Military Effectiveness

[Logi]

China and Japan?  I don't know...  China my get reaction is bottom of the heap.  Japan...  Was a WAG I would say better than Russia but perhaps not as good as France? 

I can answer this because of some research I did for running a Sino-Japanese War campaign. Here is the salary for the Chinese and Japanese armies converted to 1990 USD.

The Chinese Army:
Green Standard Army soldier: $31.60/mth
Xiang Army soldier: $84.28/mth (cream of the crop)

By comparison the average Joe in the Japanese Army: ~$356.45/mth

That's 11.28x more than the average Chinese soldier and 4.23x more than elite Chinese soldiers. There's definitely an effect on morale here. Historically, the low pay of Chinese soldiers resulted in the profession being shunned and treated like trash. There was absolutely no prestige associated with being in the army. As a result, a complete lack of talent in the army.

[miketr]

I have WW1 average wage numbers for European Troops WW1 era.  It did play a role, as did prestige of serving, benefits long service led to afterwards (civil service openings.)

I will look for my book that has 1914 wages it might be a good talking point if nothing else.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

Im looking into a system right now that would tie this into the status of the unit (Reserve, Active, Mobilized) and the amount of time the unit has been there. The idea is that it introduces a variable that does not require all sorts of new rules to deal with. My though is this, seeing as our techs tend to keeping large reserves, why not make some sort of reward for keeping troops active or mobilized? Creates the sort of flavor you are looking for, makes there be a choice of the correct rout as opposed to the rules dictating one (do I want a smaller army that is higher trained or a larger one with lots of reserves?), and keeps money in the equation without adding more crap into the reports. It looks like this for now, but note this does not necessarily apply to newly created units the first turn after they finish (yadayadayada green troops).

In N3 troops that were kept mobilized for ..2? years were considered "Elite".
Also, I could see a couple types of reserve troops, echoing those that are just out of the army and back in civilian life, and called up for training on intervals...and just that group of folks that once were trained..call them Militia or Natl Guard or what not.

When comparing soldier pay, purchasing power parity should be relevant. I.e. how many pints of beer does the paycheck result in? 

Soldier pay I expect has some bearing. However, as most of the soldiers were conscripts, it's not a matter of attracting quality candidates. So NCO and Officer pay and advancement becomes prominent, as does the treatment- and as pointed out- the honor of serving.

National attitude does seem to matter, in the "Why we fight" way. Unpopular wars with no apparent gain are not likely to see conscripts perform well. Morale can drop to the point of rendering otherwise good troops worthless, and can be based on pay, but also remember the Confederates in the US Civil war, paid in worthless paper money, on the loosing side, a substantial number of them stuck it out and fought hard to the end.

Military effectiveness - the Concept.

I am generally in favor of adding more nuance to the land based aspect of the sim.  I rather liked Kwold's proposal of "build your own" and thought it mainly lacked some "Stock" divisions those not interested could purchase. Indeed, I came up with AH and Ottoman army structures back in February.

Military effectiveness, or Troop Quality as I prefer, could be one aspect.

Morale might be an interesting aspect to add, as something the MODs could modify during the course of a SIM war. Known only to the owning player, it could be a signal that it's time to hit the peace table. Even victorious troops in long wars that stall can see dips.

However, I would be resistant to awarding some nations greater starting military effectiveness than others.
Why? 
1), because we're supposed to tailor our countries and the point of departure  was 25 years ago. Had it been included in startup, as say something to spend infrastructure BP on , basically requiring Countries to make an Army/Navy choice, then I could see it. Now, I would be for it.

2), some nations like the Ottomans and China would need boosts to be able to field relevant or be doomed to repeat history.

3) Historically  General Magnani as minister of war in the 1870s, introduced universal conscription, created a permanent army, a mobile militia and a reserve totaling 1.8million troops. With our system I can't support that- esp if upgraded to 1875 (though I can come closer than I thought, wish I had started with more divisions...), and have anywhere near the historic fleet, and actually build anything...after ostensibly growing 1875-1900. 

By time the bad reputation of Italian soldiers was earned in WW1, this force had quadrupled and I effect resulted in dilution of leadership and training. Equipment needs were so pressing that M1877 siege howitzers were taken out of storage and used.

So here, in Navalism, Italy doesn't seem to have the mass conscript army of history. Indeed, the Army is 1/5th the size, and half of it is active at any point. The Alpini, Bergsagliari, and I think Cavalry & Marines were all Elite troops historically, and make up 1/4 of the army. Quality Officers and NCOs can be far more concentrated, training levels can be higher, armanants are up to date, etc. So looking to history to judge Navalism6's Italian army is perhaps not valid- they aren't the same beast.