Army First Glance

[TexanCowboy]

Any thought's on my idea's, the empty shell and the adding marines, Mike?

[snip]

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

Nope, they are mine. ;D

[miketr]

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.

Don't look at the current Army - Reserve - National Guard Dynamic of today.

In 19th and early 20th century the US Army in peace time by and large sucked.  It was made up of people in many cases that couldn't do anything else.  It was a job of last resort in peace time.  The British troops before the Boer War reforms were actually not very good, too used to thumping in colonial enemies.  In Napoleonics they were very good. British professionals varied between very good and not so good.  In game terms British allowed their professional to fall behind the times and didn't update them.

Using Europe as an example out side of colonial setting or the like you wouldn't have too many professional units.  Your standing army is made up of conscripts.  Even the peace time units of the Kaisers army would be in game terms conscripts.  They were the BEST of the conscript armies; only the British Professionals were better but the Germans had millions to the BEF's couple of divisions.  Conscripts in Europe varied between very bad for Italy to the cream of the crop in Germany and everything in between.

The way a Conscript Army worked is the officers and NCO's would all be long service professionals.  The Germans had more NCO's and higher quality ones than anyone else, twice as many as the French army for example.  In peace time a Division was at about 50% strength.  Made up of the professionals (Officers / NCO's) and the current group of conscripts.  Age 18-20 or so.  In war time the reserves are called up and the front line reserves those aged 21-25 would then fill the formation out to war strength.  Age 26+ are second live reserves, IE this games reserve units.

Fighting is a young mans game, without constant training and youth fighting quality of units can quickly drop of with age and time out of active service.

In a European army, once passed out of the front line reserve you join the 2nd line reserve automatically.  And once very old the 3rd line reserve units; names like Territorials or Landwehr.

Michael

[miketr]

Any thought's on my idea's, the empty shell and the adding marines, Mike?

I must have missed it, I will check again tomorrow as its late.

Michael

[Borys]

Ahoj!

In a European army, once passed out of the front line reserve you join the 2nd line reserve automatically.  And once very old the 3rd line reserve units; names like Territorials or Landwehr.
Michael

I like your idea "as is".
Marines can be Light Infantry. At a certain point they even were called that - RMLI.


As to terminology - you just added another level of confusion :)
British Territorials were young men.
The Austro-Hungarian KK Landwehr/Kiralyi Honvedseg were "Conscripts".
:D

As I'd be interested in having a something akin to the OTL British Territorials, I'd classify them as "Reserves". But after 3 month? 6 month? long mobilisation (maybe only if being able to train unhindered?) I'd like an upgrade in combat worthiness from "Reserves" to "Conscript".

Borys

[Tanthalas]

IDK borys, it would depend largely on losses.  Sure the guys that survived combat would be far superior to their previous level, however if they lost to many men the replacements would drag the preformance of the veterans down.  Sonewhat like trying to stiffen a bucket of piss with a handfull of buckshot.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Actually, I was thinking of the time between mobilisation and sending them into combat.
Borys

[Darman]

Ahoj!
Actually, I was thinking of the time between mobilisation and sending them into combat.
Borys

So you mean, some way to make the unit more combat effective even if its a reserve unit?

Say... mobilize them and instead of sending them off to fight right away you spend a year training them.  You want some way to account for that?

[Korpen]

Regarding the system as a whole; I think it looks fine. If one do not want to dig oneself down in the minutia of ones army one can simply buy the corps and still have a capable and well-rounded force (I take for granted it includes everything a corps need under normal circumstances such as engineers, railroad repair, provosts, transport supply and the like). But it still allows for micromanagement for those who want to do that with the army.
However I am not convinced by the "province" system; but think it can work as a general guideline and then adopted locally (such as subdividing very large provinces, or shortening or lengthening the times of a single "combat pulse") when the need arises.

I do have some views and questions on details however (none all that important):
- What construes a fort? Reason I am asking is that I suspect I will be building around 20 a year on average, just to keep pace with the OTL building (from monster forts such as Boden to single gun costal casemates).
- Why not call it gendarmerie rather then constables (much cooler name, and more descriptive of function)?
- On the specialists; one should perhaps keep in mind "natural ability" as well, a regiment raised in Savolax or Västerbotten would be far more capable in sub-artic warfare then a regiment from the south of England simply by virtue of being the environment that is the norm for the soldiers and their equipment. Same thing could be said about jungles and troops from SE Asia and Central Africa to some extent. I guess this would not be a significant factor in movement, but it could be huge when it comes to attrition caused by the environment.

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.

Hm, to me that sounds like you switched place of mercenary/regular and Citizen/Conscript.
A conscript force consist of the cream of the population, while the regular force basically attract the ones too stupid, unindustrious or just desperate (it was after all not uncommon that criminals to be allowed to choose between enlistment or prison). In effect it is only the dregs of society that finds its way into the ranks of a regular army.
The regular mercenary is motivated only by the prospect of money and loot, and care nothing about who or what he is fighting for as long as he get paid. They are usually much older and unfit then you men called to the banners in a conscript force.

The citizens in a conscript army in contrast it motivated mainly by patriotism and love for country and the family and friends that are part of it. They do feel part of a greater whole unlike the regular who only cares for his own pleasures and who's loyalty is suspect.


That said (and just like Carthaginians comment it should not be taken too seriously), I do think there is no inherent difference in quality simply due to how the soldier was recruited.
The amount of actual training for the soldiers was about the same, and in both systems both the officers and the sub-officers was overwhelmingly professionals. So the big difference is really down to the quality of the officer corp., and that really depended on other factors then how the common soldiers were enrolled.

[miketr]

Regarding the system as a whole; I think it looks fine. If one do not want to dig oneself down in the minutia of ones army one can simply buy the corps and still have a capable and well-rounded force (I take for granted it includes everything a corps need under normal circumstances such as engineers, railroad repair, provosts, transport supply and the like). But it still allows for micromanagement for those who want to do that with the army.
However I am not convinced by the "province" system; but think it can work as a general guideline and then adopted locally (such as subdividing very large provinces, or shortening or lengthening the times of a single "combat pulse") when the need arises.

I do have some views and questions on details however (none all that important):
- What construes a fort? Reason I am asking is that I suspect I will be building around 20 a year on average, just to keep pace with the OTL building (from monster forts such as Boden to single gun costal casemates).
- Why not call it gendarmerie rather then constables (much cooler name, and more descriptive of function)?
- On the specialists; one should perhaps keep in mind "natural ability" as well, a regiment raised in Savolax or Västerbotten would be far more capable in sub-artic warfare then a regiment from the south of England simply by virtue of being the environment that is the norm for the soldiers and their equipment. Same thing could be said about jungles and troops from SE Asia and Central Africa to some extent. I guess this would not be a significant factor in movement, but it could be huge when it comes to attrition caused by the environment.

Take Verdun in WW1, it was not ONE fort it was many smaller forts with interlocking fields of fire for their artillery. 

A citadel would be something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Douaumont

or a better map here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortified_Position_of_Li%C3%A8ge

As can be seen Liege has a dozen individual forts or citadels around the city core. 

You have three choices when faced with such a setup.

1) Direct assault to attempt to reduce the forts.

2) Siege and artillery duel to reduce the forts over several weeks or months.

3) Bypass the fort and move on.  Problem with this is forts tended to occupy key locations like road / rail junctions and not taking the fort would mean all sorts of logistical and movement problems as a result.


For specialist units I expect people that have a need for such units will have them and those that don't won't.

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.

Hm, to me that sounds like you switched place of mercenary/regular and Citizen/Conscript.
A conscript force consist of the cream of the population, while the regular force basically attract the ones too stupid, unindustrious or just desperate (it was after all not uncommon that criminals to be allowed to choose between enlistment or prison). In effect it is only the dregs of society that finds its way into the ranks of a regular army.
The regular mercenary is motivated only by the prospect of money and loot, and care nothing about who or what he is fighting for as long as he get paid. They are usually much older and unfit then you men called to the banners in a conscript force.

The citizens in a conscript army in contrast it motivated mainly by patriotism and love for country and the family and friends that are part of it. They do feel part of a greater whole unlike the regular who only cares for his own pleasures and who's loyalty is suspect.


That said (and just like Carthaginians comment it should not be taken too seriously), I do think there is no inherent difference in quality simply due to how the soldier was recruited.
The amount of actual training for the soldiers was about the same, and in both systems both the officers and the sub-officers was overwhelmingly professionals. So the big difference is really down to the quality of the officer corp., and that really depended on other factors then how the common soldiers were enrolled.

[/quote]


If you want higher quality units you buy better tech units or higher grade units.  It was talked about allowing more grades of units but the idea was shot down by all the other mods.

Michael

[Carthaginian]

A conscript force consist of the cream of the population, while the regular force basically attract the ones too stupid, unindustrious or just desperate (it was after all not uncommon that criminals to be allowed to choose between enlistment or prison). In effect it is only the dregs of society that finds its way into the ranks of a regular army.

Uhm... NO.
It sounds to ME like you want to antagonize.

From Webster's Dictionary:
Conscript: a person who is forced to serve in the armed forces : draftee

Hardly the 'cream of the populace'... just a damn person that they drag off the street to fight or die.

From Webster's Dictionary:
Reservist: a member of a military reserve

THIS is a person who is the 'cream of the crop' who has had military training and then is able to be recalled.

There is certainly a great deal of difference between someone who comes voluntarily and someone forced to serve. Anyone doing something under duress will naturally be less motivated and less effective than someone who comes with a good attitude and natural desire to learn. Conscripts- by the nature and definition of the word, which means 'forced men'- are not necessarily motivated by anything but the fact that they are being forced... patriotism, love of your comrades, all of it is secondary to the fact that the Government is mandating that you come and serve or suffer criminal consequences. You are for more likely to find Volunteers being motivated by the things you talk about (though the money is not bad and the benefits are very good), as people who are patriotic and have higher concern for their fellows are just plain more likely to come of their own accord.

You, I think, are the one with some confusion as to the meaning of a word... at least in English- I am happy to admit I have no idea what the equivalent term in your primary language means.


And while most of this is moot in this particular case, do not start this game out by saying I have no idea what I am talking about and shouldn't be taken too damn seriously, Korpen.

[Logi]

A conscript force consist of the cream of the population, while the regular force basically attract the ones too stupid, unindustrious or just desperate (it was after all not uncommon that criminals to be allowed to choose between enlistment or prison). In effect it is only the dregs of society that finds its way into the ranks of a regular army.

I have a couple of friends who were very bright. They could have been accepted to HYP, but they went to West Point. They're part of the "regular" army, are they the dregs of society too then?

For that matter, I don't see why the dregs of society are considered regular and better troops must be conscripts. I agree with the designation by Carth here. You don't make a clear point onto how Conscript and Regular are different in their recruitment.

[Nobody]

This is pointless, as you/we are all right in a way.
Maybe this proves that the former combination of readiness status and experience wasn't so bad after all. (as far as I can tell the numbers are the same anyway)

The idea was a good one, though.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

Ahoj!
Actually, I was thinking of the time between mobilisation and sending them into combat.
Borys

So you mean, some way to make the unit more combat effective even if its a reserve unit?

Say... mobilize them and instead of sending them off to fight right away you spend a year training them.  You want some way to account for that?

Yes, that's what I was thinking off. Half a year IMO would be enough, but if the rules say one year, I could live with that.
Borys

[Korpen]

And while most of this is moot in this particular case, do not start this game out by saying I have no idea what I am talking about and shouldn't be taken too damn seriously, Korpen.

Ok, I took you comment as tongue in cheek, as it was so outrageous in my ears. But if that is how you think an army raised by compulsory defence duty always works, you actually have no clue.

Duress was never a major factor in any functioning conscription system; social pressure and loss of social standing in failing to do it were far more important factors. But as you mention "draftee" (and the US draft was radically different from the mainstream conscription systems adopted in Europe) I get the idea that you are talking about the USA only; which is a totally different kettle of fish. I do not really claim that there have not been cases at different times and in different countries were what say has been true. But then neither can you claim that there have been plenty of cases were what I claimed about volunteer recruitment has been true. Hence I think that trying to use the US experience as universal guideline is about as relevant as only using the French or Nigerian experience as universal guideline, it is far better to look at as many cases as possible if one want to make general statements.
In doing so I would say neither volunteer or compulsory service inherently produce a better armed service, but there are other social and political factors that have a much larger impact on the military efficiency of the force. To mention a few: The social status of military service (is it something people see as enhancing or degrading to serve?), the fairness and legitimacy of the selection system and how many soldiers are needed (if only very few do compulsory service is harder to legitimize it, if lost of manpower is needed volunteer force cannot afford to reject anybody).

This is pointless, as you/we are all right in a way.

In a way that is kind of my point...