I agree with Colonel Lynn mostly.
Personally I think the quality ratings in the BG games were (a) too high overall, (b) biased in the Reb favor. In the HPS games, it's both more reasonable (with overall lower ratings) and considerably more fair, considering that in reality there was very little difference between both armies in terms of experience, training or doctrine. They ought to be similar in most respects.
Now let's not forget that moral (quality) is not an abstract judgement on a unit's performance. It's a very concrete statement on how often, on average, out of six times, a unit will fail its morale check. An "A" quality unit should usually not fail, except under the most dire circumstances. An "F" should run on the first shot, unless under the most favorable circumstances. There are other things tied to a unit's quality in the game engine, like positive/negative modifiers on combat performance, etc.
In my experience, a "C" quality unit will perform pretty regular under normal circumstances. A "D" will require some care, but in the firing line, with friendlies on the flanks, no enfilade fire, no high fatigue, etc., they should normally be fine. The trouble starts with "E", and "F", of course, is good for guarding the wagon trains with no enemy within 10 miles. I am not too happy with "A" and "B" quality units actually because they have a sad tendency to perform so well under fire that they stay until they're wiped out. [}:)]
What did I mean to say? Probably that an army should be composed (and in the HPS games usually is) mostly of "D" and "C" quality units. For me, they represent the standard infantry of the mid-war (i.e. summer of 1862 onwards). Early war infantry, green units, state guard and all that stuff should of course be "E". And very experienced units should probably end up a "B". Like Colonel Lynn, I think there's a tendency with game designers to give gamers the special rating for some famous units that they expect--obviously there is no dogding the gamers's expectation that the Stonewall Brigade, the Iron Brigade, the Orphan Brigade etc. should be "A" quality--and they likely deserve it. Units that had one good day and someone to tell a good story about it (1st MN, 20th ME) are probably overrated in the game, but hey, luckily there's only few of them. [:)]
Generally, a complete chain-of-command with many leaders with a high "C" rating does more to keep an army in good shape than unit quality itself, and I think it's here that the BG games erred most badly, especially on the Reb side. Add up the many bonuses that an unbroken chain-of-command with everyone passing the check five out of six times gives the troops at the receiving end, and I think we'll find that under these circumstances unit quality itself is a negligible quantity because the high "C" ratings of their superiors will make them pass anyway. (The Rebs know this only too well. For the Feds, for getting an idea of it you had to play the Sherman's March scenarios for BGC. The Army of the Cumberland at Resaca, with Sherman in overall command and Thomas in army command, was a sight to behold.) This, too, has mostly been corrected in the HPS games.
Now, I lost completely the point I wanted to make, I think. Oh hell. Anyway, I think the HPS games are an improvement on all those fields, and I am just fine with "D" units. [:I]
Gen. Walter, USA
AoS / War College
|