"us 1st Div WW1 Count as VETS? Really?" Topic

I'm confused with the 1st Infantry Div being classified as Veterans in the game, they were formed in 1917?????? Makes no sense to me, can other elaborate? Formed in 1917 and considered a Vet Division? How so Battlefront HQ? Justification???????

One possible rationale is that, when first organized, the 1st Infantry Division incorporated a relatively large proportion of regular army elements, a number of which had seen field service in the Villa Expedition.

But I think that the REAL reason is to provide "play balance" within the FOW tournament environment.

Yes but personally being in the Villa expedition fighting partisan irregular in the desert should not qualify as the expedition lasted a month. Casualties were very very low. I would still count them as trained being in the regular army.

BF HQ reasoning is??????????????

More the level of training a that they received in France and the number of Regulars

IMHO they had a good track record so should be good troops. The only word for this in FoW is "veteran" just as the only word for suppressed is "bailed out."

If you;re going to get hung up on FoW terminology, you might look for a different game

Correct the 1st Division was formed from the units that served in the punitive expedition. Not sure that it could be considered a veteran unit for that reason or not. The Marine brigade also had a large number of vets many of them straight from actions around the world. The 5th and 6th Marine Regiments were lead by Medal of Honor winners

The German army at the time was started to become diluted in quality as the restructuring for the big offensive had started. So success is realative, more of a numbers game not a quality veteran reason for US success on the front. Majority of US TROOPS were green, I'd consider the big reg 1 to be trained.

I think Crispy has the right idea

It's a sop to keep US Gamers happy. It took weeks if not months of on the job training and experience to make a Division genuinely battle ready, never mind 'veteran'. The cadre of men who had 'seen the elephant' would have been tiny, and the experiences of marines and the Pancho Villa expedition would have been virtually irrelevant to the Western Front. Patrolling No Mans land, conducting 'bombing' raids and just general trench fieldcraft would have not been up to scratch by French and British standards until the war was virtually over.

Possibly Khusrau is right. However, at Chateau Thierry the French had broken and were retreating, and the Americans stood fast. Additionally, the Germans who first encountered the Marines thought they were running into large numbers of machine guns because of the casualties they were taking at extreme range. Unlike the Marines, they were not trained to aim and fire at those ranges. So there can be an argument that Vet is deserved.

The Marines were part of the 2nd div not the first.

and the Americans stood fast

Even so, I would say Trained and their General made a good dice throw.

Agree the combat experience fighting insurgents does not equate to fighting in trench warfare again modern weeapons of the time. The unit as a whole would be best described as trained for lets say the first 6 months and then it is quite possible it could have attained veteran experience given that most of the ranks had seen combat and were pretty fast learners. They didnt have to make all the mistakes the European armies made!

Solution: use the 42nd TO&E for the 1st through its initial period in France and then switch to represent later battles.

I would recommend caution about interpreting the French situation at Chateau Thierry. The German attacked created a huge re-entrant in the Allied lines, with Chateau Thierry at the apex. Either side of this apex, there were miles and miles of front line leading back to the original lines on the flanks of the German attack. The big battle was to secure the Soissons side of the flank. We hear nothing about this major operation because it was fought by the French. They had to maintain control of the forest, where Foch was building up major forces in order to counter-attack the base of the German gains. Without the French holding the rest of the lines, the Americans would have been hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded. I am not downgrading the American efforts in any way. Just trying to put it into a broader perspective that recognises the efforts of the French as well.

Robert

I don't know what veteran status means as I don't know the ruleset. Can someone explain what this status entitles the Big Red One to receive? The term 'veteran' is not really the issue – more what this confers.

Robert

Their chaps are harder to hit, among other things.

A mechanism I shamelessly blagged to use with Spearhead:)

I think Veteran status isn't really about prior experience it's really a category of performance. I don't know anything about WW1 but if they fought exceptionally well despite their experience then Veteran status is fine.

"Even so, I would say Trained and their General made a good dice throw."

LOL

"Agree the combat experience fighting insurgents does not equate to fighting in trench warfare again modern weeapons of the time.'

True, but the inclusion of long term regulars means the troops are disciplined and know what it's like to get shot at. These are men who spent years enduring the daily grind of military life as opposed to the new volunteers who are just learning it.

Just look at how the regulars performed at the beginning of the ACW compared to the militia and volunteers. The Marines at Bull Run broke, but rallied three times during the fight. They only had a half dozen or so regulars in a battalion of 300, but they had an experienced commander who drilled them constantly from DC to Manassass and it paid off.

Heck, look at the Old Contemptables at the beginning of WWI. they had only been fighting various natives for the better part of a hundred years, and they gave an excellent account of themselves when facing the modernly equipped Bosche.

Oh…perleaze….stop the post-rationalisations…its to sell product.
Its not like its unusual in FOW.

I agree with Welland, count as the 42 list being trained initially then increase to Vets for 1918 spring.

My Dad served in the 1st Division in the 1920's.
He said that many of the 'regulars' were incredibly tough, some having served in the Phillipine Insurection. The officers were of very high quality; his company commander was Teddy Roosevelt Jr.!

In Flames of War the main advantage to Veteran status is that you are harder to hit.
You dive for cover faster, you don't stick your head out of the foxhole, etc.

Soldiering is soldiering, whether against Pancho Villa or the dastardly Hun.
The terrain may vary but the principles do not. "Keep your head down soldier!" coming from an Old Army dude carries some weight.

I wonder how many chimed in on this with no knowledge of how Flames of War is played, or its terminology.

Lets see – 20 years past history of regular army
1898:Spanish-American war
1899-1902:Philippine–American War(a little PC I guess)
1916:fighting insurgents in Mexico

Please list the combat service of the German army for it's 20 years before 1914.

In other words zero experience of fighting intense warfare against a highly experienced,industrialised, modern opponent using the latest tactics and using heavy artillery,aircraft, tanks and highly developed engineering.

I like Winston's point. FoW is a game and pretty vides a breadth of troop types and experience to encourage players to use many varieties of army and unit . If they were just rule writers then the world would accept their aims as totally praiseworthy. However, because they also make the kit that enables the game to ge pkayed they are subjected to a creeping barrage of criticim and a wave attack of cynicism from dog in n the manger types who have a chip on their shoulder about anything commercial. The whingers should get over it. Of course the lists are adjusted so that Americans get good troops. So are the WW2 lusts for Italians, Finns, Hungarians and Romanians. Actually the Russian lists are fixed to make their radioless tanks telepathic, but then otherwise they would be pretty useless, nit the scourge of the table that they are. Like any set of rules they have their problems, but they do play OK, they are a lingua franca to meet other players and my German opponent is rebuying all his A7Vs to Battlefront because the new midel us so nice. Best thing to happen in WW1 gaming for a long time!

I agree that FOW helped br8 g lots of gamers back to ww2, hard to argue that. Also the new figs ate outstanding.