|
|
In a message dated 10/6/2004 1:50:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
meh777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I'm not sure that I understand exactly to what part of the preceding message
you are saying 'yes' but if it is the 6-5 strength for a Guards corps then
I'm not sure I agree.
My limited understanding of the Guards units is that earlier in the war they
were units which had performed well and then after receiving Guards
designation were subsequently maintained at equipment and manpower levels
closer to TOE and sometimes with additional mortars and other weapons above
the TOE of normal units. Also I understand that later in the war the actual
difference between Guards units vs other units diminished, in part because
all units received increasing levels of equipment and manpower problems
existed across the board.
In game terms, I do not see a big difference between changing existing 4-4
units to 5-5 while continuing to build 4-4s as opposed to beginning to build
mostly 5-5 units as the net effect is the same. If my late war
understanding is correct, then eventually building all 5-5s is not off the
mark. Also I believe that actual personnel for most infantry divisions even
very late in the war ran about 1/2 strength and both Soviet and German
forces improved from an equipment standpoint so I'm not sure how an increase
to 6-5 strength is justified.
Just wondering?
I am not sure why you would do any of those things either but it is an
interesting arguement.
When I recently did some reading about the Battle for France I found that
the units equipment and manpower for the French and German's was equivelent.
The major differences appeared to be the use of the equipment and command
control. The only major difference I discovered was the Axis had 1/3 more air
then the Allies.
This lead me to design the French with an attack equivelant to the Axis but
both the movement and defense to be lowered. I, therefore, made the French
TO&E Infantry 6-3-1 and armor 9-4-6.
We have tested this only once and it worked fine but it will need many more
tests to see if it really works.
The idea of continually upgrading is not a bad one though. Obvoiusly the
German troops were no less trained or equipped then the Allies so why the 8-10
vs 6-5. The movement is okay given the availability of transport but the
attack strength should be the same. Using the option that moves the Allies up
is
fine but what about the Axis. They were still equivelent other then
movement.
Why should the Axis not be able to go 7-5 and then 8-5? The odds table
already control the combat but the strength does not also need to be based on
it.
Might be an idea to allow all majors to improve over time keeping them
basically equivelant.
Jim
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
|
|