Historical concerns - All troops, of whatever country, seem to have the same values.

[caranorn]

This is already factored in in an indirect way. The lower "discipline" you expect in the Russian soldiers is found in the parameter of Cohesion. This one in turn is much influenced by National Morale among other things. The East Entente already begins the game with relatively lower quality leaders and after a while (and a few early lost battles, such as the Tannenberg) they are really struggling to have their cohesion high. The Germans have some initial successes that can boost their morale high enough to add a further difference between how German and Russian soldiers will fight. The results are well balanced, do not worry.

Of course there are some negative aspects in this approach, as you may imagine, given that NM is common for the "weak" partners (Austria-Hungary, Serbia) as well, regardless if they are winning or losing badly. Nonetheless, in beta testing the battle results were surprisingly realistic. I think troops should have the same values as long as they are considered of the same "class". Some elite units (check the Prussian Guards) have an immense Cohesion, you will read it in their cards as "Iron Will".

No one says this aspect cannot be further trimmed, but at the moment it works more than adequately. If someone wants to tweak the database and can justify the changes, send them our way to check!

One thing is that British Regulars should not be of the same class as German Regulars. The Brits used an all professional (volunteer) army in the first months of the war (some still after as at least 4 regular divisions were not formed in time for the 1914 battles), while even the German regulars were diluted with reservists (yes well trained, but the Brits had those in the Territorials). The Germans on the other hand had an advantage through it's better use of machine guns (they had no more than the British, but centralised their use more leading to local bursts of firepower) and more independant NCO's and junior officers. The french army likewise used reservists in it's regular army, making them of a class with the Germans but due to lesser doctrine neverless up to par with those Germans. And the same story could be told for a number of armies...

[caranorn]

I guess my concern is the concrete differences. Off of the top of my head a Russian division in '14 or '15 had 24 - 76mm guns and 8 - 122mm guns while a German division had 36 - 75mm or 105mm guns and 12 - 105mm or 150mm guns. This is a serious difference in offensive firepower.

So few? British divisions had 54 18 pounders, 18 4.5" howitzers and iirc 4 heavy artillery (but those could be identical to the RGA units regrouped at BEF level). Of course some of that firepower can be abstracted away into Corps artillery as those divisions would give up one of their four brigades (battalions in most other armies' lingo) as Corps/Army troops later on...

[caranorn]

Just a thought, but a better way to handle the differences instead of tweaking all the individual ratings would be to give a large number of experience stars to the units of countries who had the more efficient command staffs and NCO's. Then as the war wears on this free bonus experience would gradually decline until countries worn down by years of war no longer get any bonus stars and their units begin to resemble the units of other weaker nations. That way later in the war instead of having to throw out all the tweaked units with higher ratings due to war decline and replace them with other unit models, the experience will wear off naturally in game as units take combat damage and the shift will be gradual as the game is played.

This of course would only work if the bonus’ given to units with lots of experience stars was significant enough to see a marked difference in how the units perform against one another (i.e. experienced vs. non-experienced).

Jim

One (not too big) problem I see with this is that the British formed 6 additional regular divisions (plus additional cavalry) in 1914 and 1915 from battalions returning from garrison posts. Those were no less trained than the original regular divisions (their staffs would be less coordinated). Of those six only the 7th could be considered under formation at game's start (as it needs to be ready to move on turn three), the others would either have to be built by the player (a force pool of 12 regular divisions, another of 24 (K1 through K4, aka Kitchener's Army, aka the New Army) of weaker divisions and 16-18 Territorials (14 on map but locked, roughly equivalent to German Reserve) and 16-18 Militia (the 2nd Line Territorials)) or be added by event (those battalions were so dispersed that at most one could give one division in India and a cadre strength one on Malta)...

But otherwise I'm not against using the experience approach...

[caranorn]

just read article about ww1 and ww2 and it said that there wasnt evidence that german army loss a single fight on those wars when they had as much troops as their enemies!? so maybe u have to pump up the german landwehr.

That brings up a point I wanted to make. Anyone familiar with Dupuy's (and the institute named after him) study of WWII battles? He did a mathematical study and essentially came out with a German "quality" advantage of something like 130% against the British or US (note I took that percentage from memory, the calculations are quite complex and the syste is not easy to understand or explain). Iirc similar studies were made using his system for conflicts before WWII (but I'm not familiar with those). Anyhow, a similar advantage can be assumed for WWI (though not against the British regulars as the WWII study is mostly 1943-45 when those had been depleted similarly to 1914 and the Territorials were making up the main force (in WWI the ratio German to British might be worse when taking into consideration the New Army)...

Though part of that advantage would have to be factored into leader stats (though less as in WWII as the WWI German generals were not as adept as their WWII sucessors would be). Note that Soviet and Italians troops are rated much worse than British US by Dupuy...

[PJJ]

I like that idea of experience stars! Work for modders?

German infantry divisions had 72 artillery pieces in their 1914 TOE, organized into two arty regiments. This gave the Germans a considerable edge over Russian infantry divisions which had much less firepower.

[HerrDan]

Not all German Corps has 2 Medium, only the Regular---- a.k.a. pre-war have and historically correct. Most have only 1 or none. Russians have regulars equal to Germans.

BTW, i had proposed something before (BETA forum) i repeat it here again-
Russia, Italy, Ottoman, Minors should not reach level 3 techs ever in game. They should reach level 2 after the others reach level 3.
Austria also should be capped at level 3.
Further- Minors, Russia and Ottoman should not get GAS techs and Anti-Sub/Sub techs.
Only Germany, UK, France & USA should reach level 4 techs.

These changes will make- Russian armies and minor armies increasingly weaker vs German and British armies.
Historically correct.

I also agree with these proposal.

[caranorn]

I like that idea of experience stars! Work for modders?

German infantry divisions had 72 artillery pieces in their 1914 TOE, organized into two arty regiments. This gave the Germans a considerable edge over Russian infantry divisions which had much less firepower.

Yep, went to look that up after the post I replied to. 72 for the regulars, but 36 for the reserve. But it makes sense to have some of the regulars' 72 abstracted as corps assets as by 1916/1917 regular divisions also go down to 36 guns and howitzers plus a heavy battalion (which I assume is at 12 guns and howitzers) (the same goes for British divisional artillery, 72 in 14, but only 48 in 1917 (though 18+ heavy mortars are added around the same time)).

[Shri]

Yep, went to look that up after the post I replied to. 72 for the regulars, but 36 for the reserve. But it makes sense to have some of the regulars' 72 abstracted as corps assets as by 1916/1917 regular divisions also go down to 36 guns and howitzers plus a heavy battalion (which I assume is at 12 guns and howitzers) (the same goes for British divisional artillery, 72 in 14, but only 48 in 1917 (though 18+ heavy mortars are added around the same time)).

Germans had howitzers in corps, about 16 per corps.
Plus 16 heavy guns.
So that was a lot of fire power, considering in 1914- they had about 24 machine guns per division compared to 2 of the British also they had mortars for trench warfare.

[caranorn]

Germans had howitzers in corps, about 16 per corps.
Plus 16 heavy guns.
So that was a lot of fire power, considering in 1914- they had about 24 machine guns per division compared to 2 of the British also they had mortars for trench warfare.

Not sure I understood you correctly. German Regular and British Regular Divisions in 1914 all had 24 machine guns. 2 Maxims per British Battalion (at least in theory also for the Territorials), 6 Maxims per German Regiment. The German approach to have them at Regimental level made more some added flexibility (and battery fire) and is apparently the reason Western Entente combattant though the Germans had more MG's.

Did the Germans have mortars (Minenwerfer) in 1914? Found no reference to those at such an early date. The British had the Stokes 3" in common use by 1916 iirc, and used borrowed French pieces of dubious use before that.

Addendum:
In 1914 2 Maxim HMG per battalion (total 24 HMG per division)
In 1915 there were 4 Vickers HMG per battalion (total 48 HMG per division)
In 1916 4 Lewis MG per battalion and 16 Vickers per Brigade (total 48 LMG and 48 HMG per division, also 24 3" Trench Mortars and 18 2" (? not sure I can trust my notes there) Medium Mortars)
In 1917 16 Lewis per battalion, 16 Vickers per brigade and another 16 at division level (total 192 LMG and 64 HMG per division, and 24 3" TM, 18 6" MM and ? 9.4" HM (I assume 6 or 4))
In 1918 36 Lewis per battalion (but only 3 battalions instead of 4 per brigade), and 64 Vickers at Division level (another 12 Lewis with the Pioneers) (total 336 LMG and 64 HMG per division and 24 3" and 12 6" (medium and heavy mortars were reduced at divisional level at that time))

But unlike the Germans the British had few MG units on higher echelons, if you have data for the evolution of these kinds of weapon dotations in the German units I'd be interest (first mention of Minenwerfer in division I found so far is for late 1915, not number for MG after 1914)...

[wosung]

Well, nobody used mortars, grenade- or mine throwers regulary as part of the equipment of an infantry division in 1914. Not even hand grenades. All this stuff was known, esp. in the German armies. But when deployed at all, only extra-divison pioneers and combat engineers were equipped with it for siege combat.

[caranorn]

Well, nobody used mortars, grenade- or mine throwers regulary as part of the equipment of an infantry division in 1914. Not even hand grenades. All this stuff was known, esp. in the German armies. But when deployed at all, only extra-divison pioneers and combat engineers were equipped with it for siege combat.

Actually British Engineers seem to have had hand grenades already in 1914, but iirc only 6 men per company were trained in their use. Whether they actually got used at the time is another question...

[StephenT]

But unlike the Germans the British had few MG units on higher echelons, if you have data for the evolution of these kinds of weapon dotations in the German units I'd be interest (first mention of Minenwerfer in division I found so far is for late 1915, not number for MG after 1914)...

From what I've found, Germany had a grand total of 160 mortars in service when the war began. They were considered a specialist siege weapon for use by engineer companies. They were only allocated to regular infantry regiments in February 1917. By March 1918 each division had 54 light mortars (six per battalion) plus 12 medium and heavy mortars in its Pioneer battalion.

As for machine guns, I've found conflicting evidence, but the best I can identify:

In 1914 the Germans had the same number of HMGs as the British, 24 per division, divided into four companies (one per regiment) of six guns each.

During the course of 1915 the machine gun company was doubled in size to 12 guns; but the number of regiments per division was reduced to three, so the total number of HMGs per division became 36. Note that the programme of reducing division sizes was a gradual one; some divisions kept their four regiments until as late as 1917.

In autumn 1916 each regimental machine gun company was split into three separate companies, one per battalion. Initially the 12 guns were simply divided up between the new smaller companies, so each received four and the total per division remained at 36 HMGs.

During 1917-18 the number of machine guns per battalion increased; to six early on, then progressively to 8, 10 and finally 12 by the end of the war. (I don't have exact dates for that.) That makes 108 HMGs per division held at battalion level by the war's end (12 times nine). In addition, there was usually a 'Marksman Detachment' at division level with 12 HMGs, making 120 per division.

The Germans were slow to develop a reliable light machine gun. In March 1917 they allocated two stripped-down Maxims per company - that's eight LMGs per battalion, 72 per division. In February 1918 that was tripled to six per company, 216 per division. However, in practice most companies only managed to acquire half the authorised amount, so about 100-110 LMGs per division.

So by 1918:

British division: 64 HMG, 336 LMG
German division: 120 HMG, 216 LMG, but in reality more often 120 HMG, 110 LMG.

[caranorn]

Thanks StephenT hand't seen your reply before now :-) ...

I've just started looking into the EAW model files (before this I was also judging largely on the power ratings in game) and realised that most (possibly all) powers have slightly varrying stats. Whether they make sense might be another issue (will have too look under the hood a bit more before I'll judge that), but there indeed seems to be more variety than was apparent (at least to me) at first. Not having access to the database also makes this very tedious (I have to check which units in theory use which model, then whether at setup some might actually be using a different one etc.)...