aargh - every time I post this question (2 or 3) the thread gets closed...

[Guest hunt52]

OK - I am curious as to why there are no morale states "above" ready. It would seem to me that under duress soldiers could go 3 ways. They could panic and run like the sissies they are. They could tough it out and keep fighting. They could "anti-panic" and do something stupid like charge up to a MG-42 with a pistol firing all the way. CM really models the first two well, but I think the third option should be included.

It might work like panic in that your units would no longer be under your control, but instead of cowering and running they would charge the enemy and fight like there's no tomorrow. I think this would add a lot to the game.

Now, if there is an actual reason to not add this (like real soldiers don't do that - I wouldn't know not being one) then just slap me around and say "No!" Also - if there is some game reason this couldn't be implemented - like the Tac AI wouldn't know how to handle it then taunt me viciously in the fashion of the French Knights in The Holy Grail. If there is no reason it shouldn't be included I am curious as to whether it is a time thing (Not for CM1 - CM2 maybe? ) Rambling again...

- Bill

[Fionn]

I think berserking is quite a bit less common than you'd think and is overly common in computer games at present (the CC series for example).

I'm sure CM could model it BUT the fact is that if it modelled berserking it could only model it and make the ENTIRE squad go berserk. Since berserking is, by definition, a singular event this wouldn't be good and so, until CM goes to a 1 to 1 representation it shouldn't be in. Once CM does go 1 to 1 then it should be added IMO but should be much rarer than you might expect (except for German troops under my command of course ).

[Guest Babra]

Call Ripley! I'm in agreement with Fionn

Mass Berserkerganging would be exceedingly rare.

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

Floreat Jerboa !

[Major Tom]

I have read of examples of this, such as the soldier getting ripped drunk, strapping on a bunch of Grenades and telling everyone he is on a mission to Berlin. The next day they find his corpse a few hundred metres from where he started off. Fionn is right about the berzerkernesstupidity thing only overcoming one person at a time. Fanaticism can be represented by the quality of troops. Elite Crack troops are bound to never panic, and, they will more than likely partake in bloody yet important manuvers.

[Guest hunt52]

Ok - just wanted to make sure.

I guess the squad representation really kills it.

- Bill

[JoshK]

I sort of split the difference here.

I do not think that solders should become berserk in response to circumstances and no longer respond to orders. As has been pointed out, while individuals may do this on occasion, an entire unit would not become berserk.

However, I do think that units can change their behavioral status beyond alerted, cautious, pinned and panicked in response to specific events.

I guess rather than determining which units are fanatic prior to a battle (and based on a % of all units in the same class), I would make this determination on a unit-by-unit basis as event unfold. In addition, you could add gradations, and not just have troops be normal or fanatic.

In practical terms, while this may not result in dramatically different game-play, I like the idea of having a more dynamic way of determining if units will respond extraordinary. If one unit in a Riesburg type scenario takes lots of fire, while its compatriots are having an easy go of it, I would argue that they will just grab some cover an wait it out.

However, if a whole platoon is pinned down in a house and is facing annihilation, then they can collectively decide that "there are two types of people on this beach" and charge the MG 42 (if I order this) to at least try to get a few Gis out alive or take some Jerrys with them.

Yes I am babbling, need coffee…

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Split down the middle with this one. Indeed, it was VERY rare for an entire squad to go beserking together, but there were individual cases (like Omaha Beach, or AHEM-Polish). (Remember Warsaw, take no prisoners! )

All in all though, I still rely on CM to be THE WWII combat sim .

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Username]

I posted something like this in the 'fanaticism' thread but it got buried under "who knows what the word berserker means" posts. It is locked out also. I listed different unit status and states.

I think banzai attacks and bayonet charges could qualify as "mass berserk" instances. While the latter was infrequent, the former was not. The russians would wind up the troops on wodka when available and this could also qualify.

When my units are fired on in the game, I sometimes see men heading for the nearest cover (even towards the enemy)and I like to think of them as couragously inclined (running at the enemy).

Lewis

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think banzai attacks and bayonet charges could qualify as "mass berserk" instances<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't those really organized tactics? You train your people to respond to commands or face dire penalties, and then in battle you order them to form up and charge. That's not really reflective of the troops' state of mind, but a unit obeying deliberate orders (though their CO may have gone berserk).

Not the most sophisticated tactic (though it has its place), but neither is it a collective response on the part of the troops.

[Simon Fox]

I wouldn't characterise bayonet charges as rare though probably uncommon in the CM1 time frame and theatre. I also would definitely not characterise them as berserk behaviour, under certain circumstances they're actually quite sensible A very good shock tactic for a force inferior in numbers and/or firepower to use especially when unexpected.

There has been quite a lot of discussion of morale states before and my understanding is that in the long term BTS would like to have a more complex multiscale system which also incorporates unit experience and training ie green fanatics or wimpy veterans. I think if your going to have fanatic units you should also have something at the other end of the spectrum like anti-fanatic. It seems to me that at the moment units always do what you ask. Wouldn't it be funny if you ordered your veterans to assault an enemy position and all of a sudden they started acting like conscripts he he Even if they were a bit slow to get going it could stuff up a multi-unit assault and they wouldn't have to stay that way the whole game either. A bit of unpredictability would be fun gee I'm evil he he

[Username]

Mark

Yes they are organized tactics. But once executed they arent so organized.

What would be going through your mind? By the way, all due respect but I disagree with your "respond to commands or face dire consequences". Perhaps in penal battalions or slave armies but most of the time people are fighting for the comrades in the unit and trying not to lose control in front of them (veterans anyway or units where people come from the same area).

I see your point about how this "raising" of the unit(s) battle status comes about but think its effect is the same.

See everybody? I can be nice..

Lewis

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would be going through your mind? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

180 grains of 7.92mm?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>disagree with your "respond to commands or face dire consequences". Perhaps in penal battalions or slave armies but most of the time people are fighting for the comrades in the unit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in the context of a bayonet charge ordered in combat by your CO, disobedience would meet dire penalties in ANY army. Some more so than others (court martial vs. round behind the ear). But the CO has deliberately ordered the fixing of bayonets and an all-out rush on an enemy position, and you can't simply opt out of that ("naw, just not into it today").

The charge may have the net result of some kind of mass fanaticism as a morale condition, but the motive is still "following orders".

Assessed as a troop morale state, "Ready" would cover the state of mind and body necessary to execute a bayonet charge order.

"Mass berserk" as a morale condition would not cause a "charge" order. However, a charge order could theoretically cause a "mass berserk" mental state.

[Guest Babra]

I would classify units in a true Banzai attack as simply being unable to be pinned. The .50 cals will do the rest. Still, I imagine the participants had to work themselves into some kind of weird mental state to do it.

Battlefield psychology is dreadfully complex. I'll be forgiving if CM models it in the various existing "states".

[Major Tom]

You could probably state that ANYONE entering combat has to be in some sort of frenzied state, or partially berzerk.

Bayonette charges, correctly timed, can be devestating tactics. Rarely in WWII were bayonette charges (mostly British/Commonwealth) done in a Banzai type manner. Much of warfare is psychological. If you see someone charging at you, yelling, with a big knife on the end of their gun, you are going to be pretty un-nerved. Sure, charging over a distance of a Kilometre is just plain rediculous, but, in close quarters a bayonette charge can throw off even a more powerful enemy. In CM, what works really well is rushing your enemy, getting in close, and nailing him. You can litterally "bounce" squads out of position this way. They get a bad rap from WWI, so do a lot of sound tactics, it is just that they were used at the wrong times.

[Guest PeterNZ]

I'm getting amusing images of grizzled vet squads who are chicken not leaving a building or poking their head up (boy they'd be hard to spot eh?).. and when ordered to move into a **** storm bassically pretending they didn't hear it.. but boy-o-boy being a nasty surprise for any enemy who dared to try and attack -them-

PeterNZ

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here was a miracle greater than the fortitude of the officers: soldiers, half of them reservists, peasants who had reported for duty only a month ago in birchbark clogs, their minds still on the sights and sounds of home, their fields, their prospects, their families, totally ignorant of European politics, the war, the East Prussian campaign, the objectives of their corps or even its number, did not flee, or slink into the bushes or hang back, but possessed by some unknown force, passed the dividing line beyond which love of self and of family and even the instinct of self-preservation cease to exist and, belonging now to not themselves but to their cruel duty, rose up three times and advanced into gunfire with their noiseless bayonets<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Big Time Software]

Peter, and imagine what would happen if said enemy scared away their pet pig A world of pain I am sure!

Yes, there is some sort of wierd thing in combat where the vets basically figure out that dying isn't the right way to win the war. They aren't afraid to fight, but they are experienced enough to not fight stupidly. Obviously in war this is often a tough call to make and it could get in the way of things.

Combat exhaustion simply adds to this, but with the element of sloppiness to an otherwise careful soldier. This became a big area of study starting in WWII. It didn't take long to figure out that a veteran unit left in the line too long effectively fought more like a Green one. Meaning they were more apt to be lethargic and/or overly cautious. Even the Germans, as hard pressed as they were, took great pains to rotate units out of the imediate frontline.

The opposite was true for units out of the combat zone too long. Units that could otherwise tear down buildings with their bare hands would lose their edge if left out of danger areas for extended time. So commanders tried to rotate units as close to the front as possible. The Germans, of course, didn't really have a choice.

All *very* interesting stuff! Some of it is outside of CM's scope, but as Simon stated, we do wish to add more of this to CM2.

Steve

[Mike T]

I am intrigued by the concept of fanaticism and fanatical qualities. Would you consider the acts of suicidal frontal assaults that were conducted in WWI as fanatical acts? Could you possibly consider the loss of 60000 casualties (20000 dead) that the British suffered on the first day of the battle of the Somme an act of mass fanaticism? How about the million dead suffered by France and Germany combined during the battles for Verdun?

I don't consider either of those conditions as fanatical but rather as a poor application of tactics and a poor understanding of the realities of modern warfare. The British at the Somme were Green troops weighed under by heavy packs walking - yes walking - in battle lines across up to a mile of no-man's land in the face of massed machine gun fire and barbed wire against an enemy who were supposed to have been annihilated by a week's worth of heavy artillery bombardment. The Russian peasants of WW2 were just as ignorant of modern war as the armies of WWI and just as untrained. The biggest difference was that the western armies had more people who understood the waste that was WWI and thus their troops (and leaders) were much more reluctant to sacrifice their lives in futile attacks - just as Americans were much more aware of the horrors of war (as a result of Vietnam) before committing troops to the Gulf War.

The percieved fanaticism of the Japanese with their Banzai attacks is also a great misconception IMHO. The Japanese soldier believed that dying for their emperor was the greatest honour that there was. This fact allowed them to mount the suicide attacks that they are famous for. What we consider to be an act of fantaticism is actually to them an act of loyalty. The greatest asset to the attacker is the perception of the defender. As Major Tom points out psychology is extremely important and if you believe your enemy is a fanatic then he will be a fanatic and you'd better run becuse he is going to kill you. So a better way to simulate this is not to increase the morale of the attacker but to decrease the morale of the defender being subjected to such an attack (especially if they have never endured this type of attack before because if you've survived one Banzai charge you quickly realize that the advantage is firmly in the hands of the defender).

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

'Bitter Mike'

[Fionn]

I think the British troops who marched slowly across machinegun-swept terrain in 1916 were in the grip of mass stupidity/obedience and not fanaticism.

Also, you must remember that they were told there'd be no major resistance so they went forward blithely unaware of what was about to happen. By the time they were fired on they were far enough out in no-man's land that it made sense to fight a tactical advance IMO.

Also, you've got to remember te HUGE size of the attacking force when you look at casualty rates. Only a minority of battalions committed took such heavy casualties that they were combat ineffective on the 2nd day. The Somme is a little blown out of proportion sometimes. When you actually read British staff appreciations of it you realise that the forces committed on daY 1 were, generally, able to continue a fighting advance on day 2.

Was it smart? Hell no. Did they suffer excessive casualties? Hell yes. Was it mass fanaticism and the kind of horrible casualty rates you see in movies? Nope, not really.

[Guest Germanboy]

Re: the Somme

I am not sure about the causalty figures, but wasn't it about 20,000 on day one and of those about 8,000 dead? One thing often overlooked is that the Somme offensive achieved a breakthrough, but that the stupidity of the Cavalry officers in Haig's command squandered it, because they held the infantry from further advances to allow the cavalry to pour through the line, thus giving the Germans time to reform and dig in. There were other factors contributing to the disasterlike poor planning, wrong choice of atry ammo during the bombardment, and the belief that nobody could have survived the sort of arty preparation that went on. I would agree with Fionn that it was not fanaticism, more stoic acceptance of the fact that they could not do anything.

Re: the Japanese Banzai attacks

Again I am not sure about fanaticism here. For one there seems to have been a certain, err, reluctance to take prisoners on the part of the US, thus giving the Japanese a good incentive to fight to the end. Also, the ordinary Japanese soldiers and civilians were indoctrinated that the US were all barbarians not taking prisoners and only out to rape, loot and pillage. There were a number of mass suicides on Okinawa and other islands by civilians who believed in this. I would think it was a combination of nothing left to loose and unquestioning obedience on the part of the ordinary soldiers. For officers, the story is probably different.

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

Andreas

[Los]

The British suffered 60,000 Casualties on the first day of the Somme, including 20,000 dead, most of them in the first hours. There were no significant breakthroughs on the first day but the Somme offensive actually went on for weeks. The whole build up to the Somme, units involved and horrendous miscalculations and execution of the operation makes for very fascinating and macabre reading.

The motivation of the Britsih forces, both Regular and Kitchner's (sp?) "pals battalions and others is a whole topic in itself and makes for very interesting and extensive studying.

One thing is that Haig assumed that a more intense prolonged bombardment would do the trick of smashing the defenses but there was a distinct lack of understanding as to the depth hardness and effectiveness of the German defenses.(The brits remained horribly inept in their staff work throughout the war) Only a tiny fraction of the artillery conducting this humoungous bombardmant ever had any possible hope of disrupting the German positions, but it certainly did a great job of churning up the terrain to the point where it was almost impassible for he attackers.

Anyway, fascinating stuff. There is no shortage for historical periods to study!

While not a straight history in itself, Paul Fussell's "The Gtreat War In Modern Memory" is highly recommended.

Cheers...

Los

(Currently going through a Samurai phase)

[Mike T]

The British casualties figures quoted by myself and LOS are indeed correct - and as LOS stated most of those were inflicted before noon (from 7AM to 9AM mostly). The British suffered more dead on that one day than they suffered in the Crimean, Boer, and Korean wars combined. For the record their next worse day was the battle of Waterloo where they suffered 8000 dead (appr). In only two locations on the 14-18 mile front did they capture any German trenches - in front of the 36th (Ulster) Division and in the south by the French - and these were only the front line trenches which they were then forced to abandon by German counterattacks and the lack of support on their flanks.

Fionn - considering that the average battalion contained 730 men and if you assume that it suffered 600 casualties (approximately 80% of its fighting strength) that means that 100 battalions suffered 80% casualties on that day - mostly before noon. Since the normal infantry complement of a British division in WWI was three brigades of 4 battalions each (12 battalions in total) that means that 8 1/3 Divisions suffered 80% casualties in their fighting strength - this hardly constitutes a minority of the troops involved. As far as believing British staff reports that they were able to continue a fighting advance on the second day with the troops that they committed on the first day, what sort of staff officer isn't going to put a rosy assesment on the face of a disaster he is primarily responsible for.

An excellent account of July 1, 1916 is given in Martin Middlebrook's "The First Day on the Somme". There are also excellent accounts on the web - one of which I recommend to visit is the Royal Newfoundland Regiment's home page (whose address escapes me at the present time - sorry ).

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

'Bitter Mike'

[Mike T]

Back to Fanatacism.

Does it really exist or is it something conjured up by people to explain the reactions of enemy troops which do not seem to have a rational explanation?

It might help to explain that what seems totally irrational to one side is completely rational to another especially when different customs and beliefs are taken into account.

Is it really legitimate to add a fanatacism bonus (or for that matter a berserk bonus) or is it more legitimate to allow certain troops the ability to perform actions that would be considered irrational to opposing troops?

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

'Bitter Mike'

[Los]

I think there a touch of truth in what you say Mike. Fanatacism seems to have a tinge of negativism in it. You never hear friendly troops being described as fanatic. They're always "gung ho" or "motivated," or "determined" or "plucky". Where as your Germans, or Japanese, or Russians are at times fanatic, which I guess is supposed to mean "unreasonably motivated?" I guess fanatic troops are not smart enough to know there's no point to resisting and "say old boy won't just just lay down your arms now and save us all the trouble?"

However whatever you call it, there is a little extra something above and beyond "well trained and lead" that makes units stick at it longer than normal. So it is a legitimate quality, IMO.

Los

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

I agree with Los, especially about the negative slant to the word "fanatic". I think we will have to come up with something better than that.

As Los said, there is *something* that crops up every so often in combat that defies logic or rational assessments. The thing is that this quality appears independent of troop quality. You can get some really poor quality troops putting in 200% effort in a hopeless situation, just as you find high quality ones doing.

The point is that training levels can only account for so much. The way CM works right now units are generally tougher the better experienced they are. It isn't absolute, but you will never find a Conscript unit out fighting as well as an Elite one within the confines of a single battle. But sometimes a Conscript unit realistically could indeed fight, at least for one single instance, as hard as the best. So there has to be *something* external to troop quality to allow this to happen. Right now we are calling it Fanaticism, but no matter what it is called there is certainly a force at work that needs to be simulated.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-07-2000).]