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

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Oh, and if you have a problem with the use of "Japanese" squads in the example above (because CMBO "doesn't deal with Japanese bonzai charges"), then insert "SS" in there instead. The point is, there were differences, and if the same engine in place now will be used for subsequent games, some changes will NEED to take place.

Thanks,

Jim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. Excuse me for saying so Jim but: Tosh! Have a look at the history of the Waffen-SS (there is a good website with divisional info somewhere and maybe you can find the link at Achtung Panzer) and you will realise that out of the 30 or so Waffen-SS divsions most were pure unadulterated crap, not worth wasting weapons or shot on, only capable of slitting civilians throats.

This Waffen-SS combat efficiency worship that is based on the performance of only a few of the divisions, is a bit grating really.

So to get this straight, now you propose that as a sweeping generalisation (to make the game more realistic, no less) all Waffen-Ss units should get some sort of modifier? Which, as others have pointed out, is in the game already.

Comparing the Japanese units' performance and the Waffen-SS is, quite frankly, ludicrous. May I inquire how much knowledge about Japanese history, customs and religion you actually have that enables you to make that statement?

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Basebal351]

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

Sho nuff? Go into the scenario editor, go into the parameters menu, at the bottom right hand side, you'll see an option for making troops fanatical. Sooooo...gonna drop it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good. I'll send you my copy of the game, and you can personally adjust all of the scenarios and PBEMs I currently have going. What are you going to do about the men low on morale, though???

Thanks,

Jim

[Basebal351]

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

Comparing the Japanese units' performance and the Waffen-SS is, quite frankly, ludicrous. May I inquire how much knowledge about Japanese history, customs and religion you actually have that enables you to make that statement?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thank you for the reply Germanboy, but you came off sounding a...hmmm, a bit pretentious, shall we say? If I may, I'd like to ask you come down off your high horse for a moment so that I don't have to shout out what I have to say.

First of all, when did this discussion become personal? I've never singled anyone else out, and I'm not completely alone on my view of things (they may not agree with some of the things I am saying, but they also see that some changes COULD be made). I'd appreciate it if, in the future, you could try to come off sounding a bit more "modest". I have nothing against people who may or may not have a greater knowledge on topics, but I'd really appreciate it if they remembered for a second that this is just a message board filled with regular people like myself, not someone to try to outwit to make themselves feel better.

Secondly, I never compared the SS and the Japanese soldier's customs, traditions, etc...And I never talked about the SS being an almighty "killing-machine." I realize that for the most part, they performed about the same as regular US troops. But, the only comparison I did make was that of large amounts of Japanese and SS soldiers becoming fanatical, and sacrificing their lives in many cases because they believed it was the best thing for their country. Yes, other German troops did the same thing, along with soldiers from every single army in the conflict. But does that have ANYTHING to do with the SS and Japanese customs being the same?? Heck no! Obviously, the Japanese thought that it would be honorable to die on the battlefield, and they gave their lives up very often. The SS also gave their lives up, but for somewhat different reasons and in some different manners. They did it because they were fearful of the enemy, and had been brought up with an intense loyalty to Germany and the Party, who also praised Death as a way to have your memory preserved, and there were still some more reasons. The end result though, is that they both gave up their lives because of OUTSIDE factors pertaining to their upbringing, and THAT'S what this topic is about; the national differences between soldiers of seperate nations.

I do not know if you simply misunderstood me, or you wanted to get in on this argument with a ridiculously trivial point relating to a somewhat wrong comparison I made. Because really, in my honest opinion only, what you wrote added absolutely nothing to the topic. Either way, I have lost some respect for you because of the personal manner in which you went about responding.

And lastly, I would like to point out that I have not been, will not be, nor have ever claimed to be an expert on any subject. I admit, I am no expert, along with MANY of the people on the board.

And the funny thing is, many of these people seem to act like experts when they really are not. I do not know if I am right when I say that there should be national differences, but NEITHER DO ALL OF YOU!! It's almost a pointless topic, as little or no headway will be made in either direction. Also, it somewhat peeves me when so many of you can write off KNOWN EXPERTS and their works just because you do not agree with it. I'll admit, I had no idea who Duprey was, or what his works were before yesterday. And I have no idea if he is right or wrong. But I think he's devoted a lot more of his time to the study of these things than most of us!! So instead of saying that "I make up numbers at my job too..." and completely discounting Duprey's theories, maybe you could acknowledge that yes, Duprey has studied World War 2 extensively, but that you're not prepared to completely accept his theories. And that's all of your choices. But to just dismiss it because he's "biased" or something, is to laugh in the face of years of study and research, and the knowledge that can be gained through that.

Personally, I am quite willing to leave this topic where it is right now. Madmatt has acknowleged that there may need to be a few changes to the current model down the road. I'm fine with that. I believe the current system works for right now. My original intent was to let others hear my idea. And this idea was not radical, or revolutionary, but for some reason people reacted in a manner that treated it so. How will you all feel if changes such as these (ie. more fanatical troops, or lower morale), DO occur in subsequent CM's? The change probably won't have a big enough effect on the game to garner all of the backlash that it is recieving right now. And we'll all look back and acknowledge that the system we had for the first CM wouldn't have worked for the Russian, Pacific, or the Italian campaigns. Such is the way with new ideas. Personally, I'll be welcoming any changes BTS comes up with concerning anything, as a changing game cannot become stale.

I don't know why I was reacted to so negatively. Personally, I am not one to run away from confrontation so I'll stick around. I don't mind a nice argument now and then (got to brush up on my lacking skills).

In conclusion, would anyone like to partake in a PBEM with me??

Thanks,

Jim

[Chupacabra]

To be honest, I have very little faith in "acknowledged experts," especially when they fly in the face of common sense. Many historians become well-known neither for the quality of their research or for the strength of their argument, but because they are louder and more controversial than the norm.

Especially in a field which is so controversial and heavily contested as World War II is, (although I've seen historians get into shouting matches about much more mundane subjects, and it's not pretty) I find it very hard to accept one man's research on faith.

Again, I have not read Dupuy (although I may do so now), so I cannot accurately comment except on what I've gathered here, but I think it is absolutely impossible to quantify immaterial concepts like 'effectiveness' or 'will to fight.'

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

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

[Major Tom]

The problem is, you can find experts to prove just about any theory. The goal of a historian is (we are all historians!) is to get the closest possible to the truth of a matter. We read up on ALL of the history in order to get toward the truth. We ourselves aren't experts, but, like you, we draw on the work of other professionals out there. It is a matter of working out which professional theories are the best related to reality. Plus you add in a segment of your own judgement and awareness of the present world in which you live in now.

I used to believe that each nation had such differences, but, as I researched more and more into historical events I came to the conclusion that humans aren't that predictable. It does come down to predictability. Not every person will react the same to a specific doctrine of training or cultural history. Not every unit (ie. SS or Japanese) was able to get to that level of fanaticism. In regards to the Japanese, there were MANY units that broke and fled at the first sign of the enemy (the 65th IJA Brigade in the Philippines was a horrid unit, and many new formations in China and Manchuria broke, fled and surrendered when the Russians finally attacked in 1945). Placing a generic fanaticism level for all of the Japanese would be un-historic.

Plus, the very weak nations that you stated should have low morale are only percieved as such through misguided historicism. The French, Polish, Belgian, Dutch, and even Early Russian formations put up some brilliant fights against overwealming enemies. The reason for their general collapse was primarily due to poor strategic planning and individual events, rather than the general quality of ALL of the troops. Generalizing an entire nation based off of individual actions is not very accurate.

You have to take EACH action, on a case basis to determine the quality of the troops engaged.

PS. Don't take Germanboy's personal comments too serious. He's a German stuck in England. That situation would bound to cause anyone to have a short fuse

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I thank you for the reply Germanboy, but you came off sounding a...hmmm, a bit pretentious, shall we say? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About as pretentious as your claim that this fanaticism issue 'NEEDS' to be changed perchance? First, none of this is personal to me. I just think you are using an awful lot of false arguments to press your points. If it offends you to be called upon them, I am afraid that better research is the best answer if you want to continue to make them.

I am not trying to outwit you, but you call for some pretty big changes to the way this game works, and IMO you do so on the basis of at best flimsy evidence. This is not an intellectual game for me, I don't have any interest in that. If you don't know something, maybe it is better to admit it instead of persisting.

The SS-Japanese equation, BTW was brought up by you, and it is no minor matter IMO. Because modeling Japanese squads will be very difficult. I was simply calling you on false conclusions that you drew from something that you now admit you are no expert on. I think that this generalising evidence is not enough to call for changes to something that seems to be working fine.

As you rightly point out, I don't know you, and I don't know your knowledge on the subject, so my question was not a rethorical question. I am actually interested in how you came to the conclusion that the Waffen-SS and the Japanese are comparable.

As I pointed out, some of the Waffen-SS were fanatical nutcases. Others weren't. This is important, because it means that your proposed fanaticism modifier will give these others a hard-coded behavioural advantage that they did not possess in reality.

On the other points you raised that may have been aimed at me: I do not dismiss Dupuy, I just think that his statements are irrelevant at CM's level. A difference. I also did not say you called the Waffen-SS an almighty killing machine, but you ascribe to it a blanket combat efficiency it did not possess as an organisation. Parts of it did, many others did not.

While I am no expert on the matter either, I can spot a faulty argument when I see it. And there have been a lot of these in this thread. I have a degree in Japanese studies, I lived there for two years, and I also have a good understanding of German history. So if you so wish you can trust me that there is no comparison between the Japanese army and the Waffen SS. On one point, I have yet to hear of a Waffen-SS trooper who walked out of the depths of the Schwarzwald in 1975 in uniform to finally surrender.

You have as much ownership of this board as I do. Which gives you the right to post calls for changes based on your general impression. And it gives me the right (barring a ban) to tell you that I think that your general impression is not good enough to argue for change. Whether you respect me for my attitude to this or not is irrelevant in general, although I (as every other person I am sure) generally rather like to be respected than to be reviled. The problem is not an expert/non-expert divide, but a lack of willingness of people to engage in argument and actually learn from each other.

I know that this is my opinion, and yours is obviously different in many respects regarding the evidence, but I hope not on the last point. I am as entitled to it as you are to yours. At the moment I believe mine is backed by better research/knowledge than yours. But if you bring better proof than you have done so far, I reconsider my argument. I would ideally expect others to do the same, but I realise that we don't live in a perfect world.

Whew, sorry for the long post.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Don't take Germanboy's personal comments too serious. He's a German stuck in England. That situation would bound to cause anyone to have a short fuse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn you Major Tom, rubbing salt into that open, bleeding wound again. And winning your PBEMs against me. I don't like you...

And Jim, he is right, you should maybe not take me too seriously.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Basebal351]

The problem with this topic is I believe that SOME troops of different nations behaved differently BECAUSE of their national doctrine. Some of you agree, but also say there were examples of this on all sides, and therefore it can not be coded in the game.

I agree that there are exceptions on both sides, but I can NOT further prove the point that there were certain organizations that performed more fanatically, or poorly SOLELY based on their upbringing, and the situation of their army and/or nation at the time. It's an unprovable stance to take, for whatever specific actions I bring up, you will all counter and come back and claim that was either an isolated incident, or similar things were performed by soldiers from other nations. I could say that I'd just seen a documentary on the fanaticism of Hitler Youth troops, and how some would purposefully sacrifice their lives by shooting a panzershreck up from underneath an enemy tank. But then, many of you would come back with tales of other soldiers giving up their lives, and rightly so. Because there WAS sacrifice on both sides. But overall, I haven't heard of too many US soldiers praising the President as he shoots a bazooka round into the underbelly of a Panther. But there were probably a few exceptions, I don't know.

You yourself admit that there were many Japanese die-hards. Do we say that yes, there were differences between nations, but they are too hard to quantify and leave it out of CM? That's acceptable to me, but I feel that it would be missing out on a large aspect of history, and a deciding factor in some battles.

And yes, I'm not the most well read. I haven't been alive long enough to read everything I'd like to on WW2, and history in general. But I will say this, NO GENERAL has ever said that soldiers from each nationality are the same. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Now, I don't know if that's out of national pride, or a bias, but there are still recorded statements discussing the different behaviors of soldiers of different nationalities.

You can respond to this if you'd like, but I think the issue is dead. Like it or not, the current morale and experience system isn't the best it could be. And if BTS finds their own ways of improving it, you can expect there to be changes.

Thanks,

Jim

[Mark IV]

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

Do we say that yes, there were differences between nations, but they are too hard to quantify and leave it out of CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't. It's in the scenario editor.

Your retort (after the first few times this was pointed out to you) was "I'll send you my copy of the game, and you can personally adjust all of the scenarios and PBEMs I currently have going."

All? Sorry, but it does seem you are given to generalizations...

The average German soldier was no more likely to pull the stunt with the bazooka than you or I. The much smaller percent of German soldiers in scenarios who were SS (dunno know about your PBEMs) weren't much more likely to have done so.

A lot of fanaticism attributed to the SS came from actions on the Eastern front- where surrender equalled certain death and possibly torture. Compare to American soldiers, who in the Civil War would surrender when the situation was hopeless, but who would fight to the last cartridge and beyond against Indians, for the same reason. Same guys, different situations.

The same might be said for WWII Amis fighting in Europe vs. the PTO. Or any other group. What "national doctrine" modifier would account for units of the 28th ID reacting so differently in the Huertgen battles (some collapsing completely after a few rounds of artillery, others fighting with Homeric fortitude)?

Anyway, it sounds like what you really want (based on your quote above) is a Fanaticism setting for Quick Battles. That would certainly be easier to implement, though you may have trouble finding opponents.

[Guest Madmatt]

Basebal 531 said:I could say that I'd just seen a documentary on the fanaticism of Hitler Youth troops, and how some would purposefully sacrifice their lives by shooting a panzershreck up from underneath an enemy tank. But then, many of you would come back with tales of other soldiers giving up their lives, and rightly so. Because there WAS sacrifice on both sides. But overall, I haven't heard of too many US soldiers praising the President as he shoots a bazooka round into the underbelly of a Panther. But there were probably a few exceptions, I don't know.

"

Great show by the way just watched it myself. I don't think the origin of personal motivation is really relevant at the scale of Combat Mission. Sure that young kid let a tank run over him to ensure the kill and the last worlds to leave his lips was Heil Hitler. But I am sure there were Russians that ran through a tumult of MG-34 rounds for Mother Russia, French commandos storming an impregnable fortress for the chance to see their country throw off the yolk of occupation, a British Paratrooper refusing to budge from his position in Arnhem as ammo runs out, a US Marine storming the beaches of Tarawa or a Japanese trooper buried in the ground hitting the fuse of a artillery shell as the enemy above walked over him.

All of these actions could be considered fanatical but the individual motivations are not important to the outcome of the battle. Combat Mission is not a personality simulator, you won't be getting Dear John letters for your men. But we are aware that there were times when units on every side were bolstered by a heightened sense of morale regardless of their combat experience and for that we have the Fanaticism setting.

Whether its a fanatical dedication to a national leader, code of conduct, doctrine, way of life or Battalion CO, that isn't important at this scale. The results of that fanaticism and resultant behavior is.

As a scenario designer, if you want your German (or any force) units to be fanatical then you can make that selection. The designers of the included battles used these settings at various levels (Spoiler: for example Valley of Trouble Axis units have a 25% chance of being Fanatical!) and I again say that the power to model what you want is there. You just need to use the tools that we have given you.

Thanks!

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 10-29-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Precisely Matt. Hitler Jungen fanatisism? What then do we call Audie Murphy? And there are many more examples on all sides. The human factor does some pretty unbelievable things in the heat of battle. That's what all them medals are for.

One thing though. I know this must just be my imagination, but has anyone noticed that the SS troops lack a certain, I dunno, staying power? It just seems to me that I do far better using regular Heer troops than the SS. Maybe it's something Freudian, but I swear my Heer infantry have hunkered down through heavy artillery fire, taken pretty bad casualites and still come out ready for a fight. Infact, my Heer Rifle Platoons seem much more sturdy than the Panzergrenadiers. While the SS troops seem to lack the same sort of stamina or something. Anyhow, just my experience so far. (It ain't over till the fat lady with CM2 sings).

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf")

Bruno Weiss

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 10-29-2000).]

[brucer]

I think we can agree on two things:

1) The psychological model in CM is a simplified one, with basically 6 available outcomes (expressed as troop quality levels) of the small group dynamic in close battle conditions(I mean, come on, even astrology has 12).

2) BTS has, perhaps wisely, chosen to leave decisions about troop quality, which are admittedly difficult to quantify, up to the players.

Now, in everything else that has been left up to us (skins, sky art, scenario design) there has been massive player output. But to my knowledge no one has put together any significant resource relating to troop quality. And when the question was brought up here, the first responses were along the lines of "stay away, that smacks of racism."

Is it too crazy to suggest, as admit I've been doing, that that is because we live in a relativist age? That we are no longer comfortable with talking about national or cultural differences in warfighting is intriguing more for what it says about us than anything else.

The irony is that in just about any other place, in any other time in history, such statements as "German soldiers are better than Americans," would be seen as a perfectly debatable statement. It's guided the decisions of the military, and those who have written about them, at least as far back as Herodotus. Presumably, his conclusion that Persian cavalry was superior to Greek, as a for instance, was equally a delusion of a more ignorant time. Humans throughout time and space were wrong. But we, in this time and culture, are right when we say that people are all the same, everywhere.

That is, of course, the paradox of relativism... it calls us to question all absolutes, except the absolute of relativism itself.

BruceR

[brucer]

Writes Mark IV:

"What "national doctrine" modifier would account for units of the 28th ID reacting so differently in the Huertgen battles (some collapsing completely after a few rounds of artillery, others fighting with Homeric fortitude)?"

We all apply our own mental modifiers to explain such historical results... we just disagree on the size of the group that allows for acceptable generalization. If we did not believe that "this is (was) a crack battalion" is in some cases accurate, we would have to assign the troop qualities of our soldiers in CM battles entirely randomly (and real-life generals would be praised for committing "good" and "bad" units in equal measure, because these generalizations are so obviously false in the real world, as well).

But if we can generalize about 1,000 people, why not 20,000? The 28th ID was a low quality division; the 1st ID was a high quality one... valid? And if we can generalize about 20,000 people, why not generalize about the Free Polish (only two divisons in theatre) or Canadians (three) or Texans, or Holsteiners, or Lowland Scots in CM? Not to say, "all this country's units are Green," but saying "these units here tend to be higher on the quality scale, and these units here tend to be lower."

The trouble for a scenario designer is you want to avoid the circular argument of, "they won that battle, therefore they must have been good troops." Battles are only fought the once: we cannot rely on their real-life outcome to decide this aspect of our design if we want to allow a spectrum of possible outcomes. That means you must look to another historical source(s), saying this unit was good, this unit was not-as-good.

To say that means that, on some level, you're going to generalize. Assuming we don't want to make troop quality completely random, and take it out of the CM equation altogether, we're really just debating at which level you can safely do so.

BruceR

[brucer]

Writes Mark IV:

"Compare to American soldiers, who in the Civil War would surrender when the situation was hopeless, but who would fight to the last cartridge and beyond against Indians, for the same reason"

Actually, native accounts of the Little Bighorn indicated a lot of cavalrymen in that hopeless situation effectively gave up and more-or-less waited to be killed. Ditto the Americans at the Alamo... but that's neither here nor there.

A more interesting Civil War analogy to contemplate is the South vs. the North. Historians have drawn a link between the much higher percentage of gun ownership in the 1850s in the southern states, and their early war performance, which man-for-man certainly seemed superior to their otherwise equally untrained Northern opponents. Many have concluded Southerners as a whole regarded and handled war differently, largely due to subtle but ingrained differences in their society and culture. (ie., McWhiney et al., Attack and Die)

BruceR

PS: Isn't it interesting that within one post of each other, we had the statements, both from erstwhile opponents of national characteristics, that "Placing a generic fanaticism level for all of the Japanese would be un-historic" and "I have yet to hear of a Waffen-SS trooper who walked out of the depths of the Schwarzwald in 1975 in uniform to finally surrender?" Seems the jury's still out on giving special characteristics to at least one nation...

[Guest Madmatt]

brucer said:

1) The psychological model in CM is a simplified one, with basically 6 available outcomes (expressed as troop quality levels) of the small group dynamic in close battle conditions(I mean, come on, even astrology has 12).

********************

No, you are saying that not I.

I am saying that by utilizing the 6 levels of experience, the 5 levels of Suppression and the 4 levels of Fatigue, and the ratios of Fanaticism, you as a designer, can pretty accurately simulate any type of inherent advantages or disadvantage you want to give to any unit in the game. That's 120 separate variables/states of mind that any unit can start off with and that's without factoring in Fanaticism. Lets not forget the other advantages you can give to units and teams by modifying the 4 bonuses (with three levels each) available to a HQ unit (Stealth, Morale, Firepower, Command).

I don't find this model simplistic at all but rather pretty comprehensive. The only simplicity in it is in the ease to change these variables by utilizing the editor.

in regards to the North South issue, I would venture to say that is was the differences in experience in the Souths officer corps at the beginning of hostilities that contributed the most to their early victories than to superior individual marksmanship gained by a greater familariety with muskets. There is a world of difference between hunting coons and standing in ranks firing punishing volleys. I know, I have done both...

Have a look at the tactics employed by the North and South in the early campaigns and you will see that the North was just out led time and time again on the battlefield.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 10-30-2000).]

[brucer]

Writes MadMatt:

"...the 5 levels of Suppression and the 4 levels of Fatigue..."

Funny, I would have thought those reflected a unit's suppression and fatigue, not its quality... given that they have to reflect two other whole complete sets of complex variables, it seems almost inappropriate to use them as a stand-in for troop quality variations as well.

And re fanaticism percentage: so that's equivalent to another game's morale, to your mind, is it? And the quality factor equivalent to training/experience? Just trying to clarify what you're saying.

Re the South: McWhiney's was in part a numerical analysis, which showed a predilection for the tactical offensive, even when not dictated by operational imperatives, that crossed all theatres of war and all levels of command, irrespective of leadership effects.

I should make clear that the connection with gun ownership is correlative rather than causal, that the average Southerner, who lived in a semi-rural setting with the perpetual possibility of slave revolt (at least in their own minds), was both much more likely to be familiar with weapons -- and in some analyses, more likely to have been involved some kind of prewar militia-related or other martial activity, and possibly less averse to the settlement of disputes through duelling or other violence than his more pacific Northern counterpart. A modern comparator might be the 1948-1956 Israeli.

BruceR

[Hamstersss]

Thank goodness the debate moved back to the ACW so I can add something:

The major military academies were in the South before the war, most of the best officers were Southern, many of the best Northern officers were Southern, of Southern descent or very much steeped in Southern culture. Being agrarian, Southern soldiers were better marksmen but this proved next to useless in battle compared to tactical doctrine introduced and drilled into Northern soldiers. Northern soldiers at Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor demonstrated an unbelievable bravery (Or fanaticism, if you will) that was the result of doctrine, not any kind a national spirit. The only place where an acknowledged difference existed between the two sides was in the quality of the cavalry, as Southerners were better cavalrymen throughout the war due to the difficulty in training a soldier to be an equestrian.

Southern success was not a matter of national spirit, rather it was a matter of strategic and tactical success combined with luck. There can be an argument made for an increase in unit quality based on successive victories, as Jackson, Lee and Forrest theorized (This being one of Jackson's three main tenants along with concentration of firepower and effective mobility as well as, arguably, the strategic extrapolation of Forrest's tactical doctrine of "Keeping the skeer on" or continuing action against an enemy after achieving immediate success so as to capitalize on the enemy's demoralization) but I do not think the ACW can demonstrate any kind of "National Quality" inherent to one soldier or another.

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

I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve.

-Meeks

You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve.

-Chrisl

[Guest Madmatt]

Brucer said:

Funny, I would have thought those reflected a unit's suppression and fatigue, not its quality... given that they have to reflect two other whole complete sets of complex variables, it seems almost inappropriate to use them as a stand-in for troop quality variations as well. "

And thats what I am talking about, you don't seem to see how those variables can be used to model various behavaior of a given unit and that is your fault, not the fault of the game.

If I make a unit Elite, it will be tough, quick to follow orders, and very hard to render combat in-effective. If I however modify the units starting Fatigue as well to say Weary, they be slower to mobolize and carry out orders but still a potent force when put to the task.

Each characteristic is an indication of a units overall quality. And remember, due to the nature of Combat Mission we are only concerned with a units quality for the duration of a fire fight not it's entire life span as an operational unit.

All of those factors reflect a units combat efficiancy. Experience makes them better at combat, able to follow orders with less of a delay and have heightened awareness. Fatigue represents a units current physical capability. Are they tired (from sprinting or from prolonged lack of sleep), fully rested or any of the varients in between. And Suppression represents there current mental state of health. Are they on the edge of panic or unaffetced by past events.

A good designer will take all these values and learn to balance them to get the results they want. For a great example have a look at Moons incredible Bucholtz Station scenario to see how he modeled the complete surprise inflicted upon the Defending US elements of the 394 Inf. Division when their breakfast was interupted by the sudden appearance of German units. Moon, has started the majority of US forces split into teams and then placed the unit HQ's at a distance to make most units out of command radius. The result is a rather large force of American infantry that is put at a severe disadvantage from the start, just like what occured historically when thier breakfast was interupted by German Fuisillers. Moon did this using the tools at his disposal in the editor.

You can model any situation but you need to learn to use the tools that we have given you. We have said again and again that Combat Mission forces you to unlearn what you may have known. The same applies to using the editor to its fullest extent.

Stop thinking in such absolute numerical terms and start thinking about what those different values actually represent. The more you learn to FEEL your way in the game and editor the closer you will come to mastering the whole system.

Madmatt

[Guest Madmatt]

brucR said:

"I should make clear that the connection with gun ownership is correlative rather than causal, that the average Southerner, who lived in a semi-rural setting with the perpetual possibility of slave revolt (at least in their own minds), was both much more likely to be familiar with weapons -- and in some analyses, more likely to have been involved some kind of prewar militia-related or other martial activity, and possibly less averse to the settlement of disputes through duelling or other violence than his more pacific Northern counterpart. A modern comparator might be the 1948-1956 Israeli."

I don't think anything that rural southern life in the 19th century, regardless of an individuals lack of aversion to violence or familiarity with long rifles, could prepare them for the utter horror of carnage of the scale of Civil War engagements. You can have all the backwoods training in the world and it won't mean squat when a 58 caliber minie ball rips through your buddies face right next to you.

Those factors that you cite would be more advantageous to a Southern sharpshooter or

perhaps when a unit was in skirmish then the normal rank and file battles that were common place in the first years of the war.

As Elijah said the Souths pool of officers were by and large more experienced than there counterparts in the North, many having fought in the Mexican American War as well as the containing the lions share of graduates from VMI, and West Point.

Also it is safe to say that states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and Illinois (based on population and rural area) had just as many soldiers that had roots in either militia style organizations or enough backwoods experiences to be just as proficient as their Southern brethren.

Leadership seems to have had the biggest effect on the outcome of battles. A good leader could rally his men more quickly and better exploit hesitancy in his foe whether or not some of his troops were particularly good shots. The Union was plagued with some of worst commanders to ever lead troops in the first years of the war (and in even up to the end at the Division and Corp level) and their ineptitude, stubbornness, and failure to adapt were the primary causes of their loses at battlefields such as Port Republic, Cedar Mountain and Fredericksburg among others.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Is it too crazy to suggest, as admit I've been doing, that that is because we live in a relativist age? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is. I would venture to suggest it is because we now have a better understanding than to just generalise all the time, and we live in a more educated age. Absolutes are acceptable until the debate moves to a level where we are now, and where real-life data input is called for. The data that is available does not bear out your generalisations, but instead points us to other factors explaining the observed behaviour. E.g. 12th SS held up against the Commonwealth in Normandy for a long time. 89th ID was put in the line and crumbled, being attacked by the same Commonwealth troops. So some would argue that this can be taken as proof that 12th SS was a better unit than 89th ID. But, the latter was exposed to new tactics (use of Kangaroos, night-attack) and it will never be known what would have happened to 12th SS in the same circumstances. These are just a few factors, there are many others. Not accepting a generalisation here is just common sense, and not an aversion to absolutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS: Isn't it interesting that within one post of each other, we had the statements, both from erstwhile opponents of national characteristics, that "Placing a generic fanaticism level for all of the Japanese would be un-historic" and "I have yet to hear of a Waffen-SS trooper who walked out of the depths of the Schwarzwald in 1975 in uniform to finally surrender?" Seems the jury's still out on giving special characteristics to at least one nation... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not particularly. I was making the point that some Japanese were about as crazy as a tree full of rats, and that I have not heard of any Waffen-SS troopers who were at that level of madness. To elaborate on this, I believe that the educational, social and historical system of Japan pre-WW II made it more likely to encounter this behaviour. As there were certain traits in Germany's or the Us's social systems that made it more likely to encounter specific behaviours. The problem is how you quantify these, and I would argue that you can not, because it would create at least as many problems as it solves.

In the specific case, I would not argue that this was an automatic effect affecting all Japanese troops, therefore a general modifier is misplaced unless handled very carefully and very well thought out. Just giving a +1 or never surrenders or whatever is probably quite inappropriate. So at the moment I think you can do that within the game. Any general modifier takes away choice, is most likely wrong, and therefore I would be against it.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

BruceR -

My point of view has nothing to do with relativism, positivism, Zoroastrianism or just about any other 'ism' you'd care to name. My point of view comes from a desire to not see an incredibly complex subject turned into an accountant's spreadsheet.

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

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

[Mark IV]

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

We all apply our own mental modifiers to explain such historical results... we just disagree on the size of the group that allows for acceptable generalization... But if we can generalize about 1,000 people, why not 20,000?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CM you only need to generalize about 30 people, at a certain hour on a specific day.

And if we can generalize about 20,000 people, why not generalize about the Free Polish (only two divisons in theatre) or Canadians (three) or Texans, or Holsteiners, or Lowland Scots in CM? Not to say, "all this country's units are Green," but saying "these units here tend to be higher on the quality scale, and these units here tend to be lower."

Because generalizing about 40,000+ people regarding something as nebulous as "quality" is pointless? Because CM doesn't model divisions? Because within a division there are always good-better-best units, in different areas of proficiency (a team that is in the best physical condition is not necessarily the best at tank gunnery)?

Assuming we don't want to make troop quality completely random, and take it out of the CM equation altogether, we're really just debating at which level you can safely do so.

You can do it to the platoon (maybe even squad) level already. It still sounds like what is really sought is a further tweak for Quick Battles, so "national characteristics" is still painting with too broad a brush.

Actually, native accounts of the Little Bighorn indicated a lot of cavalrymen in that hopeless situation effectively gave up and more-or-less waited to be killed.

I have a fair amount of literature on LBH and would be interested in a source for that. I was thinking more of the Indian Wars in the Great Lakes area at the time that I wrote, but I believe it would apply across the board. Is it your feeling that white soldiers surrendered as readily to Indians as they did to one another in the ACW? Before we digress too far, the point is that the same group of soldiers will behave differently in different situations, depending on the situation.

Some cultures are sufficiently alien to the European experience that modeling them would require some new factors- both the Japanese and the American Indians might be examples. Of course neither appear in CMBO, and the tweak for Japanese might be as simple as allowing a Fanaticism setting of 85%. Remember that could be applied to Green or Regular troops, so they wouldn't be Uberjaps, just crazy bastards.

I wonder how the experts would have rated the Japanese national characteristics in 1904, just before they drove Russia out of Korea and Manchuria? I believe the conventional wisdom was that they were "little monkeys" who would collapse completely before disciplined white troops.

Of course, the British and Americans disregarded that and subsequent successes because, of course, the national characteristics of the Russian troops were inferior. Their own troops would never break before non-white doll-sized invaders, because of their inherent superiority. This made the loss of Malaya to inferior numbers of Japanese troops really hard to take, not to mention the Philippines and the rest of the South Pacific.

Historians have drawn a link between the much higher percentage of gun ownership in the 1850s in the southern states, and their early war performance, which man-for-man certainly seemed superior to their otherwise equally untrained Northern opponents. Many have concluded Southerners as a whole regarded and handled war differently, largely due to subtle but ingrained differences in their society and culture.

By this standard, the "national modifier" for Americans must be enormous. All American squads would be +xx over all SS units (and every other European unit, except maybe those of the Balkans) as we have always led the world, by a lot, in private ownership of firearms. Then the "emphasis on parade-ground drill" and "school-room indoctrination" modifiers would have to be offset by the "entrepreneurial spirit" and "no class distinctions between officers and enlisted" modifiers. See how slippery the slope?

And all this just to avoid using the scenario editor's existing ability to model quality, condition, and fanaticism to platoon/squad level for a specific clash?

Meeks: On the subject of generalizations, I gotta say that the Union fielded some outstanding cavalry by the end of the war (granted they often fought as mounted infantry). Who dispatched JEB Stuart, the Reb cav legend? Why, the 1st Michigan Cavalry at Yellow Tavern, led by the Yankee cavalry legend... George Custer.

[Maj. Bosco]

I would say three things affect a units effectiveness in a battle such as combat mission simulates: Training, Equipment, Leadership.

Training (both on and off the battlefield) is covered under experience. I can understand if you think there should be more experience levels, though I would disagree.

Equipment is simulated faithfully by the historical TO&E's. The FP ratings are IMO fairly accurate.

Leadership is you. 'Nough said there.

If you think that balanced battles where both forces enter with roughly the same strength and hope for victory are unrealistic and therefore unplayable then use the scenario editor and enjoy killing the AI because that's the only oponent you'll ever have.

If you think that a certain country's troops should be better or worse based on some type of national spirit (volk) or that the people of a certain country are inherently better soldiers than those of another then you have a problem. I'd actually recomend studying the history of WWII to adress this problem.

[edited for spelling]

[This message has been edited by Maj. Bosco (edited 10-30-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

Chumpacrapra said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yeah, but Punky Brewster would kick some ass<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mmmm...Soleil Moon Frye...

DjB

[brucer]

Writes Mark IV:

"All American squads would be +xx over all SS units (and every other European unit, except maybe those of the Balkans) as we have always led the world, by a lot, in private ownership of firearms."

Actually, current research shows that the majority of American communities were almost completely disarmed, with gun ownership rates comparable to those of Europe in the first half of the 19th century... with the significant exceptions of the slave states and the very edge of the western frontier. The roots of the American "pro-gun mentality" have more to do with slave ownership than Charlton and friends like to admit. Check out Michael Bellesisles' "Arming America."

Re the Little Bighorn, it's been awhile, but I seem to remember the Red Horse account refers to many refused offers of surrender, and the Wooden Leg and Kate Bighead accounts refer to soldiers shooting themselves and each other. I'd have to hit the books again on that one, though. But no, I agree, surrender to Indians in the Plains Wars was, generally, suicide: what Richard Holmes and others have questioned is whether the awareness of a no-quarter policy by one's enemy actually improves one's fighting ability in most cases, or just accelerates the process of combat breakdown. Faced with no easy out, do you fight harder, or fall apart faster? There's evidence soldiers can go either way: see Grossman's thoughts on the SS in "On Killing" for a possible psychological explanation why.

Re: "the tweak for Japanese might be as simple as allowing a Fanaticism setting of 85%". Agreed... it could be very simple. But if 85 for the Japanese, why not 45 for the Finns? Or 25 for the SS? Or 5 for residents of Omaha (I don't know, I just made that up)? If we conclude one group of soldiers was culturally distinct enough to fight differently from all the rest, than there's no reason not to extend that, to a varying and lesser degree mind you, to any other group of soldiers.

Finally, re: "I wonder how the experts would have rated the Japanese national characteristics in 1904, just before they drove Russia out of Korea and Manchuria?"

No one who saw them in 1905 had an excuse for underestimating them later, though. A country's first appearance on the world stage is always going to be something of an unknown quantity. I don't discount the pernicious influence of racism in subsequent British and American views of the Japanese at all.

However, I'd suggest that historically, it's generally riskier to assume other nations' armies think and act and fight the same as you, rather than trying to analyse their true nature. If MacNamara et al hadn't seen the Vietnamese as as vulnerable to aerial bombing as Western countries, for instance, the Vietnam War might have been considerably different. In 1812, the Americans thought all the Canadians were like them and would desert to their side... in 1944 the Americans were surprised by the kamikazes... the French were baffled by Spanish nationalism in 1808, and so on and so on.

BruceR