Flames and Steel (official thread)

[KurtGodel7]

@Cernel said:

@KurtGodel7 I think there are two options here, not necessarily mutually exclusive. I assume that your conscript is 0/1 while the infantry is 1/2. The question is if something like the "standing infantry" should be unable to Combat Move too (thus being -/1 unless your game has stalemate or other conditions allowing to attack without combat moving). Then, one could also expand the matter further if there should even be something like the Volkssturm, which may be worse than the "standing infantry".

So the main question would be, are your conscripts going to be

1. just 0/1, rest same as infantry.
2. 0/1 and unable to receive artillery support.
3. 0/1 and unable to attack. (Is it possible to attack without combat moving in this game?)

Then, there are the Chinese. I think we all know the famous scene of "one man gets a rifle, the second man follows" of "Enemy at the Gates". Now, that may (or may not) have happened sometime in the Soviet army in some small-scale localized situations, but it was either something which happened very rarely or just a mith. However, if you ask Google AI "What percentage of the Chinese infantry in 1941 was not equipped with fire-arms?", the answer is

Historical estimates indicate that as many as one-third (approximately 33%) of the soldiers in a typical Chinese Nationalist division in 1941 were not equipped with any firearm.
The primary factors driving this staggering shortage include:
• Logistical Roles: Due to an acute lack of motor transport and draft animals, a substantial portion of un-armed infantrymen were used strictly as human pack animals to carry ammunition, food, and supplies for the rest of the unit.
• Severe Supply Shortages: While the Nationalist Army had roughly 3.8 million men on paper across hundreds of divisions in 1941, only about 40 divisions were fully equipped with modern European or foreign-manufactured weapons.
• Industrial Deficiencies: Domestic Chinese factories lacked the industrial base to produce small arms at a rate that could keep pace with massive wartime conscription.

The conscript is just like an infantry, except with less firepower. Conscripts are allowed to attack. If attacking on a 0, at least they serve as cannon fodder to protect other attacking units. If supported they attack on a 1.

Your research found 40 Chinese divisions apparently equipped with modern European or foreign-manufactured weapons.

Currently China is able to buy conscripts, but not infantry. Those 40 divisions make me wonder if China should be allowed to purchase either conscripts or infantry. I will have to do more research on this. Being handed a modern rifle does not automatically make a soldier as combat-effective as a normal infantryman would be. If I think of a normal WWII infantry division, I'm expecting them to have machine guns, hand grenades, maybe some handheld anti-tank weapons. Also combat training. If China's better divisions lacked these other weapons, if they were poorly trained, I would consider them having more in common with conscripts than infantry.

[Cernel]

@KurtGodel7 Asking Google AI "How many men of the Soviet-equipped divisions did China field in 1941?", the answer is

Between 1937 and 1941, Soviet military aid provided under the Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and transported via the Gansu-Xinjiang Highway enabled China to form 15 Soviet-equipped divisions. Based on the typical paper strength of the Chinese Nationalist Central Army infantry divisions at the time (ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 men per division), this represented a force of approximately 120,000 to 165,000 men.

Key Facts About China's Soviet-Equipped Force

• Strategic Role: Rather than being sent straight to the front lines, these 15 divisions were largely held in reserve by the Nationalist government for future strategic counteroffensives.
• Equipment Scope: The Soviet Union supplied roughly 110,000 rifles, 14,000 machine guns, 1,600 artillery pieces, 82 T-26 tanks, and thousands of ZIS-5 military transport trucks to outfit these formations.
• The Mechanized Elite: This aid famously established China's first fully mechanized unit, the 200th Division, which incorporated Soviet armor and saw action in major engagements like the Battle of Kunlun Pass.
• The 1941 Cutoff: This military pipeline officially halted in April 1941 following the signing of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, after which China increasingly relied on American Lend-Lease aid.

I guess this could be somewhat represented by China starting with a few infantry units but unable to build any more of them.

More complex would be accounting for lend-lease or whatever other kind of supply or even fully internally created infantry (as opposed to conscripts, which would be infantry units armed with very little more than just their rifles), possibly to represent their existant albeit very scarce (a few tens of thousands) heavy and light machine-guns production, but a proper infantry unit is supposed also to have a good quantity of infantry mortars (unless there are infantry mortars in the game as units), and I've no idea about domestic Chinese mortars production.

[Schulz]

Properly representing China isn't possible without either additional rules or China-specific units.

I don't even think adding China is worth it. It's just not interesting to play with or against. Its front is nothing more than a much more boring version of the Eastern Front in terms of gameplay.

[Cernel]

@KurtGodel7 said:

In Domination 1914 No Man's Land, there is a unit called a conscript. It can be built only by the Russian czarists and by the Bolsheviks at war against the czarists. It costs 2 PUs, attacks on a 0, defends on a 1. It can receive artillery support for attack. I took this exact unit verbatim and added it to Flames and Steel, except now its cost is 0 PUs and 1 MP. Only the Soviet Union, Italy, and China can build this unit.

This is not the only inspiration I've drawn from NML. Techs like industry, working women, and propaganda were inspired from that map.

In any case, and to return to your point: I will grant that the majority of men who served in WWII infantry forces were conscripted. According to Merriam Webster, anyone conscripted into a military fits the definition of a conscript. Therefore, I will grant that "conscript" is not the best word for this unit, because it could also be accurately applied to normal infantry. If anyone has a better idea for a label, I'm open to suggestions.

Also, I'm not sure if the German bodenständige Divisionen would fit into your idea of "conscripts" (guess not but just checking)

Historically this would be justified. These "static divisions" were less well-armed and less combat-effective than normal German infantry. Also, they often consisted of old men, or of conscripts from occupied territories. Germany has a tech called "crush communism," which allows it to collect MPs from occupied Soviet territories. (I think there's a ceiling of 5 MPs per turn.)

You could argue that instead of the MPs, Germany could get free conscripts. This would be more accurate and would give the game a better flavor. The main obstacle I see is that this game has a lot of unit types already, with Germany being Exhibit A of that. As it is, Germany can buy two types of infantry, two additional types of mobile infantry, three types of artillery, four types of tanks, three types of fighters, and five types of bombers. Also trenches, aa guns, factories, and SPCs.

Allright. This makes me understand a bit more what a conscript is, so how it can be called.

Since this is an "English" game, the natural way to call such unit would be "home_guard".

Granted, the home guard never actually fought against other land units (beside Irish insurgents) because it was never shipped to fight Germany or Italy, nor Germany or Italy ever invaded the United Kingdom with land units. Granted, if the Germans did, the home guard would have fought.

However, calling this unit "home_guard" would be very strange if the primary case of that name would not actually exist: Britain being actually unable to buy conscripts. This could be fixed by making Britain able to buy conscripts but having the conscripts unable to be shipped: this should be somewhat realistic in representing the home_guard.

(Conscript as a name would be a particularly poor term to define something like the Home Guard as they were almost all volunteers!)

However, the Home Guard may actually be too low of a thing even to be the "conscript" unit: it was an unpaid (not sure) armed citizen militia, whereas I guess the conscripts are actual full time soldiers albeit poorly trained/equipped. The Home Guard is more like on par with the German Volkssturm, which I assume is something even below what the conscript unit is supposed to be and is not going to be represented as a unit.

Assuming that the conscripts are something better than the British Home Guard, and that you are not going to give Britain the conscript unit anyway, I guess the most relevant players of those you have mentioned is the Soviet Union.

However, I'm not sure what a conscript is meant to be in the Soviet Union. Is it meant to be the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnoe_Opolcheniye
?

If so, it can be called just "militia". However, in this case, only a very small part of the Soviet army should consist of "conscripts".

Asking Google AI "In 1941, what percentage of the Soviet infantry was given by the Narodnoe Opolcheniye?", the answer is

1. The Proportions by Divisional Breakdown

In the desperate months following the German invasion on June 22, 1941, the Soviet military underwent massive expansion to replace staggering casualties:
• By the end of 1941, the Red Army had deployed or was forming over 400–450 total rifle (infantry) divisions.
• Between July and October 1941, approximately 60 to 70 divisions of the Narodnoe Opolcheniye (or units built directly from volunteer militia frameworks) were formed across the USSR.
• Mathematically, this means the volunteer Opolcheniye frameworks provided roughly 13% to 15% of the total infantry divisions generated by the Soviet Union during the critical defense phases of 1941.

2. Regional Breakdown (Where they mattered most)

The Opolcheniye was not evenly distributed; it was concentrated heavily in major industrial hubs where the regular military lines were breaking down:

Region / Battle Contribution & Impact
Moscow 12 to 16 divisions were quickly raised in July and autumn of 1941. During the darkest days of the Battle of Moscow, these militia units made up a massive chunk of the immediate front-line infantry defense, plugging gaps until Siberian regular reserves arrived.
Leningrad 10 to 18 divisions (alongside several independent machine-gun battalions) were mobilized. At the onset of the Siege of Leningrad, the Opolcheniye accounted for nearly one-third (approx. 30%) of the infantry forces actively holding the city's immediate defensive lines.
Other Hubs Major volunteer contingents were also raised to fight as localized infantry in Stalingrad, Kiev, Rostov, and Odessa.

3. Transition to Regular Infantry

The reason an exact "militia percentage" remains fluid is that the Narodnoe Opolcheniye was quickly absorbed into standard metrics. Because they suffered horrific casualties—frequently losing upwards of 80–90% of their strength within weeks due to lack of heavy weapons and formal training—the surviving divisions were formally re-numbered and converted into regular Red Army Rifle Divisions by the late autumn of 1941.

The Soviet union did not generally have scarcity of infantry equipment, but rather a tendency not to train their men for very long before sending them to the frontline (Any resemblance to actual Russian soldiers in Ukraine, living or dead, is purely coincidental. ). Especially with you mentioning a WW1 game, I wonder if here we are making some confusion with the WW1 Russian army (which was much poorer than the 1941 Soviet army and for which something like a sub-infantry unit would fit a lot more).

Practically, if the Opolcheniye units are the conscripts, then the Soviet Union should have no conscripts at all from the spring of 1942 onwards if things go historically (as they would all be lost or absorbed into the regular infantry by then).

Alternatively, as said, conscripts could represent the Soviet tendency to train their men a lot less than others (say, the Americans) before sending them to fight. In this case, the unit could be called "replacement_infantry" or "untrained_infantry". (Of course, it is not totally untrained.)

[Cernel]

@Schulz said:

Properly representing China isn't possible without either additional rules or China-specific units.

I don't even think adding China is worth it. It's just not interesting to play with or against. Its front is nothing more than a much more boring version of the Eastern Front in terms of gameplay.

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.

[Schulz]

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.

[Cernel]

@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.)

[KurtGodel7]

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.

[Cernel]

@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.

[Schulz]

@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]

@Cernel said:

@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.

Your point is valid. If Soviet infantry had good weapons, but were less combat-effective than some other nations' infantry, one way to handle that in game terms would be to make them cost the same as other infantry, but at conscript-type combat values. An infantry costs 1 manpower point (to reflect the need to conscript men) and 1 PU (which reflects the need to provide the men with weapons). Soviet infantry were equipped with good weapons, so letting them get out of that 1 PU does seem a bit ahistorical.

However, if I constrain the Soviets to conscripts only, then people will tell me they had some good infantry, and I'll hear about Revolutionary Guards or some such. One idea which I can toss into this discussion would be as follows:
Soviet infantry: cost 1 PU, 1 MP. Attack 0, defend 1. Receives support.
Revolutionary guard: cost 2 PUs, 1 MP. Attack 1, defend 2. Receives support.

Interestingly enough, Revolutionary Guards received higher pay than normal Soviet soldiers, even though the whole point of the revolution they were guarding was to make everyone economically equal.

I'm not committing to this idea yet--a change like this requires mulling over first--but it's certainly worth adding this to the discussion.

[Cernel]

@KurtGodel7 Well, "Guard" would be the most typical pick for elite Soviet infantry but would not be a very good one for something which you purchase directly: Guard status is usually earned on the field, so that would really only make sense as an upgrade. What you are searching for is more like the Shock status (ударная армия), which is actually top-down elite from day one. However, that is primarily correlated to having more organic artillery and such: I don't know how much that would (or would not) relate to the infantry itself being elite, though I do remember to have read somewhere that they were paid more than regular infantrymen rank-per-rank (cannot give a reference and may be wrong), and I guess they are also better trained and equipped as a matter of infantry weapons, but I don't actually know (guess you can make a search or ask Claude).

[Cernel]

By the way, this could be alternatively (or also) represented by making the Germans unable to buy regular infantry as well as anything lesser, so making them able to buy only "elite" or "grenadiers". This was actually formalized late in 1942. I will let the AI explain better.

If I tell Google AI "Tell me how Hitler gave the elite status of grenadier to every infantryman during World War 2.", the answer is

Adolf Hitler did not actually grant elite status or specialized training to every standard infantryman; rather, he executed a massive, cost-effective propaganda and morale-boosting rebranding campaign.
On October 15, 1942, Hitler ordered all standard German army (Heer) infantry regiments to be renamed Grenadier Regiments (Grenadierregimenter). This sweeping change relied entirely on psychological warfare and historical prestige rather than changing structural reality:

1. The Power of "Branding" & Historical Illusion

Historically, "grenadiers" were the physically imposing, elite assault troops of the 18th and 19th centuries, famously associated with Frederick the Great’s Prussian Army. By decreeing that every basic foot soldier was now a "grenadier," Hitler sought to link the struggling, heavily fatigued Wehrmacht landsers to a legendary lineage of unstoppable military heroes.

2. Boosting Crashing Morale

By late 1942, the German army was facing severe strain, immense casualties, and an agonizing winter stalemate on the Eastern Front. The rebranding was designed to give the average, exhausted "straight-leg" foot soldier a psychological lift, making them feel like chosen shock troops without the state having to invest in new equipment or extra rations.

3. Masking Material Shortages

Simultaneously, Germany's mechanized and motorized infantry regiments were renamed Panzergrenadiers. This created a linguistic illusion of overwhelming armored might. While a Panzergrenadier sounds like a high-tech, heavily armored soldier, the stark reality was that Germany faced severe fuel and vehicle shortages. In fact, only about 11% of these "elite" Panzergrenadier battalions were actually equipped with armored half-tracks; the vast majority relied on standard cargo trucks or simply marched on foot alongside horse-drawn artillery.

4. Late-War Desperation: The Volksgrenadiers

As the war turned entirely against Germany in 1944, the regime took the naming scheme a step further by creating Volksgrenadier ("People's Grenadier") divisions. Though the name implied a fierce, elite vanguard of the German people, these units were actually understrength, desperate defensive formations. They were rapidly cobbled together from raw teenagers, older conscripts, and transferred personnel from the Navy and Air Force who often received as little as three to six weeks of basic training.
Ultimately, Hitler's sweeping upgrade of the infantry to "grenadiers" was a semantic trick—the battlefield duties, lack of transport, and standard gear of the average infantryman remained exactly the same, but they now carried a title designed to sound formidable to both themselves and their enemies.

[Cernel]

I love how the AI starts by saying

Adolf Hitler did not actually grant elite status or specialized training to every standard infantryman

and then proceeds to explain how he did formally grant elite (grenadier) status to every standard infantryman.

[Cernel]

Actually, you can have both. You could have that Soviet infantry can be upgraded to "guard_infantry" but that you can also buy "shock_infantry". They may be actually the same except that the former is an upgrade and the latter is purchased directly. Can you ask Claude what was the most elite between Guard and Shock armies in the Red Army during World War 2?

This is what Google AI says when asked that question:

In the Red Army during World War II, the Guards Armies were considered more inherently elite than the Shock Armies.
While both were highly formidable and significantly outperformed regular All-Arms field armies, they represented entirely different organizational philosophies.

The Distinction Between the Formations

Guards Armies earned their status through battle merit.
The "Guards" designation was an honorary title awarded by the Soviet high command (Stavka) to existing units that had demonstrated exceptional courage, skill, and heroism on the battlefield. Over time, these highly decorated divisions and corps were clustered together to create whole Guards Armies. Because their status was a direct reflection of combat proficiency, they were universally viewed as the elite institutional backbone of the Red Army.
Shock Armies were defined by their structural role, not their prestige.
A Shock Army (Udrarnaya Armiya) was designated as such from its creation based purely on its specific tactical purpose. Built to execute the first phase of the Soviet "Deep Battle" doctrine, their purpose was to act as heavy battering rams to breach fortified German defensive lines. They were packed with massive amounts of field artillery, heavy mortar regiments, combat engineers, and assault infantry to create a breakthrough so that more mobile forces could flood through the gaps.

Operational and Structural Realities

• Resource Priority: Both types of armies received equipment priority over standard armies. Shock Armies often received heavy emphasis on firepower (like heavy self-propelled guns and siege artillery) needed for breakthrough operations. However, by the later stages of the war, Guards Armies typically matched or surpassed Shock Armies in terms of qualitative artillery and armored support.
• Personnel Quality: Guards units attracted the best replacements and maintained an institutional culture of high morale and rigorous training. Shock Armies, while heavily reinforced with personnel, suffered devastatingly high casualty rates due to the brutal nature of frontal breakthrough operations, meaning their ranks were frequently replenished with regular conscripts.
• Perks and Incentives: Soldiers serving in Guards units enjoyed distinct institutional privileges, including a unique badge, specific uniform tailoring, and higher pay scales (double pay for enlisted men and 1.5 times pay for officers). Shock Armies did not automatically receive these systemic personal benefits unless individual sub-units within the army had also independently earned Guards status.
Ultimately, a Shock Army was a temporary or specialized tool designed for an incredibly violent tactical job, whereas a Guards Army was a permanently recognized elite force comprised of the Red Army's most proven veterans.

[Vendetta]

@KurtGodel7

AT guns may be common, but they still have to be distributed in every territory across the front line. So this would turn the Light Tank into a unit that can be used opportunistically to punish an enemy player who leaves gaps in his defenses.

The 1:1 rule also means there’s opportunities to get the bonus even when the opponent does have AT defenses through concentration. Perhaps the Soviet player has 16 Anti-Tank Guns and I as Germany have only 8 light tanks. At first glance, sounds like he has me completely countered.

But the Soviet player’s front line is so large that he has to spread those guns out so that there’s only 2 or 3 AT guns in each zone. I pick one that has has only 2 of them, and rush all 8 of my light tanks there - now 6 of them are attacking at 50% greater strength and can tear up all the infantry and field guns there.

And because the Light Tank is speed 2 and the AT gun is speed 1, I can always move my tanks around to concentrate for an attack faster than my opponent can shuffle his guns together to mass a defense.

This sounds like it will make for some really fun dynamics since it turns the Light Tank into a unit that rewards smart tactics, and the AT Gun into something that actually plays a role befitting its name instead of just being a generic filler unit to use as cannon fodder.

You could even consider extending that dynamic to the Medium Tank - it gets +1 over its current stats, but reverts to its current ones if it gets fought by heavier tanks or by AT guns at a 1:1 ratio.

@cernel
I would recommend Jason Clower’s Type 56 - Story of the SKS YouTube channel as a very informative and entertaining source on how the Chinese army fought - he principally covers the PLA, but there’s a lot of overlap with the NRA in terms of the logistical struggles they had during WW2.

China's best infantry units were the ones trained and equipped by the Germans prior to WW2, not by the Soviets. There were three elite divisions that were fully organized and equipped along European lines, and twelve others that had been reorganized and trained by them but didn't get the full array of imported artillery and equipment.

I implemented Guards Infantry and Shock Armies as Soviet unlockable bonuses in my TRO outline. Guards was a promotion mechanic where you replace up to two regular Infantry per turn with Elite Infantry for free if you win a battle. Shock Armies was one where Elite Infantry would pair with the Assault Gun and allow the AG to get one pre-battle bombardment shot at the enemy.

My policy was to avoid bloating the roster with adding a bunch of new unique units and instead use nation-specific techs to add new bonuses or synergies to the baseline units (or ways to get them cheaper).