Herding of Prisoners all over the place

[Mike D]

Gentlemen,

First, I promise (I really do) that I'll try to not turn this into a diatribe.

The prisoner thing is really starting to bother me. Mind you, I'm fine with the way the game has guys surrender and the taking of the prisoners in general. My problem has to do with what the capturing player does with them afterwards.

I'm watching this battle between Fionn and Martin and prisoners have been taken on both sides. Apparently the game forces you to guard these guys which I guess makes sense, although it causes the capturing player to use otherwise "good" combat units to stand around guarding them, marshall them around, etc. Next, to have to be marching them all over the map to keep them guarded seems not only rediculous, but quite unrealistic in my mind. I mean look at the guys Fionn captured clear back at the start of the game in the clearing in the woods in the south. If I'm not mistaken he's now marched them along w/ his advancing troops forward toward the town probably several hundred meters. Is this realistic? If at all possible weren't prisoners generally sent under guard back to the rear once they were captured? And wasn't this the job of the military police or other such units to do, not the front line combat troops? I can see if there was nowhere to send them as in the case of the surrounded German units in the town at the beginning of the game that captured the US mg. team that they would have to stay somewhere near the front lines since there is nowhere else to send them. But where there was a clear path back to the rear areas I would think the prisoners would be sent almost immediately packing under guard to the rear, or at least held where they were captured until someone came to get them. In any event, marshalling them around all over the place (even towards the front lines no less) and/or holding them in the town (like Martin is now doing w/ the captured Germans there) when there is a clear line back to the rear areas just doesn't make any sense to me. What is Fionn going to do with the gagle of prisoners he has now resting down in that low area with his front line troops, just keep marching them together with his guys towards the town??? This just doesn't make any sense to me since I can't see this going on in real life. Furthermore, it seems like the players are spending way too much valuable game play time and combat infantry resources managing prisoners. Is CM supposed to be a combat simulation, or a simulation of prisoner management????

FWIW I think the abstract way Close Combat handled prisoners was a whole lot better than what I'm seeing here (God I thought I'd never say that something was better in CC than in CM, but there I've done it ). The guys simply put up their hands and marched themseleves to the rear until they exited the map. As part of the abstraction I assume they were under guard by MP or other such units as they marched to the rear to be interned even though the guarding units were not even shown on the map. What you didn't see were precious combat troops being relegated to prisoner detail (perhaps unrealistic, but then it also avoided detracting from the game too), prisoners being herded up and marshalled all over the battle area (totally unrealistic in my view), etc. The only draw back to the Close Combat model (other than it was probably not totally realistic in terms of guard duties) was that it allowed the opponent to gather sighting data and intel from his capured units as the marched back through they enemies rear! Fortunately, CM doesn't have this problem.

In any event, I think the way CM handles the prisoners after they've been captured needs some serious review. I don't want to be stuck wasting what appears to be a fair amount of game time and units messing with prisoners vs. playing the actual game. IMHO, CM is supposed to be about simulating real combat vs. all the intricacies and inuendo of simulating how prisoners should be handled after they've been captured.

Regards,

Mike D

Aka Mikester

PS: Ok, ok, so I admit it was a short diatribe.

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-06-99).]

[Kevin Peltz]

Mike:

You have made an interesting point. Bagging prisoners in other games is given pretty short shrift (in the HPS games they surrender and basically vanish into thin air). Although capturing prisoners is a realistic side effect to the main effort, I also wonder if it wouldn't be better if they just made their way back to the rear on their own, without compromising FOW in any way. In the time frame covered by a typical scenario, the POW's would be too dazed, disoriented, or demoralized to think too much about running

away, I would expect. Barring that, when you are

creating your own scenarios, maybe you could set aside a low value unit to act as jailers?

This is hard- I like the concept of prisoners

(I got a kick out of the infantry throwing up their hands, "Hande hoch!"), and definitely they were a byproduct of almost every action, but they seem to be taking on a life of their own in the Fionn/Martin game. I guess not having them would cause other problems too- if you don't have prisoners at all, then their loss would have to be abstracted some other way, like KIA or something, and this may lead to unrealistically high death tolls?

[This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-06-99).]

[Doug Beman]

First off, Mike, I believe that neither Fionn nor Martin sent POWs to the rear because they didn't know how much better it would be to do so. Remember that it was just recently that Steve said, "move POWs off a map edge cause it gets big VPs." Then both commanders asked things like, "which edge is best?" indicating that they hadn't yet been aware that it is possible to do something with POWs other than herd them hither and yon.

Second, why should a game about front-line combat have rear-area troops, even as an abstraction? On the sharp edge of the FEBA, SOMEbody has to guard POWs, and in the absence of rear-area troops, it's gotta be front-line troops. (Can a vehicle crew that has lost its vehicle guard? THAT would be a good use of vehicle-less crews) I think having the POWs just march themselves away is just as unrealistic as having them tag along wherever their captors go. What if an infantry unit is taken prisoner more through being surrounded than getting shot to pieces? If they're simply pointed to the rear and sent without escort, I'd think that they'd think of escaping as soon as they were out of LOS of their captors (which happens in CM)

Also, look through the AARs and each player's question thread and look at who they TRY to use as POW guards (I can't say more cause it'll give stuff away, methinks) When their plans for POW guarding work, it does a good job, for me, of answering "who guards?"

DjB

[Guest PatB_TGN]

At first I was unsettled about use of prisoners. Combat Mission is really striving for realism. How much realism does the average gamer want to see?

There's countless (back by years of post-war trials) occurrences of the misconduct of prisoners. Lets take for example the the first MG to surrender to Fionn. Historically speaking, there's a good chance those prisoners would have been gunned down on the spot. The German's might consider one MG nest along their path of advance as a sniper situation. If there's no survivors, then there's no problem.

I'd rather not see execution treatment of prisoners. Just my personal view, though.

Kevin is on to something. There's already 'Guard Teams' in the game. A scenario designer could use a platoon of these guards to garrison prisoners. I don't want to see these guard teams turn into Recon Patrols. That's my only complaint about having 'spare' units in ANY game. Players tend to use 'whatever is available' to win, what Fionn calls, "Gamey Tactics."

But I must agree, I don't like the idea of taking prisoners forward. For one thing, the captor and captive probably cannot understand one another. Second of all, taking the enemy along isn't a wise idea. It was done. i.e. Peiper had to do it in his adance to the Meuse. But he ended up giving up the prisoners to the US forces before his night escape. But, Peiper also had to face the post war trials about a certain Massacre at Malmedy.

So, how much realism can a person stomach? That's the root of the problem that concerns POW's.

[Delaware Dave]

Taking a lot of prisioners can pose a true tactical problem. In WWI sgt. York captured about 10X the number of men in his patrol and had to escort them to the rear. A variety of things(all bad)can arise from this situation. Similar (but more on a stategic level) problems occured in Iraq with the surrender of thousands of Iraqis to patrols, cameramen, reconnaisance helecopters, etc.

Conversely, I don't believe that prisioners in WWII were used as human shields very often. It would make them very disinclined to surrender in the first place.

Clearly what is going on in this game is an aberation. The question is what to do with it. Perhaps some historical guidance is in order.

[NCrawler]

Is it possible to just shoot surrendering troops? I mean, it happens in war and there are some situations where I would not want to take prisoners if I did not have the manpower to manage them. Of course this goes both ways and if your opponent finds out about it he's sure to do the same to some of your men. Perhaps some type of variable dealing with morale can be increased for troops whose comrades are shot down like dogs?

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

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[Moon]

The POW problem is much smaller, really, than might appear. It's simply that I (and I assume also Fionn) didn't know that we could move POWs off map. Now that I know, I am moving my guys off straight away. Unfortunately, straight away means around turn 20

And no - CM does not become a POW simulation. If you want to keep it simple, you just issue one order per captured team and move them straight off map.

Anyways - the edge you move them off does count. In the current game, Fionn only has the eastern map edge and has to move his guys all the way. I am luckier and I can exit my POWs across all other three map edges. (The scenario design pre-determins which map edge belongs to which side).

Bottom line: it's the players that were stupid, not the game.

[Mike D]

Doug,

I agree w/ you for the most part. But I'd much rather be playing the game than worrying about what to do with the prisoners. Also, I apparently missed the part somewhere (guess I need to read up) where Steve told both sides that they get VP's for exiting the troops from the field of battle. That at least sounds like one way to motivate players to get them moved to the rear instead of marching them all over the place, using them as human shields, etc.

I'd also agree that captured troops just marching themselves to the rear and exiting all on their own (or supposedly guarded by unseen other friendly units) is an abstraction, but at least it is an abstraction which doesn't detract from the play of the game IMHO.

I guess my question is how were prisoners handled in real life? It probably depended on a number of factors I'd imagine, but I would like some enlightenment from someone as to how they are typically handled/processed from the time they were captured till they left the battle area. Also, how high up in an armies organizational structure did you have to go till you got to MP (military police) units? Seems to me like it really would be up to these guys to take the prisoners off the front line units hands so they could get on with fighting. But again, I would imagine that it depended in some part on each unique situation, availability of MP's in the area at any given time, etc.

Kevin/Pat,

I also thought about the idea of having some extra "policing units" given to both sides to help herd up prisoners and moving them to the rear. One solution might be to just lightly arm these guys (or maybe not even at all) and give them this task alone. If you don't ever capture any prisoners, you simply keep them to the rear and never use them. As far as using them as scouts, etc., I'd think if you put in a 3x penalty for their loss, or the like, that that together with the fact that they are not very well armed (if at all) would deter players from using them as scouts.

Dave,

"Conversely, I don't believe that prisioners in WWII were used as human

shields very often. It would make them very disinclined to surrender in the first

place."

Yes, I agree with you completely here. In fact I'd go so far as to say that perhaps a penalty (instead of a bonus) should be handed out to a player that doesn't get his captured units to the rear and off the battlefield, but instead keeps them up toward the front, and/or even tries to use them as human shields and gets them killed in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Mike

"A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears."

[Mike D]

Moon,

Thanks for "enlightening" us. That sounds much better. Do they have to have guard units escorting them to the rear? I guess if worse came to worse a squad could be split with one half sent packing w/ the prisoners to the rear and the second half available for combat duties (maybe a scouting party), or to await the capture of future prisoners that might be taken and need to be similarly dealt with.

Mike

"A fools wisdom knows no bounds other than the infinite space between his ears."

[Moon]

I am not 100% clear about the "guarding" thing. I "think" that you don't have to guard the POWs specifically (and again, I guess that it's my fault to have given this impression in the AARs). The only thing you have to watch out for is to move them too close to enemy units without any of your units in the area. But this is not an issue when you move POWs to the back.

[Kevin Peltz]

I missed the moving to the edge thing, too. That sounds fine to me. Also, I do recall somewhere that POW's would be OK alone, as long as they aren't exposed to their own side, with no enemy units to offset this.

[Fionn]

Mike,

I don’t fully understand where you’re coming from but I think that might be due to the fact that you have misinterpreted a lot of things… I’ll list them and then give some explanations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I mean look at the guys Fionn captured clear back at the start of the game in the clearing in the woods in the south. If I'm not mistaken he's now marched them along w/ his advancing troops forward toward the town probably several hundred meters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s completely and totally incorrect. Those 17 men are still sitting in the clearing in which they were captured where they are being guarded by a few SPW 251/1 crewmen who survived their SPW 251/1s being hit by artillery. It WOULD be insane to be moving prisoners up into combat with me but I’m not doing that in the game. Instead I’ve set up a guard area and I’m moving all the prisoners back there in nice little groups.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If at all possible weren't prisoners generally sent under guard back to the rear once they were captured?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES. And that’s what I’m doing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And wasn't this the job of the military police or other such units to do, not the front line combat troops?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is another example of reading books but not fully grasping the timeframes involved in combat at this level. MPs did NOT accompany company-sized formations of front-line troops into action. American POWs would be picked up by German MPs HOURS after combat had FINISHED. Until that time they were generally held by the combat troops who had captured them in close vicinity to where the fighting was raging. I have several American veteran’s accounts (which I can quote if you want) which mention freeing captured comrades after counter-attacking German positions up to a DAY AFTER the Americans were taken prisoner. What this means is that in ONE day these American POWs moved less than half a mile to a mile to the rear. These POWs were still under control of the German combat units which had captured them a day AFTER they were captured. Thus, what you are talking about is completely and totally unrealistic in CM’s scale and what CM is modelling is the way it happened.

I think any of the soldiers on the forum would tell you right away that there is NO way that MPs would follow troops into combat so closely that within THREE minutes of capture POWs would be handed over to them . Remember that only fifteen minutes have passed since taking my first captives and less than five have passed since taking the majority. I’d really like to invite any current or ex-soldiers in to give their opinions on the time elapsed here. How many of your instructors told you to risk life and limb sending POWs to the rear in the midst of enemy machinegun and artillery fire (which is what my men are under) ?

Hell, I know that most instructors tell you to NEVER take a risk in capturing someone and I really don’t think any of the soldiers here would bother with consolidating prisoners when under enemy fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In any event, marshalling them around all over the place (even towards the front lines no less) and/or holding them in the town (like Martin is now doing w/ the captured Germans there) when there is a clear line back to the rear areas just doesn't make any sense to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I think your understanding of what is going on is slightly askew Mike. I am certainly not moving any POWs closer to the front lines. I have captured about 50 Americans. 17 remain in the clearing. About 10 or so remain in the cover afforded by the dip in the ground as I am organising them for the march to the rear. Now, CM has all these prisoners as being out of C&C so they are slow to move and take a long time moving to wherever you want them to go.. If you look carefully at what happened on the southern hilltop it took me two minutes to move ALL the Americans I had taken prisoner there into the cover of the dip. An American shell landed and panicked them but once they were back in control I sent them to the rear. (As far as I can remember the gap between capturing the last of the Americans on that hilltop and moving them back to the rear was 5 minutes (which includes 2 minutes lost due to them panicking when a shell landed nearby). That is quick. People get really skewed versions of combat from reading books which seem to say that combat units sent prisoners to the rear accompanied by MPs the instant they were captured. It simply did not happen that way. I have read innumerable British biographies which harp on and on about how guard details sapped front-line unit strength during offensives. If your company attacks and captures 50 enemy and you send 10% of your men back with them to guard them ( 1 squad is the minimum I’d assign as a guard force for such a large group) you’ve lost 10% of your combat force. That is life and that’s what happens.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What is Fionn going to do with the gagle of prisoners he has now resting down in that low area with his front line troops, just keep marching them together with his guys towards the town???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok. You’re on turn 17, you don’t know what I’m planning as regards them do you? I captured the last of them on Turn 15 IIRC. By Turn 19 they are on their way back to the rear under guard. YES they are under guard by combat soldiers since I don’t have MPs with me (which is realistic BTW). I’m detailing my HT crews to bring prisoners to the rear which, again, is realistic. Combat units OFTEN had to detail significant numbers of their troops to guarding prisoners after combat. That’s realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As part of the abstraction I assume they were under guard by MP or other such units as they marched to the rear to be interned even though the guarding units were not even shown on the map. What you didn't see were precious combat troops being relegated to prisoner detail (perhaps unrealistic, but then it also avoided detracting from the game too), prisoners being herded up and marshalled all over the battle area (totally unrealistic in my view), etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Sorry to burst the bubble Mike BUT NO combat unit carried MPs into battle with it and combat troops WERE therefore detailed to guard the prisoners. At times when no combat troops could be spared commanders often either let the prisoners go or shot them. THAT is the reality of war Mike and you can read about it in many books. Obviously commanders tried to pick combat incapable units to guard prisoners as I am doing. I am guarding them with SPW 251/1 crews and I simply don’t see anything unrealistic with that. I’ve come up with the same solution I’ve read the real commanders coming up with.

Kevin said “they seem to be taking on a life of their own in the Fionn/Martin game.”

I don’t think either Martin or I are unduly bothered about prisoners BUT I do know that in my thread people have gone on about how I amn’t moving prisoners to the rear fast enough and that this constitutes a warcrime. OTHERS are saying that I should send prisoners to the rear without guards, others seem to have a total misapprehension of what actually happened in combat when prisoners were taken. So, I DO take time to explain what I am doing as regards prisoners in this game. I’m not writing about them because the game is forcing it on me but because the comments of watchers are forcing me to do so.

I really think most people in this thread have gotten the wrong end of the stick and are commenting about something without knowing all the facts…

Let me make it clear:

1. I took prisoners in 4 separate locations.

2. I herded ALL the prisoners in these locations together so they could be guarded better during the march.

3. I assigned vehicle crew and other combat incapable units to guard them and then,

4. I marched the prisoners and their guards towards the clearing where I’ve set up my “prisoner guarding compound”.

Within FIVE minutes of taking prisoners in any location they are on their way back to the rear and under guard of German units. IF I didn’t take the time to organise them I’m afraid that as soon as they enter the woods on their own they’d run for it (which is modelled in CM).

I think that people have basic misconceptions of how prisoners are treated during war. MPs do not follow units closely into combat. Units DO have to detail combat troops to guard prisoners. Prisoners are not sent to the rear the instant they are captured. They are marshalled together so that they can be guarded with the fewest troops possible.

WHY are they herded together? Simple, since combat units have to detail combat troops to guard prisoners they try to organise the prisoners together so they need as few guards as possible.

I think this is an example of CM doing something realistically which hasn’t been done before and falling foul of incorrect preconceptions which have been engered by other games and the reading of books in which timescales are unduly compressed and confused. Not that there’s any problem with having those preconceptions since I know I have had more than my fair share of them which have been shattered by playing CM over the past couple of months but just because it does it differently doesn’t mean its wrong

Anyways, I know THIS is a bit of a diatribe but I really wanted to straighten out this prisoners issue once and for all since so many people have been contacting me complaining that I’m being a “war criminal” or something else equally melodramatic because I haven’t run enemy prisoners to the rear within a minute of them being captured. If I had done that then they’d simply escape once they were out of LOS. (Has that been modelled before accurately? NO.. Is it realistic? YES…)

P.s. Despite what some of you may think I have not ONCE ordered prisoners CLOSER to the enemy-held village and the turn movies prove it. I don’t know where that particular chestnut came from BTW.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[This message has been edited by Fionn (edited 09-06-99).]

[NCrawler]

Another excellent reply Fionn! If all of the American, British and Russian troops who committed atrocities during WW2 were labeled 'War Criminals', we would not have had quite so many 'War Heroes' come out of the war. To the victor go the spoils and the loser goes to the 'war crime tribunals'.

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

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[This message has been edited by NCrawler (edited 09-06-99).]

[Mike D]

Fionn,

Looks like I was one of the final jabs in the ribs that touched a tender nerve, my appoligies. And, BTW, welcome to the diatribe club. It was starting to get pretty lonely over here don't you know.

What, me, misinterpret something???? Yeah, only happens a couple of times a day actually. As far as my misconceptions go, yes I most definitely have them just like probably 90% of the rest of the folks here on the board and I'll even freely admit to it. But then that's what makes this board so great. (1) Mike (or other person) opens big mouth on subject he knows little if anything about. (2) Many others throw in their 2 cents worth and a clearer picture starts to form. (3) Someone like yourself, Steve, Charles, etc. comes along with some real hard facts and finally sets us straight. (4) All of us that didn't know any better actaully learn something!

On to the issue at hand........

Apparently, I had led myself to believe, or simply lost track, that the prisoners in the clearing had been moved up. Obviously, as you've corrected me, this is not the case. As far as branding you, or Moon, a war criminal for your actions goes, I don't think I did this. But if I came across that way please understand that was not my intent.

Next, it appears that having combat units being forced to guard / escort prisoners is indeed realistic as you have so emphatically pointed out. Thanks for doing so BTW, as that is exactly what I'd asked someone to do in one of my follow on posts in order to help clear matters up (I just got a little more than what I'd bargained for is all ). That being the case I guess we'll have to live with it since Steve and Charles apparently wish to model this aspect of dealing w/ prisoners.

As for the rest of it, I think the main thing that I was driving at is this:

While granted the way CM handles prisoners does appear now to indeed be realisitic, I still question whether such realism is really indeed needed, or for that matter wanted, in a game like CM.

I guess I'd still prefer to have the prisoner thing handled in a more abstract way (ala Close Combat or the like) and be able to concentrate on playing the game, combat tactics, etc. However, if dealing with the prisoners is relatively easy as you and Moon have pointed out, then I guess I can most certainly live with the way BTS has decided to handle prisoners in the game and just shut by big yapper. However, what I was trying to avoid was 1) using the prisoners as a "human shield" type of tactics (not saying either one of you did this or intended to do so), and 2) taking up a lot of my time as a player of the game dealing with such matters vs. playing the game itself, which is what really counts.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-06-99).]

[Fionn]

Mike,

NP.. And I don't think you were branding me. In fact I don't think anyone was "branding" BUT just mentioning it in the terms of a game is still a little bit "emotive". I won't name names of people who did it though . No hard feelings

As for the others points:

I understand that prisoners are worth "double points" so using them as a human shield would be VERY poor tactics. In fact, the double points thing makes it more likely that the ENEMY player would try to kill his own ex-comrades IMO to deny the enemy points.

As for it taking up a lot of time.. nah, it doesn't really take up much time and it is, I feel, an important aspect of Combat Mission since guarding prisoners and that whole aspect will impact your score markedly. A player who handles prisoners poorly will be vulnerable.

As for simply having the prisoners march for the rear: I think that's unrealistic and I much prefer the current method as it really does allow for a much greater likelihood of releasing captured prisoners if you mount an attack at the right time.

Also, since prisoner control is a realistic aspect of the whole commander's role I think once you start simplifying this unrealistically you start down that infamous "slipery slope".

It isn't time-consuming and until some people in my thread and in emails started mentioning aspects of it to me I barely spent any time thinking about my POWs.. I was just gathering them up, assigning an escort and then marching them off to the rear

Anyways, wait until turn 19 or so to see what happens to them.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[fatherof4]

Since Steve isn't around this weekend, I'll post what he said about guarding POWs [from the Topic: Question for Steve only (8/31/99)]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can leave captured soldiers totally unguarded and they will remain prisoners. HOWEVER, if another enemy unit (in good order) comes along they will INSTANTLY revert back to friendly control. So although leaving unguarded units in the rear is safe for the most part, unguarded in a potential combat zone is not a good idea.

We decided to do this because we thought it was a wee bit unfair (and cumbersome) to start sapping front line strength to escort prisoners back. There would be follow up non-combat units to do this (like MPs for example). So the only job of the frontline units (in CM) is to get them out of the combat zone. After that it is assumed that they are under minimal escort (like one or two MPs for a gaggle of prisoners).

Even with an escort the prisoners might revert. Depends on the ratio of power and proximity. In Fionn's case he has [CENSORED] guarding the 17 prisoners in a house. This would normally be fairly easy for the US to recapture (if they could get there), but in this case there are [CENSORED] there as well (thanks to Martin's artillery and bazooka). So they ain't be going no place However, Fionn lost his captured MMG team during Martin's house cleaning trip.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now on to my question. According to Steve in Fionn's #3 thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You get double the points for a surviving POW that you get for a casualty (of any sort). So leaving them on map only leaves them to be either killed or recaptured by Martin. Remember, unless there are friendlies around, Martin's troops will be good little boys and march where you tell them to. Send 'em to the rear!

I think you get a deduction for friendly fire casualties already. I will double check.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve/Charles, Can you confirm that the deduction for friendly fire casualties more than for surviving POWs? Otherwise, a "gamey" person could target his own captured troops and lose less points.

fo4

[Moon]

I think I should stop reading this thread, otherwise I might get "ideas"...

[Doug Beman]

So you can use vehicle-less crews or lower-effectiveness combat dudes to guard prisoners? That sounds like a good use for the newbies that seem to be in every battle.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

CM is very lenient (to the captor) in how it judges whether POWs are guarded. You can use ANY non-panicked unit to guard them, including bailed vehicle crews, units with heavy casualties, half-squads, whatever. And the guards only have to be in the general vicinity (100m, I think?). And one guard unit can guard an unlimited number of POWs within range. So you'll find that you really don't get tied down to guarding prisoners. You just have to pay a little attention, pick someone to guard them, and you're all set. (But you might want to send two units just in case a stray mortar round lands on the first guard ).

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

The "double point" thing Fionn mentioned was my initial understanding of the situation, but it isn't correct. Basically, the friendly player has no incentive to wipe out its own captured men. I'm not sure I fully understand how points are calculated in the Big Picture, but the points come out very much in the capturing player's favor. First of all, to wipe out anything involves a comittment of SOME form of firepower (artillery, tank fire, small arms, etc) so that if someone is using that to kill his own captured men, he ISN'T using it to whack enemy troops. And while he is busy fussing with killing his own, he ISN'T busy dealing with things that can actually cause pain. In other words, if Martin had used artillery to whack his own men, that would be ammunition not used in some other crucial area. And since this stuff is not unlimited, a poor decision on the player's part. Likewise, it is a BAD idea for the capturing player to use them as human shields because a dead POW doesn't count.

In short, best thing to do is march your prisioners off the map ASAP. And because positions are variable, that doesn't mean that the AI should take over and just blindly march them to the rear. MUCH better to let the player do this. And since movement orders are very simple to give, this does not require more than minor effort. Plus, I think it is cool to have to deal with prisoners. Makes you feel like you reall accomplished something. In CC they just run away. Big deal. In CM I am staring at a group of guys that I captured and that I control. Nice feeling of power

Steve

[Doug Beman]

How was your Labor Day, Steve?

DjB

[Los]

"I guess my question is how were prisoners handled in real life?"

Prior to any operation there is designated a prisoner collection point, either at bn or brigade. This is normally staffed by MPs but it depends on their avavilbility. Fionn or whoever was right, MPs don't accompany infantry into combat front where they have two enemies to contend with the germans and their own front line infantry who they're busy busting all the time in the rear). MPs are normally a divisdion-level assett that's parcelled out to the various brigades on opertaions while corps and army level MPs normally do things like HQ security and POW camps etc.

Once prisoners are taken they are supposed to be searched, silenced, segregated (officers, NCOs, enlisted men into different groups), safeguarded and sped to the rear. The situation on ethground for the capturiing untit at that time dictates which, none or all of these they can do. However it is almost always the job of the front line captors to take these guys back. The guarding of these prisoners is almost always a porblem that has to be dealt with by the commander and it is best to consolidate yoru companies POWs into oen group and head them back under a half squad or so. The thing about sending them back on their own is normally something only done in breakthrough or pursiut operations where the enemy has been thoroughly defeasted and is on eth run. It's not a wise thing to do in pitched battles, neither for your safety or the prisoners.

I think it is correct that some sort of effort has to go into thinking about what to do with poisoners. It's a big aspect in a commanders bag of bs to deal with, and it does impact operatins on the spot in that it takes at least some people away.

Just to bring up ASL for a minute, I liked how you had to desugnate a half squad for prisoner guards but then they could take any number of POWs back.

Regarding killing of prisoners, I also like the No quarter rules in ASL. Yes a player could kill prisoners, (usually it was a concern about losing valuable half squads to guard prisioners even for a short time before you consolidated them) but then the flip side was that this automatically invoked the fnatical rules for the other side (I'm going from memory here so I may be rong) which caused the enemy to be less likely to surrender.

As an aside we learned in SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) that 50% of all soldiers captured don't survive the first day. While it would be difficult to back that up empirically it makes a good point towards the hazards of surendering. After the initiallly attempt at surrendering the next most hazardous part is that walk back to the collectin point and beyond with a couple of keyed up, pissed off, scared privates guarding you, with shells and **** still flying all around.

Cheers...

Los

P.S> I have to say Fionn's "Just to make things clear" post regarding his handling of POWs reminds me of some Nurenburg trail proceedings.

[Moon]

I've read several times already in interviews with WWII veterans that they didn't want to be captured because they were afraid to be killed in the next air attack on a German column somewhere to the rear. I've also read accusations somewhere that Germans used to keep POWs mixed between their columns deliberately, hoping to discourage Allied pilots to bomb them...

[Guest Big Time Software]

That US prisoner thing in German columns was probably an American invention after the war to try and explain all the friendly bombings BTW, what was the USAAF unit that was called "America's Luftwaffe" because it had a nasty record for bombing the wrong side? I always forget.

Steve

[Fionn]

Steve,

Fascetious answer coming up: I believe that unit was called the "Entire US Air Force".. The entire air force. I've read many, many accounts of allied planes being shot up and destroyed by ALlied columns when they wrongly attacked them.

I'd be interested to hear about the "unfortunate " unit which got a reputation of doing it though.

Los: "Befehl ist befehl."

BTW does anyone know the German equivalent for "SOP is SOP" ?

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers