Differences Between Troops of Different Nationalties - Why There Should Be Some

[Basebal351]

Hi!

I posted this on the "Polish Soldiers Suck" thread, but am afraid it may get low exposure to do the inflamatory heading. I hope my thoughts don't bother anyone, and can give some people some ideas as to how the CM series can be bettered, and made more realistic.

I've never thought of this (differences between nationalities) before, but I see how this could play a BIGGER part in CM than most of us realize.

There WERE obvious differences between nationalities. You can't tell me that in CM2, or in CM3 Italian troops will be able to fight as well as the German, or other nationalities' troops. It just wasn't historically accurate. Rommel even commented on the differences between German, British, and Italian troops. Commanders were exasperated at the quickness of Italian troops to surrender, and/or leave their positions. To have groups, such as the Italians (*who did fight well in some circumstances*), fight the same as other nationaliites in WW2 would be to ignore all of the drawbacks that came with commanding these, specifically the Italian, armies.

Morale, trainining, and determination for their cause to fight all played a huge part in the ability of troops of different nations. And to this effect, I believe that there should be differences between nationalities themselves, and still more differences of fighting ability WITHIN these nationalities in different time periods. For example, I believe that undertrained and ill-equipped REGULAR German soldiers should have a morale drop in April 1945, and should be much more willing to surrender on the battlefield. To opposite ends, there should be some troops that become MORE fanatic as the war draws to a close, as their country, their entire way of life, is at stake. As it stands right now, CM doesn't model this. To ignore obvious differences between overall national troop morale, and determination between troops of different nationalaities and time periods would in itself be ahistorical.

Commanders during WW2 tailored some of their tactics, strategies, and battles to the known skills, specialties, and inclinations of the troops at their disposals. All of the troops of each nation weren't the same, and their commanders had to take into account their troops' abilities and morale when forming many of their battle plans. As I mention below, Rommel found the Italian troops ill-suited for attack, or advancing maneuvers. But they were suitable enough for his tastes when put into strongly-built, defensible positions bolstered by German men and materiel. Instances like these will play a GIANT part in CM where, if the soldiers are portrayed as uniformly between nationalities as they are now, players commanding the Italians will be able to advance and overrun the British when historically it didn't happen all that often. Battles will be completely decided by the weapons, numbers, and quality of materiel

possessed by a side, and will be lacking the ALL important aspect of a nationalities', and an armies' morale as a whole. Any thoughts??

Thanks,

Jim

p.s. *Off topic, but Rommel did find some success with Italian troops in stongly supported defensive positions while being bolstered by German troops.

[Chupacabra]

I will repost my response from the Polish soldiers thread

I think that this whole nationality issue is sorta moot.

In pre-designed scenarios, the author can easily make soldiers from different nationalities behave how he'd like them to behave. Want the Desert Rats to walk all over the Italians? Simple enough, make the Italians green and conscript and the Brits vets and crack. Want to model Germans desperately fighting for their homeland? Easy, make them fanatical.

In QBs, I don't think it would be a good idea to model one nationality as being intrinsically different from another, because that would seriously hose multiplayer battles. I mean, who's gonna want to be the Italians if all they do is run and quiver a lot while the Matildas gun them down?

Also, QBs, IMO should be fairly generic, what-if kinda things. If I want my elite Italian mandolin-pluckers to wipe out a horde of green English tea-quaffers, so be it.

My own take.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I mean, who's gonna want to be the Italians if all they do is run and quiver a lot while the Matildas gun them down?

Also, QBs, IMO should be fairly generic, what-if kinda things. If I want my elite Italian mandolin-pluckers to wipe out a horde of green English tea-quaffers, so be it.

My own take.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, and that's a valid opinion. But that brings up another difference between "videogamers" and "wargamers" (to niether of which do I belong). Some people will want an ahistorical and balanced romp through PBEM land, where they can buy all of the King Tigers their hearts desire. Others, myself included, want to take the positions of those historic commanders, and play out the battles as they played them out. I like realism. I like to play this game as realistically as I know how. This is probably the closest I'll ever get to war, specifically the war I'm most interested in, WW2, and I don't want it to be just another "videogame." Yes, some things need to be sacrificed in order to make it playable, but to make it unrealistic in order to make it "fun" is something I think many people wish to avoid.

Thanks for the reply,

Jim

[Chupacabra]

Heh. That's the first time I've been accused of being anti-realism

My point isn't that realism should be sacrificed for gameplay. My point is that the mechanism for making troops perform comparatively better or worse is already in the game, in the experience levels.

And here's a question for you - how would you quantify how much "better" an average British soldier was from an average Italian soldier? Was the Italian soldier 10% more likely to wet his pants and call for mommy? Was the Brit 30% more likely to shout tally-ho, and once more into the breach? I know how ASL went about quantifying these differences, and although I never played ASL, their method seemed to me to be extremely arbitrary. It was sorta like, "Italian troops suck, therefore they get +1 on their suckiness rating, because we say so."

Not all Italians sucked. Not all Germans were Uebermenschen. That soldiers from certain countries performed historically better than soldiers from others, I neither doubt nor deny. But to what extent was this due to training (that's where experience levels come in)? To what extent was it due to leadership (that's where you come in)? Even if there is some kind of Italian "suck at war" gene (which I'm not prepared to accept), how do you quantify this?

Edited for spelling.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-28-2000).]

[LuckyShot]

>>some things need to be sacrificed in order to make it playable, but to make it unrealistic in order to make it "fun" is something I think many people wish to avoid.<<

And I think that is exactly why the developers decided to allow the user complete control over how a unit behaves. They could have gone the way you desire but then when you come to a scenario where a crack Italian company historically repulsed a British attack (for example) you wouldn't be able to model that properly. In that case the attempt at 'realism' would have backfired and essentially dumbed-down the game.

I really think it was the right decision not to "hard-code" differing troop behaviours into the game - armour penetration, shell trajectories, etc. etc., yes - but to do that to something as intangible as character would have been a mistake IMHO.

You are right in that it does allow for some ahistorical situations, but overall, wouldn't you rather have more control over creating a scenario than less?

It'll be interesting to see what happens with the Russians in CM2 (with regards to hard-coding poor armour communication, leadership etc.).

MW

[PeterNZer]

I totally agree with Chupie boy here.

Basebal351, what you're asking for is totally counter to what BTS try to achieve, that is historical accuracy. Giving generic bonuses is total counter to any understanding of armies or warfare, hell, lets throw in sociology and genetics while we're at it.

Lets look at some reasons why the Italians, for example, fared poorly in battle

1) Poor generalship (I don't know if this is accurate). This is modeled by YOU. If you want to see the Italians be sucky, play them badly and you will be happy with the historical outcome

2) Poor quality troops surrendering whenever they could. Not that many Italians were that keen on the whole WW2 thing from what I know. First chance they got they ditched old Mussolini for their King. If I told you to go off and fight the people of Mongolia armed with a toothbrush and some threatening floss and I told you you were doing it for the greater glory of myself your prophet and love god, how quick would you be to surrender when some guys pointed some guns at you? (especially when you know as a prisoner you will be treated fine). If you want to simulate this in CM, use Green or Conscript troops.

What more do you want? If you've ever tried a game with green or conscript troops you will find they behave more than satisfactorily as bloody awful pieces of junk. So use them when you play 'inferior' nations.

I've not even mentioned the whole how do you quantify it issue. Chupimonkey did that for me.

For the next issue. If you want your troops to fight 'effectively' and that to be unusual for the nation represented, well hell, tack vet/crack/elite/fanatic troops.

Please don't patronize us by calling us video gamers as opposed to some kind of 'realistic' wargamer. We've seen these discussions on the board before.

If you want to play realistic wargames, please, go ahead. I'll take the Germans early in the east front war and you can take those Russians who were killed in their thousands as they tried to cross a marshy field to the German lines.

Real historic battles don't tend to be knife-edge displays of tactical genius, (with some exceptions), more like 'well I've got 5,000 men, you've only got 2,000 you loose. However 'realistic' that is, it's not very fun for anyone. If you enjoy those battles, wander off and make some, CM allows you to do this.

I could also play you as Americans facing your Germans on a hill in early 44'. As recounted by Lt Colonel James he faced a hill with his battalion and the 'jerries' were well entrenched. He called in arty support and 1,500 rounds landed in less than half an hour. They walked through what was left and captured the hill.

That's not very interesting is it? But that's history.

righto!

PeterNZ

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Meeks wrote:

I no longer love Mensch but I am starting to feel a fire in my loins for PeterNZer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 10-28-2000).]

[Xavier]

Hi Jim,

Which differences between troops would you like to see ? I agree with Chupacabra, you can simulate enough with the conscript to elite selection , with the fanatical status or even with the quality of your leaders...

About the "historical" argument. I don't think you or anyone can prove that nationality has an influence on troop quality. Leadership, discipline, the faith in a particular cause may influence the quality of troops. If you consider the early war period. At the tactical level some belgian or french units easily surrendered but others gave the german a hard time... How do you want to modelize this without being caricatural ?

[Subvet]

The problem is that you don't have complete control and it isn't historically accurate. For example, how can I recreate the American's tendency to break quicker but rally faster? If I lower their experience to make them break quicker, I can't make them rally faster in any way. ASL accomplished this by giving them a lower normal morale factor, but once they broke their morale went up a notch so they could be rallied faster. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a way to do this in CM. It COULD be hardcoded into American troops in CM though. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Heh. That's the first time I've been accused of being anti-realism

Not all Italians sucked. Not all Germans were Uebermenschen. That soldiers from certain countries performed historically better than soldiers from others, I neither doubt nor deny. But to what extent was this due to training (that's where experience levels come in)? To what extent was it due to leadership (that's where you come in)? Even if there is some kind of Italian "suck at war" gene (which I'm not prepared to accept), how do you quantify this?

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry if you disagreed with my calling you "anti-realstic." I do not know you personally, and was simply going by the tone I got from your message. I apoligize if it was an innacurate statement.

As far as the differences go, I do not believe that experience level will take care of it all. Yes, it does address some of the issues such as lack of training, but it doesn't touch upon all of those intangibles. And yes, I agree that it would be hard to put in any arbitrary rating for these differences. But SOMETHING could be implemented. In the early months of Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia, Russian morale was so bad as to actually take away from their fighting ability. They could be VETEREN soldiers when put into a situation suitable for them at the time (ie. not getting overrun by the Germans ), but would often give up without a SINGLE shot fired. This happened to late war Germans as well. Their morale was so bad they would surrender at the SIGN of an enemy vehicle. Even CONSCRIPT troops will fight to the last man in Combat Mission. I believe that these differences go BEYOND a troops' experience, or their morale UNDER FIRE. Russians would surrender by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, because they didn't believe they could win, or didn't want to fight for Stalin's Red Army. How do you model some squads or platoons giving up without a fight, or hardly resisting at all?? I don't know. But, I'm sure BTS could come up with some ideas.

Actually, I just thought of a WILD, INSANE,and COMPLETELY stupid idea to implement...but, I wonder if it would be feasible to have early-war Russian soldiers have a morale boost when greater numbers of fellow soldiers are around? This would kind of persuade Russian players to do those mass infantry assaults so common at the time, and to stay away from the later-war tactics most of us are used to using?? Please don't judge my "national morale" idea upon this latest one...I just threw this one out there as an idea.

Thanks,

Jim

[Xavier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Subvet:

the American's tendency to break quicker but rally faster? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where ? When ? Who ? Always ?

[Chupacabra]

Subvet - again, my question is, how do you accurately quantify this? Can you tell me with any degree of accuracy that "American troops were x percent more likely to break than German troops, but were y percent more likely to rally?" Hmm, well, how does this apply to the Americans at Bastogne or St. Vith? ASL may have quantified it, but as I said, I don't think ASL quantified it accurately. I seriously question the kind of sweeping statement which says that "such-and-such nationality was historically better at such-and-such, and should therefore get a 30% bonus." Well, were they all 30% better, or were only half of them 30% better? Okay, well then which half? Why 30%? For that matter, why .0005%?

From your example, was every single American soldier quicker to break but faster to rally than every single German soldier? If not, then how do you decide which American soldiers are quicker to break? Well, CM gives you a way of doing that - experience levels. If you want your Amis straight out of repple-depple and green as grass, go for it. I guarantee they'll break faster. You want them to rally faster? Pop into the scenario editor and give American HQ units command and morale bonuses. They'll rally faster.

But my point still remains - there is absolutely no way you can tell me with a straight face that all the soldiers from one nation were categorically better or worse than all the soldiers of another nation. Yes, even the Italians had some good formations. IIRC some of the Blackshirt divisions which had fought in Ethiopia were fairly tough and put up a bit of a fight. And unless you can say, categorically, that all Americans were better in this way than all Germans, there is absolutely no historical or empirical basis for adding a feature declaring them to be so in the game.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-28-2000).]

[Guest MantaRay]

Two words come to mind when speaking of how Italians suck at war....ROMAN EMPIRE.

Being as I am of Italian and Greek ancestory, we have had a rough 2000 years. But I can tell you if we were ever invaded by the Guardian Angels, Girl Scouts, or RuPauls' followers...I have no doubt we would win. Ok ok, if they teamed up I would be less than confident, but we would prevail none the less. We have Rocky Balboa ya know!!!!

Ray

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay:

But I can tell you if we were ever invaded by the Guardian Angels, Girl Scouts, or RuPauls' followers...I have no doubt we would win.

Ray<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but Punky Brewster would kick some ass

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Subvet]

Well, ASL might not have been able to portray it with 100% accuracy, but they didn't ignore it either. Just because you can't nail it down to an exact figure of 31.98376% better or worse doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and ignore it completely in my opinion. As an example you could set a range. Any given squad would fall somewhere in that range. You wouldn't even have to reveal the number to the player, it could be a hidden quality that would only show up through play or be a behind the scenes type of figure that is never known for sure to the player. You may be asking yourself, "Did that squad turn tail and run because they fell on the extreme of this range or was it just bad luck?"

Who said every single soldier was better or worse in a certain catagory then every single soldier of another nationality. We're talking overall trends here. I'm sure there were some real cowards in even the most fanatic units and some heroes that would take incredible punishment in the most green units. That doesn't stop us from having elite and green units in CM does it?

[David Aitken]

Basebal351 wrote:

> Russians would surrender by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, because they didn't believe they could win, or didn't want to fight for Stalin's Red Army. How do you model some squads or platoons giving up without a fight, or hardly resisting at all??

This kind of thing happened in war, but what would be the point of simulating it in CM? Who would want to play a battle where, historically, one side rolled up in armoured vehicles and the other dropped their weapons and ran away?

A scenario is not worth playing unless both sides have some chance of making an impact. Having half your guys surrender is completely pointless. CM is a game – it can't possibly model the psychological aspects of war – it can only model the battles where both sides actually fought.

David

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

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[Basebal351]

Hi everyone!

(I do make a suggestion further down, if you'd like to read to it)

I agree with you all...it would be extremely hard to implement any of the changes I am talking about, and it probably won't ever be simulated in CM. Also, I do see that there are always certain situations where the norm doesn't apply.

But those situations are, for the most part, anomolies. The study of history is completely based upon generalizing and making assumptions in order to create an idea of the BIGGER PICTURE. Do you think EVERYONE started to look at the old Roman ideals of the individual, art, and "rebirth" during the 14th and 15th century? Heck no, but we still call it The Rennaissance because the overall, GENERALL feeling was that of a new age following the dark ages. There were probably many families that didn't give a care in the world that Michelangelo painted the cieling of the Sistine Chapel, or even knew who or what Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel were.

But for the MOST PART, this time period was known for actions and attitudes such as these.

I say that there were many DOCUMENTED differences between people of different countries. I've read quite a few examples myself. I'm not saying this was a "genetic" predisposition, as someone tried to imply (don't EVER try to say that I'm talking about genetics here). But, rather, there were differences in training, morale, and dedication to their cause (as many agree). I wouldn't know how to implement these differences, but it's not my job. As an avid fan of this game and this time period I simply pointed out something that occured to me.

But I do wonder if there could not be a "NATIONAL MORALE" level for soldiers, in ADDITION to their experience, and morale under fire?? Look at late-war Germany. Many troops would surrender at the sight of an enemy vehicle. Most of the people and troops of Germany at the time knew that the war was lost, and this hurt their will to fight. As it stands right now, I can get German Conscript troops in APRIL 1945 to fight to the last man. Not very indicitave of reality, is it?? If there was a LOW "NATIONAL MORALE" level present for German troops in April 1945, could not Conscript troops be that much more likely to surrender after only a few casualties?? Would not they be questioning their cause as soon as the bombs started dropping?? I feel this would be much more realistic than the current system. And yes, I do know that there were MANY conscript troops that fought to the last man even in April 1945. That's why a "NATIONAL MORALE" wouldn't be a "set-in stone" number. It would be more arbitrary, with some randomness put in (much like many values and effects within CM right now, such as the Global Morale). Veteran, Crack, and Elite troops would still perform well, and have some fantaticism to them, but would suffer a little from a low "NATIONAL MORALE." Even the best squads would surrender when the war was coming to an end. To this end, there could be a few, random elite squads whose Fanatic tendencies could become greater as the National Morale dropped.

Personally, I feel that this is not that bad of a suggestion. It could easily be applied, as the political, and military situations of the countries during various time periods were known. It would not overly affect the way battles are played out, but could only ADD REALISM. Then again, they are my thoughts and ideas, and I am probably a biased hamster to all of you .

Any thoughts??

Thanks,

Jim

[Chupacabra]

Subvet -

Again, assuming that the general trend among American soldiers was to break faster but rally faster than soldiers from other countries, to what degree was this due to training and leadership?

The American repple-depple system was almost universally reviled, throwing raw recruits into combat formations and expecting them to learn as they go. Well, some did, some didn't. By comparison, some Germans had been fighting since 1939, and IIRC, the Germans rotated entire units in and out of the line, instead of individual troops as the Americans did. It would seem to me that this would lead to better unit cohesion. So that much I'll buy. But I do not buy that this was due to some sort of national quality. This was training and experience showing, which CM models with experience levels.

If you can prove to me that independent of training and experience, American units were faster to break and easier to rally than German units, I'll happily shut up and go away.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Basebal351]

(Sorry, this is a RE-POST)

Hi everyone!

(I do make a suggestion further down, if you'd like to read to it)

I agree with you all...it would be extremely hard to implement any of the changes I am talking about, and it probably won't ever be simulated in CM. Also, I do see that there are always certain situations where the norm doesn't apply.

But those situations are, for the most part, anomolies. The study of history is completely based upon generalizing and making assumptions in order to create an idea of the BIGGER PICTURE. Do you think EVERYONE started to look at the old Roman ideals of the individual, art, and "rebirth" during the 14th and 15th century? Heck no, but we still call it The Rennaissance because the overall, GENERALL feeling was that of a new age following the dark ages. There were probably many families that didn't give a care in the world that Michelangelo painted the cieling of the Sistine Chapel, or even knew who or what Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel were.

But for the MOST PART, this time period was known for actions and attitudes such as these.

I say that there were many DOCUMENTED differences between people of different countries. I've read quite a few examples myself. I'm not saying this was a "genetic" predisposition, as someone tried to imply (don't EVER try to say that I'm talking about genetics here). But, rather, there were differences in training, morale, and dedication to their cause (as many agree). I wouldn't know how to implement these differences, but it's not my job. As an avid fan of this game and this time period I simply pointed out something that occured to me.

But I do wonder if there could not be a "NATIONAL MORALE" level for soldiers, in ADDITION to their experience, and morale under fire?? Look at late-war Germany. Many troops would surrender at the sight of an enemy vehicle. Most of the people and troops of Germany at the time knew that the war was lost, and this hurt their will to fight. As it stands right now, I can get German Conscript troops in APRIL 1945 to fight to the last man. Not very indicitave of reality, is it?? If there was a LOW "NATIONAL MORALE" level present for German troops in April 1945, could not Conscript troops be that much more likely to surrender after only a few casualties?? Would not they be questioning their cause as soon as the bombs started dropping?? I feel this would be much more realistic than the current system. And yes, I do know that there were MANY conscript troops that fought to the last man even in April 1945. That's why a "NATIONAL MORALE" wouldn't be a "set-in stone" number. It would be more arbitrary, with some randomness put in (much like many values and effects within CM right now, such as the Global Morale). Veteran, Crack, and Elite troops would still perform well, and have some fantaticism to them, but would suffer a little from a low "NATIONAL MORALE." Even the best squads would surrender when the war was coming to an end. To this end, there could be a few, random elite squads whose Fanatic tendencies could become greater as the National Morale dropped.

Personally, I feel that this is not that bad of a suggestion. It could easily be applied, as the political, and military situations of the countries during various time periods were known. It would not overly affect the way battles are played out, but could only ADD REALISM. Then again, they are my thoughts and ideas, and I am probably a biased hamster to all of you .

Any thoughts??

Thanks,

Jim

[Diceman]

Quote from Basebal351: They could be VETERAN soldiers when put into a situation suitable for them at the time (ie. not getting overrun by the Germans ), but would often give up without a SINGLE shot fired. This happened to late war Germans as well. Their morale was so bad they would surrender at the SIGN of an enemy vehicle. Even CONSCRIPT troops will fight to the last man in Combat Mission. I believe that these differences go BEYOND a troops' experience, or their morale UNDER FIRE. Russians would surrender by the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, because they didn't believe they could win, or didn't want to fight for Stalin's Red Army. How do you model some squads or platoons giving up without a fight, or hardly resisting at all?? I don't know. But, I'm sure BTS could come up with some ideas. End Quote.

I think they already have but I also think you're onto something here. All you have to do when building a scenario is edit the troop moral as "broken"; however, it would be good to be able to start units out as "OK" but suffer the same moral penalties as a previously broken unit. This would allow a designer to model troops with extremely poor moral, but are otherwise militarily competent without worrying about them not staying put when the scenario starts. Other than that I'm with Chupacabra. There isn't a WWII army I can think of that didn't have wildly different quality units. The field gun and artillery units of the Italians were generally respected soldiers for instance. On the other hand, the much respected German Army had its share of poor divisions also.

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

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

The study of history is completely based upon generalizing and making assumptions in order to create an idea of the BIGGER PICTURE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's a story which may illustrate my feelings on this. I was in 10th grade, giving a presentation in front of my history class. I think it was about American public opinion regarding Lend-Lease. I remember at one point starting a sentance that read "The people thought that..." I didn't get any further, because I hear a low growl from my history teacher: "Which people?" I stopped, and asked "Excuse me?" He growled again, this time a little louder, "I said, which bloody people?" I think I stammered something out and sat down. But I still remember that.

The point of the story is that history can involve the study of trends, yes. But the danger lies in over-generalizing, which in my opinion, you are doing. I'm currently studying for an MA in International History, which might help explain where I'm coming from. But if I stated in one of my papers that "American troops broke faster but rallied sooner than German troops, as some sort of national quality, independent of training or leadership," I feel quite certain that I would fail that paper.

Again. Training is modelled in CM by experiences levels, and leadership is modelled by you.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

This kind of thing happened in war, but what would be the point of simulating it in CM? Who would want to play a battle where, historically, one side rolled up in armoured vehicles and the other dropped their weapons and ran away?

A scenario is not worth playing unless both sides have some chance of making an impact.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi David,

You have some good thoughts there. But I do tend to disagree. I believe playing realistic situations LIKE that WOULD be worth playing. Obviously, you wouldn't play a battle where ALL of your men surrendered right away (there HAS to be some sort of an almost balanced battle), but some factors such as these (surrendering) that are DEPENDENT upon the overall morale of a country's forces would provide some realistic, and interesting situations.

Would it not be unrealistic for a late-war German commander to send a squad of inexperienced men out on recon, who would surrender to the first American forces they encountered? It's realistic, and INTERESTING too. It sure would throw a monkey-wrench in some player's games, and it would be a realistic factor in battle that commanders HAD to deal with at the time too. It wouldn't kill the game, of the battles, but only add to them, in terms of realism, and random factors that are beyond the control of the player commanding them.

And some of the random factors that are found in the original Combat Mission are some of the most memorable innovations BTS came up with.

Thanks,

Jim

[David Aitken]

Subvet wrote:

> We're talking overall trends here. I'm sure there were some real cowards in even the most fanatic units and some heroes that would take incredible punishment in the most green units. That doesn't stop us from having elite and green units in CM does it?

We are indeed talking trends, and it is completely irrelevant to an individual battle in CM. Maybe, if you tallied up all the men of Army B who fought in the Second World War, they would be seen to have fought, on the whole, 20% worse than the average for all of the Army A combatants. But where does that fit in to a specific scenario? If a green Army A patrol is ambushed by a group of unusually experienced Army B soldiers, what relevance have the overall statistics of the war? None. CM models specific, individual encounters, and in this situation, anything can happen.

As you say, you can still have green or elite troops. But if all men of Army B were to be – to some degree – less effective than men of other armies, then elite Army B troops would always be of a lower calibre than the opposition. This just totally confuses matters – if you want an Army A patrol to be ambushed by slightly better Army B troops, say regulars against veterans, you would find that the veterans do not match up to the regulars, because they are supposedly inferior as a whole. There is just no basis for applying general statistics to specific battles.

David

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

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[russellmz]

my feeling is that the nationality quality is hard because of a large percentage of overlap in quality.

let me use some fake numbers to give an example:

the germs and us quality are identical bell curves, but the german bell curve is shifted 5% to the right, so they have more troops in each above average quality category. but 90%+ of the soldiers' quality is the same since the bulk of the bell curves overlap! only in the 99%+ range would we see a significant number of aces and bad-sses, but these rarely fight one-on-one battles with the top 99%+ of us bad-ssed troops.

so that is why even though troop quality by nationality is shown in certain cases, experience, leaders, luck, and training have a much bigger effect.(the italians were not that lucky, trained, experienced IIRC)

it also shows why the us break quickly but rally quickly effect (if their is one, i never heard of it till now) would not be that significant since the bulk of break/rally times among differing nationalities would be overlapping except for the very top of the bell curves.

plus, i read in a former post that giving bonuses to certain units like the ss was illegal in some countries(can anyone confirm this?) since it basically counts as glorifying the ss. so the troop type of crack/reg/green seems to work out well IMHO.

i hope i was clear here...if not, im used to it...

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[David Aitken]

Basebal351 wrote:

> Would it not be unrealistic for a late-war German commander to send a squad of inexperienced men out on recon, who would surrender to the first American forces they encountered? It's realistic, and INTERESTING too.

I think this would be highly annoying. The kind of battle you describe would basically involve sitting back and waiting for the enemy to roll up your defences. You need to be able to rely on your men to some degree, otherwise the battle is not worth playing. A situation where everyone is surrendering or running away is a good basis for a psychological study, not a computer game.

David

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

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

The point of the story is that history can involve the study of trends, yes. But the danger lies in over-generalizing, which in my opinion, you are doing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say that a combat unit's effectiveness, and will to fight can be, and IS influenced by their country's political situtation is an overgeneralization?? I'm sorry, but I do believe their must be a misunderstanding here. I have no doubt that you're an extremely intelligent person, specifically in the study of history. More so than I am.

But you've GOT to agree that an overall country's and forces morale, and belief in their cause has GOT to play a part in their fighting ability.

If Sadam Hussein enlisted you today, regardless of your TRAINING, would you fight for him? I hope the answer would be NO. And don't say this situation doesn't apply to CM. The German army enlisted many unwilling troops from other nations, and used them in formations on the Eastern, Western, and African front. They can be the most trained, and greatest troops in the world, but they aren't going to get killed for the Third Reich, are they??

Early on in the East Front, as the people in the conquered territories changed hands from Russian to German hands, some were elated. They fought for the German armies because they wanted to enlist to exact revenge on Stalin's tyranny and his Red Army. They may not have been trained, or they may have been conscript troops, but their will to fight for the German army (which looked like it would win the war at the time) didn't waver very much.

BUT, look at the people from these SAME countries toward the END of the war, when it was known that Germany was going to lose. These people joined partisan, or guerilla factions to beat the Germans. They didn't believe in the German cause anymore, and in any case, knew that the Germans would lose in the end. No use supporting a losing cause, is there?

So then you have more enlisted troops from foreign nations. They aren't the most experienced troops in the world either, let's say CONSCRIPT in CM terms. These troops, while just as inexperienced as those in the example above, will be MUCH more willing to surrender at the first sign of the enemy. Why would they fight, and give their lives for Germany, the eventual loser? At that point in the war they felt no obligation to Germany for freeing them from Stalin, for they had seen the horrors of Nazi occupation and even more importantly seen the eventual downfall of Germany. At this point you have massive surrenderings of foreign and native German troops.

And you can't tell me that this issue shouldn't arrise in Combat Mission 2. The Rumanian armies gave large amounts of men and materiel to the German armies early in Barbarossa. As the war went on, and they saw the Red Army swallowing up Eastern Europe, they turned sides and declared war on Germany. This was an entire country that gave up on a cause in the face of eventual defeat, the decline of that cause they had been dedicated to. You can't tell me these shifts, and drops in national morale and a dedication to a cause didn't affect these troops, as well as native German troops, espescially if it was enough to sway an entire country!!

Thanks,

Jim