Army First Glance

[Carthaginian]

Also what about militia units? For example Pancho Villa's army was made up mainly of militia and was very effective, defeating regular forces.

They would really be 'specialist' units, DF... most 'militia' forces would be 'constabulary' forces.

[Nobody]

Conscripts aren't really good soldiers- that's why you generally have to have millions of them.

They aren't really cheap either. That is having an army of 100000 conscripts is more expansive than the same number of permanent soldiers, because training them (which you do constantly) is expansive (although this might be a rather modern problem). Their real advantage is that they produce reservist which can be drawn later.

The biggest advantage of a conscript army is that it swells the number of meatshields that your REAL soldiers have. :D

Conscripts are all about numbers, plain and simple. They aren't really even about producing reservists- generally, you aren't thinking about the utility of a discharged conscript because he has a fresh one who is replacing him as soon as he goes out. Your biggest concern with a conscript is simply that he is a warm body able to carry a rifle right now. When he returns to 'the world' he almost immediately forgets the training that he got in the military- generally, he tries very, very hard to forget it.

Producing cadre is something that you do almost exclusively through you volunteer forces- even among reserve units.

I believe we are not talking about the same thing.
I think what you mean is that if you are at war you take every young men and send him to the front.
What I mean, is that in peacetime young people spent some time in the army to be drilled before looking for a proper job. If war comes, they can then be drawn as reservist. And forgetting their training shouldn't be a problem in our time-frame, because people were proud of having served and many things in daily live were organized in a military fashion as well (police and railways for example).

[Sachmle]

Nobody: I think you and Carth are having a terminology issue. As a fellow American, I'm sure this is what Carth meant:

Conscript = Lower class men of age (usually 16-50 it seems) forced into military service by those in power. Purpose is to be cannon-fodder and fill holes.

Reservist = Men who voluntarily offer their service to the Military of their nation on a 'part-time' basis. Purpose is to provide trained fill ins and additional manpower in time of war to swell the ranks of useful soldiers.

[Tanthalas]

"training" such as it is in our time frame isnt all that tough, How to stand in ranks, March, load, aim, fire, and do basic maintnence on at best a bolt action rifle.  none of it is exactly hard, the problem is that your "researveists" rolling out onto the line will be picking up equipment many of them havnt worked with in possibly 10 years.  That is an issue as they will have forgoten a great deal of what they had previously learnd about it. (sorry if someone coverd that but well I felt it was important)

[TexanCowboy]

You forgot Marine's under light infantry....or "naval infantry."

[Valles]

I don't like the decreased fighting strength for smaller units, especially for the special units that usually would not be fighting in Corp sizes. Warfare in the Southwest and Mexico tended to be by small units in huge expanses of territory. I don't recall a single battle (Mexican-American War, French Intervention, Mexican Revolution) that involved combat by even division sized forces. Most combat by was units at most of 10,000 men per side.

I don't think that this is really relevant. If you're throwing smaller units at each other, rather than larger ones, then their relative strengths are unchanged. If you're throwing smaller ones at larger ones, I absolutely agree with the proposal that they should be taking an effectiveness hit from their lack of adequate staffing and coordination, even at equal or better numbers.

And personally? I'm totally planning to field entire armies of specialists.

[Tanthalas]

You forgot Marine's under light infantry....or "naval infantry."

Wait he excluded Marines... who needs an army I would deploy nothing but Marines (ok so its a personal bias)

[TexanCowboy]

Soviet Naval Infantry FTW!

[snip]

Soviet Naval Infantry FTW!

And who will eventually get those...(hides Lenin in a safe place until the political waters are just right)

[Carthaginian]

Sam is hitting the nail on the head.

A conscript is just that- a person conscripted into military service. He is pulled in to serve for a short period of time to make up for a shortage of volunteers at that time. Basically, he is someone who probably doesn't wan to be in the military, and really doesn't give a damn about serving... he's just been told 'put on the uniform, or else.'
As the 'or else' part generally involves prison time, the conscript drags ass through his enlistment period. He does enough to get by, pisses and moans at each opportunity about his plight and basically is more of a burden to the system than a benefit. Upon leaving the Service, he promptly tries to forget/undo all his training and conditioning and is generally slightly more useful than a similarly equipped dog when he is recalled.

A reservist is someone who receives military training on a voluntary basis, trains on a regular basis and pulls occasional 'as needed' tours on active duty. They generally want to (or at least understand why the have to) be a part of the Service, and they actively attempt to  turn themselves into an asset. When they return to the Real World, they are still actively attached to the Service in a very real way.

You aren't talking so much about a 'Reservist' as a proper noun... you are talking about a 'strategic reserve,' much like the obsolescent ships, tanks or aircraft every nation has rusting away in massive equipment stockpiles.

[Blooded]

Hello,

I was not a big fan of the N3 Army system. IMO Corps level units are too large for the basic Army unit. The Regular Infantry verses the Cav/Specialist Corps was simplistic and had no real basis. Cavalry units are attached to Armies as Scouts/ screens and explotation troops. They did not deploy in Corps. A Corps would have a Cav Division(5,000 troops or so) to serve its needs. Cav/Specialist Corps should cost much more on a per man basis(Horses/Training/Education/Social Standing) and are not really 'reserve' formations ATM(Very few would be created upon mobilization compared to reg Inf).

I thought the brigade breakdown system was getting much better. I caution the ability of Depot/Supply units, based on the N3 system they appeared to be far too powerful(doubling the range of reg units). That would be too much for too little cost.

If an Infrastructure Level is made for each province(as suggested for Economics) this would help determine what is supportable in an area. Example, The American Southwest would rate a 0 of 5 allowing only one unit(5,000 men) to be used. If a few Railroad lines are built it beefs up the level to 1 of 5 allowing 10,000 men to be supported. A 5 of 5 Infrastructure would be fully developed with many Raillines and a great road and canal system. Many cities, towns, etc. allowing the support of an Army(100,000 men) with better movement rates(strategic and tactical).

The Special weapons/MG Battalion seemed too weak and was relatively cheap.

Could we get a better explanation as to why the artillery is now gone. It sounded appropriately powerful before.

Crap... Gotta go.. Food for thought.

[Sachmle]

I'm gonna agree w/ blooded, corps are to big for the 'base unit'. Brigades (5,000 men) or maybe actual divisions (15,000 men) sound much more reasonable. How often, pre WWI did someone throw CORPS at an enemy? (Really, I have no idea, just seems odd).

[TexanCowboy]

Also, a division was more like 15,000 men.

I like the "empty shell" idea. $1 gets you a full corp (10 brigades) or 3 divisions (9 brigades), as empty shells. You then pay individually for brigades, infantry, artillery, whatever.

Snip, that's a good question. Maybe they were offered exile elsewhere after the 1848 war where Russia broke down, and they serve in that nations military, a Russia within another nation. I volunteer :D

[miketr]

Not too shabby- although an Engineering unit MUST have some kind of combat rating.
These might be guys that can do some of the calculus in their heads... but all that math that means that they are damn effective with a rifle, too. Engineers should have at least as much direct combat effectiveness as a Constabulary Unit of equal size, and perhaps as much as a Cavalry Unit of equal size- they can be mighty creative with that plastique and det-cord when called upon to do so.

Engineer battalion is not a collection of civil engineers or sappers.  Mostly its a formed labor pool with very specialized construction gear able to do big projects on their own.  You don't need engineer brigade in your own nation to build a port, railroad or a fort.  In a colony or occupied territory that is another matter.  Mostly its men with shovels, axes, lots of TNT and steam shovels.  It has ZERO combat effectiveness.  Think Seebee with no side arms.

Perhaps cost should be reduced to a $1.

Beyond that, I only have Sam's suggestion- if nothing else, round so that the decimals are lost.
We can handle a little imprecision in the name of simplicity... and I deal with too many decimals at work. ;)

Unless I am very much mistaken, the commas really only matter when the unit is used, so it is not something that one as a player need to track.

But players should be aware of the ratings so they can gauge how well things will work.

First impression: Why do they start with what interest me least?
Second thought: like it, though I would do a few things differently

Reserve
I agree that the elderly people these units might be composed of could be physically less fit, but they did receive a proper training once, might even have fought a war before! So maybe using them should have other drawbacks than a lower fighting power. I would think of lower mobility (unless transported by train) or a GNP reduction of x$ per reactivated reserve corp.
I also think that reserve units are better constables than conscripts. Just think who has more authority: the 16-year old boy or the graying former warrior?


Edit:
I forgot, these numbers might be nice to look at, but without knowing how much money a country will have, they mean nothing. The the "units per province" might provoke problems because they are all unequal. Just one reference though: Germany (with otl 1871 borders) has 102(!) provinces, not sure about other countries but Austria might have even more.

2) Fighting a war is a young mans game and training can be forgotten very quickly.  Worse as tactics change then training can become out of date.  In WW1 the French thought their reserves were only fit for line of communication work for example.  The Germans thought more of their reserves but 25 - 35 year old men have trouble keeping up with 18 - 25 year old men.  The conscripts have serves their 2 - 3 years more recently while the 2nd Line reserves only see their rifles maybe once a year.

As to how much money, still being talked over.

Works for me.

Overall costs per head seem to be higher than in the old system; is this a 'they were too cheap', an 'economic rules have also been revamped', or a 'V isn't very observant' effect?

New system, old system was BP and Cash, here there is cash.  So costs don't exactly translate over.

Constable:  Used to keep order among civilian populations.  Such units receive special training in how to control people but are lightly armed.  As such Constable Brigades count as five times as large when calculating garrison requirements to keep order in a province.  Typically found in conquered territories and colonies.  Constable troops are adept at requisition supplies from civilian populations.  As such Constable Units will rarely be out of supply.   

I guess that "contable troops" would cover all froms of Gendarmerie (and hence more a homeland then colonial force)?

Its a catch all designation that covers anything from colonial troops, to occupation troops.  I was going to have two separate types but went why bother?

Michael

[miketr]

I have a question:
You list upkeep for regular, conscript and reserve units. For peacetime this is understandable, but what in case of war? Does their upkeep change to that of regular units, but the fighting value does not?

Enough time goes by and the units could move up in grade.  Mods don't intend for wars to last long.  You fight a few battles (several months perhaps.)  Its clear who has one the opening moves and then a deal is struck.  Cabinet Wars, not total warfare of early 20th century.    Wars are wars of limited means and objectives.

Reserve
I agree that the elderly people these units might be composed of could be physically less fit, but they did receive a proper training once, might even have fought a war before! So maybe using them should have other drawbacks than a lower fighting power. I would think of lower mobility (unless transported by train) or a GNP reduction of x$ per reactivated reserve corp.
I also think that reserve units are better constables than conscripts. Just think who has more authority: the 16-year old boy or the graying former warrior?

And also don't forget that these reserve units will not necessarily be 'elderly.'
Many of the 'militia' units will have perfectly healthy young men who- though perhaps without formal military training- are both physically fit and well-trained by the veterans who make up the cadre of the reserve unit. Having been in BOTH roles, I think this is a really good point that Nobody brings up.

Conscripts aren't really good soldiers- that's why you generally have to have millions of them.

No system is perfect and certain generalizations are made here.

German conscript troops were VERY good in both WW1 and WW2.  In WW1 only the British professionals were better and the Germans ground the BEF to dust in 1914.  French troops were competent but they didn't trust their reserves.  Russian, Italian, Austrian, etc troops were different grades / flavors of worse. 

We could add lots of variations to cover all possibilities but then it would be too complex.

Just round...

I don't like the decreased fighting strength for smaller units, especially for the special units that usually would not be fighting in Corp sizes. Warfare in the Southwest and Mexico tended to be by small units in huge expanses of territory. I don't recall a single battle (Mexican-American War, French Intervention, Mexican Revolution) that involved combat by even division sized forces. Most combat by was units at most of 10,000 men per side.

Also what about militia units? For example Pancho Villa's army was made up mainly of militia and was very effective, defeating regular forces.

To be blunt the US Army in 1916 was a joke.  Up till post Vietnam era the US Army did NOT get good quality personal by and large.  In war time the infantry was a dumping ground for the least capable conscripts.  People with technical ability / smarts went to Artillery, Engineers, Navy, etc. 

Judging how well Black Jack Pershing did isn't saying much.

Bigger collections of men just do better together.  This is NOT the era of special forces DF.  Use very small units can a did stuff, verse other smaller units.  In which case the penalty is moot as both sides are subjected to it.

Michael