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

[Chupacabra]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jim - Again, you can currently simulate this in CM. Give Germans green or conscript units, and they will perform poorly and surrender quickly.

I guess my main question is, what are you trying to simulate which CM doesn't currently model?

To make Americans break quickly, make the majority green. To make late-war German forces brittle, poorly-trained, and likely to surrender, make them green or conscript.

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

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

[Major Tom]

Actually I would truely say that there aren't any concrete definitions between nationalities abilities to fight, beyond that of Morale and Experience (already incorporated in BTS).

Most of the French troops in 1940 collapsed easily because they were of poor quality (the good quality French forces were outflanked and eliminated not thorugh direct conflict). So, to say that every French formastion should have a tendancy to fall, no matter their experience, is unrealistic.

The reason that the Italians faired so poorly is actualy a multipe number of reasons.

1. The relations between the officer and soldiers were non-existant. There was a BIG class difference between the two. Would you fight for a commander who you don't believe in?

2. The number of Italian Divisions outnumbered the amount of modern equipment. in 1941, there was enough modern equipment to fully equip around 20 of the 60 Italian divisions.

3. The Italians in WWII were fighting their historical Allies, and Allied with their historical enemies. Italians are VERY connected to England, and have a close relationship with France. They absolutely hate Germans.

To measure a typical Italian formation correctly, you would have to rate them at around Green experience, with very little ub the ways of modern equipment. You will find that battles would be very historical. They shouldn't ALWAYS break in battle, nor should Americans ALWAYS hold like they did at Bastogne.

You can't measure factors like this in a game, since, they, like experience and morale, change from engagement to engagement. Having these aspects as fixed occurances will only serve to promote historical myth and propaganda.

[David Aitken]

Basebal351 wrote:

> 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!!

Comments like "it was enough to sway an entire country" are extreme generalisations. The overall picture may be negative, but the situation with individual units and individual battles may or may not reflect this. Regardless of their nationality, people have different allegiances and different goals, and find themselves in different situations. You can't say that the prevailing situation in a country is going to affect every one of its soldiers in the same way.

David

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

Somewhere between a joke and a conspiracy

[Basebal351]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never ONCE said that everyone would run away, you're completely taking what I said and overblowing it. I don't appreciate. I don't try to do that to others, and I hope no one will do that to me.

I AGREE that a battle with everyone running away and surrending would not make for much of a fight. I said that in my previous post if you'd care to read all of it, and not just what you'd like to hear . But I also said that there should be a SMALL random factor determining your troop's ability and willingness to fight. I think that if you'd think about it, you'd find it's not that annoying at all. It's a part of WAR. The occassional randomness in a troops' performance and actions would be as realistic and exciting as the randomness of where tank's shell hits. A real commander CAN'T count on his troops to always do as he wishes. And again, it wouldn't happen every battle, or to every squad. But there were blatant situations in WW2 where a commander had to manage and control his forces as best he could in battle, dealing with and overcoming the randomness of his troop's actions, and/or their lack of determination to fight. In Russia, the commanders had to literally have machine guns trained on their front-line men in order to make them fight. To have every single Russian be a "do-or-die" soldier, where they'd do pretty much everything you asked of them, would be ahistorical. Even veteran troops surrendered if they chose to and if the opportunity arose, REGARDLESS of whether they had suffered any casualties. They didn't believe that their side could win the dark days of 1941, and didn't want to give their lives to a losing cause.

Thanks,

Jim

[Chupacabra]

Jim -

I believe that it's an overgeneralization to say that factors independent of training and experience affected all soldiers equally.

Take, for example, Germany in '45. Some German soldiers were only too happy to surrender as quickly as they could, while some continued to fight tenaciously against the invasion of the Fatherland. Do you agree with this assessment?

On the Eastern Front, some Soviet soldiers and citizens were only too happy to surrender to the advancing German armies, while some killed, died, became partisans, and continued to resist? Do you agree with this assessment?

During the occupation of France, many French civilians collaborated with the Germans or the Vichy government, and many gave their lives to resist those regimes. Do you agree with this?

You cannot categorically state that all the soldiers of one nation felt one way or another about anything.

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

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:

Jim - Again, you can currently simulate this in CM. Give Germans green or conscript units, and they will perform poorly and surrender quickly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're believing that the current system can do more than it really can. What if I want my men to be EXCELLENT troops, veterans? What if these men, if given the advantage of a surprise attack, or an easily defensible situation, could stand toe-to-toe with the best the American forces have to offer? But, what if these men, have absolutely no desire to fight whatsoever for Germany in April 1945? What if, when away from their own troops and/or platoon leader, they surrender without taking a casualty because they have NO DESIRE to fight whatsoever. I believe that a DESIRE to fight(national morale), and their ABILITY to fight are two completely seperate things. I fail to see your reasoning behind saying that a unit's experience and their ability to fight are the same thing. If you'd like me to explain this to you fuller, I will.

Thanks,

Jim

[Chupacabra]

Jim -

I understand what you're getting at. But in game terms, what difference would it make to model an elite unit that wants to surrender at the first sight of enemies differently than a conscript unit that wants to surrender at the first sight of enemies? They'll both surrender, won't they? What does it matter how well they can shoot if they're fed up with war and want to go to a cozy POW camp somewhere?

Did veteran units who wanted to surrender go around opening cans of whupass on their enemies and then say "just kidding, sorry we killed so many of your guys, USA A-OK?" Nope, they threw down their guns and yelled their "nicht schiessen!"

In other words, in game terms, a veteran unit which wanted to surrender would behave identically to a conscript unit, no matter what their actual experience.

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

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:

Take, for example, Germany in '45. Some German soldiers were only too happy to surrender as quickly as they could, while some continued to fight tenaciously against the invasion of the Fatherland. Do you agree with this assessment?

On the Eastern Front, some Soviet soldiers and citizens were only too happy to surrender to the advancing German armies, while some killed, died, became partisans, and continued to resist? Do you agree with this assessment?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I completely agree. And actually, that's exactly what I've been saying. But I've been saying that there was a CONNECTION between the country's military situation and the time and these alliances.

Many German soldiers did surrender in 1945, conscipt and veteran alike. And this was BECAUSE Germany was falling apart. So, we have to say then that surrender can't always be directly related to the unit's experience, correct? Otherwise, why would veteran German troops lay down their arms at the sight of an enemy?

So then, we must make the assumption that a unit's nationality (not RACE, but country and their country's military and political situation) WOULD affect their willingness to fight correct? Why, then, would green American troops be able to cause Veteran German troops to surrender all over the Western front? It COULDN'T have been because of the experience level, as it is modeled in Combat Mission right now. Otherwise, their would have been many more Americans to surrender than German troops. But, because we know it is the reverse of that situation that is true, we can say that a unit's experience is seperate and individual from that of their determination to fight.

With that out of the way, I never said that this "national morale" would influence EVERY single squad. As already modeled in CM, there can be random factors that distinguish a squad's performance from another. Of course there were conscript troops that fought on to the bitter end, just as there were veteran troops that surrendered at the sight of the enemy. Therein lies the differences between a unit's ability, and their DESIRE to fight. As it stands right now, a unit's desire to fight isn't modeled, and to me that doesn't accurately reflect an important part of this conflict. You, yourself, said that many German troops surrendered later on in the Western front. Are you saying this didn't impact specific battles, and specific squads?? Because, then I'd have to vehemently disagree.

Thanks,

Jim

[PeterNZer]

So what you're proposing is that in battles, as the war goes on, German units are to become likely or slightly-likely to surrender en masse?

Good god! How dull! Noone would play the germans in late-war games.

'oo look, that company gave up, o well i loose'.

we all KNOW that there was widespread surrendering and stuff, why ruin the game to endlessly repeat it to ourselves?

PeterNZ

[Chupacabra]

Desire to fight is modelled. If it wasn't, CM units would never panic, rout, surrender, or any of the other stuff which they regularly do.

And random factors certainly do play into how a unit behaves. Units of identical experience perform differently under similar situations. They're not automatons.

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

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:

Jim -

I understand what you're getting at. But in game terms, what difference would it make to model an elite unit that wants to surrender at the first sight of enemies differently than a conscript unit that wants to surrender at the first sight of enemies? They'll both surrender, won't they? What does it matter how well they can shoot if they're fed up with war and want to go to a cozy POW camp somewhere?

Did veteran units who wanted to surrender go around opening cans of whupass on their enemies and then say "just kidding, sorry we killed so many of your guys, USA A-OK?" Nope, they threw down their guns and yelled their "nicht schiessen!"

In other words, in game terms, a veteran unit which wanted to surrender would behave identically to a conscript unit, no matter what their actual experience.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no they wouldn't be the same.

A conscript under fire, is a lot worse off than a Veteran under fire. This plays a large part in many battles, agreed? But a large force of conscript troops should be a lot different than a large force of elite troops. Yes, when they surrender because a lack of national morale, there is no difference. But when they don't surrender, or are put in situations where they have no ability to surrender their EXPERIENCE plays a part, just as it would in any normal battle. And while I believe that regardless of a unit's experience they should be perceptible to surrending because of a low belief in their cause, their EXPERIENCE and MORALE should work in tandem with this NATIONAL MORALE. Which of these groups would be most likely to buckle under repeated artillery shelling?

Early-war Elite German Troops?

Late-war Elite German Troops?

Late-war Conscript German Troops?

The answer is the late-war conscript German troops. They are inexperienced AND have a low desire to fight for their country. Next would come (again, for the MOST PART) the late-war Elite German troops. They're sick, they're tired, and they know they can't win. Why die when they're going to lose anyway, right? And last would come the early-war Elite German troops. They're conquering land and countries, and their ears are still ringing with the words of their Fuhrer. They're going to hold out because they know that the artillery battery shelling them will be destroyed. Their National Morale is still high, along with their victory rates. Again, I realize that there are always exceptions to the rule, and that's why I believe some randomness factor should be added in. But, espescially in Russia, this difference between nation's morale levels, and even between the morale of these nations as time went on, played a huge part in the average morale of the soldier. Disillusionment can really hurt a soldier's performance, espescially an inexperienced soldier. That's why a unit's experience and their desire to fight, their ability to keep on fighting should work in tandem to provide an accurate real-world situation seen in World War 2.

[Chupacabra]

I disagree. If you start qualifying the experience levels, they become meaningless as relative measures of performance. Elite is elite, conscript is conscript. If you want to simulate tired, sick soldiers, who just want to stop fighting and go home, make 'em green or conscript.

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

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:

Desire to fight is modelled. If it wasn't, CM units would never panic, rout, surrender, or any of the other stuff which they regularly do.

And random factors certainly do play into how a unit behaves. Units of identical experience perform differently under similar situations. They're not automatons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Last paragraph has an example of what I am talking about...)

I agree that those are somewhat along the lines that I am talking about. But Veteran units will take MUCH longer to go into these sitautions than a Conscript unit when they're under the same fire. But what about those units who, at the start of the battle, are on the verge of collapse from a long, drawn out retreat. They don't believe in fighting or their cause anymore. These veteran units will still be able to hold out under an artillery barrage much longer than a conscript unit before going into "Broken" status. But, since I'm saying that a unit's experience isn't the entire story, it has to deal with the national morale overall, there should be some random situations where, if a nation is destined to lose, SOME veteran soldiers won't FIGHT as effectively, or be more likely to surrender at the sight of the enemy. This can occur before a unit goes through all of the stages of MORALE (Panic, Broke, Routed, etc.).

The closest idea as to what I am talking about MIGHT be able to be seen by starting a scenario out with a few Veteran squads with a low status (almost almost panicked). Something hard to recover from. These men, if protected and supported well enough will be able to put up a great fight, they will be more accurate and better fighters than Conscripts. Unsupported, and being put into situations their morale or desire to fight can't handle at the time, these troops will completely lose their ability to fight by being panicked, and probably surrender. You have to use these troops within the bounds you deem they can perform in. But, as this would require a scenario designer's input, it wouldn't be feasable for Quick Battles, and it wouldn't have that all important random factor.

Thanks,

Jim

[Guest Madmatt]

I addressed this very tired and rehashed issue already once today in the "Polish Troops Suck" thread so let me go over this one more time.

War isn't that cut and dry, you can't use blanket assessments of national morale or ability to cover ever conceivable situation. What you can do, as a scenario designer, is use the tools that we have given you to emulate what you want to see.

You want Elite German troops that are tired of fighting and the war? Sure thing, you make the units Elite and set up their default fatigue level to Weary or Exhausted! Yup, you can do that in the editor, and you will end up with a tough assed unit that doesn't want to go anywhere or do much of anything anymore but who can still put up a fight.

Everyone seems to always forget you can specify a units starting fatigue level which will affect their overall morale position. Exhaausted and Weary units can take the length of an entire battle to recover fully.

You want a bunch of Cherry faced kids that are all gung-ho and ready to die for their country? Well, try mix and matching low experience squads with a bonus laden HQ unit.

Combat Mission has gone to great lengths to demystify a lot of the common misconceptions about WWII. It's easy to say that in as the war came to a close every single German soldier wanted to just surrender and go home. Oh yeah, tell that to the Russians that attacked Berlin.

Nothing about war or even appraisals of culture are so black and white. Combat Mission does not give nationalities any advantage over another beyond what weapons they carry and what they have available to use. It is the job of the scenario designer to wield the power of the editor to do the rest. The tools are there, learn to use them.

Madmatt

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

[brucer]

Interesting thread. Three thoughts come to mind:

1) I seem to recall Trevor Dupuy, the king of all military quantifiers, had no problem with calculating and using national troop quality factors, unrelated to other factors such as terrain, tactic, equipment, and so on, in his analyses of actions, including the Second World War. Although I can't recall the numbers off hand, Russians would have their overall ability factor multiplied by 0.5, Germans by 1.3, Brits by 1.0, and so on. So it's not just Squad Leader we're talking about: are we saying Dupuy is wrong, too?

2) I think anyone has to allow that some nations' soldiers did seem to behave completely differently, right off the CM grid of human behaviour... the Japanese come to mind, and (an important fact for CM2) the oddly effective Finns in 1939. If we can accept gross differences like this without the tinge of racism, why not subtler ones?

3) Finally, if we accept that the game quantifies training/experience as troop quality, one question remains: how does it quantify small-unit DOCTRINE? You can make a very good argument, for instance, that German section-level tactics were superior to those of the Americans or Russians, one separate from the types of weapons, or experience of the troops involved. Is that a third variable you have to consider when assigning troop quality, and if so, shouldn't someone be putting together some guidelines for design-your-own scenarios somewhere?

BruceR

[Basebal351]

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

I disagree. If you start qualifying the experience levels, they become meaningless as relative measures of performance. Elite is elite, conscript is conscript. If you want to simulate tired, sick soldiers, who just want to stop fighting and go home, make 'em green or conscript.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Measures of performance? Yes. Meaningless? No. I could have a veteran and a conscript sharpshooter both being overrun by American forces late in April 1945, both on the verge of breaking because they no longer believe in dying for their cause. At 200m, the Veteran kills 3 enemy troops. The conscript hits 1. When the troops come within 50m, both troops give up, exhausted, hungry, and completely disillusioned. So what was the difference between a Veteran on the verge of giving up and a conscript on the verge of giving up? The Veteran can STILL shoot, regardless of how sick of the war he is. The conscript, limited by his abilities, can't perform as well as the veteran. Both want the war to end, in the meantime the veteran has better aim.

Both give up when they are confronted by the overwhelming opposing forces, because of their lack of WILL.

Thanks,

Jim

[PeterNZer]

Duprey

There's been some extensive discussion on his numbers, sufice to say, I make up numbers in my job too, and boy can they look convincing.

It's an insanity to say 'german soldiers are 1.3 times as good as Allied soldiers' what a joke. Sounds like a case of that Panzer penis envy.

As for Basebal's idea.

Dude, are you seriously suggesting BTS code something into the game that will be used

1) only in scenarios

2) only during the late war for Germany it sems

3) Only a smallish % of the time?

Please.

PeterNZ

[Basebal351]

Hi Madmatt!

I agree that BTS has allowed for the customization of many factors that influence this game, but I don't think it's as cut and dry in this issue.

First off, by having someone manually go into every single scenario and destine which elite units should have a "Broken" or "Panic" status would eliminate the great possibilites afforded by the randomness factor. There would always be the same "Panicked" troops, and thus setting EXACT numbers to a situation when EXACT numbers couldn't be set, but would be more influenced by the overall morale of the time and some random factors that are inherent in situations like that.

Secondly, commaders (players) will be able to see which units are "panicked" or "broken." Most good leaders will relegate these units to the rear of their lines, as not combat fit. In this case, though, the players will have an ADVANTAGE that real commanders did not. A real commander could not accurately guage the feelings, or the desire to fight of any single squad at any one moment. He should have no way of knowing which squad would be the next one to give in, or surrender, or who wouldn't perform as well on a tough assignment. This is related to the randomness factor. A commander would have to make extra arrangments for bolstering his squads just in case they weren't up to the task of fighting anymore, or were on the verge of surrendering without a single shot fired. A unit's national morale doesn't have as much to do with their current situation (as does the under-fire morale currently in Combat Mission), as it deals with the beliefs and their desire to fight. Something a commander wouldn't know about until he saw that squad throw down their weapons.

And lastly, I would like to thank you, brucer, for his input. I was wondering if you could explain further your third point, that of German small-arms doctrine being better, and playing a role in troop quality??

Thanks,

Jim

[Basebal351]

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

As for Basebal's idea.

Dude, are you seriously suggesting BTS code something into the game that will be used

1) only in scenarios

2) only during the late war for Germany it sems

3) Only a smallish % of the time?

Please.

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry if I confused the issue along the way, but I thought it was assumed that I was using late-war Germany as an excellent example. Numerous other applicable situations abound. Germany would have excellent national morale (that can also have an added affect on a unit's morale, causing them to do things above and beyond what they normally would), while the Russians would have horrible national morale during late 1941. Russia was on the verge of collapse, over a million soldiers surrendered!! I'd say that applies to CM2! Also, look at the Italians, as I was previously talking about. Yes, they didn't fight as well because they weren't dedicated to the war, or their allies. Therefore, they didn't perform as well as other troops, and they surrendered by the hundreds of thousands. These are just two examples, and a soldier's belief and determination to a cause changes throughout the war, particularly for the German side. In late-war Eastern Front, German troops could hardly put up a fight anymore. Although, thinking about this, even another anomaly comes up. German troops became more fanatic as the war went on, not because of a love of their country, or a belief that they could still win, but out of FEAR for the Russians. Yes, all of this I am proposing would be hard for BTS to fairly implement, but I think it can be done if it is deemed as something that might have a a positive, realistic affect on the game. It would play a large part in quick battles to, for they are played during a specific time period. And if a formula is worked out to provide some random factors for a unit based on their experience and the time period, then it can be applied to any battle.

It was no coincidence that as a country started losing ground, they started losing soldiers. It was no small fact that Russian commanders in front of Moscow had to hold machine guns and pistols on their men in order to keep them at their positions. To ignore these facts is to ignore a decisive factor in many battles.

Thanks,

Jim

[PeterNZer]

I think you're kinda missing the point other people are making tho, and that is that CM is a game of battles-that-happened, not battles where everyone surrendered. That's much more applicable to Operational or Strategic games, not the tactical.

it's just ont fun to play a game where your units will randomly do random things. You might think it is, but I don't and most people here won't. If you like your idea, I suggest you play games, and roll a dice, for each squad each turn. And if it rolls snake-eyes, remove from board.

Just because people surrendered and CM doesn't show it, doesn't make CM less of a game, or including it make CM a better game. Infact, there's a lot of good reasons why it would make CM very dull, annoying and frustrating.

CM is a game of battles that happened People who wanted to surrender would have done so before, or hid in a cellar and done so after, in teh same way that airstrikes/arty barrages are generally modeled in the game as happening before and after the timeframe of CM.

I mean, your idea is dinky, although impossible to accurately quantify without plain guessing, but really, do we need it?

PeterNZ

[Basebal351]

PeterNZ,

Thanks for the reply. I won't pursue the issue any further if "most" people don't want any change. But the problem is, most people are resistant to change before they see the end result. Many people probably thought that a 3D combat game would suck, but I believe Combat Mission is a great game.

As it's not an "OVERLY" big issue, I'll leave it be if popular opinion asks me too. This is a democracy after all.

Also, could you please tell me what "dinky" means? Are you saying my idea is small and unimportant?

Thanks,

Jim

[PeterNZer]

Bassically, yeah I kinda am.

Mostly because, in CM's terms the effort required to code it compared to the effect it has in the game and the certain tumultous reception it would receive from the fans makes it interesting but not very useful.

On top of that, you'd have to rework ALL the point values on a month-by-month bassis to take into account chance of fleeing. It would take along time.

Furthermore, battles will resemble more random luck than outright skill. People complain enough about luck already, (See fighter planes, they can totally rock, or never appear), why add more?

Anyway, lets kill this issue. Interesting idea, debatable historically and on many levels. Will never be put in CM.

PeterNZ

[Basebal351]

Agreed.

I believe more than ever that there were outside determining factors, but also concede that they maybe couldn't/shouldn't be modeled in CM! All I say is keep the game great BTS, and I'll be a fan for life.

Thanks,

Jim

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I see ASL being bandied about so of course I must jump in for a brief moment

First off, I don't believe that ASL was trying to quantify anything when they created their nationality differences. I believe that those differences were simply included to add spice and flavor to the game. For the most part the differences were rather small anyway. Specifically they were the following (if I remember them all correctly):

British: cool under fire – they never had suffered cowering penalties when rolling doubles on outbound shots. Range of 5

Americans: low morale on good order side, high morale on broken side. Range of 6

Germans: no special characteristics. Range of 6

Russians: Could perform human wave attacks. Had special commissar unit. Range of 4

Italians: low morale on good order side, even lower morale on broken side. Range of 4

French: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5

Allied minors: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5.

Axis minors: average morale on good order side, low morale on broken side. Range of 5

Finns: high morale on both good order side and on broken side.

Japanese: well, I’ll get into them in a minute

Okay, beyond the basic differences there were some specific differences in the areas of artillery accuracy and availability (already modeled in CM) and differences in gun accuracy. The accuracy differences were basically on the order of Russians and French use red numbers and everyone else uses black numbers when trying to hit with ordnance.

Another area where national characteristics played a role was in the Heat of Battle table. Certain nations were given pluses or minuses (along with other factors, such as troop quality etc) when rolling on this table. For example an elite unbroken German squad may get a minus one, whereas an elite broken German squad would get no modifiers (-1 for elite, +1 for broken). Axis minor troops were more likely to surrender when rolling for Heat of Battle and Russians were more likely to go Berserk etc.

About the only thing I would like to see implemented in CM would be some sort of Heat of Battle rule whereby heroes could be created or a unit can go Berzerk and charge the enemy with battle lust in there eyes! I think it would be kinda cool to have a random chance of a squad going fanatic or berzerk in the middle of the battle. Oh yeah, and SS never surrendered to Soviet troops and vice versa. Anyway, on to the Japanese.

Japanese: No broken side for regular squad. Squad was step reduced in size until eventually it was capable of breaking when it became the size of a half squad. Japanese squads could perform banzai charges! Any squad could create a tank hunter hero who ran at a tank with bombs strapped to his body! Japanese leaders never broke – they died or got wounded instead (spending too much time waving that sword around). Japanese squads stacked with a leader had their morale raised (although significantly, the standard Japanese squad still had average morale – they just never broke when their morale was exceeded). Japanese support weapons could not be assigned to squads but had crews (kinda like the way CM is now). Japanese squads had a bonus in hand to hand combat (those long bayonets were excellent for stabbing). Japanese troops were also stealthy and had a bonus to their ambush roll. No quarter was always in effect in the PTO.

So, really, ASL didn’t have a whole lot of differences other than some nations were more difficult to rally than others and that is easy enough to simulate in CM. The other differences such as artillery and gun accuracy are either already modeled in CM, or will be looked at – although these are more equipment related items. As far as the Italian examples being bandied about, they would easily be modeled in CM by degrading the quality of a veteran unit to a regular unit since that is essentially what ASL did anyway. The only weird nation would be the Japanese, but I suspect even they would be relatively simple to model in CM with a little imagination.

[brucer]

Duprey

Wrote Peter NZ, viz Dupuy:

"There's been some extensive discussion on his numbers, sufice to say, I make up numbers in my job too, and boy can they look convincing.

It's an insanity to say 'german soldiers are 1.3 times as good as Allied soldiers' what a joke. Sounds like a case of that Panzer penis envy."

As the Arab chief says in Lawrence of Arabia: "That... is not an argument."

Really, you have to do more to disprove a widely accepted theory with apparent predictive value by a prominent theorist than just calling it an "insanity." Even Darwin's attackers could do better than that. Not that I personally believe you're wrong, mind you, but this board sets a pretty high standard for proof and disproof on all questions, and we should all at least try to live up to that in this one.

Try this one on: to argue against ASL's and Dupuy's cultural characteristics assumes a totality of free will that most 20th century social theorists are, to say the least, uncomfortable with. You are in effect saying CM is good because in it culture plays no influence, that our little digital people are entirely free to choose their destiny. The differences in military culture between, say, British and Canadian, or German and Italian, or American and Japanese, the differences in the way they were trained, whether they were volunteers, or draftees, whether they came from a martial culture or a peaceful one, whether they're well fed and clothed and led, or not, whether they were trained to follow orders or think for themselves, all don't make any real difference in close combat. When it's time to see the elephant, we're all the same.

To argue that you have to argue that not only Dupuy, but just about every major military thinker was in this respect wrong... including those who say the Anzacs, or the Gurkhas, or the Scots, or the Canadians, fought better than your average Brit at one time or the other, for instance, perhaps because of one or all of those factors listed above. Military leaders believed culture mattered, too: did the Russians only recruit its Cossacks, or the Indian Army its Sikhs, or Napoleon his Polish lancers, because they were cheap?

And to bring it back to that Arab chief, did his people's difficulty to manage (and Lawrence's deserved fame in accomplishing it) derive from the fact that they fought bad, or just fought different? Unlike the Anzac cavalry that rode with them, they shied from any frontal assault... now in CM, would that make them Green, or Conscript?

BruceR