@Cernel said:

I think just having a cheap infantry unit which is unable to combat move would go a long way in making China more realistic without adding cumbersome special rules.

A combatant unit (especially infantry) being unable to participate in attacks is counter-intuitive and makes no sense.

Also, I would rather make Kwangtung a separate nation over Vichy or the Eastern US. This would make both the Chinese front and the Japanese playthrough more interesting.

@KurtGodel7 said:

Late in the war, the performance of the German army sometimes declined. Their military age men had been killed, replaced by boys or old men. Whereas the performance of the Red Army improved as the war went on. Their generals and officer corps gained in proficiency, and they overcame the problems which had plagued them during Barbarossa.

At some point after WWII, the U.S. military did a study about combat effectiveness. The Battle of Kursk was chosen for the study. The reasoning was that this battle was early enough in the war that the German army still consisted of military age men. Late enough in the war that the Soviets had overcome their early war problems.

According to the study, Soviet soldiers were 25 - 33% as combat-effective as their German counterparts. Similar studies found that British soldiers were about 50% as combat-effective as the Germans. American soldiers were 80 - 100% as combat-effective. A follow-on study concluded that American soldiers may have been overestimated, and that their combat-effectiveness was equal to that of the British.

At least according to a quick search, 13.6 million Germans served in the German Army during WWII. Whereas, 34 million Soviets served in the Red Army during WWII.

In the key year of 1942, the Soviet Union produced almost twice as many military aircraft as the Germans, and 3 - 4 times as many land weapons. Because of all this Soviet production, as well as Lend-Lease aid, Soviet soldiers were provided with weapons. The "one rifle for every two soldiers" stuff may have been true in 1941, but had ceased to be true as the war progressed. The difference in combat-effectiveness at Kursk, which the U.S. military study found in 1943, was not due to the Soviet soldiers lacking weapons. They had plenty of weapons in 1943. I don't know what caused the difference in combat-effectiveness.

Regardless, I wanted to translate all this into the language of TripleA. A truly vast Red Army, but with soldiers individually less combat-effective than the Germans, British, or Americans. That is why I gave the Soviet Union the conscript.

Then I guess, if you still want to have the Soviets having the regular "infantry" unit which the Germans have too (same cost and values) but sided by this other cheaper and weaker alternative, you can call it "replacement_infantry" or "replenishment_infantry".

This would represent mainly less well trained infantry and would somewhat account for your general concept of depicting the Soviets as less effective man-per-man and pound-for-pound than the Germans.

However, I've some difficulties seeing what you are seeing because (according to what you said) I would guess that it should be the Soviet infantry being worse than the German infantry (and I guess not only the infantry) rather than the Soviets having an infantry equal to the German infantry and also this other unit if they want to buy it.

Late in the war, the performance of the German army sometimes declined. Their military age men had been killed, replaced by boys or old men. Whereas the performance of the Red Army improved as the war went on. Their generals and officer corps gained in proficiency, and they overcame the problems which had plagued them during Barbarossa.

At some point after WWII, the U.S. military did a study about combat effectiveness. The Battle of Kursk was chosen for the study. The reasoning was that this battle was early enough in the war that the German army still consisted of military age men. Late enough in the war that the Soviets had overcome their early war problems.

According to the study, Soviet soldiers were 25 - 33% as combat-effective as their German counterparts. Similar studies found that British soldiers were about 50% as combat-effective as the Germans. American soldiers were 80 - 100% as combat-effective. A follow-on study concluded that American soldiers may have been overestimated, and that their combat-effectiveness was equal to that of the British.

At least according to a quick search, 13.6 million Germans served in the German Army during WWII. Whereas, 34 million Soviets served in the Red Army during WWII.

In the key year of 1942, the Soviet Union produced almost twice as many military aircraft as the Germans, and 3 - 4 times as many land weapons. Because of all this Soviet production, as well as Lend-Lease aid, Soviet soldiers were provided with weapons. The "one rifle for every two soldiers" stuff may have been true in 1941, but had ceased to be true as the war progressed. The difference in combat-effectiveness at Kursk, which the U.S. military study found in 1943, was not due to the Soviet soldiers lacking weapons. They had plenty of weapons in 1943. I don't know what caused the difference in combat-effectiveness.

Regardless, I wanted to translate all this into the language of TripleA. A truly vast Red Army, but with soldiers individually less combat-effective than the Germans, British, or Americans. That is why I gave the Soviet Union the conscript.

@Schulz said:

In-game, a conscript unit represents an infantry division with lower firepower and fewer personnel.

Soviet infantry divisions were more numerous but weaker as a result. Furthermore, Italy used a binary system (two battalions per division instead of the standard three). Still, "conscript" remains an incorrect term.

Yet, in the game, conscripts are simply superior to regular infantry, which is obviously unhistorical.

I don't think so. I think that, in that case, the same 1 infantry unit would simply represent more infantry divisions for one player and less for an other one.

I was more like thinking that the "conscript" was an infantry unit with a lower firepower/personnel ratio (like the chinese having 2 fire-arms per every 3 infantrymen).

However, this is @kurtgodel7's game, so it is up to him to clarify what a conscript is supposed to be, exactly.

(Yes, I know that Soviet armies were smaller than other armies, but I assumed that had nothing to do with the "conscript" unit at all.)