[WarInEur] Changing unit strength.

[Hansen]

Agreed. That was why a mixed system were individual units could get better
and then when you have a critical mass of improved units all of the other
units get better. So you would have a base that units roll off the
production line at and that no unit would be less than (if the base goes up
while the unit is deployed, it goes up like the current changing unit
capability). Individual units t=could then improve off of that base.

As it stands now, the allies improve on the basis of the calendar, no matter
what they have or have not done. To put it even more bizarrely, they start
in '39 with units just as battle capable as those fielded in '44-'45. 

The only non-BG units are the brigades and support (MSU/RR). Having the
brigades go up with the rest works for them. There can also be a lot of
combat where they are on the pounding side (e.g. NA) or were the combat
results are a retreat (e.g. 3-1 attacks against them in France).

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Sutherland [mailto:csutherland at gamewoodinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 3:14 PM
To: Peter Turkaly
Cc: 'Hansen'; warineur at mailman.halisp.net
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Changing unit strength.

Battle tested units, are better but its the tactics that are applied 
during the learning in battle that makes the difference in my book. Thus 
a green late war allied unit should be worth more then a early war green 
unit and perhaps even equal to a early war veteran unit! So a straight 
unit strength shift based on combat isn't totally accurate, also non BG 
units would have very little chance to gain strength since elimination 
happens alot!

Peter Turkaly wrote:
>> "John:
>> "The above is why I liked the idea of combining changing unit strength
with
>>     
> combat experience. Having some sort of sliding scale that lets the allies
> upgrade individual units the whole army or a combination (some individual
> units until you reach a critical mass and then the rest of the army makes
> that step) based on combat experience. This would include losing in
combat."
>
>
>
> Sounds a lot like what Gary Grigsby did with War in Russia.  I actually
> liked the way he organized the HQs, units, and supply.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>   


-- 
Chuck Sutherland
Technology Specialist
Gamewood, Inc.
116 South Ridge Street
Danville, VA 24541
(434) 799-8407 x218