FIST, FCS, idZ = Superior western military training.

A

Armchair_Marine

Mongoose
I don't know about the rest of you, but it just does not feel right that NATO soldiers/Marines have the same stats as basic Russian, PLA and MEA troops. So if this is being politically incorrect but it just ain't right in my view. I know this game does not focus nor actually reflect troop quality, but there still needs to be something to reflect the quaility of western troops with the current stats that we have.

Therefore I think, in the meantime, future soldier upgrades should be looked at as superior training instead of something augmented by hardware. But that's just me, what do you all think?
 
Armchair_Marine said:
I don't know about the rest of you, but it just does not feel right that NATO soldiers/Marines have the same stats as basic Russian, PLA and MEA troops. So if this is being politically incorrect but it just ain't right in my view. I know this game does not focus nor actually reflect troop quality, but there still needs to be something to reflect the quaility of western troops with the current stats that we have.

Therefore I think, in the meantime, future soldier upgrades should be looked at as superior training instead of something augmented by hardware. But that's just me, what do you all think?
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable to me :)
 
Thats a difficult one to quantify there. The MEA aside, most basic training for infantry soldiers is roughly comparable. Where a lot of the armies excel is in the additional training and, most important of all, the training and professionalism of the leaders. Also, two big differences between a conscripted army and a volunteer army are morale and the retention of skills. Like I said at the start, very difficult to quantify and put into rules of the game.
 
All I know is, only 4 of these armies were major players in 2 world wars. Only 3 of them were victorious in both wars. And only 2 have been the leading militaries in recent modern conflicts.
 
You mean 3 right? Russia's had their military conflicts too. Afghanistan, Grozny,... Their hardware may be lacking in some places (and then it's mostly due to budget cuts and not actual designs), there is nothing wrong with their training.
 
scorpioni said:
You mean 3 right? Russia's had their military conflicts too. Afghanistan, Grozny,... Their hardware may be lacking in some places (and then it's mostly due to budget cuts and not actual designs), there is nothing wrong with their training.
Click to expand...

Erm... yes there is. The modern Federal Army is better, but they're carrying a lot of baggage inherited from the Red Army. Those people were so badly trained it wasn't even funny. Basic soldiers couldn't read maps or use radios, they'd never even fired their AK47s before going into action, they only ever used older Mosins or the like on the ranges and they only served for two years.

How much have they reversed in just under twenty years? The Russian soldier is nowhere near as good as a British infantryman. Then again, not many are.
 
i think it depends on the soldier, we have UK guys out in afganistan fresh out of basic, while there are soldiers from uk out their with 10 years plus exsperiance, the stats just represent you average human, what wins wars is tactics and support. yes well trained infantry man give an edge, but not enough in a D6 based game to give much difference.

pla units are big and clunky while in comparison a usmc recon unit is small and robust, i think the diferences are their, in a staight fire fight with no cover pla would win game wise and real world, add cover and sudenly the tables turn in recons favour alot more both on table and real world...

just my pennies worth.
 
All I know is, only 4 of these armies were major players in 2 world wars. Only 3 of them were victorious in both wars. And only 2 have been the leading militaries in recent modern conflicts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but at least 1 of those "2" forces you hinted out had some serious minuses as well as pluses more recently than WW2.
But, while this has a certain effect on morale if you can trace the battle honours of a unit back through ww2 to either side of waterloo, it has little to do in the game.
Politics aside, the fact that 2 of the armies you mentioned made some serious tactical blunders during the gulf war that only the superiority of their equipment got them out of (not to mention they outnumbered their opponents), I would have thought emphasized the technology, not discounted it.

i think it depends on the soldier, we have UK guys out in afganistan fresh out of basic, while there are soldiers from uk out their with 10 years plus exsperiance, the stats just represent you average human, what wins wars is tactics and support. yes well trained infantry man give an edge, but not enough in a D6 based game to give much difference.
Click to expand...

The last word, as ever, belongs to Mr. Evil........
 
Sorry, got to add another bit that'll tickle ya!

What about a european country that was victorious in ww1 and ww2, which it fought simultaneously, from 1914 until 1957! briefly occupied by france before ww2, but never occupied by germany (as far as I know!), and spends less on its army than any other of its UN partners, but has yet to lose a war!!

If I have my facts right, the answer is quite surprising!
 
Armchair_Marine said:
All I know is, only 4 of these armies were major players in 2 world wars. Only 3 of them were victorious in both wars. And only 2 have been the leading militaries in recent modern conflicts.
Click to expand...

this comment confuses me a little

every force in the modern combat book was also present in WW2 as well !!! yup the middle east was a huge battle ground. and every force was victorious one year or another.

the best trained soldiers are those that have spent more time in training than in combat, the best soldiers are those that have spent the most time in combat and died, the best survivors are those that learnt to run and hide from combat, so are men trained to be brave enough to die befor survival.
 
Sorry if I didn't explain myself very well. Yes I meant the current Federal Army (as Evo is more or less situated in a not so distant future).

The current Russian forces are significantly shrunk when compared to the Soviet Union days, but I believe (no real way to check unless in a full blown conflict) their quality has risen extra-ordinary. Training is much more professionnal, Tanks are improved to western standards, aircraft rival those of the west (except for the F-22 Raptor which still has no equal, although the nextgen Mig-42 might be the one to do it), russian missile technology still is cutting edge as it has been since the early 80's. Comparing current hardware to what they had in the 60's/70's or with the things used for example by Iraq has no real value.

I myself am a military enthousiast and have no RL experience whatsoever which means I have to base myself on sourcebooks and studies made by professial military analysts so please if you think I'm wrong please correct me.
 
I'm pretty sure the new Russian tanks, while good and a massive improvement over the near-worthless T72 are not up to the standards of the Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams.
 
The Russian tanks in service have a long way to go 'till they reach the capabilities of modern western tanks - on the other hand there are thousands of them (replacing all, or even a significant portion would cost incredible amount of money) - and European NATO countries are reducing their tank forces to no more than a few hundred per country.
The level of training and experience of the Russian soldier has risen dramatically since the days of Soviet Union. Most of the units serving in conflict zones are fully professional.
They still sufer from a WW2-like attitude at higher command levels - disregard for the lives of troops and civilians, corruption etc, but to consider them as a poorly trained and equipped force would be a serious mistake.
 
As long as you have enough of these weapons and means of delivering them. Which may or may not be true in the case of the new, improved "let's reap the peace benefits" NATO ;-)
 
well china and russia have around 10,000 tanks each and china in particula is reducing thier armed forces to a more mobile force.

good little artical on the pla here http://www.comw.org/cmp/fulltext/iddschina.html

as for who has the best tank ? well the russian black eagle comes out on tops, but nobody has ever confermed how many russia has beyond 3-4 lol. but then when the T-80 came into service it was 2-3 for a few years then one day out of the blue it was several thousand..

what russian tanks do have is great counter measures that they do not supply to foriegn buyers as its russian military secrets they wish not to share. But at a military base i visited last year they spoke of the fact that TOW would be of little use V russian republic tanks.

but all this ignors the point of the posting.... i think/feel in modern warfare now all forces are well trained, yes evan the MEA style force is well trained now and have proper trainng camps comparable to what the brits and germans had in WW2
 
Since we don`t have a skill for shooting as such, but more of a save roll, i guess troops with better training should have a 6 save, and elites a +1 more when in cover..

poor troops have no save, and unskilled should have a cover drop of a -1, since they have no training in combat...
Also poor or untrained can have a Target of 3+ instead of 4+, and again you can look at the Kill score as well....
 
Since we don`t have a skill for shooting as such, but more of a save roll, i guess troops with better training should have a 6 save, and elites a +1 more when in cover..

poor troops have no save, and unskilled should have a cover drop of a -1, since they have no training in combat...
Also poor or untrained can have a Target of 3+ instead of 4+, and again you can look at the Kill score as well....
Click to expand...

Seriously, why do this? Are we just looking at differences between similiar troop types as an excuse to show that they are different and behave differently on the tabletop? If we're not, then great, but if we are, lets stop and think first.

As to tank quality, I'm sure there was a remarkably similiar conversation going on in the German headquarters just before the battle of Kursk! Quality or Quantity? Which is best?
 
Lord David the Denied said:
Vast numbers of tanks are no benefit when you can kill them with a single shot from a score of weapon systems in use across NATO.
Click to expand...

But can you kill them all before they kill you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Other squad choices....
Replies
7
Views
2K
Qapla
Q
Back
Top