Anti-fanatism

[tss]

Would it be possible to add a new morale thingy (my vocabulary runs short once again) that would work in an opposite way to fanatism? For example, a veteran unit might be weary of the war and break off a battle easily. In a truly convoluted situation an unit might be both fanatic and anti-fanatic.

In CM this feature would most often came in play with late-war British and German units. In CM2 this would affect mostly minor axis countries.

-Tommi

[Guest Captain Foobar]

wouldn't this be identical to a "green" unit? I don't know how we could realistically portray "short timers", but lets see if BTS responds to the post. Personally, I think they were probably less likely to bolt in ww2 than vietnam or something. There is at least one case of a deserter being shot on the Western Front(or was that just a movie? man i suck..)

[SimonFox]

I think what Tommi is on about is something different to a green unit. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for units late in the war doing just enough- war-weary. So what we are really talking about are troops which display veteran (or greater) competence with regard to tactics and fire discipline but who demonstrate reluctance to persist in the face of casualties. This would probably have greater effect in an attacking or counterattacking situation. Such units wouldn't be more prone to panic but might be more likely to be pinned. This would really be taking the realism aspect to the limit

It's an interesting point but I suspect it may be difficult to implement...

[Fionn]

I think what Tommi is trying to model are units which were extremely casualty-averse .

e.g. The 7th Armoured Division in Normandy and other veteran British units as well as the German units at the VERY end of the war.

I think it's not a bad idea but I would personally feel it wasn't all that common in the German army up until RIGHT at the end of the war and is probably too much hassle to code in at this stage for the minor gain.

It IS a good point though Tommi

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

We hope to add a "weariness" factor in the future. Like Fanaticism, this would be preset by the scenario designer. It would make troops less likely to fight hard, but would otherwise not mess up their experience rating. In other words, the Vets might not be too keen to run into an open field under fire, but if someone came upon them they would be something to watch out for. We see this as being important for the Eastern Front where there were many circumstances of large scale encirclements for prolonged periods of time. Not that this didn't happen every so often on the Western Front, but we can't do everything the first time around

Steve

[Vetch]

Glad to hear you guys are thinking about adding this at some point, Steve.

After reading "Closing with the Enemy" it seems like there definitely was such as a thing as Veteran units that got a little too much "experience." The point was made several times that US replacements (later changed to the less inhuman "reinforcements") were actively quarantined from veteran units while on their way to the front so that the tired old hands wouldn't scare and demoralize them too badly before they ever got into the action. And there were several recorded incidents of US veteran troops not pressing forward in the face of serious resistance out of a well-learned sense of self-preservation, good judgment, and a fine working knowledge of enemy weapons systems and capabilities. This was in the exact timeframe and geographical area that CM is modeling.

Vetch

[tss]

It would make troops less likely to fight hard, but would otherwise not mess up their experience rating.

Yes, that is what I was after.

I got the idea while reading a history about Ltn Lauri Törni's Jaeger Company. In one occasion Törni's unit was sent to fix a situation where 80 Finns of another company had decided that they had had enough of war and deserted when the Soviets started an artillery preparation.

The deserted unit was composed mostly of former convicts who were promised freedom if they joined the army. The unit had combat experience and would have been a "regular" unit in CM terms. (Later the whole batallion was disarmed and the men were transferred to fortification duties).

The book gives reasonably accurate details of many company to batallion sized actions (together with map scetches) that would make interesting scenarios for CM2. I would say that Törni's company was among the best units of the whole war. The men were all volunteered veterans between 20-25 years of age who were handpicked by Törni.

Törni himself was one of the most interesting military personnel of this century. He fought in three armies and in (at least) four wars and was highly decorated by each of them. In Finnish army he received "Mannerheim's Cross", the highest military award. After Finland made an armistice with Soviet Union Törni joined Waffen-SS and commanded a detachment in the battle of Berlin receiving an Iron Cross 1st Class. After the war he escaped from a British POW camp and moved to Venezuela. He then joined the U.S. army under the name of Larry A. Thorne. He served as a captain in Vietnam with Green Berets when his helicopter crashed and all passengers were killed. Thorne was posthumously awarded a DFC and a Legion of Merit (he had received a Bronze star and a Purple heart before). The body of Thorne was not found until last Summer.

The Soviets respected Törni as an enemy so much that they offered a bounty for his head. I don't remember the size of the bounty but it was about the same size as one offered for Rudel.

- Tommi

[Renaud]

Wargames traditionally lump the fighting characteristics of military units into a single rating. CM follows this practice. (The saving grace of CM comes in the form of leader modifiers which in effect change the quality of the troops under command.) I have always found this system incapable of modeling the diverse fighting units of WWII.

Here's an idea for a more detailed troop rating system which would include 3 variables (for your amusement):

1. Training: Represents weapons and tactical training. This rating would affect the units basic firepower, effective use of cover and concealment (reducing casualties and increasing stealth), likelyhood of jamming weapons/miring vehicles, time to unjam weapons/free vehicles.

2. Experience: This represents the units exposure to actual combat conditions. This would affect unit firepower when under stress (enemy fire), reaction to enemy fire (more experience means more lower likelyhood of suppression, panic, pinning, etc.), chance to spot and identify enemy units.

3. Morale: (more accurately 'esprit de corp' or unit cohesion) This represents the feelings of comradeship and fellowship among the members of a combat unit. Unlike global morale, this rating would not change in the course of a single scenario. This rating would affect the likelyhood of flight or surrender under given conditions, behavioral reaction to casualties, potential for fanaticism, rallying.

Examples: The 12th SS (Hitler Youth) had moderate training, negligible experience, but fanatical morale. The 21st Panzer Division at the time of the Normandy battles had moderate training, High experience, and low morale. British 7th Armd was similiar to 21st Pzr at this time period. Panzer Lehr had very high training, negligible experience and moderate morale. The 101st at Bastogne had high training, high experience and high morale. US Army Rangers at Normandy were at the top in every catagory. The 101st dropping into Normandy had high training, low experience and high morale. German tankers at Operation Citadel might have low training, high experience and moderate morale as they had just been re-equipped with unfamiliar equipment in the field with little break-in time.

With these variables you could model highly skilled troops with no experience, burned out veteran soldiers, fanatically propagandized but untrained hordes, experienced troops with unfamiliar equipment, etc.

-Renaud

[Guest Big Time Software]

Renaud, I think you took a peak at our very first design for CM We totally agree that this is the best way of doing it. Unfortunately, breaking it up into three variables presents some problems from a game and coding standpoint. We felt that with all the other hundreds of things we wanted to do, and the number of them that broke the mold, that it would be better to go after this for the next one.

Steve