Nationalities: Morale/breaking/rallying

[Pixman]

My question is regarding the effect of nationality on morale related behavior. It comes from being an old SL guy. SL spent time talking about the different traits of Germans vs. Americans vs. Russians and modeled those differences. The profile of the common GI was that he was "first to break and first to rally". They simulated this by having the unbroken morale number on the counter be "6" vs. the "7" that appeared on counters for Russians and Germans. However, when the squad broke and you flipped the counter over, the broken morale (the one used for rally checks) was higher for the Americans than for the other two nationalities. So, on average, they would break quicker and rally quicker.

Assuming the SL profile of each nationality is somewhat accurate, does CM model any of this?

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Guest Big Time Software]

A belated answer for you Pixman...

I thought long and hard about this and came to the conclusion that I can't back it up with research. I'm not saying SL is *wrong* to do it this way, but it's not necessarily right either. SL assigned national attributes to give the game "color" and there's nothing wrong with that.

But CM already has "color" in so many other ways that SL does not, even in things so simple as a squad's (or team's) weapons being simulated in such detail, and the sound effects being quite different from army to army, that I didn't want to add the SL-style morale effects when I could base it on nothing more substantive than, "Hey, it was in SL."

A lot of the myth (?) of American soldiers being quick to break/rally seems to have more to do with early troops being inexperienced than some sort of national attribute. Of course this is all a judgement call as there are no hard numbers at hand, so it's open to opinion. But I thought it was best to leave it out unless I could find better justification for inclusion. If we find that players really want it, it can be added later.

Charles

[Mike D]

Pixman,

I would tend to think that all of the above factors would be more depenedent upon training and experience of the squad, rather than where it comes from. However, I do think there is some difference between different nationalities in terms of these factors as well. But this is what I would call a secondary effect vs. the 2 primary ones noted above. And like Charles has said, I don't believe much of what I've read supports such a notion that nationality had much of a bearing on such factors.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pixman, personally I think (and Charles would probably agree) that there is some case to be made for special casing Soviet troops in some randomish sort of way. While some units gave up at first shot, there are WAY too many examples of small unit actions by Soviet troops that have few similar examples in the Western forces.

I will never get over the wounded tanker at Brest-Litovsk. His tank was knocked out and all the rest of the crew was dead. The Germans took a look inside and thought all were dead. Some 2 or 3 days later the tank sprang to life and began shooting up a German truck convoy moving down a street. This guy, WOUNDED, sat still inside a buttoned up armored vehicle, in the sun and heat of summer, without food or water, with the rotting flesh of his comrades (Germans said the stench would knock you over) for DAYS just to get off a good shot. I can think of NO examples of this in any Western army of any nation. And there are lots of these stories, although this is the most morbid one I have read about...

So when we will revist this for the next version for sure.

Steve

Steve

[Fionn]

Yes, the russians need special case attention.

I still think that no matter what the state of the Soviet Army anyone who invades Russia has mental health issues...

It's people had been subjugated, didn't really like Stalin all that much but once Germans threaten the Rodina the Russians fight and fight hard..

During the large encirclements there were accounts of entire columns of tens of thousands of men trying to break through German defensive lines only to be mown down, run over by tanks etc. In many cases tens of thousands of men died in only a few fields as they ran right into machineguns and tanks.

There's something that goes beyond troop quality going on there.

[Pixman]

Thanks all of you for the quality responses. I did not have my heart set on having national distinctions in morale. I did think it added some interesting flavor to SL. The Russians with "berserk" ability really made for some fun in the streets.

I think there is argument for national differences. The Japanese and Vietnamese are an extreme (even more extreme than the Russians) example of this. I think for the most part you have the mechanics in place already for the breaking part of the distinction (veteran vs. regular vs. conscript). Using these tools, it is easy to make an American squad more likely to break overall than a Wehrmacht squad. However, on the rally side, I would encourage you to consider making Americans a little more resilient. Do I have any hard evidence to support this? Maybe not. But I do know that there are certain human characteristics that made this country what it is. And my reasoning mind tells me that these characteristics filter down to the GI level on average. Likewise, there is a lot written about Germans eager to surrender to Americans once the going got tough in 1944 - 1945 (i.e. less likely to rally).

It is easy to admire the Russians in defense of their homeland because we have empirical evidence of their pluck under pressure (just ask Napoleon). But God help the force that ever tries to invade this country because I believe it would get ugly quick and not many would return home to talk about it. The American gene pool is comprised of the most daring and determined offspring of the countries from which they emigrated. Even though today we may be a bit soft and spoiled, in 1945 that was not the case. A lot of those GIs, I'm sure, were not eager to stay in a hot firefight just to liberate France,etc. But, once they broke, I'm confident that they quickly figured out that hunkering down in the woods would not get them home any quicker. So they got back up and fought -- and fought hard.

Just my two cents, but I hope you will consider some national distinctions for CM2. It can only add spice to an already savory game!

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... this is just the sort of thing we don't want to get into in the game. I think your generalizations of US rallying are not accurate. Until the VERY end of the war (last weeks), German units were not willing to surrender. Even Hitler Youth detachments fought to the death in Berlin and small towns and cities all over the place.

In general, the Germans are held up to be the big badasses of the battlefield. After all, they fought the combined weight of about 2-4 times their numbers for 5 years of bloody war, even after all real hope of victory had vanished. And the US never lost 300k men in just a couple of weeks (Germans had this happen practically 3 times), yet they still fought. So I think there is an equal, if not greater case, to say that it should be the Germans that get bonuses all over the place

While I agree that the fighting quality of the US troops is generally underrated, I would not go so far as to say that it was better than the Germans. In fact, front line US commanders complained about the VERY poor quality of replacements coming in, especially from Normandy on. Physically unfit in some cases.

This is the problem with simulating such stuff in CM. The generalities are really, really vauge and unquantifiable. You can also get 10 experts in a single room and all will disagree on how this stuff should be modeled.

So in short, we feel there is NO case to be made for giving the US any kind of bonus what-so-ever. And if we start giving out bonuses for that, then we should probably give the Germans a bonus for fighting in woods and their own terrain in Germany. Or perhaps give the French a morale bonus because they wanted to avenge 1940. Or the Brits take a hit for being risk adverse. Yesh... once you start there is no stopping with this stuff! Better to leave it out. Much better to leave it out.

Again, the *ONLY* modifier I can see is something for the Russians (we aren't planning to go to the PTO anytime soon, so they get taken out of the picture). But even this would have to be somewhat variable since (as stated above) some units were only too happy to give up. Hell, the Germans got Soviet soldiers to desert all the way up until the war ended. And in large numbers too! So even this generalization needs to be pondered carefully...

Steve

[Rick]

Speaking of American troop quality. I was in a Naval History course where we had a couple of Marine Vietnam vets guest lecture. They said American infantry has always sucked, and they were infantrymen. They said American tactics have pretty much been move to contact (so the infantry could find the enemy) and then call in fire support - arty, air, tanks - to actually defeat the enemy. Basically, the point was that we couldn't rely on are infantry to win the battle, say like the NVA might. They also made the point that NVA and VC were some of the best infantry in the world, with an unusual system where you had to prove yourself by being a terrorist or something like that before you could join the infantry.

Before I get too far off topic, let me state my point that I'm trying to make. Wheras I feel that there is significant merit to the idea of national characteristics of the troops, I don't feel there is any reliable way to put it in the game. Kind of like the issue with tank reliability you guys mentioned, where all the data is anecdotal.

Well good bye now, this post got much longer than I intended.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I think the Marines were being a bit colorful. Also the heavy use of firepower is something Americans have always used, some say because of the US' high regard for human life (well, at least US ones...)

Personally, I think the quality of US infantry tactics in late WWII ETO were very good. The US combined arms tactics developed in the later stages of WWII rivaled the Germans in their heyday, and in some cases (air and artillery support) were much better. Combined arms requires infantry to work

However, keep in mind that Vietnam was really a different war. The US is not very good at jungle fighting when compared to those that live in it. This makes sense. There is no real jungle in the US (one patch on the continent, plus some in Hawaii and Puerto Rico), so what is the average length of time a US soldier spent in a jungle before fighting in one? Probably NIL. NVA? All their lives. That gives them a HUGE leg up, just as the Soviets were much better off during the winters in the SU, as well as the endless stepps and woods. A study of the war in Finland is REALLY interesting because the Germans weren't at all ready for that climate.

Oh, back to the point

We could debate this stuff until the year 3000 and we will not be any closer to coming up with a set of modifiers that would be worth anything. And this discussion is proving it But it is still fun to hash it about, even if it is obvious why it shouldn't be put into a game such as Combat Mission.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh, bit of trivia... the US *did* fight against the Russians both in the European and Asiatic sides. Boy, that is something you don't hear about too often, is it? Maybe because it was a really dumb and ill executed concept thought up by rather uninformed politicians? Perhaps

Steve

P.S. Purposefully waiting to see someone fill in dates

[Rick]

I've been to the place the army used to train for jungle warfare in 'Nam, Ft. Polk, Louisiana. It's hot, humid and has a lot of vegetative cover but it's not a jungle.

Yes, I think the marines were probably adding color to their lecture. I think that is actually the reason the professor asked them to talk - to give some idea of what the experience was like and he would give the facts. He was an Air Force intelligence officer by the way.

[Guest Lokesa]

It seems Australian and especially New Zealand forces have a bad ass reputation as well. Then there's the Gurka's...

Regional conditions and societal values create people strong in certain areas such as toughness, open mindedness, individualism, etc. How universally it could be applied is questionable as well.

It seems to me that for the most part the results we are looking to simulate could just as easily be simulated with experience ratings, a veteran unit will take more abuse and continue to fight than a green one.

Sort of related were there any specifically Prussian Divisions during WWII and does anyone know any good books about Prussia and WWII. My family are descended from there so I'm rather curious.

[Fionn]

US troops, British, French and Japanese troops occupied portions of Russia post-Revolution and clandestinely gave help to the "White"--- Royalist forces--- army vs the Red Army during the Soviet Civil War.

In fact, lots of the first Russian tanks were captured British and French models. They captured a few FT 17s and a few Whippets from the Royalist forces.

I'm not absolutely certain about the dates but basically the "Interventionist forces" were present in the Soviet Union from 1919 to 1921 roughly.. They might have arrived at the end of 1918 and left the beginning of 1920 or something though.

BTW that intervention was a REALLY cynical deployment wasn't it?

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

_________________________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

I support some sort of distinction between nationalities. Since I'm not a designer I can offer no real constructive ideas on how to implement this.

There were differences between all the nationalities that fought in WWII but I don't see this as some sort of set of genetic traits that made one side's soldiers superior to the others. I think doctrine and training methodology were paramount and cultural aspects secondary though still important.

There are reports of US Infantry replacements arriving in their units "trained" but not having ever qualified with their individual weapon whether it be M1, Thompson, BAR or whatever.

I've got some sources that indicate that the Waffen SS units were generally better perfroming than their Heer counterparts because of differnet training methodology that centered on the Stoßtrupp tradition from 1918 and that a much higher percentage of SS recruits were country boys and thus more able to withstand exposure to the elements than the city boys. This was also a dynamic of the entire Russian front were the Russian peasant operated in conditions that paralyzed the Germans. Similarly in Vietnam you had wealthy Americans fighting a less wealthy, more durable foe.

With what Rick posted about American Infantry I agree 100%. I was a Light Infantryman for two years and we never really got to a high state of training. Later in the war, the US infantry tactics deteriorated as the German defenses became more sporadic and more easily overcome. Sloppy attacks with men advancing firing from the hip at a walking pace was the end result. There are numerous instances that show the American reliance on overwhelming firepower at the expense of having a trained, quality infantry. Back in the SL days there was a big spread in The General when someone complained about the American portrayal in GI: Anvil of Victory. As part of the rebuttal the AH staff quoted a German veteran who had fought against the Russians, the British and the Americans and had been asked to compare the three. He stated that the Russians were hardy soldiers, fanatical on the defense or in the attack but that they lacked tactical flexibility. The British were fine soldiers, just too damn slow to do anything. The Americans on the other hand, well it was hard to say, he never actually saw any americans, all he saw was smoke and artillery fire.

SL was not the only game to reflect national differences. Bloody 110 and the rest of the Tactical series from The Gamers had a command effectiveness rating where the Germans were able to implement order more quickly than the Americans.

Perhaps like lokesa says the best way or only way to reflect this is to give one side a few more veterans than the other side. Or mybe like The Gamers' have one sides commands implemented a little faster or slower than the others' to show superior leadership ability (which was one of the most prominent German advantages in the SL system which seems to be used as some sort of benchmark here)

[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 08-29-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Again, R. Cunningham's post shows why this is a big can of worms. I have several quotes from junior and senior level German officers that say that the Americans were, in many ways, their toughest opponant. Why? Because they learned VERY quickly from their mistakes. The US forces learned in one year of fighting what most of the Soviet forces never learned. Also, when one unit in the US found a weakness in German doctrin and tactics, it wasn't long (days or weeks) before the whole US Army was exploiting the weekness. The hedgerow fighting is the best example of this.

Veterans often come away from a conflict with TOTALLY different thoughts on what happend and how. A really good book to read about this is "The Deadly Brotherhood" by McManus. Even simple questions like "how would you rate your weapons" came back with a half dozen different answers, from "Best in the world" to "absolute junk". So taking ONE veteran's quote and holding it up as "fact" is a very, very bad idea. Sounds like The General was using such quotes to support their take on what should be what.

Your point about the last weeks of the war is very well taken. But just as many US units were getting sloppy, so too were many German units (Veteran ones too) who just gave up without a shot being fired. It wasn't rare to have 500 men (a whole battalion!) surrendering to a squad, a jeep, or in one case I recall a cook! But CM doesn't simulate this stuff because it is basically noncombat, so it really doesn't matter.

If you do want to simulate the US being poorly prepared to fight at the very end of the war, make their troops Green. Since there were LOTS of fresh formations pushing into Germany with little or NO combat experience, so this wouldn't be unrealistic. Trust me, if they run into stiff German resistance, the US will be in BIG trouble

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-29-99).]

[Brian Rock]

This has been a fun thread. Now for my 2% of a dollar's worth.

IMO the major differences in "morale related behaviour" (nice phrase) come down to training, experience and leadership.

There are other factors to be sure - equipment, doctrine, tactical situation, logistical problems, ad infinitum... and, perhaps, national characteristics.

However I think it's easy to overstate the national culture argument. Units vary too much within between wars (contrast Napolean's French army with France 1940), or during the course of a war (compare the Russians at Nomonhan 1939 with their performance at the start of Barbarossa), or even different units fighting at the same time (Company A is kicking ass while Company B in the same battalion is running for the rear). Where are the national characteristics here?

All armies have elite forces, and grossly inferior forces, and a whole bunch in-between. True, the balance between these did (and does) vary from nation to nation, but it does not follow that this reflects an *intrinsic* difference between nations.

As someone said in another thread (I think it was on this board), in-group variance is greater than between group variance.

[Mike D]

WHOOPS, POSTED THIS IN THE WRONG PLACE, SO I'VE DELETED IT HERE AND MOVED IT OVER TO:

"Questions for Steve (General PBEM)#4".

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 08-29-99).]

[Simon Fox]

This is an interesting topic and as steve says a real "can of worms". I think that modelling unit training, experience and leadership is an adequate way to account for differences between nations. Of most difficulty is modelling those who "fight bravely if not skillfully" and I guess in a sense this was encompassed in SL by the beserk unit though personally I feel it was more likely to occur in defensive situations.

The small unit leadership in some armies was exceptional (ie German, Aust, NZ, some US and Brit units) and in many cases this can account for performance differences. I am not sure how this is modelled in CM as I understand that individual leaders are not really modelled although this should not really matter as long as leadership is. The best quote I have ever read on this subject was: "Troops of every nation fought with tenacity and courage when they were well led.." (can't remember where though).

Steve

"The US is not very good at jungle fighting when compared to those that live in it."

The savage primitive environment of the jungle defies modern mobile warfare's mass tank and artillery formations. In this close environment the greatest burden falls upon small unit leadership and initiative, and the the adaptability and endurance of the soldiers. In this respect the deficiencies of early WWII US army formations was much more exposed in the Pacific theatre than Europe. In the New Guinea campaigns Australian troops quickly learned that the could not not rely on the US formations in the jungle. This was principally a deficiency of leadership at all levels and training rather than the inherent nature of the human material. Of course Aussies grow up in the jungle...NOT

[Stephen Smith]

I am curious- several posts have now suggested that it is small unit leadership that makes the difference-not individual soldiers.

Is there any leadership effect being modelled in CM, similar to individual leaders with different leadership modifiers in SL? I realize staying within command range is modelled. But what about better or worse Platoon leaders, company commanders, etc? What about modelling different reaction times to my commands based on either nationality or unit type (whether that unit type represents veterans/elite vs. average or green, or units with lots of radios vs units with none, or something else entirely). Or more effective firing based upon better platoon leaders being close (rather than merely 'within command range') Or longer/shorter command radii based upon the existence of handheld radios (or perhaps it represents a more professionally developed NCO corps) Are all Platoon leader teams the same in CM?

stephen

[Pixman]

Once again, thank all of you for the exellent and well thought out responses to what I intended to be a simple question about a simple (possible) enhancement to the game. The "can of worms" argument is moot because everyone seems to agree that "something must be done for the Soviets", at which point the can will be open. We can't have it both ways -- either there are national characteristics (on average) or there are not.

But, please bear with me for a moment here, because I think this discussion may be able to head down a more productive track. Brian Rock's quote of, "in-group variance is greater than between group variance" really pushed my mind in the direction on this topic that it should have headed to begin with. Namely, that there are certain human behavior characteristics that can be modeled in the game and that I contend will vary somewhat with nationality -- among other important causal factors.

We are dealing with two worlds here -- the real historical world and the CM world which seeks to simulate it as realistically as possible within technical limits. The first question is whether there were national differences in the real world (again -- ON AVERAGE). If the answer is no, then there is no reason to proceed to CM's world. But, at least in the case of the Soviets, we seem to collectively conclude that the answer is yes. I, for one, totally support this conclusion.

So, the next question is, do we want to try to reflect that reality in CM's world? It seems that we do to some extent. How will we do that? By modifying the leadership model to incorporate the communist party influence? By making every soldier in the Soviet army act differently than his Nazi counterpart? Or by introducing some human behavior characteristics that are randomly applied based on a statistical model. It is this last avenue I would like to pursue.

For example, let's posit a characteristic called "fight to the death". And let's stay within a national group for now -- the Germans let's say. Steve brought up Hitler Youth -- great example. From what I have read, these guys would have a pretty high "fight to the death" probability factor. Would all of them fight to the death? No, but more of them would on average than their Wehrmacht conterparts. To what can we attribute this? Experience -- no. Combat leadership -- no. Indoctrination -- an emphatic yes (trait shared with the Vietcong, NVA and Japs by the way).

My question is, does CM have the tools, as currently designed, to accurately represent Hitler Youth in combat? I'm sure you could modify them to be veteran or elite to get them to be more likely to fight to the death. But would this be accurate? Technically, they should be Green troops. But does anyone reading this imagine that they would behave the way Green GIs would? Also, if we made them veteran or elite, wouldn't they then get undeserved bonuses in other areas like marksmanship and unit cohesion? To pose it in statistical terms, can CM vary "fight to the death" in a positive direction while varying marksmanship in a negative direction? Or will the two always be positively correlated based on the unit's quality rating? If the answer is the latter, then I believe what I propose would be an improvement to game play. Whether in CM1 or not is not the issue. I am talking about what is ultimately possible, not just for this release.

Now think about game flavor. Let's look at Martin and Fionn's battle and assume that CM currently modeled the unique human qualities of Hitler Youth. If you were in Martin's shoes and you discovered that Kampfgruppe Student (holding the town) was comprised of Hitler Youth, would you change your tactics? Even if not, can you not imagine the different way the battle for the town would go? Leave everything else the same and replace the Falschirmjaegers with Hitler Youth. Different battle.

The same can be said of Soviets based on context. Will a Soviet squad invading Finnland fight as hard as it would defending Stalingrad? Or a German squad invading Norway vs. one defending Berlin? Probably not.

I guess what I am asking all of us, and BTS in particular, to consider, is that there should be another layer of reality modeled into CM (pick your release). That layer is human behavior based on factors other than military training, combat experience and leadership. While not denying the extreme importance of these factors and the belief that CM will model them superbly, I contend that behavior may also be strongly influenced by situation, culture, nationalistic indoctrination and the like.

When the Germans fight the Americans, is the only difference between the two armies equipment quality, equipment quantity, and experience? Are the German soldier and the American soldier the same on average, they just wear a different uniform and speak a different language? Personally, I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. I am not talking about one being superior, just different in how they react to situations compared to the other.

That may sound too "soft" for those reading this who live in the world of hard numbers and facts. But, to quote Don Quixote, "Fact is the enemy of truth". And the truth is that WWII was fought by men from different nations with different backgrounds and belief systems. It was not fought by automatons that are identical no matter what uniforms they wear. CM has done the best job in wargaming history of distinguishing the unique qualities of each nation's equipment from the other. Is it so unreasonable to consider investing a tenth of the energy it took to do that into distinguishing their men too?

Is it harder to do? Yes. Does it require a different type of research and referencing? Yes. Would it enhance game play to the point that it is worth doing? In my opinion, yes.

Thanks for indulging me this long, somewhat tangled, post. . I hope my complex writing style has not obscured the valid points I tried to make.

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Wesy]

It's too bad that the PTO won't be modeled for a while :-(. I think that the CM engine would be great for modeling those Japanese night attacks etc...Can you imagine the suspense of hearing the ambient sounds of "Yankee you die tonight!".

I think it would be tough to model. Typically, Banzai charges didn't happen until the situation was hopeless (at least later in the war). Fighting to the death, would not happen until the situation warrented it (ie. Tarawa - where else is there to withdraw too?). On the other hand, if retreat were possible they did make an attempt - two of the best disappearing acts of the war were the withdrawal from Guadalcanal and Kiska.

Even with Japanese forces it was possible to surrender - My uncle surrendered in 45 to the Soviets (He was part of the vaunted Kwangtung Army, but by that point in the war it was a shell of its former self and he surrendered when the situation was hopeless). On the other hand, I had two other distant relatives die on Saipan and the other on the Indian border (Imphal Operations late 44).

[Moon]

I am not so convinced if different nationalitiy traits can be tracked down to the individual man, really. Imagine ONE russian, german and US soldier. Would they really act so differently when bullets are flying all over the place and mortar shells are smashing all beside them? Certainly there ARE differences in background history of each individual man, but I would think that under the extreme conditions of war bare survival is prevalent, regardless of nationality.

The differences IMO start when you introduce more than one soldier per side, because then you also introduce doctrine and differences in leadership. Russians are no more stupid than other people (I happen to know russian people quite well), and a Russian will NOT charge into MG fire all by its own. But when forced to do so by doctrine, and - more importantly - when this doctrine is enforced with such vigor as was the russian, well, then it becomes a whole different story.

The central problem I see to introduce thise national characteristics in CM is that they would be most noticable at a level at which actually the player is supposed to act. A Russian player "should" use human waves, and a US player "should" be more cautious and make liberate use of artillery... but how do you force him to? In SL and other boardgames this was "enforced" upon the player through all sorts of artifical modifications to morale etc. or other special abilities (berserk)... CM will probably have to face a very similar problem? Should there be special "rules" made for this nation or another (e.g. different command&control radii etc.)?

Well, I guess that will be left to Charles and Steve to decide...

[Rhet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In general, the Germans are held up to be the big badasses of the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HeHeHe, like Steve said! No really, there are a lot of nationalistic traits that could be argued for and against and the debate could last a life time. The most poetic dissertation on this subject I have read follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The German, every German, is a born soldier. He has the virus quality of aggression and fortitude in his blood. Like soldiers of other nations he needs to be trained but the material is there already, not base clay, but refined material.

A few comparisons to bring out the point. For sheer dash, ‘elan and initiative no soldier of modern times has equalled the Austrailian; for dogged persistence and obedience to orders no race can touch the English and Welsh; for fighting fury I nominate the Scotts; for the ability to plan, for method and for thoroughness the American is superb; for fanatical courage and endurance I commend the Japanese; for the capacity to suffer and still keep fighting who can excel the Russian?

But the troops of all these races fine though they are in their various ways are not complete soldiers. They fight because circumstances make it necessary for them to fight. Even the Austrailian, who often fights with a grin on his face, hates it.

The German is a complete soldier, because war to him has a religous quality. There is nothing fanatical about this reverence for war, as there is with the Japanese. The Japanese soldier sees glory in death in battle. The German no more want to die than any other soldier of any other nation, but he accepts death more philosophically. The complete soldier fully realizes that his only logical end is death; that this is a soldiers only privilege. The German knows this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This quote was taken out of a book written on the history of the German/Prussian soldier from 1713 through 1945. It was written by a Brittish WWII Officer (and notable historian) John Laffin. Lokesa, if you are interested in the particulars of this book just email me. For what its worth, I would add the Canadiens in with the English and Welsh.

I think the most important thing to model (and I believe this has already been included in CM) is the differences in unit training, experience levels and the differences in command and control between the different nationalitys. The differences in these areas are more easily justifiable as well as quantifiable. The only one that is selectable by the scenario designer and/or player being the experience level the others are built in and are unchangeable, if I can recall correctly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, the *ONLY* modifier I can see is something for the Russians...But even this would have to be somewhat variable since (as stated above) some units were only too happy to give up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, due to the high degree of variability regarding the Russian fanaticisim, I would recommend making only the penal units incapable of surrender. They would still have a poor quality but they would never runaway or surrender (for fear getting the Russian retirement plan). This is sort of like not being able to have an elite Volksgrenadier unit. Just a thought for CM2 at the gates of Moscow or Berlin to Moscow and back again or maybe just nach Barbarrossa.

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

Rhet

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon, yes, US leadership and training in the early war period was substandard (not just in the PTO). The roots of this are LONG and complex. The quality of the soldier wasn't the issue so much as it was poor and inadequate training and an influx of NCOs with little or no command experience. It took the US Army about 2 years to get over the bulk of these problems. By late 1944 the US Army's low level leadership quality was quite high for experienced units, and adequate for green formations.

Stephen, CM's Platoon and Company leaders do have various skills that are Plus, Minus, or Standard. They do have an effect on the troops they command. Squads do not have individualized skills as the make up of the squad will change MANY times in the course of a game. We decided that with 30 squads and 20 teams under your command that people wouldn't care. Information overload and all that. Plus, at the squad level it isn't unreasonable to have the squad act as a whole based on their combined training and experience. Sure you will have different squad leaders of different skills, but this is just as true of a simple rifleman. And the thought of simulating every man in a battalion is just silly Also keep in mind that unit behavior has a random element to it too. So no two similarly trained squads will behave exactly the same in the same situation.

Pixman, yes, I think we will have to add some sort of "Fanaticism" factor that can be determined by the scenario designer. We actually had it on the drawing board for CM but decided that we had far too many other things that needed to be gotten right before this could be added. I can almost promise you that SOMETHING like this will be in the Eastern Front version. But going down to lower details and deciding things like "Americans were better at rallying" (which is what this thread started on) isn't going to be anything we will likely deal with. This is way too much of a generalization, and one that I have seen argued back and forth about. Because it is SO subjective, and so controversial, no amount of research is going to help us out in making realistic assumptions.

Rhet, nice quote. I think I have seen snippets of that before. I generally can agree with statements like this as they are broad and not specific. Another one I tend to agree with is about US troops is their ability to fix and improvise with mechanical things, especially vehicles. The case has been made that the average American had more exposure to vehicles than his German counterpart, and moreover LOVED to build and tinker so was generally more adapted to such work. An "invention" strain in US culture is something I buy into. But again, it is a vast generalization that I would never try to apply to CM.

Steve

[Pixman]

My last comment on this -- promise.

First of all, Steve, thanks for the quality replies. I am in full agreement on the subjectivity of a lot of what we are talking about. Looking back, I am sorry that the example I pulled from SL was the American penchant for breaking early and rallying early (according to Avalon Hill). Like you, I am much more inclined to give the Americans a bonus for mechanical ingenuity which would manifest itself mainly in two areas: 1) to fix broken equipment faster; 2) to be more likely to use captured weapons (assuming available ammo). I do hope you will give this some more consideration for future releases, especially since you are already randomizing some behaviors. I think a very strong argument can be made that a) an American MG is less likely to break than a Soviet one and that the Americans could likely fix theirs more often. Compared to the Germans, this may be less of an issue, so maybe you would just penalize the Russians in this regard compared to the Germans rather than rewarding the Americans relative to them. In old SL terms, the Germans and Americans might repair an MG on a roll of 10 or higher while the Russians would require boxcars. This would obviously be easy to simulate in CM at virtually no cost to development or playability. I know you have already thought about this a lot and I hope you will think about it even more!

I think your inclusion of a "fanaticism" trait will address the inverse relationship between morale and training/experience that I brought up in my last post. I just hope you will facilitate use of this beyond the Soviets -- i.e. Hitler Youth, Ghurkas, Partisans, defense of Capitol (Berlin/Moscow), etc. I really do believe this will add a lot to the flavor of the game.

Lastly, Steve, you talked about CM randomizing factors in squad behavior. Can you elaborate on that please? What kind of things will be randomized? Is it just a matter of when unit "A" will break compared to unit "B" under the exact same circumstances? And likewise for rally? This sounds very promising.

Maybe someday, BUT NOT IN THIS THREAD I PROMISED ALL OF YOU, I will convince you to go the next step of varying the probability distributions for those random events based on nationality and situation. However, I am not holding my breath.

God I love this place.

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.