Experience, Motivation and Leadership KG Peiper

[theforger]

I wondered if the CMFB community could offer any insight or thoughts into the soft factors of the forces involved?

A quick reminder from the Manual

• Regular: professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience.

Also @Josey Wales 

wrote a brilliant piece on The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue
 

So far into my campaign build I have 40x or so German platoons, excluding Fallshirmjager, from the KG involved in various scenarios and ranked them as follows

10x Crack, 10x Veteran and 20x Regular, experience

12x Extreme, 28x with High motivation

7x with a +1 and 23x with +2 Leadership modifier

The Fallshirmjager of the 9th Regiment a mix of Green, Regular, Veteran with High motivation 0 and -1 Leadership. Who doesn't go for plan B after trying to charge uphill against dug in machine guns and then repeats, come to think of it who'd see it as a good plan A. May downgrade to -2 Leadership. 

The Fallshirmjager of the z.b.V, Crack, Extreme motivation and +2 Leadership

On the Ami side

Where units of the 394th Regt/99th Infantry Division made a stand, e.g. Lanzerath the I&R Platoon, and the M platoon on the morning of the 16th at Buchholz, I've classified as Regular, High motivation and +2 Leadership.

Realise M Platoon was brushed aside by the KG in the early hours of the 17th, but they had done a solid job the previous day. 

Other units of the 99th Division in the rest areas of Honsfeld for example, Regular, Low motivation and 0.

Where Ami reserve units made tactical errors, for example initially at Stavelot, Regular, Normal, -1.

117th and 119th Infantry Regiments of the 30th Division, Veteran, Normal,+1 

 

Any additional insight or opinion is welcomed.

 

 

[Ts4EVER]

You mean you are making a campaign?

Generally for late war German units, I would rank the experience and maybe also the motivation of the infantry (in this case the Panzergrenadiers) significantly lower. Especially the first SS was known for filling the ranks of its infantry, which tend to have high turnover, with unreliable elements such as "Volksdeutsche".

[Bulletpoint]

I think it's a mistake to conflate overall tactical errors with low leadership values. Because the tactical errors were made by higher-ups, while the leadership modifier only affects the leadership of the actual squad - their squad leaders. These might well have been competent (or not), but carrying out bad orders.

In fact, you might just as well argue that those troops who made two frontal assaults against dug-in machine guns probably had good (or at least effective) unit leaders, in order to make the men do that.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[ASL Veteran]

Ultimately any designer has to make personal choices about the soft factors that he assigns to the units and those soft factors may / should be influenced by how the scenario or campaign plays out during testing.  However, Ts4ever and Bulletpoint bring up some excellent points to consider.  I will generally start with a sort of baseline from what I know about the units involved and modify to match that.  I do follow a couple of general guidelines though.  Because of high turnover I have adopted a policy of almost never assigning any experience level higher than veteran.  The only exception that I will make is with small units such as tank crews, HQ units, snipers, and various teams if the situation is warranted.  These units are small enough that they could develop a level of cohesion and continuity that would be consistent with how I view the various soft factors.  A full strength rifle squad would simply be too large a unit and subject to such turnover that assigning anything higher than 'veteran' seems unlikely to happen even in what might be considered 'elite' units (which aren't always as 'elite' as some might think).  I never paid too much attention to command values until, during the course of creating one scenario with late war German units, I found that the German conscript and green troops armed with lots of automatic weapons would simply cause US squads to rapidly melt if I didn't adjust the command rating down from +2 to either +1 or 0.  The firepower effectiveness of the command value is fairly dramatic when combined with an abundance of automatic weapons.  For the HQ units a higher experience can be justified in some cases because, for example in the Soviet army, apparently tank unit commanders would hand pick their own crews and unless the tank was damaged or destroyed those crewmembers would stay together for as long as the commander retained his position.  So you could theoretically see a big experience disparity in a Soviet tank platoon for example - you might see a Veteran platoon commander with a good modifier but the individual tanks in the platoon could be rated as green or even conscript in some cases given the level of training common during certain time frames.

How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements (or even Ukrainian 'Booty' solders)?  How much weight do you give the squad leader in that situation and how much weight do you place on the replacements?  If a unit hasn't had any replacements for a while then you might be able to justify a rating higher than veteran, but only in situations where perhaps a battalion has been in continuous combat and had been reduced to 100 men or something like that.  In that instance the continuity could justify a higher experience rating, but then the morale factor comes into play.  How motivated are those survivors to keep on fighting?

Ultimately you have to just take a stab at it and see how it plays out during playtesting.  How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.  I suppose that if you just made a blanket setting for all of a certain side's troops to be 'Elite' then some gamers would look at that as odd or maybe off a bit, but short of doing something dramatic like that you should probably just do what's best to have the scenario or campaign play out the way you intend it to play out.     

[Combatintman]

What @ASL Veteransaid.

[George MC]

What @ASL Veteran said.

[Vacillator]

3 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

How the campaign plays out is ultimately more important than some notion of 'historical accuracy' because the reality is that there probably isn't any sort of solid guide to what is accurate or not accurate.

Totally agree.  Historical accuracy is generally tinged by propaganda and a touch of 'who wins writes the history'.  Coupled with the random effect 'that it could have gone either way' it makes the game experience likely to be different to what may or may not have actually happened.  That shouldn't make the game feel any less historical in my opinion. 

Great examples are @George MC's CMBN Wittmann scenarios.  Playing Wittmann's Demise with some good luck (and of course skill ) I got an overwhelming SS victory - totally un-historical but a fantastic game.  I'm currently playing the Villlers Bocage scenario and this is also going well, although I'm not playing like Wittmann did in real life, so not historical but also a great game (so far).

[theforger]

Appreciate the great responses, every post really useful advice.

Will take all on board and see how testing pans out.

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

How would you rate a squad that had a veteran core of a solid squad leader, maybe two or three long term veteran squad members, and five new green replacements

Here is a thing not many people know about Combat Mission: The individual soldiers each have their own soft factors. So when you set a squad to regular quality, you will in fact get a mix of veterans, regulars, and greens. But on average, they will be regular. So as for your question, I'd set this squad to regular.

[Bozowans]

I did not know the command rating affected the firepower of a squad. What does that mean exactly? Does it make their fire more accurate? I thought the command rating just affected how easily a unit gets pinned or how fast the suppression meter gets filled up or goes back down or whatever.

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, Bozowans said:

I did not know the command rating affected the firepower of a squad. What does that mean exactly? Does it make their fire more accurate? I thought the command rating just affected how easily a unit gets pinned or how fast the suppression meter gets filled up or goes back down or whatever.

In Josey Wales' testing, he didn't see any direct correlation between Leadership rating and firepower output.

Firefights being what they are, there will be an indirect correlation - if your guys are spending less time cowering, they'll be putting out more fire over time. Higher leadership squads will therefore put out more effective firepower, even if there is no direct effect.

The same applies to the leadership of an HQ element - the Leadership rating of the HQ doesn't appear to have an effect on the platoon as a whole, but being in C2 does. Cowering will break C2, so a well-led platoon HQ will stay in contact with the rest of their platoon more often, which means the platoon will recover from suppression faster on average, meaning that they'll put out more firepower on the whole.

[Ts4EVER]

To get back to German morale and effectiveness for a moment, I recently read a study about the Großdeutschland division, one of the most prestigious German elite formations. One commander quoted in the book said that by 1943 "The infantry was only held in its fox holes by the assault guns."

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

...when you set a squad to regular quality, you will in fact get a mix of veterans, regulars, and greens...

Important to know.

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, domfluff said:

Cowering will break C2, so a well-led platoon HQ will stay in contact with the rest of their platoon more often, which means the platoon will recover from suppression faster on average, meaning that they'll put out more firepower on the whole.

...but then again, cowering more means staying alive longer, which is also a good thing for C2

[Zveroboy1]

It is a bit odd how after all these years we still don't know for sure what the leadership bonus does. I see the claim that it boosts fire accuracy regularly on the forum and I kinda wish it was true but I am not sure this is the case.

Maybe it is because of the way it worked in CM1 where you had several different bonuses : accuracy, camouflage & concealment, morale and commandment which gave a larger command radius. Perhaps the whole thing was a bit gamey but I thought it was neat. You had to decide which HQ to assign to what role/position.

[IICptMillerII]

Could have swore I saw someone post the link to this, but I just checked and didn't see it. So, here it is, the link to Josey's excellent breakdown. 

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-relationship-between-soft-factors-morale-fatigue.26498/

4 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

It is a bit odd how after all these years we still don't know for sure what the leadership bonus does. I see the claim that it boosts fire accuracy regularly on the forum and I kinda wish it was true but I am not sure this is the case.

My understanding, which in part comes from Josey's findings, indicate that a well led unit generally reacts better to things like suppression. They will still suffer permanent morale damage (say, most of the squad is wiped out and their platoon is shredded) but they retain more combat effectiveness after being suppressed or suffering from another significant emotional event. 

From Josey's write-up:

Quote

Being within a close C2 link (Close Visual/Voice) does provide resistance to the impact on Morale caused by Combat Shock - troops within C2 range of their HQ unit are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale as they are less stressed by being shot at and the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded is reduced.

Leadership has 3 characteristics which effect unit behaviour under duress;

1. Resistance to Combat Stress - better led troops are less affected by the psychological impact of losing team/squadmates.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Motivation.

2. Resistance to Combat Shock - well led troops are less affected by the temporary impact of suppression upon Morale. The NCO's are better at encouraging the troops under fire and getting them to remember their training when faced with the immediate impact of seeing team/squadmates killed & wounded.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience and Motivation.

3. Suppression Recovery - well led troops recover quicker from being suppressed (including being Pinned), they realise when the incoming fire has shifted away from them sooner than poorly led troops do.

This characteristic is cumulative with Experience.

 

[Zveroboy1]

Oh yeah I have seen this before, it is a really good read; this part is well understood now thanks to his tests. A lot of it not exactly intuitive and not what you'd necessarily expect, especially the part with the leadership bonus of the HQ only applying to the HQ alone, not the subordinate units under its command if I recall correctly. But I meant more about the supposed accuracy bonus. It crops up on the forums regularly.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

I see the claim that it boosts fire accuracy regularly on the forum and I kinda wish it was true but I am not sure this is the case.

I also think good leadership should mean better spotting at long range, since it's the squad leader who has the binoculars.

[ASL Veteran]

I personally don't know exactly what the leadership bonus does with regard to firepower.  All I know is that when making Custer's Stand I had a platoon of German Volksgrenadiers encountering a platoon of American infantry in the town (the south part of town if you are curious - the Americans were on the south objective).  When the German platoon leader's leadership bonus was +2 the American squads were absolutely wiped out (they were in modular buildings for cover).  It was so ridiculous that I felt the need to adjust something because if I left it as is the Americans would just get annihilated.  The first thing I tried was to reduce the platoon leader's modifier from +2 to +1 and that made the firefights play out a lot more fairly.  The Americans could go toe to toe with the German squads for an extended period of time - which was what I wanted.  Before I made the modification the Americans were broken and sobbing literally in just a few minutes - like literally in two or three minutes the entire American platoon was dead, wounded, and running for their lives.  The Germans immediately gained fire superiority with their Assault Rifles and LMGs and maintained fire superiority throughout.  What the exact effect was I can't tell you, but the effect was real and it affected scenario balance so take it for what it's worth.  It was the only time I ever noticed anything different with leadership modifiers in all the time I've been making scenarios so maybe it was some sort of a perfect storm of soft factors.  

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Josey's excellent breakdown. 

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-relationship-between-soft-factors-morale-fatigue.26498/

Very useful.  Been playing versions of CM for 20 years and one forgets so much.  Thanks...

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I personally don't know exactly what the leadership bonus does with regard to firepower.  All I know is that when making Custer's Stand I had a platoon of German Volksgrenadiers encountering a platoon of American infantry in the town (the south part of town if you are curious - the Americans were on the south objective).  When the German platoon leader's leadership bonus was +2 the American squads were absolutely wiped out (they were in modular buildings for cover).  It was so ridiculous that I felt the need to adjust something because if I left it as is the Americans would just get annihilated.  The first thing I tried was to reduce the platoon leader's modifier from +2 to +1 and that made the firefights play out a lot more fairly.  The Americans could go toe to toe with the German squads for an extended period of time - which was what I wanted.  Before I made the modification the Americans were broken and sobbing literally in just a few minutes - like literally in two or three minutes the entire American platoon was dead, wounded, and running for their lives.  The Germans immediately gained fire superiority with their Assault Rifles and LMGs and maintained fire superiority throughout.  What the exact effect was I can't tell you, but the effect was real and it affected scenario balance so take it for what it's worth.  It was the only time I ever noticed anything different with leadership modifiers in all the time I've been making scenarios so maybe it was some sort of a perfect storm of soft factors.  

Which reinforces the point for the OP in relation to scenario/campaign design - for those who don't seem to have an editor button in their game, there is no need to over analyse it.

[Sgt Joch]

The leadership bonus is supposed to affect firepower. I do recall reading that in one of the early manuals for SF1 or maybe CMBN?. In terms of what it does, my understanding is that it gets more men shooting in the right direction and at the right targets, which will of course increase how much damage they inflict.

edit: found it, under the heading  "Leaders" in your game manual: "Leaders...direct fire to be more effective". (ref: Game Engine Manual v 4.00, p. 68)

Edited September 10, 2020 by Sgt Joch

[domfluff]

Yup, the manual does say that. To my knowledge this has not yet been demonstrated in any tests. This doesn't mean there is no effect (and indeed, there will definitely be an indirect effect, as maintaining C2 will reduce suppression).

[Zveroboy1]

Assuming it does affect accuracy, how does it work exactly?

Especially for HQs. Are units with a C2 link to a HQ with a +1 leadership going to shoot more accurately? What if the HQ has a negative leadership, is this going to mean the units under his command are going to be worse off that if they were out of communication range? Or does it affect only the HQ itself?

Logically it should be the latter otherwise it would be a bit daft. I kinda want it to work like in ASL but it probably doesn't and it must be on a per unit basis like in Josey Wales' test for suppression.

 

[domfluff]

So, firmly speculating:

Thematically, increased fire accuracy would be the HQ pointing out targets and coordinating fires, possibly with a laser pointer in the modern titles.

That means, if there is an effect, I'd expect any platoon-level bonus to only be seen with an active C2 link. Further, I'd expect this to probably be a flat bonus, as suppression seems to be, rather than something related to the leadership values of the platoon leader.

That means that the main effect would be per-unit, I expect. A real test of this is probably to create units with only small arms (perhaps something like the straggler platoons in CMFB), with set values and varying leadership, and then running the hundreds of tests needed to show this.