Moon Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 After skimming through the FAQs once more - well, you gotta work with what you got, right? - I have noticed one paragraph dealing with morale and the statement "green units might panic at the first pistol shot" (when crossing an open field). This seems to be the approach of most wargames. However, when reading about the behaviour of some green troops first time under fire I ran frequently into something like "they were green so they took greater risks because they were not aware of the consequences"... Just two of the more recent examples I found in books I have read lately: - "Band of Brothers" from Ambrose describes the storm of Easy Company, 101st Airborne against entrenched German artillery. Pvt. Lipton climbes a tree, fully visible by the Germans, and fires his Thompson down at the gun crews... he later said that he would have never done that had he been a veteran... - "The View from the Turret" - In an interview gunner Lattimer describes the landing on Omaha beach. Every round they shot was drawing anti-tank fire on them. Finally, they were shot immobile. However, his commander kept ordering fire and finally their tank was blasted to pieces. "Lattimer later reflected that he then understood why green tankers had been thrown at the German defenses on Omaha. Veteran tankers would have stopped firing after the first hit." Two examples that paint a completely different picture than what I see in most wargames where green squads are mainly cannon fodder... I do not intend to say that "green" troops were better than veterans, but just want to indicate that "green" does not HAVE to mean "useless"... I wonder what BTS and anybody here thinks about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 Yup, we've read about some pretty heroic (or stupid!) things green troops did as well. However, these are LARGELY individual actions. We can no more simulate the heroic actions of one Green soldier than we can the cowardice of a Veteran that has seen one too many shells come his way. Our Squads are 9-12 men, so we can't simulate individual stuff, rather we must make approximations. In general Green units don't do so well as, just as Veteran ones tend to do much better. However, there is always a chance that the roles might reverse, where the Green one puts up a fight and the Veteran one runs away. Hey, stuff like this happened from time to time Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 My impression is that green troops tend to go to cover and bunch up when under fire. The Germans in Normandy would take advantage of this "go to ground" tendency of green troops by setting up kill zones. When a US unit would advance, the Germans would open up at a specific known range. The US troops would go to ground and then the Germans would bring in mortar/artillery into the preregistered kill zone. Apparantly, it took some experience before green US troops realized that the Germans usually would not fire until they were in a kill zone. That they were better off moving forward or backwards rather than remain in the kill zone. Also I think of green vs veteran troops in terms of effectiveness. Veteran troops used movement and fire in a consistently more effective manner vs green troops. I suspect green troops could often be more aggressive but not necessarily more effective. Although aggressiveness is very essential in offensive actions. Many veteran troops lost their aggressiveness simply because they understood the reality of their situation better than green troops. Certain British veteran formations didn't perform aggressively in Normandy because they understood war too well. Anyway, just some thoughts. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 Although I have never been in the military, and certainly have never been shot at with a real weapon (and hope it stays that way!), I have played about 13 years of paintball. While one must be careful to draw conclusions based on "fantasy" war, there are some lessons to be learned. Take away the silly "Rambos" and you are left with a bunch of people that roughly equate to soldiers. Some have horrible instincts, others fantastic ones. Some are not so brave, some are too brave. Some have no experience, others are veterans many times over. But excepting the Rambos, NOBODY wants to get hit by 68cal paintballs flying at 300fps!! They generally hurt, and almost always take you out of the game. Therefore, the survival instincts are simulated pretty well in most cases. So here are my observations about green vs. vets based on my paintball experiences... The Green folks halt at the first sign of trouble. They sit there, trying to figure out EXACTLY what is going on and hesitate to take any sort of proactive action. Then if someone (even if it is one guy vs. ten) starts shooting at them, they all go to ground or start wasting ammo firing back at the unseen enemy. If the greens are attacking they are effectively held up for some time (or worse!). If on defense they have simply given away their positions and can be picked off one by one if need be. Both are bad, ESPECIALLY when the other side knows what the Hell it is doing. In one game I personally wiped out 10 people in less than 3 minutes, while my team mates took out the remaining 10 in a minute or two more. The end result was 100% casualties for their side, 0% for ours. How did that happen? Simple... I moved, flushed out those I didn't whack, and my covering support mowed them down as they ran away! They didn't do anything but panic and stay put, or panic and run without covering fire. The game organizers then switch around the teams some after that, simply because the losers were TOTALLY demoralized Vets move and fire in coordination with each other. Time and time again I have seen 3 vets (the ideal strike team IMHO) wipe out 2-4 times their number in seconds because of the lack of motion by the enemy. At 1-1 odds the greens are hardly even a threat. There is never enough people around to guard your flanks, so if you don't do it, and someone is moving on you, chances are you will be wiped out. If your flank is compromised beyond repair, time to go someplace else, even if that is forward! The gap between green and vets is so huge in paintball that they purposefully try to divide up the vets evenly on each side. Several times I have been switched back and forth during the day to try and balance, and rebalance, the odds. I am not superman by any stretch of the imagination, but I know that mobility is the key to survival, while most people are green and just don't get it. By the end of the day my voice is generally hoarse from yelling at my team mates to get their asses moving. And after time they do, generally getting the point, and do MUCH better the next time they play (well at least if there is some crazy nut yelling at them like a Marine Drill Sergeant, profanities and all <g>). So although paintball and rea warfare are TWO entirely different things, the psychology behind both has some similarities (Rambos excepted!). Greens tend to be like deer in headlights when presented with enemy motion and especially fire. Vets know that mobility and stealth mean life, while staying put generally means the opposite. Troops inbetween these extremes sometimes get it right and sometimes hesitate, but in general have a much higher chance of making a good showing. All of our reading of WWII combat shows this is generally how it went, and while playing CM it certainly feels correct. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 Certainly green units aren't usually as proficient as veterans, but I think its also important to remember that they tend to be a lot less predictable than veterans. Usually this means they break and run long before a veteran unit would, but on occasioni it would cause them to hold on long after the veterans would have pulled back. I understand this was especially true of the russians. One day they might run at the first sight of the enemy, the next, they'd be attack Tiger I's with satchel charges. I would prefer new units to be rated as "untried". Certainly a "green" squad with a good squad leader and decent training could end up alot better than a group of replacements thrown together right before the battle. Or they could turn out worse. You don't really know until they you see how they react in their first firefight. After that, rate them as elite, veteran, regular, conscript, whatever, with the great bulk of them being regular or conscript, but a few maybe veteran. But until they see the elephant and get a definitive rating, they might do all sorts of crazy stuff. On a side note, anyone remember that story in "Citizen Soldiers" about the new LT who was told to take a building. Misunderstanding that this was supposed to entail machinegun fire and grenades, he went and knocked on the door. A german officer answered and the lt demanded that he surrender.. which the german did, along with the rest of the plt holding the house. On the whole, a very civilized way to conduct war. Chris Rourke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 >The Green folks halt at the first sign of trouble. They sit there, trying to figure out EXACTLY what is going on and hesitate to take any sort of proactive action. I've never been in battle either, but from the accounts of those who have, the chief environmental characteristic of battle is that it is CONFUSING. That's no accident. One of the intentions of the other side is to confuse their enemies in every way possible. So it's noisy; flames and explosions all over the place; bits of high speed metal flying around; people shouting and screaming; worst of all, the sudden realization that there are people on the other side of the field who are very determined to do you great bodily harm...and they just might be very good at what they do. All that has the effect of making one want to take a break and think about whether one really wants to do this after all, even when that is not actually the wisest course to take. Even troops who have been given good training might forget it all in their first exposure to the real thing. But realistic training with all the noise helps, especially if the troops have been through it so many times that the basics are automatic and could be done in their sleep. Not a bad idea, since there is no assurance that there won't come a time when they are so exhausted that they are for all practical purposes asleep on their feet. [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 02-17-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 17, 1999 Author Share Posted February 17, 1999 The issue of mobility (or lack of it) in "green" troops" seems to be implented very well in CM by the longer reaction time of squads to the order issued by the player (so these BTS guys DO know one thing or two ) - what about the better orientation that veteran troops have over the situation? It would be cool to see the green team move over that open field (no incoming fire - yet while the veterans would actually refuse to do so... or, more generally speaking, to see green teams follow the players orders no matter how dumb they are - as long as they dont break (like bunching up), while the veterans would chose a slightly different path or action with better chances to survive... is this possible from a programming point of view and, of course, would it make any sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 A few years ago I happened to catch a program dealing with military training and the reactions of soldiers. It was the premise of this show that the vast majority of the fighting that was done in WW II (and most wars up to this point)was done by relatively few men. I believe they quoted around 15%. The others just clutched their rifles and tried to stay hidden. Several WW II veterans disagreed with this figure, but apparently there was substantial evidence supporting it. As a result of this, the marine corps (and probably the army as well) significantly changed their training regimen. The new training worked on the 'Pavlov's Dog' principle. Soldiers were drilled over and over again to perform certain maneuvers until they would do them automatically under combat conditions. The idea being to brainwash these men into becoming killing robots. With the new training, the number of soldiers who actively participated in battle rose significantly. I believe it was around 80% in Vietnam. However, the training regimen also had the unfortunate side effect of making it extremely difficult for these men to readjust to normal society (it seems there's limited job opportunities for brainwashed killing robots in the corporate world). Nothing real earth shattering, I realize. I was wondering, however, if your research agreed with these figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted February 17, 1999 Share Posted February 17, 1999 First off. hmm the new board takes a bit of getting used to but works better once the honeymoon period wears off. Now, on to the topic of Green men. I think anyone would agree that Green soldiers tend to have a greater variability of reaction to fire than veterans. They may believe the hype and suicidally attack entrenched enemies simply because they don't know better OR they may cower in their holes because they are so afraid of the unknown that is war. Green British units in Normandy performed better, on the whole, than did veteran units although they DID suffer far more casualties for their verve etc. However, I believe it that modelling the attributes to such detail is beyond the scope of CM. I would LIKE to see it have a unique psych profile of each man BUT that is unfeasable since the game only offers 3 manfigures per squad. How would the game model Sgt. Johnson breaking and running like a little girl ? Would it use one of those three figures ? What happens if three men run etc etc. I think we can all see it is problematic. I think the best that can be expected is that there be some variability of action of green squads but since a "squad mentality" is being used this variability of action would be much less and would be applied to the whole squad. ONE idea that I do really like is the ability to have squads which have never seen combat rated as untried . I am thinking here of the following scenario: After a battle two of your squads are down to half-strength. You are allowed to amalagamate them (please put this in BTS). One squad consisted of veterans, the other of newbies. With a 50/50 mix of veterans and green soldiers you would not know how the squad would react to fire hence the "Unknown" rating. It could break and be only a green squad OR the vets could support the newbies and it could operate as a veteran squad. Comments ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted February 18, 1999 Share Posted February 18, 1999 I'm going to try and answer a bunch of your questions all in one go, so this is going to be a long post The differences between Green, Regular, Elite, etc. is not cut and dry. A unit's training has something to do with the quality of the unit as well. So, for example, a Green Ranger Company should do much better against a Green 1944 German Wehrmacht unit because the Ranger's level of training is much better. Likewise, a Volksturm unit is going to be really useless because they lack training AND experience. A unit's classification is, of course, a generalization. CM reflects this by having "fuzzy logic" rules built into unit behavior. This allows a Green unit to put up a good fight in one situation, but totally fail to do anything useful in exactly the same situation in some other game. And three Elite squads might go into the same bad situation, but perhaps one of them might decide to go back home a little earlier than the rest! This variety within realistic boundaries makes CM's system very different than the others out there. Nationality has a global effect here as well, which makes the Germans have a slight edge over Allied units due to their recognized superior (again generalized!) level of junior level command. Units do not "gain" experience like so many other games do. If you have a Green unit, it will remain that way throughout a battle. It will also remain that way throughout a campaign. Our classifications are broad enough that one day of combat does not warrant a change in status. The scenario designer decides what level of experience a unit has. Each unit type offered has a default level, but this can be changed to fit the battle description of the forces involved. This allows you to simulate an engagement with battle hardened 1st SS troops next to well trained, but green, 12th SS troops. Unit condition (i.e. physical state), ammo, and TO&E strength are also adjustable. These conditions are meant to simulate a fairly beat up unit, in the front for a prolonged time, with inadequate supplies, not enough ammo, and short some men. Hesitation for Orientation (hey, it rhymes!) isn't a bad thing to do at all. Vet units and Green ones alike should do this so they don't get themselves into a really bad spot. But my paintball experience showed that a Vet unit would sit down for a couple of seconds, figure out where what was, then move out to do their mission. A Green unit would sit there for minutes, constantly doubting that they can go on without further information, even if nothing new can be learned. That is the difference, and CM simulates this. When a Vet unit decides to move out it might take only a couple of seconds, while a Green one might sit there for 10 times as long. When under fire the Vet unit might make an instant, and largely correct, change of action, while the Green one might just sit tight and hope things get better. All sorts of possibilities in CM, far too numerous to describe. There will be times when your units refuse to do what you tell them to. Sometimes this is a good thing, other times it is bad. Sometimes it is because you made bad command decisions, other times it is because the enemy did something unexpected. A Vet unit might start to move out into a field, feel a couple of MG rounds whiz by, and figure that further motion forward would equal death, so back to cover they go in good order. A Green one might get half way out into the field before figuring this out, remain pinned for several minutes, then run back to the woods in utter panic less a couple of men. And the opposite can happen too, where the Green one decides to play it safe when a pistol shot is fired at them, while the Vets charge a MG nest taking several casualties. Again, variable results along logical, realistic, but flexible, rules. The US and British Armies have been criticized for putting too much emphasis on standard drill, and not enough on combat conditions during WWII. The German counterpart, especially the Waffen SS, paid little attention to drill and most of their short training on practical combat experiences. The Germans also made sure that their schools were staffed with veterans that had recently seen combat. Therefore the German's training was "fresher" and more useful. The results on the battlefield were apparent to both sides. The US made great efforts to fix these problems as the war went on, and did indeed make improvements, but when the war ended there were still large issues that needed to be addressed. Also, the US practice of putting individual replacements into frontline units, instead of whole ones like the Germans, was a disaster. There has been a long fought war over "how many soldiers actually shot during WWII" ever since the Marshall report. This is most likely where the "15%" figure on that TV show came from. Over time this part of the report has largely fallen into discredit. I have some figures that seem more acurate around here someplace, but can't find them right now. As one historian pointed out, if the US Army was able to beat a tenacious defender, over a period of one year, with only 15% of its combat troops (a minority of soldiers themselves), imagine what they could have done if they shot more than once and a while I don't want to start some big debate on modern training, but current US military training is far LESS about Pavlov principles than training in the past. The Germans were the ones that showed the US Army that mindless drill was NOT the way to produce quick thinking, intelligent, and resourceful soldiers. However, all military training over the last several centuries has incorporated a certain degree of "brainwashing". The problem for an army is finding out where the line is between getting the soldier to automatically act under fire and yet still have the ability to THINK under fire. Not easy, but it seems the modern training methods have progress much since WWII. Veitnam's killing grounds resulted much more from the US Army having newly acquired, and untried, levels of firepower (automatic rifles, gunships, helicopters, etc.), plenty of ammo, poor jungle training, and lots of fear. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 18, 1999 Author Share Posted February 18, 1999 Wow, Steve, I kept scrolling and scrolling and scrolling... >Units do not "gain" experience like so many other games do. If you have a Green unit, it will remain that way throughout a battle. It will also remain that way throughout a campaign. Our classifications are broad enough that one day of combat does not warrant a change in status. This makes me think: WHEN actually would a squad move up to a higher status? After 10 days of combat, 15, 30? Or after finishing a battle during refitting periods with enough time to think over what happened? I think all these classifications are so "fuzzy" that CM will do the best by not allowing to raise teams experience during game play out of thin air, even during campaigns... didn't I see something like this in CC1 or 2? > There has been a long fought war over "how many soldiers actually shot during WWII" ever since the Marshall report. This is most likely where the "15%" figure on that TV show came from. Over time this part of the report has largely fallen into discredit. I have some figures that seem more acurate around here someplace, but can't find them right now. As one historian pointed out, if the US Army was able to beat a tenacious defender, over a period of one year, with only 15% of its combat troops (a minority of soldiers themselves), imagine what they could have done if they shot more than once and a while Hmm, I must say that I can indeed imagine that only 15% of soldiers fired their weapons in a fight. Not necessarily because 85% were only cowering or playing cards in the trenches , but just because you don't see the enemy very often. Unlike in movies or some games, soldiers tend to stay out of view of the enemy if they only can, and - with the exception of maybe certain close fighting situations - only a relatively small amount of "lucky" opportunities occurs to actually aim and fire. But this is just a thought, I have nothing to prove it - and in fact any number between 15% and 50% sounds reasonable to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted February 18, 1999 Share Posted February 18, 1999 A comment on how confusing even training can be. During training in the army, we were simulating an attack on a few houses in the woods. Our platoon arrived by helicoptor in a clearing a few hundred meters from the woods. I was twenty years old and as our helicoptor was traveling at 150 mph towards the landing zone, we passed over a lake. My young mind was looking at how beautiful the reflection of the sun was in the lake as we raced low over it. I was faced towards the outside of the helipcopter, seat belt fastened. Being green to even training, I spent time admiring the view around me. I looked over towards the two pilots. The cockpit had a starwars look to it,I noticed a blueish plexiglass to the front. My eyes fixated on the two pilot's white helmuts as thier heads bobbed back and forth. We arrived at the landing zone and I was amazed at how softly we landed, like landing on a golf course. Out we went, to the ground. The helo took off and left. We got up and dashed into the woods. Tall grass up ahead. Running into the grass, I stepped on something strange. It was one of the enemy side's soldier. I ran onto his helmut. I stepped on his head. Kept running. Now deeper in the woods, there were a few cabins around us. It only took less than five minutes before I had totaly lost my orientation. This was only training. As a green trainee, I spent as much time looking for the enemy as I did trying to keep up with the squad leader. Where was he? What does he want to do next? I can't even imagine how real war would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamsters Posted August 29, 2000 Share Posted August 29, 2000 Ah, yet another beautiful post of the past. What a topic, what a time. Read, ponder and return to the Cesspool. ------------------ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Chupacabra: Sheesh, who dug this old chestnut out? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamsters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts