Morale Ratings for Danube 85

[Tbird3]

[/quote]

Ed - FWIW, I can't recall anything like this was done for play balance. That is to make NATO Weaker overall I mean. But we didn't think uniform quality for all units of a nation with as many units as the US in this game was correct either.

Now I didn''t set the values myself - nor do I recall the US all being all C quality - first unit I checked was 3rd Armored Div and 1st Bde is all B's - 2nd Bde is C's.

Half the Arty in the DIv are Bs and the ADA is B. The Cav is a B and there is even an A quality in the Choppers.

This isn't to say we had info that 2nd Bde was not as good - but we simply didn't think every US unit should be a B - nor should they all be C's either.

Glenn
[/quote]

Glenn, absolutely agree that all units are not of a uniform quality. My issue is in comparison to the WP units. I can't see how the WP units which had limited training and a short serving conscript army could possibly ever be better than a generally well trained long serving all volunteer force. Especially at the start of the conflict. I think that over time the darwin effect will begin to balance out the differences between the armies. However, historically this tends to be shown over months and years versus weeks. My personal experience with most of the NATO forces were generally very good with very few exceptions. The West Germans, while a conscript force, had a strong professional NCO and Officer Corps. The Soviets never really were able to produce the western equivalent of the NCO corps. This reason alone makes me very leery of WP divisions of being such high quality. If the morale ratings were not a concious decision for playability then what was the rationale for WP units better than American/NATO forces? Thanks.

Tbird3

P.S. Someday I will figure out the quote thingy!