been under fire will increase your effectiveness becuase they wil tend to fire back. This is not the case in the EM becuase troops in close order drills can't just go to ground and not fire back. There are very few cases of troops not firing (now there are cases of them not firing effectively- discharging a weapon without a ball or firing off the ramrod). They were right there with no real place to go. Firing among all troops was of a much higher order than currently. Novices and veterans were just as likely to shoot but their effectiveness was based on training not epxerience. An army that was well drilled and familar with its officers, NCO's and each other felt more comfortable going into battle.

2. There weren't many veterans. The bulk of an EM battlefield was not actually being shot/stabbed at while most combat troops on a modern battlefield are presumed to be under fire. Those units on the battlefield but not being shot at aren't getting battlefield expereince. Those units that are being shot/stabbed at are getting the expereince of being cut to pieces. These units would often draw 50%-70% losses- by way of comparision the US Army withdraws a unit from combat at 30% losses judging it to be ineffective. The shattered remnants of these regiments then had to be remolded with younger tropps and thus the "experience" was diluted. Even worse, the troops were usually, in modern terms, shell-shcoked and not very useful for quite some time after a battle. Frederick the Great opined that the best fight in any regiment was its very first fight. Even if a regiment did survive and gained its baptism of fire EM commanders would often leave those units "out" of the next fight and use fresh regiments to lead the push or guard critical sectors.

One reason battles were avoid so cautiously and entered into only, in most cases, to relieve or siege a fortified post, was that the troops thrown into battle were normally assumed to be lost and rebuilding those units was a long, expensive and time consuming effort.

Just slowing the build time of a unit gives you a lot of advantages. First, it encourages folks to save their armies which would more acurattely model the EM leader's effeorts. Two, it would discourage the enless DoW's that seem to afflic Russia, P-L and Turkey and give them really way too fast levels of expansion.

That is my 2cents.

 

[unmerged(2714)]

I think we're talking in terms of morale not ability.
of course they all fought the same way but the side with experience in battle are less likely to break as opposed to those troops fresh off the drilling grounds.

 

[unmerged(1813)]

Wargames of all kinds have been making the same mistake for at least the 35 years that I've been playing them: using the term 'morale' to cover all the psychological factors that affect unit performance.
There are in fact three basic categories of factors that have to be considered, besides the basic numbers of troops and types of weapons:
1. Doctrine. This is how the troops are expected to use their weapons to fight the battle, and how the troops themselves expect to use their weapons to fight the battle. Doctrine can be formal, as in modern armies where it is laid out precisely and with much reiteration in manuals, or it can be laid down by very informal means, like custom and tradition.
2. Training. This is a measure of how well the troops can perform the functions required by their doctrine. In some cases the training required may be minimal: the wild charge of a Highland clan didn't require a lot of formal drill. In some cases the training may be strictly individual: Turkish light cavalry were notoriously good swordsmen, who charged in no formation or order whatsoever but could do terrible damage if they got loose inside your formation with a scimitar or sabre. Usually, especially in the EU period, we are talking about both individual weapons training and unit training in drill and maneuver.
3. Morale. This is how much the men feel like performing the functions they were trained to do at any given moment. The best-trained troops may not feel like performing their trained tasks, while troops with no training at all, like militia, may be so enthusiastic they will attempt tasks for which they are not trained (or equipped). Training affects Morale, in that usually better trained troops will be more confident in themselves and their weapons and therefore more likely to competently perform.

Doctrine is the most long-term factor, usually impossible to change until you have a decade or so between wars. training levels can be changed in a few months of intensive effort (like von Steuben's drills at Valley Forge in the American Revolution) or with a single addition of several hundred untrained recruits to a unit of veterans. Morale can change from minute to minute within a battle according to conditions and actions by and to the unit or the individual.
One of the primary tasks of military training is to instill Disciplined Behavior. In a nutshell, a disciplined unit suppresses the natural Fight or Flight reaction to deadly danger and replaces it with Obedience to Orders. Therefore, an untrained or poorly trained unit may or may not be less effective than a trained and disciplined unit, but it will always be less predictable and less reliable.

In EU, doctrine is simulated partially by the Random or Generic Leader factors, which are different for each country and state in the game. They are the same for a country for the entire length of the game, which is an extreme simplification, but does represent the long-term nature of Doctrine as an influence on an army's performance.
In EU, training and morale are lumped together, and affected by two things primarily: the maintenance level and the Land Tech level. These are both bogus.
Maintenance Level because there was no direct relationship between the amount spent on a soldier and his effective training or morale. The French Army in the Seven Years War, for instance, spent 7 times per soldier what Friedrich's Prussia did, yet the French were notoriously poorly drilled while Fred had the best-disciplined, best drilled infantry in Europe. The Swedes in the Thirty Years War likewise spent much less per soldier than the German States, yet had a much better drilled and disciplined force. Maintenance level does have an effect short term, as it represents the ability or lack of it to pay and feed the troops on time and adequately. Even the best-disciplined troops will become downright mutinous if they aren't paid or fed, and disruption to the maintenance can also lead to desertion and disease (attrition, if you will).
Land Tech Level is a poor direct measure of Morale Levels because it doesn't matter or morale what type of weapon the soldier has, what matters is whether he feels confident in his own ablity to use the weapon effectively, and confident that his weapon, if used as he was trained, will damage the enemy more than the enemy can damage him. Therefore, strictly speaking for morale purposes it is not the Tech Level that matters, but the Tech Level relative to the opponent's tech level. And, of course, tech Level is no measure of Training Level at all: the techniques of training the recruit from the general to the specific using behavioral psychology and repetitive drill to render his actions second nature had been well-understood since Roman times - no Tech Advance in the EU period changes the effectiveness of training.
How do we reflect this in EU (or EUII, more likely)? First, keep Morale as a factor, but as a factor affected by Maintenance Level and a rating for the Leader of the army: a Marlborough, a Friedrich or a Bobby Lee can influence the troops' morale and performance as much or more than a beer ration. Second, make the Drill or Training level a separate numerical function, one that changes over time based on the Maintenance Level, but the degree of change (the effectiveness of the training) would vary from country to country based on the Infrastructure Level and the Monarch's Land rating (how much the the king pay attention to the training of his troops?).
Finally, reflect Doctrine using the Generic Leader ratings, but also have it change based on some specific Land Tech level changes. This last requires that the Land Tech become non-linear. Right now, every state in EU will progress through the same Land Tech levels. Thus, every state will 'develop' Bayonet Assaults (Land Tech 37), then Attack Columns (Land Tech 46), then Platoon Fire (Land tech 47), etc. In fact, a nation whose Doctrine emphasizes Shock Action (like Sweden in 1680 - 1720, or France throughout the EU period) should 'research' Gallop Charges, Shock tactics, Bayonet Charges, and Attack Columns, but may never bother with Platoon Fire or Salvo Fire techniques.
In effect, the Land (and Naval, but that's another story) Tech advances should reflect varying doctrine among the states, which will change in effectiveness over time. The English, for instance, with Generic Leaders that reflect high Firepower values, may never develop Attack Columns, but you can be sure they will develop Platoon Fire. Each Tech development should be 'weighted' for Maneuver, Fire, Shock, Siege, so that each nation will 'research' or develop it at a rate based on its application to thei state's doctrine.
This also allows for doctrine to change. For example, the Russian Army under Peter and his immediate successors placed great store on firepower of artillery, adding light guns to every infantry and dragoon regiment. By the last 1/3 of the 18th century, Russian infantry had made almost a fetish of the bayonet attack, and so their Generic Leaders should reflect higher Shock Values, and their research Doctrine based on the Leader Change will start to shift its weight from Fire to Shock, from Salvo Fire or Platoon Fire techs towards Attack Columns, Shock Tactics, or Gallop Charges.

All of this is a lot more complicated than the current system. The advantages are that it provides a better model of the real variations in doctrine and training and a better game simulation of the differences between states' armies in the EU period.

 

[unmerged(2994)]

I must respectfully disagree with the previous comment that veterans get you nothing.

I will agree with the posters opinion that training is very valuable. But it is the combination of training and battlefield experience that make a unit most effective.

Training ensures you know how to use your equipment, repair it, fight as a team, follow orders, carry out the correct tactics.

Battlefield experience helps you not to freeze in combat (those who freeze tend not to become veterens ), to anticipate what is going to happen before it does, to know where the enemy is likely to be entrenched/hidden/strong, to know what shelter is useful in providing cover, etc.

You will always be able to point to cases where rookie troops, or experienced troops with little training have done well.

But you will find the most effective armies are those with the combination:

-Alexander the Great's invasion of Persia
-Napoleon's troops until his veteran units were gutted in Russia
-The German army at the beginning of WW II (and really, throughout, but especially at first when their skills were significantly above their opponents)
-American fighter pilots in the second half of WW II
-many other cases could easily be quoted.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Sub Driver
Battlefield experience helps you not to freeze in combat (those who freeze tend not to become veterens ), to anticipate what is going to happen before it does, to know where the enemy is likely to be entrenched/hidden/strong, to know what shelter is useful in providing cover, etc.

Like I said, expereince isn't really gained by units who faced combat during this period. "Expereinced" units got torn apart. Units that get mauled generally don't make good fighters the next time out (during any period) because their experience is that combat gets them killed. 20thc combat units, by comparision, take many fewer losses as a percentage of the total- in general.

You give a lot of examples of what makes veterans good but all of them are more relevant to Guadalcanal than Rossbach:

finding cover- no doubt huge in the 20thc but when you are marching upriht in brightly colored unifroms ina huge group-there is no where to hide.
finding the enemy- irrelevant for the same reason. They're standing is a massive group in plain sight.
Anticipation- also known as individual initiative. Something grossly undesired in this age. EAch person is a cog in a machine. Audy Murphy is not needed.

Basically the problem with rookie in the 20thc is that they do not beahve the way officers want them to. In large part, this is becuase they are not under observation and are indepenednactors to some extent (the empty battlefield concept). In the EM, you had sergeants with halberds pushing their units forward (and no not with the pointy end). You were a few inches away from your comrades in army and in full view. You could not jsut hide/go to ground and not participate.

Don't get me wrong, in a 20thc game a unit that has been seasoned is infinitely more useful than a rookie unit but this is a very different era of warfare.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Boris Badanov
Wargames of all kinds have been making the same mistake for at least the 35 years that I've been playing them: using the term 'morale' to cover all the psychological factors that affect unit performance. <snip>

Really nice post and I agree wholeheartedly with having morale and drill be two separate factors. Let morale zoom up in 3 months but let the drill number evolve over time much more slowly over time. If the developers make maintenacne costs higher then those maintenance settings would really make a bigger difference.

The doctrine issues are fasicnating. A bracnhing tree would be really interesting but since the human player knows that things are moving towards attack columns won't he just eschew other deadends and rush towards those? Kinds the same thing I did in Civ by by-passing Chivalry and Feudalism whihc took me nowhere. The aI might go up some blind alleys. I guess a really interestingly designed tree could make this work.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Sidney

I think your views are correct for what i believe the time frame your refering to,however as in
my original post i was proposing an apraisal of a generic morale system that was capable of
encampassing the whole time frame of whatever next eu system represents this may explain in part
the confusion,or it may be that if you prefer to substitute drilled for veteran,what i do disagree
with is that everyone is assuming the effect im intrested in only applies to the battfield were
my point is that drilled/veteran troops produce more predictable outcome than undrilled/untested
would achieve, as the game combat mechanics do not so much reflect a desisive battle but a general
comparison over time, other factors must also be brought to bear, also you frequently allude
to 20thcentury comparisions when in fact they are irrelevant except to your own narrow timeframe,
and even then highly subjective.The benifits of aquiring vetern/drilled troops status is more
marked an advantage the farther back in time you go,it was my hope that paradox would be using
an ancient timeframe,that is why i added the nationl morale considerationto better reflect an
evolving militry machine capable of respoding to different tacticl challenges when presented by
radicly differnt ways of waging war, something that is not at present nearly as well modelled as
i would have liked.
Hannibal
SpenNick@aol.com

 

[unmerged(2994)]

Hi Sidney,

You make some good points, but I believe you take them a bit too far.

Yes, individual initiative is much more valued today (at least in some armies , tho not all!). But even in previous periods, experience of the officer corp and non-coms was of value.

And experience of individual troops could still tell when it came to overcoming the fear in battle, thus leading to better shooting, being able to carry out those skills learned in drill (i.e., actually conduct a maneuver and maintain formation continuity while under fire), and even higher prowess with the sword/pike/you name it.

While drill IS important, ceremonial parade-ground troops, who historically EXCEL at drill, are notoriously terrible in combat (although I readily acknowledge that it is in part because of the types of individuals often drawn to those companies).

So in summary, I don't think veteran-status can be quite so readily dismissed. It is of value, as I believe history has shown, in that veteran troops just plain fight better.

Drill is a notable part, too, as you state. They are both parts of the whole.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Boris

yes i like where that leads to,perhaps something along these lines?
play erea divided into cultral groups containing the differnt nations
that are present and the start place for them to emerge from as the
game progresses,no real reason why as aplayer you should have to
play a start nation instead of another thats introduced later,all
that is required is that you are givin a ninor power to play while
you await your entry into the game,this could actual be avariant of
not chosing a main contender in that instead you control minor
powers at differnt times that have inherint problems of survival
and expansion into major players.
to bring out national caracteristics each nations has unique traits
along with those its shares a cultral grouping,these can then
be used to simulate the military/national devolpment along historical
lines,as tech changes will generaly be of a low order it is these
cultral grouping that determine the general devolpment in terms of the
importance of trade advance/expansion through colonys etc so a greek
city state being in the hellenistic cultral group will have a tendency
to expand(colonys)gain dipomates more so than a celt tribe in the
celt/iberian cultral group.the diplomats allowing a greater degree of
alliance in the form of leuges and confederations that allow mutal
defence and trade,trade profits being of more importance to some
nations than others as this would be their method of maintaing their
military as oposed to those who rely on a citizen body that would requir
considerable less upkeep unless called up in significant numbers.
to folow on that same city state military evolves through its actual
historical mode(spear hvy/hoplite/med hoplite/pike hoplite roughly)
but can advance quicker(as per original post) when confronted by foes
that employ differnt modes of warefare that require a doctrinal change
in the state force structure.So if your never at war with a foe that
employs evassive mounted missile you are denied the ability to produce
the correct trooptype or modifier to reflect a doctinal ability to
counter this threat, this would acuratle reflect the problems faced
in the initial conflict between divergent military schools of thought.
those are sort of factors i had in mind for the charts i mention in
the original post.terminogly aside the effect is the same regardless
of time period.
btw dont know if your into modding your files but if you are what ive
done so far is to adjust the maitenance level per country to a default
level in the winter,the ai if it goes to war then sets it at 100% and
suffers a lower level for a short time while gaining a cash bonus if
it stays at peace,this i did initialy as a way to model a war ethos
amongst some nations (those with a high maintanence)compared to those
of a more peaceful nature but has also now givin the appearence of
a campaign season where the military goes through a period of lower
effiecancy before regaining its true level.

Hannibal
SpenNick@aol.com

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Sub Driver
Hi Sidney,
While drill IS important, ceremonial parade-ground troops, who historically EXCEL at drill, are notoriously terrible in combat (although I readily acknowledge that it is in part because of the types of individuals often drawn to those companies).

Of course what is ceremonial now is actual then. Marching in formation and playing parade might not seem like a big deal today but it was the lifeblood of an army of the age.

I'm going against common sense but reading the commanders of the age and accounts of battles I just don't see whre they, or history, vindicated veterans like it did during Roman times or the 20thc.

A nice quotes from Frederick the Great will give you his impression of the effect of battle on good troops:
Referring to his well-drilled solidiers, "With troops such as these one could conquer the entire world if the victories were not as fatal to oneself as to the enemies."

Referring to the condition of his army after the 7 Year's War, "Nothing could have been more difficult than the re-establishment of order and discipline in the infantry, whihc had been severely degraded."

He notes, BTW, that the "desried precision" of the army did not return until 1770 so that is about 7 years of drill.

 

[unmerged(199)]

Sidney - I think your original #1 arguement has some weaknesses.

1. No empty battlefield. True enough - but the thing is that the ability of units to hit the enemy back then was pretty abysmal.

In the start of this period, guns were simply inaccurate (in fact, at the start of this period we're still primarily dealing with the push of the pike, with much, much lower losses in battle than later on). Later on, units could often not see each other due to the powder smoke, which made it hard to aim - quite apart from that many troops couldn't aim properly. In fact, inexperienced troops often shot without aiming - on purpose. Inexperienced troops also tended to fire too early - it took superb training and very high morale for a unit to march up on an enemy regiment while under fire.

Those units on the battlefield but not being shot at aren't getting battlefield expereince.

I'd tend to disagree - just seeing what a battle is like is valuable experience. Also, most units could expect to see some action during a battle.

On the other hand, you do have some merit in arguing that true "veteran" units were few and far between. However, there were quite a lot of units whose effect in battle was similar - namely, the Guard and Grenadier units of the various armies. These units were typically able to maintain their "veteran"-like status through long periods of time, since they usually had the best recruiting districts + their "glorious" history usually attracted a better class of recruits than the ordinary units.

Just my 25d

 

[unmerged(1813)]

Originally posted by strategy


In the start of this period, guns were simply inaccurate (in fact, at the start of this period we're still primarily dealing with the push of the pike, with much, much lower losses in battle than later on). Later on, units could often not see each other due to the powder smoke, which made it hard to aim - quite apart from that many troops couldn't aim properly. In fact, inexperienced troops often shot without aiming - on purpose. Inexperienced troops also tended to fire too early - it took superb training and very high morale for a unit to march up on an enemy regiment while under fire.

you do have some merit in arguing that true "veteran" units were few and far between. However, there were quite a lot of units whose effect in battle was similar - namely, the Guard and Grenadier units of the various armies. These units were typically able to maintain their "veteran"-like status through long periods of time, since they usually had the best recruiting districts + their "glorious" history usually attracted a better class of recruits than the ordinary units.

Just my 25d

Actually, aiming a smoothbore musket was pretty much an exercise in futility. Increases in firepower almost always took the form of increases in the density of firers and increases in the rates of fire. The Prussian musket design of the late 18th century, in fact, was designed so that it was impossible to aim it, becuase taking time to aim slowed down the rate of fire. The British Tower Musket, or 'Brown Bess' made it even simpler: it had no sights!
Many units could experience a lot of the battle without taking any serious casualties. At least in the 18th century it was quite common to have units lie down to avoid long-range solid shot plowing through the ranks - this was done as early as the battle of Blenheim in 1704 - so 'taking cover' was not unknown as a concept. Unless you were under artillery fire, any unit more than 200 meters from an enemy infantry unit was as safe -"as if they were on the far side of the moon" (to quote a British report on firing trials with the Brown Bess musket, which discovered that even when clamped in a vise the gun could not hit a target 8 times the size of a man at 250 yards).
The distinction is between those units and the ones that closed to within 50 - 60 paces from an enemy line. At ranges under 100 meters, an 18th century infantry line 3 - 4 ranks deep could, for a few minutes, put out 2500 - 3000 bullets per minute for every 100 meters of front. At that rate, even at less than 2% average hits (from B. P. Hughe's findings in his book "Firepower") 1 man in 5 in the front rank is going down every minute. Individual units, like one Dutch battalion at Blenheim, could suffer 90% casualties in one battle at that range, and 30% to 50% were not uncommon.
On the other hand, a unit with 50% veterans is a Veteran unit. Even if filed up with raw recruits, the combat experience is shared and the steadying effect of even a small percentage of veteran men and leaders has an effect all out of proportion to their numbers. This is why armies try to form units using a veteran cadre when one is available. Frederick the Great had a core of such veteran infantry regiments which he kept in his main army throughout the Seven Years War - they took horrendous casualties, and some of them got 'burnt out' completely (and transfered to garrison duties or to another subordinate field army) but the majority marched and fought through several major battles and all the major campaigns without losing their 'veteran' status.
This is not to deny that the overall quality of the units, especially the infantry, went down over the course of a long war. The training and drill levels built up over years of peace simply could not be maintained during wartime, which is why al armies needed to be 'rebuilt' after a war. This does not chane the fact that there were always units that were relatively better than the others in an army and maintained that status throughout the conflict.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Boris Badanov

This is not to deny that the overall quality of the units, especially the infantry, went down over the course of a long war. The training and drill levels built up over years of peace simply could not be maintained during wartime, which is why al armies needed to be 'rebuilt' after a war. This does not chane the fact that there were always units that were relatively better than the others in an army and maintained that status throughout the conflict.

The question is why are those units better through time? Is it it becuase those are the remnants of the well-drilled pre-war units or it becuase they have actually been shot at? When Frederick nostalgically talked about his veterans he did not refers to his battle-fired troops as much as his pre-war long service veterans.

Plus, in game terms here is my fear:

Brandenburg has been at peace for 15 years drilling it's troops and gets into a war with Austria. Austria raises some troops quickly lets them mmorale up (3mos) and sends them off and they get into one battle 1 months later. They are now "veterans" and when the well-drilled 15 year service Electoral army runs into these 4 month battle-hardened troops they get routed becuase the Austrians have a "veteran" status.

I always think combat-based status increases like this are hard to deal with since all combat expereinces are not created equal and the result on units is not always easy to determine. As ytou pointed out, some simply get burned out. Peace-time drill, meanwhile, is pretty simple to understand and rather easy to figure...the longer you do it the better you get and thus easier to model. In game terms, it will also have the beneficial effect of rewarding folks who carefully groom their armies, fight battles strategicall and don't just wage constant wars and throw away armies to raise new ones 3 months later.

 

[unmerged(749)]

I don't know if the veteran concept is the way to account for the varying quality of individual/national units given the scale of the game. I mean, a particular set of 10,000 infantry fights a battle and are deemed Veterans Units. How long do they retain this designation? In most games (like Civ) it's forever - as long as the unit exists. But the individuals who make up the unit will have mustered out or died after, what, 10, 20, 30 years? - yet the Veteran status goes on and on. So to remedy that you say, well, each increment of 1,000 men will be tracked by the computer and its veteran status will be transitory. Well, that's nice, but I don't know how easy to program or if it's worth it, given the pace of the game. I mean I blink and 10 years have gone by. And anyway, as you shuffle the deck of cards that are your regiments and batteries, how do you keep track of where and which units are veteran?

I liked Boris' essay about Doctrine/Training/Morale. Surely there must be a plausible way to assign relative bonus weights to the forces of a country over time beyond the strictures of the tech tree. I just don't think the Veteran model is the way to do it.

And now for something completely different -

It sure would be nice if, when you go to the info screen taht lists your generals/explorers/conquistadors/admirals you could hit a Go To button and go to them, or at least have their location displayed...

 

[unmerged(749)]

I find I always think of something good after already posting - sorry.

More thoughts on Unit Quality -

What do we all really want here? I think it is we want to recreate those periods when certain countries had famous, kick-ass troops. If we're Spain, we wants our tercios. If we're Sweden we want Gustavus' unbeatable army. If we're prussia, we want Frederick's grenediers. A superior English fleet. Etc. So instead of rigging up something with veterans or whatever, peraps there should be some random or scheduloed events where a certain nattionality has a shock bonus, say, or a firepower bonus, for a period of time. Doctrinal Advance or or something like that. Or create some special units that are similarly awarded - Swiss Guards Raised, etc., that have higher vales and are easily identifiable.

 

[unmerged(3006)]

Originally posted by Magnus
I find I always think of something good after already posting - sorry.

More thoughts on Unit Quality -

What do we all really want here? I think it is we want to recreate those periods when certain countries had famous, kick-ass troops. If we're Spain, we wants our tercios. If we're Sweden we want Gustavus' unbeatable army. If we're prussia, we want Frederick's grenediers. A superior English fleet. Etc. So instead of rigging up something with veterans or whatever, peraps there should be some random or scheduloed events where a certain nattionality has a shock bonus, say, or a firepower bonus, for a period of time. Doctrinal Advance or or something like that. Or create some special units that are similarly awarded - Swiss Guards Raised, etc., that have higher vales and are easily identifiable.

Isn't this already modelled to a degree (and admittedly in an abstract sense) through the concept of leaders?

 

[unmerged(548)]

Very interesting discussions from a lot of viewpoints. But how do we incorporate things like this in the game ?
I have some suggestions I would like to get some comments on.

Veteran factor, ranging from 0 to +1
Green units start out at 0 and gain +0.1 every year.

War fatigue value implemented on the troop -1 to 0
-0.1 during wars and +0.1 during peace every year ?

Would this be a resonably accurate description of reality (given the probable limitations of the gameengine) ?

From the gamemechanics point of view I guess it would be nessecary to make them into a singel factor though, ranging from -1 to +1

Perhaps some other modifers would be in order like
+0.25 if you won the previous engagement ?

 

[unmerged(1813)]

Posted by Huszics:
"Veteran factor, ranging from 0 to +1
Green units start out at 0 and gain +0.1 every year.

War fatigue value implemented on the troop -1 to 0
-0.1 during wars and +0.1 during peace every year ?

Would this be a resonably accurate description of reality (given the probable limitations of the gameengine) ?

From the gamemechanics point of view I guess it would be nessecary to make them into a singel factor though, ranging from -1 to +1

Perhaps some other modifers would be in order like
+0.25 if you won the previous engagement ?"

I'll let out a deep, dark secret: my main gaming activity is actually historical miniatures, and over the last 20 years I've written or helped write a few sets of miniatures rules - including some for the EU period battles. Us miniatures players have struggled with the "Troop Quality" problem for years, so here are a few thoughts on applying that to EU:
First, let's ditch the term 'Veteran'. It has connotations of combat experience that is not primarily what we are concerned with: as has been posted, combat experience was a two-edged sword, producing both veterans and veteran casualties.
Second, let's keep it simple. Divide all troops into three categories:
Green = untrained or nearly so, newly-raised levies, most rebels
Trained = the average and the bulk of all regular troops
Elite = the best-trained and drilled, products of long-term peacetime training by good officers and skilled NCOs.
Everything you raise starts as Green. They rise in status due to peacetime training, but instead of incrementally increasing every year or month, there are 'break points' at which they become Trained and Elite. The speed with which they reach these levels, if ever, is based on the quality of the training they receive. This is a product of two things: the Maintenance Level in peacetime and the Quality of the Generic Leaders for that country.
Either provide another Quality Rating for the Leaders or, even simpler, use the sum of the factors they already have. Multiply this by the Maintenance Level as a percentage. Then add one more Not Quite Random Factor: the Monarch's Land (Military) Rating, an indication of how much the king and the government are paying attention to the training of the army.

The result should be that an army drilled by efficient Prussian leaders at 100% Maintenance under the watchful eye of Friedrich Wilhelm I and II is going to have a lot of Elite Troops!
And, since there is a natural "diminishing returns" in this system, in that troops 'trained' for more than 20 years stop increasing in value at all because they are aging faster than they are learning, some countries with unmilitary monarchs, no money for full Maintenance levels, and mediocre leaders may have trouble getting any Elite troops at all.
The ratings would be applied to combat factors as multipliers: less than 1 for Green Troops, 1 for Trained, and a 1.X for Elite - actual numbers to be determined by Testing. If, during war, you add in a War Fatigue Factor as posted by Huszics, which could be implemented similarly to the War Weariness that States and provinces suffer now, that coupled with the 'dilution' of Elite and Trained troops with newly-raised Green types during the conflict should simulate the steady deterioration of the army during a long war. Factors for a string of lost battles or a string of victories could also be added to the equation.

This is obviously more complicated than the current combat system, but the mathematics are not excessively complex in themselves. One advantage, in fact, is that by adding in another 'sliding' scale of Training and Exhaustion algorithms the precise numerical value of the 'combat strength' of an army becomes even harder for a gamer to calculate, and that's a Good Thing: real generals werent ever too sure how well their troops would do, either!