In response to some of Richmond's specific points:
Richmond516 said:
Guards Infantry - I agree actually that Guards and pre-war regulars could probably be 'mixed' together since there aren't more than one Guards Division anyway. So, Guards, 1st to 8th (Regular) Divisions, 26th to 29th (Regular) Divisions.
I would exclude the 7-8th and 26-29th divisions because, although they were Regular Army, they hadn't trained or worked together as complete divisions before the war, so would be less effective than the actual BEF itself.
Attack Division [...] It occurs to me that the ANZACs would fit the bill
See my earlier comment. According to Paddy Griffith, a hypothetical 1917 scenario for TGW would have the 1-5th Australian, 1-4th Canadian, NZ, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 30th, 33rd, 36th, 47th, 51st, 56th and 63rd divisions as Attack Divisions.
Light Infantry - The actual divisional numbers escape me (please see my threads previous) but yes there are a few divisions classified as 'Light' - IIRC 14th and 20th.
I have to say I don't know if these divisions were actually any different to normal ones in terms of equipment and training, and the 'Light' designation is just a historical thing. The Indian Army should probably be counted as Light Divisions, though, since they were notoriously kept short of proper artillery by British authorities fearful of a new Mutiny.
Marine Infantry - British Royal Marines or the Royal Naval Division (only one unit though!) numbered 63rd.
I don't think Britain should have any Marine units at the start of the scenario - nor should any other country. See the Gallipoli fiasco for the reason why. Just because there were soldiers called "Marines" in 1914 doesn't mean that they were marine units in HoI terms, which means troops with specialist equipment for amphibious landings.
The 63rd (Royal Naval) Division, incidentally, was nothing more than an élite but otherwise perfectly conventional infantry unit which fought on the Western Front. Its name is due to the fact that it was made up of men who had joined the Navy, but were surplus to requirements, so they were given infantry training instead. The only thing that distinguished it from every other British Army unit is that the men still used naval ranks and insignia, and insisted on drinking the King's health sitting down (instead of standing, in the Army tradition).
Mountain Infantry - Highland and Scottish units.
Sorry, but I disagree. Scotland may be a bit hilly in places, but it's hardly the Alps.
Nor did Highland regiments typically have special mountain artillery, specialist cold-weather gear, crampons and pitons as part of their regular kit, or training in climbing cliff faces. If there were any Mountain Divisions in the British OOB in 1914, I'd expect them to be in India - perhaps the Gurkhas? (Nepal, unlike Scotland, does have actual mountains
).
Militia/Levies - This would be more akin to the Local Defense Volunteers/Home Guard during WW2. BUT if you wish to simulate their equivalent in HoI terms, I would strongly push for this to represent the New Armies
Absolutely not - the New Armies had proper training and equipment, just not much experience. The Baganda Rifles, the Nyasaland Volunteer Rifles, and hypothetical British Red Guards following a Communist coup would be militia units.
As for Reservists and Trench Divisions, since these are the early-war and late-war versions of the same thing, I proposed Territorials and New Army as the equivalents - because they were both, in general, considered second-line units compared to the regulars. That doesn't mean that, in our hypothetical 1917 scenario, every real-life New Army division would be classed as this model, of course: some would be Infantry or even Assault Divisions.
