"What makes a unit 'Elite'." Topic

We've been going round and round about this in my local group.

Is a unit considered 'Elite' based on how it performed in a particular battle?

or

Is a unit considered 'Elite' based on a 'total body of work in the war'?

Arguably chance and circumstance can contrive to put a unit in a position where
it shines and sparkles on a specific day but the same unit might, in fact be no
better than any other veteran unit in the line that day.

On the flip side of things, the character of a unit that consistently performs
well might be the work of a particular officer or group of men that . . . as the
campaign progresses are killed or removed to other units. Should the new
recruits put on 'elite' uniforms just because they step into the shoes of elite
troops that are long gone?

What do you think?

mjc

I personaly do not use "Elite" unit modifiers when gaming an ACW battle. I use Veteran,Average,Green modifiers for all troops. A ACW Regiment/Brigade may have fought extremely well one battle, and poorly the next. An Elite soldier dies just as easy as a Green one does!

If they are on my side? :)

When it receives better equipment, better rations, better accomodations, and has taller hats than the other units.

I recall a well argued point from an old MWAN which basically said – the Old Guard were average or below because they were men who had been good, but now were saved for the last push against an exhausted enemy. When they eventually had to face a fresh foe they routed themselves. Therefore – treated as elite (nice costumes) but actually not that good anymore.

Depends on what being elite means in rules terms.

Does elite mean they get a bonus to morale tests, plusses to hit in melee and missile all because of experience.

or

Do they perform better due to having better equipment

or

Do they perform better through fear or maybe they get paid more so put more effort in?

or other factors?

In my rules, the Old Guard are "elite"

As above, it depends what you mean by 'elite'. IRL elite troops can simply be people who get to wear big hats and wear white gloves on parade. If in game terms it means units who get big bonuses on combat, morale etc then it is based on general performance over a period of time. In Dupuys parlance, units with a high Combat Effectiveness Value, as demonstrated in a number of battles.

Not many elite units in my APW/FPW armies, although there are plenty of rotten ones (Venetians fighting for the Austrians etc).

I would not have any problems rating the Old Guard as elite, even at Waterloo.

What makes a unit 'Elite'

The more colorfull the uniform the more elite it is. espacly pink, purple and glow in the dark yellow

Units are elite if their morale grade is at least 1 point above the next highest ranked element in the army.

I reckon a unit is elite if its personnel have been through a meaningful selection process.

Regards

Elite is very often about leadership in mid-level positions, like company Officers and NCO's, and how they trained their replacements.

If my memory serves me correctly that is what kept the 57th Line elite for most of Napoleon's reign.

It also comes from leadership's recognition of a unit's ability, and a leader's ability to use that status in a manner that can be built upon, …a point at which Napoleon excelled.

Will

The more colorfull the uniform the more elite it is. espacly pink, purple and glow in the dark yellow

Only if they have berets.
Otherwise, they're just wierd.

One can make a case for 'green' troops to be more apt to do something special (elite) than a veteran unit that knows better. Think the Maine 2nd Heavy Artillery at Cold Harbor where the veterans laid down as quickly as possible and the Maine unit advanced until it was nearly wiped out. Same for the Battle of the Somme and K's New Army battalions.

Dan

a d16 or higher.

High morale and very good training, with good leadership.

95th Rifles, for example.

A unit could be considered elite if it performs well above the average, consistently. It shouldn't be based just on how brave the unit was. As some posters had noted a green unit can be as brave -or even more, sometimes- as a veteran unit. But that doesn't mean they performed better than any other given unit. Perhaps they did even worst. Take the example of the 2nd Maine Heavy Artillery. They were bold, but their attack only served for them to be slaughtered. If they would have achieved a breakthrough, with a third of the casualties they suffered and still be able to fight off a counterattack thanks to their stamina, weapons ability and training, then they could be considered true elites.

In my opinion, an actual elite unit is the one that is able to have the job done in the most efficient way possible.

For me it tends to come back to the question of morale. I believe that a unit of men who believe themselves that they are the best and have a reputation to maintain can take more punnishment and most probably outlast their opposition, carrying the day. If their own organisation reckons on them being elite, they will tend to get the best of everything also which may add to that edge. How this is reflected is another matter.

In my WWII wargames I have a unit of Italian/African Askari troops who I play using Rapid Fire rules. I've changed it a little and give them elite morale but poor firing qualities to represent their attitide and determination on the one hand but their poorer equipment and even experience on the other.

Certainly my consistently poor dice rolling in all games tends to bring in that negative random factor which can (and should) at times raise the performance of common units and defy the special ones.

Remember: some units that did well on a given battle just rolled well that day. Not all great successes should qualify a unit to be given elite status by players with toy soldiers.

A unit that is feared and respected by its enemy is elite.

A unit that calls itself elite and is untried may be in for a shock!

When you can count on them to smite the Bad Guys.

I always struggle with this also. I play GdBde and the rules have 6 morale classes, including elites. Other rules I've used are pretty much the same. In my own home spun rules its A/B/C. Guard/Elite and some vets – A. Some vets/regulars – B. Concript, militia – C. Some vairables will come into this also. Spanish Guards will be a B for instance. Basically, as for my Generals' classifications as well, its Excellent, Average or Garbage. My Generals go by a slightly different narrative, but in the same vain… Outstanding, Average or a Buffoon. I'm considering incorporating the 3 status distinctions into my GdBde games, and eliminate the large scale ladder.
Paulie

An elite unit is a unit that always acts like weekend militia when I command it.

In that case, an 'elite' unit merely has the best press.

Dan

Elite is all about mystique-- they're the guys who, if their image is properly managed and if they are properly groomed (in all senses of the word), scare the out of their enemies.

For instance, barring Waterloo, the Old Guard were never committed except when it was essentially certain that they would carry the day, hence they always won and thus gained the reputation of being the baddest of the bad.

On the other hand, some line units might be very experienced and reliable, but when the going gets tough they will usually just be tossed into the meatgrinder. The French 18th line infantry, for instance, saw action in 38 battles up to 1814, earned 3 battle honours and the nickname "the brave"-- certainly a veteran unit, if not an elite one. On the other hand, it was never pampered the way Guard units were, and so on at least two occasions it suffered the loss of an eagle.

When it comes to this subject for wargaming maybe it's a good idea to roll for each unit/battalion's morale with appropriate modifiers for historical reputation, etc. before a battle. As stated above, units fight very well on some days, less well on others. After all, maybe at Borodino there were some Russian line regiments who were at least as eager to take on the French as the Ismailovskoi Guards might have been, and maybe more so. Just because a unit has "guards" in its title doesn't necessarily mean it's better that regular formations. The Gardes Francaises are a good case in point.

Elite leadership creates elite troops and elite troops ignore bad leaders.

"For instance, barring Waterloo, the Old Guard were never committed except when it was essentially certain that they would carry the day, hence they always won and thus gained the reputation of being the baddest of the bad."

Not so, I suggest you catch on your history and see reports of actions at Eylau (one battalion with the bayonet driving off some 6000 Russians in the village and rescuing Napoleon from near capture) of the retreat in 1812 fighting through Russian attempts to block the reteat, the 1813 campaign (Leipzig and Hanau) and of course the entire 1814 campaign where they marched and foot tooth and nail constantly and not kept as a coup de grace.

Even in 1815, the breakthrough in Ligny was done against some very tough and typical Prussian resistance… they had to be broken first.

For my two bits a unit can certainly consider itself Elite, say the Russian Chevalier Guard, or Prussian Garde du Korps in the aristocratic sense and got slaughtered for their trouble, but there is another definition of elite- that of crack troops who combine combat effectiveness with self belief.

Vague terminology makes a simple answer hard. Are you talking about a field commander evaluating his assets for a battle. Or are you talking troop classifications for a game. or are you talking a general debate between the merits of different units.

The people participating in such discussions will all look at the same data from various prespectives. So different conclusions on the same unit may be reached at different levels and by different people.

"I suggest you catch on your history and see reports of actions at Eylau (one battalion with the bayonet driving off some 6000 Russians in the village and rescuing Napoleon from near capture)"

Phillipaj,

May I ask, please, exactly what "reports" we should see that attest to this feat of arms ?

And by "reports", I assume that you mean those of people who saw the thing happen, or interviewed those who did, or similar. Is this assumption correct ?

Thanks,
Chuey

The dictionary provides the following meanings to the word, "elite":

a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: "In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them"
b. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.
c. (sometimes functioning as plural) the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community, etc.
d. of, relating to, or suitable for an elite; exclusive [from French, from Old French eslit chosen, from eslire to choose, from Latin çligere to ELECT]
e. the class occupying the highest position in the social hierarchy
f. an exclusive group of people; "one of the elect who have power inside the government"
g. the best people or things in a group; "the cream of England's young men were killed in the Great War"
h. an educated and intellectual elite
i. the fashionable elite
j. a small elite group; "it was designed for the discriminating few"
k. a privileged class holding hereditary titles
l. an expert who is a member of a highly skilled elite group
m. selected as the best; "an elect circle of artists"; "elite colleges"
n. chosen in preference to another

The following is only my own interpretation of the meaning of the word elite in the context of warfare.

Taking the above meaning for what they are you quickly see that there are many different ideals as to what the word, "elite" means. Basically, the word elite means different things to different people and is used in many different contexts. To be given the status of, "elite" by an individual or group depends on the criteria that is set by those individuals or groups concerned. The ideal of what is meant by elite could be one single criteria or a combination of several, it really depends on what criteria is set.

Now, if you take this into the realm of the military then it becomes more difficult because you have to understand that the set criteria does not just encompass what we as wargamers feel is our meaning of the word elite but the context in which the people of the time meant it to be also. For example, the French Old Guard were considered elite and were chosen as elite individually to be placed in an elite group after they met a strenuous list of criteria. They had to be a certain height, they had to have a particularly pure war record, they had to have a certain number of years experience, and they had to be selected first by their superior officers for bravery and so on. This selection process by way of a checklist criteria assured only the most "elite" were chosen for entry into the Old Guard. If just one of the criteria was lacking the selection process failed for that individual and he was overlooked.

Now, there were other formations from different nations who recognised the status of "elite" and set criteria in a different way and often far less strenuous a selection process. For example, many so called "elite formations" chose individuals based on their stature alone; if they met a certain minimum height requirement they were selected and thus considered elite. They might not have a war record to back them up, they might not have any acts of bravery behind them and in many cases zero combat experience to speak of, but according to the criteria set, they are considered, "elite". These formations might look imposing on the battlefield and even intimidating and might even look impressive due to intense drill and expectations drilled into them by their superiors that mould them into automatons capable of stoic almost inhuman feats of combat superiority, the typical robotic formation of soldiers who are unflinching in their duty.

Then you have another form of elite to contend with, the recognised body of troops who have been together so long and have been through so much together that they have been come to be known as an, "elite body of troops". These formations are recognised as elite but the process that gets them to this recognition is much different. It is a process of attrition, natural selection and bleeding out of the weak if you can call it that. This selection process takes a great deal of time, it is a process where natural attrition caused by many situations and circumstances takes out those that are weak, lame, disaffected, cowardly and even unlucky and leaves behind only the strong, physically fit, enthusiastic, brave and lucky. This becomes the cream that rises to the surface so to speak, the, "elite".

The unit or formation might start off at a particular strength or organisation which has a level of eliteness that is equal to its whole. Meaning, that its ability to stand and fight in combat or survive the rigors of campaigning is only equal to the whole of its parts. At this point this level of eliteness is relatively low depending on the overall quality of the men who form its organisation. However, after time the natural selection process comes into play and the lesser quality or inferior are bled out through several ways and means. This selection process occurs in every combat unit worldwide especially in training camps and academies to sift out the good from the bad, the superior from the rest and so on. This process further occurs where the lame, weak, disaffected and cowardly are further sifted out via the demanding labours of campaigning life. Also, throughout this process the unlucky are also lost who might otherwise have been considered elite but lost their lives during combat or accidents etc.

As these units proceed through this process their elite status increases over time and they become a toughened fighting unit that can endure the rigors of combat and campaigning, overcome any obstacle and perform feats of bravery and heroism that eventually is expected of them. The only problem with this is that once a unit reaches this level of eliteness every time a man is lost from its ranks the overall eliteness of that unit suffers from that loss and accordingly the eliteness of that unit begins to decrease once again. Each elite individual lost detracts from the eliteness of the group. The only way to maintain the unit's level of eliteness is to inject it with other men who match their level of eliteness through equality. But this never occurs because new men who enter these formations are almost always men that cannot match the criteria or current level of eliteness. The only units that can achieve this are units like Old Guard or similar but they are elite for other reasons as explained previously. In this example we are speaking about self made typical units who did not start out elite but made it to a level of eliteness through time and effort.

These formations are very well known in most armies and are the units of the line that gain reputations during their histories because of the efforts and deeds of its members. The sad thing about these units is that their levels of eliteness ebb and flow with history and never remains constant for great periods of time. These units often rise to the pinnacle of elite status over time but once they reach this point there is no place left to go other than back down. If the injection of new blood into an already elite body of troops is lower than the current level of eliteness then eventually their elite status will decrease back into the crowd. All that is left is a reputation to try to uphold or remember. Training methods can try to maintain elite status but cannot wholly ensure this, you can train men to such a high level but unless they actually endure the hardships of campaigning and the horrors of battle you cannot ensure that they are truly elite. You can sift of the lesser quality recruits and be left with the cream but they are still unproven in battle.

I would also say that reputation goes a long way into formulating a status of eliteness for many units. Reputation can intimidate and even cause outright fear in the enemy's ranks so much so that their mere presence can provoke enemy units to lose their ability to continue the fight and break. When this occurs it perpetuates their reputation thus increasing their confidence this increasing their level of eliteness by merely being who they are.

Regards,
Shane

Summary
A French officer was about 5.5 times more likely to be a casualty in the Army compared to the Old Guard.
A French officer was about 2.2 times more likely to be a casualty in the Middle Guard compared to the Old Guard.
A French officer was about 2.5 times more likely to be a casualty in the Army compared to the Middle Guard.

French Officer Casualties 1805-1815 – Grenadiers vs. Ligne
Old Guard : 1er grenadiers : 6 killed or mortally wounded, 37 wounded
Middle Guard : fusiliers-grenadiers + 4e grenadiers : 22 killed or mortally wounded, 70 wounded
Line : 1er de ligne : 31 killed or mortally wounded, 127 wounded
Line : 2e de ligne : 58 killed or mortally wounded, 149 wounded
Line : 3e de ligne : 71 killed or mortally wounded, 216 wounded
Line : 4e de ligne : 71 killed or mortally wounded, 240 wounded
link
link

French Officer Casualties 1805-1815 – Chasseurs vs. Légère
Old Guard : 1er chasseurs : 2 killed or mortally wounded, 26 wounded
Old Guard : 2e chasseurs : 5 killed or mortally wounded, 45 wounded
Middle Guard : fusiliers-chasseurs + 4e chasseurs : 16 killed or mortally wounded, 69 wounded
Line : 1er légère : 43 killed or mortally wounded, 107 wounded
Line : 2e légère : 54 killed or mortally wounded, 192 wounded
Line : 3e légère : 44 killed or mortally wounded, 104 wounded
Line : 4e légère : 62 killed or mortally wounded, 191 wounded
link
link

Average Total Casulaties
3 Old Guard régiments : 40 officers per régiment
2 Middle Guard régiments : 88 officers per régiment
8 Line régiments : 220 officers per régiment

Chuvak

P.S. – Welcome back, Shane !!
:-)

Elite formations?

Id put the Old Guard as elite, and maybe a couple of Imperial Guard cavalry regiments as well. The Chassuers of the Guard and maybe the Empress Dragoons.

For the British, maybe 95th and 5/60th would get eilte status, and possible The Guards based on their status alone.

However im convinced there were line infantry units in both armies that were far harder and better than "elite" units. In the British I'd say the 40th, 45th, 88th and 92nd regiments. In the French the 14th Line and the 9th Legere for example.

so i'd be wary of anything that made "elite" units too good.

ps I'm sure this applies to the Prussian, Austrian and Russian armies aswell. I just don't have the depth of knowldege to cite any examples for those states.

To take it back to the main point of the thread.
I think its a difficult thing to pin down.

In a general way, an elite corps is a unit with especial critea for recruitment, so that its recruits are a cut above the average. How this is judged may vary from time, place and context of the regiment.

A British/German Paratrooper cira 1944 is "elite" as he has specialist training and the selection process is a tad tougher than just joining a regular infantry regiment.
Same could be said for a Royal Marine Commando.

A 95th rifleman is elite as he had to prove himself an adept marksman before he could join his unit.

A Grenadier is "elite" with in his battalion as he has been selected due to either his physical size, bravery in action or accumulated experience.

A Spartan hoplite would be elite as his whole life has been spent in training for war.

An Anglo Saxon unit of house carls would be the elite of its army, based on the fact they were few full time warrior class.

But then the Coldstream Guards COULD be classed as elite as the are the palace guards (aswell as combat troops) despite (to my knowledge) having no rigerous selection procedure.

Iraqi Republican Guards were technically "elite" in their army but didn't exactly fight in a manner we would associate with elite troops.

So I would say, elite units are made elite by some "high status" critea, which may be cultural, martial, social or a combination of all three. It can relate to a units fighting abilty, but not always.

A 95th rifleman is elite as he had to prove himself an adept marksman before he could join his unit.

I may have mis-remembered, but didnt the 95th do a lot less well at Waterloo? Something to do with a lot of desertions (or at least unauthorised retreating).

IIRC this was blamed on
1. Turnover of men and junior officers in the brief peace
2. Seeing another unit cut up by cavalry earlier in the campaign – cavalry not being that prominent in the Penninsular.

I dont know where I'm going with this, except that rules sets probably shouldnt over-do the morale bonuses for eliteness.

E,

the Coldstream Guards COULD be classed as elite as they are the palace guards (aswell as combat troops) despite (to my knowledge) having no rigerous selection procedure.

It pains me to say it but the Guards had (and still have) a higher exepection from the soldier during training and once posted to the battlion than most units of the line.
So could claim our Elite status.

DB

A high concentration of ass-kickery among the ranks.
-Kle.

no idea, you could be perfectly correct, you could be wrong. My one rifles history that I have doesnt mention it, and most of the officers it names iirc were Penninsular men. But then there were men from three rifle battalion present..

But your point, to my mind, stands. Regardless of their performance, they ARE an elite unit. If some of them broke and fled, then it is more just proof that elite status doesnt all ways mean invincible or experienced campaigners.

DB. About the Guards
I know that this is the case now, I was speaking in a Napoleonic context. Which I probably didn't make clear.

Circumstances of campaign aside, I would say the following ticks for expectation of elite performance -:
1/ Superior command structure
2/ Superior experience &/or recruitment of officers NCOs
3/ Superior selection of other ranks
4/ Recent combat experience
5/ Up to date regular training

The British Guards had -:
1&2 Officers one rank higher than the line- a Captain in a line battalion transferred as a only Lieutenant to the Guards.
3 Higher pay for the men – so if volunteers were available the Guards could select the better.
5 Unlike most line battalions in peacetime they were kept & trained as complete battalions.
So at the outbreak of war they would be the best available – adding 4 would be expected to bring them up to elite within the British army.

95th Rifles had
2&3 At the start a selection of chosen officers, NCOs, and even men. Combined with being a special unit they had enough allure to continue to be able to select the best volunteers, and also reject officers who didn't have sufficient ability and interest.
5 The famous camp; and 4 in spades once they got to Portugal.

Modern example – US Rangers of the 1990s
1,2&3 Besides selection, they also were gifted a better command structure and weapons squads than any other infantry type.
5 I would expect they got, and I pass on commenting for 4.

"Iraqi Republican Guards were technically "elite" in their army but didn't exactly fight in a manner we would associate with elite troops."

They did however perform notably better than regular Iraqi army formations in the 1991 war.

Perhaps one might look at this in reverse. What did the opponents think of such alleged 'elites'. Can anyone give examples of the Prussian, Austrian, Russian or UK army in 1805-1815 specifically mentioning the French Guard as something to be feared?

In WWII the western allies were very specific about tracking the whereabouts of certain German units and valued them in their intelligence reports as 'elites'. In WWI the US (and others) actually rated each and every division of the German Imperial Army, so was something like that done during the Napoleonic Wars by any country?

Another thought is the comparison between foes at a particular time and place. A well trained modern western force with all its support weapon systems and such, will go through most 3rd world armies (as history has shown over the past 50 years) like a knife through butter regardless of actual odds (head count). Does that make all such forces 'elite', or merely better than their enemies?

I suspect that most 'elite' formations in game terms are merely the chosen favorites of their owners, rather than based on anything that can be substantiated in some sort of historical model.

Dan

Depends on the rules you are using. In Regt. Fire and Fury the effect of an elite unit is they are marginally better than veteran units in maneuvering (under fire), fighting in charge combat, and are a little harder to disorder.

A unit is rated elite if it has the experience, leadership, and training of a veteran unit, plus it has the notable success in two or more battles that have given it a repution enhancing its own morale and ability to intimidate the enemy.

ACW examples for us are the Iron Brigade by Gettysburg; the Stonewall Briagade sometime in mid-1862; the ANV Louisiana brigade probably reaches that status at some point in 1862; the First Missouri Brigade by 1863; Shelby's Iron Brigade (Missouri Confederate cavalry) sometime in 1863; and perhaps the 20th Maine by the Wilderness in 1864.

We use the term "crack" for ACW, BTW.

Mark

The factors that make any military organization 'elite' are leadership, training, tradition, esprit de corps, winning, and the belief that a unit can overcome any obstacle.

Davout's III Corps can certainly be considered 'elite' for the period, and yet for 1806, one third of its infantry personnel were newly inducted conscripts with less than a year's service.

For the Grande Armee of 1805, arguably the best army Napoleon ever led, only one-third of its soldiers were veterans of at least six years service. However forty-three percent of its infantry and cavalry were combat veterans. The new soldiers were thoroughly trained in the channel camps, but to call the army a veteran outfit would be somewhat incorrect. Yet, it could be called an 'elite' unit.

Sincerely,
K

quidveritas
''Is a unit considered 'Elite' based on how it performed in a particular battle?
or
Is a unit considered 'Elite' based on a 'total body of work in the war'?''

The only 'elite'-ness that matters is the training they get, the cohesion they can maintain and the fear that puts into the enemy.

The only professional and live-fire trained army in the Napoleonic Wars was the British. So although the French Guard, for example, regarded itself as 'elite', at Waterloo at least, large parts of it had simply been lifted out of other units, placed into un-cohesive units and paraded without any special training at all. The only 'elite' units in the modern sense, were those with special skills, like in the light infantry or the artillery.

Not too helpful for a wargamer who's looking for units with some kind of special prowess. Especially as WW2 evidence showed that veteran troops were more often likely to shy away from danger – as the Middle Guard did on the main ridge at Waterloo.

However, the most important attribute of a strong unit in a face-to face fight is the ability not to run or to carry on going forward when casualties are dropping. There's a strong case to make, that the best performing units in that respect are generally composed of green troops, freshly trained, placed within units with strong traditions. Both the Young Guard and early war British green-jackets fitted some of those categoeies.

Heh. I was reading the above and boggling at the idiocy of the arguments… and then

Heh. I was reading the above and boggling at the

a few things make a unit elite in my view:

-rigid selection process. only the best get in the sas and they are picked by men they will soldier with

-training and practice. elite units spend most of their time training and practicing specific tactics and theoretical situations.

-equipment of the hightest caliber

-support infrastructure that allows an elite unit to focus their entire effort on warmaking versus say walking hundreds of miles to a battle.

priscillian2 02 Apr 2010 1:59 p.m. PST
''a few things make a unit elite in my view:'''

I think these are good points. Some notes:

''-rigid selection process. only the best get in the sas and they are picked by men they will soldier with''
You have to want to join too – as opposed to being conscripted. Most of the SAS are ex-para and their philosphy is that will-power is what makes the difference. In modern war individual prowess is important but back then team cohesion was more important. However, what makes a soldier continue to fight when others give up? Experience? Regimental myth? Fear of ridicule? Consent? Don't forget that selection into many Napoleonic so-called 'elite' units was down to height and 'good behaviour' (French Guard) or fashion. The kind of selection that was actually useful, was when regiments aquired a real reputation and officers could be chosen from a large applicant pool on the basis of intelligence: early war 95th Rifles for example. Restricting Jeager troops to musket-experienced 'mountain men' just reveals a paucity of training in the wider army to me.

''-training and practice. elite units spend most of their time training and practicing specific tactics and theoretical situations.''
Yes. Hence the reference to British regular live-fire training on campaign – something the French did not do. I don't know so much about the Prussians. No one would imagine arguing that a modern untrained soldier is a match for a trained one. Yet they do about Napoleonic soldiers, for some reason! War games were also useful for the officers to develop their command and control abilities.

''-equipment of the hightest caliber''
Yes – at least equipment that matters: graded powder, long barrels, rifles. In the ACW, it was the South's reletively superior procurement control that kept it in the field for so long.

''-support infrastructure that allows an elite unit to focus their entire effort on warmaking versus say walking hundreds of miles to a battle.''
Apart from cavalry, then travelling by ship was the main way a Napoleonic soldier could avoid walking. In the ACW you've railways of course. But, I disagree a little here: walking doesn't really sap abilty: look at the Paras yomping on the Falklands. And too much support leaves a soldier soft. It's the commissariat that's the key: a unit that has to forage for food is a knackered unit.

I'd also add two things:

an open publishing industry where military ideas on drill and tactics could spread ideas and keep the best officers trying out improvements: which is what results in the kind of specialist army units you see today. In a tyrrany, there's not much publishing freedom: the French Guard, for example, were not expected to manoeuvre radically differently to an ordinary line unit. Napoleonic Continental armies were often constrained by army doctrine whereas British drill and tactics developed more variety: it could and did get developed by individual regimental, brigade and army commander's standing orders. Shorncliff had a far profounder effect in producing elite units than Boulogne ever did. A virtuous mix of ideas is one of the reasons the rebels scored early successes in the AWI.

The other one is a professional army to support the elites. There'd be less likelyhood of a 19th century 'SAS' or 'Delta Force' if the rest of the army were conscript.

I've given a lot of thought to this point – though admittedly not much research.

I think you have 3 basic levels of troops for wargames purposes.

At the bottom are green troops with no experience and very minimal training.

Then there are trained troops who've had proper training but lack significant combat experience.

Then there are experienced or expert troops, who have a cadre of battle hardened men and officers and/or have had extremely effective training.

I also allow for a 4th category of special, for units made up entirely of experienced and fully trained personnel specially selected and usually given extra taining.

There should be significant differences between each grade or it's pointless. In particular better troops should suffer losses at a lower rate than lesser troops – either due to rookie mistakes from the newbies or in Napoleonic era, more shock effect from the same actual number of killed/wounded.

A problem comes when rules writers want to split hairs and have about 10 different levels of morale. Either there is no significant difference between some or the sper elite are just off the scale.

I don't like the term 'conscript' since it doesn't much matter once the men are inducted and in the line of fire. Also, being 'elite' might mean higher social status only that doesn't necessary translate into higher combat effectiveness.

FOW (for all it's failings) at least distinguishes motivation from experience. So we can have reluctant veterans.

I also like rules to somehow reflect the cohesion of a force. A small cadre can allow a mainly green unit to perform better, but too many new replacements and they're swamped.

It's an interesting and often poorly done area in wargame rules. Players often want their forces to be elite and therefore invincible – how many British Napoleonic players seem to want every line battalion to have some kind of veteran or elite status – and then want to further upgrade every highland or light bn and then the guards just have to be even better! Many French players go overboard with the Guard.