True - but ASL does not model all of the things that go on at the regimental level to provide untold advantages, such as better supply and logistics systems and (always with the US Army) -- more mobility. What did the fight look like when it got down to
GI vs. landser? Some of those things are abstracted if they had an impact at that level-- but not all of them. (IMO, OBA could have been left out of the game entirely -- or at least watered down even more. )
Even the so-called 'green' divisions did not stay green very long. The untested 90th division arrived early in the Normandy campaign and performed so badly in its first few encounters from June 10-13 that Bradley considered disbanding the division to provide replacements. It turned out, however, that the problem with the 90th was not its green soldiers, who were just as well-trained and well-equipped as any other U.S division, but its near criminally atrocious leadership. VII Corps commander Joe Collins eventually replaced practically every senior commander from division CO to regiment to battalion. Things began to steadily turn around, and after Normandy the division went on to become one of the best divisions in the U. S. Army. As Omar Bradley himself would later write, "In the end the 90th became one of the most outstanding (divisions) in the European Theater."
Well that would certainly have an impact of troop morale, don't you think?
The most egregious problems with the U.S. replacement system (and there were many) were twofold: the new guys got themselves killed too quickly, and they were often, in typical bureaucratic army genius, assigned jobs for which they had no previous training. So, a highly skilled mechanic ends up humping a base plate up and down hills for a mortar he had never even seen before. Although never arriving at a perfect solution, the Army made steady positive progress at reforming the system as the war went on.
Nevertheless, as inefficient as that system was, it allowed U.S. divisions to stay in the line for long periods. A fact which many German generals in post-war interviews reluctantly admitted gave the Americans a distinct advantage in periods of sustained combat.
Which would in effect cause some degradation as well (More opportunities to have been substituted via ELR even before the scenario begins.)
I realize, that in game terms, scenario designers can only work with the counter mix they have been given. I am by no means suggesting developing a whole batch of new counters (regardless of the nationality) to make the few of us beating the historicity drum happy. That would be ludicrous for obvious reasons. I do like the idea, however, of designers perhaps not being so quick to buy into the narrative that the American Army started out green and got worse from there.
IMO, what the research clearly shows is that the U.S. Army, unlike its main opponents, got stronger, tougher, more innovative, and more tactically adept as the war progressed. By May 1945 in the ETO the U.S. Army stood at the zenith of its combat proficiency, not the nadir.
Before deciding on the OBs, I always look into the sources for an answer to the question: "
How well did they fight on this particular day? " That answer helps determine the squad type mix, leadership and even ELR.
I second that emotion.