BTS be generous and...

[Lordfluffers]

As we all know CM is fabulous and beautiful and sexy and...

Anyway this is a request rather than a criticism or demand so here goes...

Please please give us an ignore target order so my tanks dont always have to swivel backwards to kill some measly crew when the tank commander caught a glimpse of a enemy TD a few seconds earlier. It really is irritating, I read earlier how someone rained down arty on his troops for less!!

The other thing is... Please can we have a surrender order. I feel so guilty when isolated units are cut off and mercilessly mown down or vehicle crews obliterated from a distance of 2 meters by a tank's hull mg. I don't know if that's very realistic but if I'm in those positions I'd just stick my hands up and shut my eyes. I would like my little virtual soldiers to surrender when they haven't got a chance of getting out of there alive otherwise.

P.S. Something made me laugh earlier. I drove up to Michael Wittmans crew (I blew his Tiger up, poor guy) and mercilessly gunned them down. I did feel quite cold blooded and murderous but then he didn't surrender so what could I do? The best thing is I dismembered his crew with an MMG carrier, oh how the mighty fall.

P.S. This topic may have been breached before but my little 56k can't handle sifting thru 100's and 1000's of posts. Sorry if I'm being repetitive.

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Maximus]

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

Please please give us an ignore target order so my tanks dont always have to swivel backwards to kill some measly crew when the tank commander caught a glimpse of a enemy TD a few seconds earlier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get this. Tanks in v1.1 tend to ignore crews totally now. Why would a TC want to engage the remnants of a tank crew that is *panicked* and LOW in ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other thing is... Please can we have a surrender order. I feel so guilty when isolated units are cut off and mercilessly mown down or vehicle crews obliterated from a distance of 2 meters by a tank's hull mg. I don't know if that's very realistic but if I'm in those positions I'd just stick my hands up and shut my eyes. I would like my little virtual soldiers to surrender when they haven't got a chance of getting out of there alive otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a bad idea. Actually makes a lot of sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S. Something made me laugh earlier. I drove up to Michael Wittmans crew (I blew his Tiger up, poor guy) and mercilessly gunned them down. I did feel quite cold blooded and murderous but then he didn't surrender so what could I do? The best thing is I dismembered his crew with an MMG carrier, oh how the mighty fall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you doing playing the British in the Whittman scenario, soldier???? That scenario was meant to be played as the Germans!

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I would like my little virtual soldiers to surrender when they haven't got a chance of getting out of there alive otherwise.

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the game not already do this???? My troops have surrendered on me plenty of times.

I don't have a heck of a lot of experience in the real military - just 14 years in the Reserves, and not as an infantryman - but I think what people need to realize that despite the graphics limitations in CM - there is no such thing as billiard table flat terrain. This is why you see units in CM 10 metres from each other yet unable to kill the other unit. Units within the same building as another can be imagined to be in different rooms, hiding under furniture, factory equipment, whatever. Outdoors, even if your 2-man infantry unit is only 10 or 5 metres from an enemy infantry unit and it looks like there is no escape for them - bear in mind that in real life, there is always some tall grass, a dip in the ground, whatever for them to crawl away in - or make the attempt. I've had a little bit of experience pushing my face into the earth, sleeping in ditches, etc. - try it for yourself - go out to the country or a park and walk off the beaten path - get down to ground level, as if someone was trying to kill you, and see what you can see when you're lying prone. Take a friend and check out some lines of sight. You'll be surprised how "open" ground really isn't so open when your head is six inches above it.

I think this is modelled very well in CM, it is unfortunate the restrictions of home computers don't allow for a graphical representation as sophisticated as the game engine.

Trust me - if your troops really want to surrender, they will. This is something no real life commander had control over, so you should not have any either.

Consider this - not one of the major combatants ever taught "how to surrender" in their basic training of soldiers.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Lordfluffers,

Ignore Target Order - not going to happen Put this in the "nobody would ever use it if we made it" feature list. You THINK you might find use for it, but as soon as you issue this once, and a real threat pops up which your tank does not go after, you will never use the order again. 1.12 fixes a slight problem with non-threatening targets so you will probably like that (should be released soon).

2. Surrender Option - this is not a bad idea, but units will surrender if and when they feel the need to. But until they are convinced they really do need to surrender, they rather not. This is realistic.

Crews were, by and large, mowed down. Simple theory, actually. A bailed out crew now means another crewed vehicle later. Kill the crew when you have the chance, that was the standard practice.

Steve

[Lordfluffers]

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

What are you doing playing the British in the Whittman scenario, soldier???? That scenario was meant to be played as the Germans!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was playing the scenario where Whitmann gets killed...

Spoiler - (don't look down this post if you don't want to know whic scenario)

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

August Bank Holiday..

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Lordfluffers]

BTS I hear you, but with the proposed ignore order you click on a unit much like the way you target a unit and the unit you're commanding unit does not fire at that unit unless otherwise instructed to do afterwards. I can't see how that could be too flawed.

Secondly, troops surrounded, this is in reference to Mike's comment, would surrender. For example, a platoon is cut off, Instead of sitting their, until sometimes clears the area with grenades or charging out the building right past enemy tanks, troops, mg's etc. I'm sure they would think, '**** the game's up, We surrender'. CM models the surrender of immobile MGers well but currently other than this the only time soldiers surrender generally is when all the troops surrender and the game ends.

I've had plenty examples of when mg posts have been overrun, AT teams have run out of ammo and are defenceless to enemy units, teams have got stuck behind enemy lines or a tank has driven right up three metres in front of my troops and they've squirmed on the floor dieing one by one or tried to run off and got mown down. In such horrible odds I know I would raise my hands and hope my captor was in a good mood.

Mike I was in the Royal Marine Cadets until I was 18 so I have a little experience of military exercises. But you can try crawling away while you're pinned and risk an enemy squad running up behind you and unloading a clip into your back or surrendering and taking the chance you might spend the rest of the war surrounded by high wire. If troops are surrounded, the chances of them surrendering should be much higher. I personally would like a surrender command so that the MG post that held the hoardes at bay doesnt have to die horribly after being surrounded or bypassed or overrun. After such a heroic performance they deserve to be able to surrender.

I never thought I'd say this but CMBO doesn't take enough prisoners.

P.S. BTS a captured crew is just as good as a dead one and a whole lot easier on the conscience!

[Lordfluffers]

Oops

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lordfluffers:

BTS Secondly, troops surrounded, this is in reference to Mike's comment, would surrender. For example, a platoon is cut off, Instead of sitting their, until sometimes clears the area with grenades or charging out the building right past enemy tanks, troops, mg's etc. I'm sure they would think, '**** the game's up, We surrender'. CM models the surrender of immobile MGers well but currently other than this the only time soldiers surrender generally is when all the troops surrender and the game ends.

I've had infantry squads surrender when they are reduced suffieciently, as well as platoon command groups.

I've had plenty examples of when mg posts have been overrun, AT teams have run out of ammo and are defenceless to enemy units, teams have got stuck behind enemy lines or a tank has driven right up three metres in front of my troops and they've squirmed on the floor dieing one by one or tried to run off and got mown down. In such horrible odds I know I would raise my hands and hope my captor was in a good mood.

Not if you were fighting the SS in Normandy you wouldn't. Or after Malmedy in the Bulge? There are plenty of other instances of No Quarter. We can look back 60 years later and pretend that the troops really weren't scared or fighting for their lives - hindsight is great and games like this tend to gloss over the true human emotions of the time - but those guys only had one life to live and they had no idea if their surrender would be accepted or not. There was simply no guarantee, and I suspect - though if any one has done serious research on this I would love to hear about it - that most troops were rather reluctant to give up. I've read enough first person accounts and interviews to know that the moment of decision - put your hands up or not - was always a painful one for just that reason. Check out John Ellis' The Sharp End or Whiting's Poor Bloody Infantry, I believe they talk about this a little bit.

If troops are surrounded, the chances of them surrendering should be much higher.

Are you sure the game isn't modelled so that this is true? How many times have you truly surrounded an enemy unit - that knew it was surrounded? Not trying to win the "suck up to BTS" award, just playing Devil's Advocate here.

I personally would like a surrender command so that the MG post that held the hoardes at bay doesnt have to die horribly after being surrounded or bypassed or overrun. After such a heroic performance they deserve to be able to surrender.

There are few instances where a commander has "permitted" his troops to surrender, except in mass surrenders that are out of the scope of CM. This serves no discernible purpose - surrenders are already built into the game and I repeat that it is not something a commander had any control over. Even if an isolated MG position could radio his commander and ask permission to surrender, it is doubtful that such permission would ever be granted.

You may have a point about just how brave CM troops are, with regards to fighting to the last round, but my impression is that the game is pretty much realistically modelled from that point of view.

I never thought I'd say this but CMBO doesn't take enough prisoners.

P.S. BTS a captured crew is just as good as a dead one and a whole lot easier on the conscience!

Actually, a dead enemy crew doesn't have to be guarded - providing guards represents a burden at the tactical level. In real life, walking wounded (which simply disappear from the map) were used to guard prisoners. Is this represented in the game? I just played a game where I ordered a prisoner unit to make its way to my rear. The info screen said they still had their pistols.

Will my wounded "invisible" men escort these prisoners back?

[Lordfluffers]

Thanks for posting back Mike!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I've had infantry squads surrender when they are reduced suffieciently, as well as platoon command groups <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK how often do your inf squads surrender in relation to the frequency they get mown down trying to break or rout? Is it a plausible ratio? Im just asking questions so you see where Im coming from. I could be very wrong maybe front line troops didn't surrender very regularly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Not if you were fighting the SS in Normandy you wouldn't. Or after Malmedy in the Bulge? There are plenty of other instances of No Quarter. We can look back 60 years later and pretend that the troops really weren't scared or fighting for their lives - hindsight is great and games like this tend to gloss over the true human emotions of the time - but those guys only had one life to live and they had no idea if their surrender would be accepted or not <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! they only have one life, Im sure I would take the chance of surrendering rather than getting blown away by that mg or tank or whatever. In many cases the best chance of saying alive is surrendering. Look at the figures for POW's in WW2 and the Germans captured literally millions of Russians despite the abysmal way they were treated. British and US troops were generally treated superbly as far as POW treatment goes. Things like Malmedy were rare, that's why that event is infamous. The SS took British and US soldiers prisoner for the vast majority. A lot of SS doctrine said that the Brits were essentially misguided brothers anyway and blamed Churchill.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

There are few instances where a commander has "permitted" his troops to surrender, except in mass surrenders that are out of the scope of CM. This serves no discernible purpose - surrenders are already built into the game and I repeat that it is not something a commander had any control over. Even if an isolated MG position could radio his commander and ask permission to surrender, it is doubtful that such permission would ever be granted.

Mike, if you were that MG guy about to be overrun by enemy troops, I very much doubt you would radio your CO saying 'do you think I should surrender'. If the situation was bad he'd probably say yes. Not even CO's want to see their men die needlessly. Regardless youd be panicking anyway, your priorities would be '**** the chain of command, if I don't surrender I'm dead'. Most soldiers value thier lives highly and would not waste them for the sake of radioing back or recieving an irrelevent command.

Actually, a dead enemy crew doesn't have to be guarded - providing guards represents a burden at the tactical level. In real life, walking wounded (which simply disappear from the map) were used to guard prisoners. Is this represented in the game? I just played a game where I ordered a prisoner unit to make its way to my rear. The info screen said they still had their pistols <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd have to be a pretty hardened, callous ****er to mow down surrendered troops just because someone has to guard them. Troops often took prisoners firstly because they had consciences and secondly (reverse psychology) they hoped that should they surrender themselves the enemy would show the same respect. Troops surrendered all the time.

[This message has been edited by Lordfluffers (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Michael Dorosh]

We're starting to dance on the head of a pin here, so I will try to be brief. Good discussion, though.

Originally posted by Lordfluffers:

Thanks for posting back Mike!

OK how often do your inf squads surrender in relation to the frequency they get mown down trying to break or rout? Is it a plausible ratio? Im just asking questions so you see where Im coming from. I could be very wrong maybe front line troops didn't surrender very regularly.

Really not sure - just finished a self designed operation - I think there were about a dozen prisoners on each side out of about 500 troops per side employed, played over 8 battles. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective - and that seems accurate. I believe some Canadian battalions (such as the HLI) did not suffer a single man captured between D-Day and VE Day. I will try and track down more accurate figures for some other units; it would be interesting to see.

Exactly! they only have one life, Im sure I would take the chance of surrendering rather than getting blown away by that mg or tank or whatever. In many cases the best chance of saying alive is surrendering. Look at the figures for POW's in WW2 and the Germans captured literally millions of Russians despite the abysmal way they were treated. British and US troops were generally treated superbly as far as POW treatment goes. Things like Malmedy were rare, that's why that event is infamous. The SS took British and US soldiers prisoner for the vast majority. A lot of SS doctrine said that the Brits were essentially misguided brothers anyway and blamed Churchill.

You're speaking from hindsight again. Allied troops had no way of knowing how well they would be treated - not for sure - and in the wake of the massacre of Canadian troops in Normandy by 12th SS, for example, many probably would not willingly bet their life on it. I am sure both of us can find examples to defend our positions, though.

Yes, both sides took prisoners - the issue is how willingly the combatants submitted themselves to capture. I submit that it was not all that common. As trite as it sounds to us today, there were men willing to die for what they believed in, rather than surrender. Especially on the German side of the fence. There were mass surrenders from Normandy on - but CM models firefights between willing combatants for the most part, and in the heat of such a battle, putting your rifle down and hands up is a very risky venture indeed. Most of the Japanese prisoners taken in WW II were physically disabled in some way, or knocked unconscious. Would be interesting to read a survey of circumstances surrounding Allied prisoners - I don't doubt that many surrendered consciously and willingly - I just don't think that overall it was any more common than we see in CM.

Mike, if you were that MG guy about to be overrun by enemy troops, I very much doubt you would radio your CO saying 'do you think I should surrender'.

But this is exactly what you advocate by asking for a "surrender button." As the game stands, your troops will not ask permission to surrender, nor are you allowed to tell them to surrender. Hitting such a button means that you, their commander, are giving permission for them to give up!

If the situation was bad he'd probably say yes. Not even CO's want to see their men die needlessly. Regardless youd be panicking anyway, your priorities would be '**** the chain of command, if I don't surrender I'm dead'. Most soldiers value thier lives highly and would not waste them for the sake of radioing back or recieving an irrelevent command.

I agree that few would ask for permission - but this is modelled in the game. Surrender is completely out of the hands of the player (ie commander).

Battalion commanders who give permission for their troops to surrender would know that they are opening themselves to severe disciplinary action. Many would not care - one battalion CO in Normandy told the British generalship that his battalion needed to be disbanded because it was no good anymore. A pretty big admission for a soldier to make - he was a regular officer who made the Army a career. He did care more for his troops than himself, and so he had his battalion broken up for reinforcements. Max Hastings cites him, and I believe the suggestion is that he is the exception rather than the rule of high-minded officers. A good CO would rather lose a platoon of men rather than see defeatism affect a whole battalion. Cowardice was an offence punishable by death, and in those days, no one wanted to either

a) be a coward

be seen as encouraging cowardice

Far easier to explain to your brigadier why you lost thirty men than to explain to him why you ordered them to surrender.

You'd have to be a pretty hardened, callous <> to mow down surrendered troops just because someone has to guard them. Troops often took prisoners firstly because they had consciences and secondly (reverse psychology) they hoped that should they surrender themselves the enemy would show the same respect. Troops surrendered all the time.

Agreed - I wasn't talking about murder, however, but you have to realize that offering a surrender in the heat of battle is always dicey at best. Check out The Face of Battle (the best book ever written) for an example of Aussie troops in WW II who refused to accept surrenders by troops who held out too long "Too late, chum" was the traditional comment for these men, who were gunned down even once they put their hands up). The example was not atypical.

As for troops surrendering "all the time", I challenge you to provide proof of this - or to define "all the time." I will try and find some statistics myself, but I don't know of any sources off the top of my head. Perhaps someone else can jump in?

I am sure eveyrone reading this now wants to poke out their eyes with picnic forks, so I will stop!

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-23-2001).]

[CMplayer]

oops

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-23-2001).]

[CMplayer]

"you'd have to be a pretty hardened,

callous person to execute prisoners just

because you need someone to guard them"

Remember that scene at the end of

The Naked and the Dead? It was

getting on towards evening and

the patrol thought it was too much

trouble to walk the prisoners all

the way back to camp so they...

The whole point of that book was how

war takes normal guys and makes them

pretty hardened and callous.

I think this is better left unmodelled

in CM. BTS has shown good judgement

in this regards, IYAM.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

... 1.12 fixes a slight problem with non-threatening targets so you will probably like that (should be released soon)...

Steve

I specially like this part.. I don't know why

[Michael Dorosh]

Total Canadian Army casualties in World War Two were 74,374 (according to CP Stacey) which included 22,964 killed. Added to this are 6432 prisoners. Take away 1600 prisoners from this total for Hong Kong (take away 300 killed as well) and take away 900 killed from Dieppe (and 1900 prisoners) and you get:

73,174 total casualties, including 21,764 killed. On top of this, you have 3,632 prisoners.

In other words, 4 percent of all casualties inflicted were prisoners of war.

From a purely statistical standpoint, you may have a case. Interesting....unless there is something I'm missing?

I've never been a big fan of statistics - the Highland Light Infantry of Canada never lost a single man missing or captured during WW II, yet saw a lot of action - at Buron alone, they suffered 262 casualties in a single day (out of a full strength of 800, including the support troops of the battalion).

Were there other large surrenders of Canadian troops that would skew these numbers, I wonder?

[Lordfluffers]

Interesting points Mike,

Im afraid I have't got any figures about POWs or anything but Im sure their proportion of captured to killed or injured was quite high esp. for Germany and USSR. The German's began surrendering in droves to the US Brits etc,especially after the breakout from Normandy and push into Germany. The war was lost and most did not see the point of wasting their lives needlessly. Troops also knew generally the enemy would give them clemency, particularly on the Wesetern Front.

Western Allied troops surrendered relatively little after DDay because they were generally not the ones being attack, overrun etc. Most prisoners are usually captured whilst defending. Troops that are attacking can usually just slip back to friendly lines.

BTW Im not asking for a surrender option solely from a point of command much like a commander wouldn't neccessarily know what his units could tarket. It is an abstraction. I think to code in realistic AI for realistic surrender would be extremely difficult. When would the AI it know when a situation is hopeless, or whether breaking and running back behind lines has the best chance of staying alive. The average soldier (ignoring those gone berserk or mad etc) at all times is most concerned about surviving, they don't want to die. I just feel sorry for those poor CM soldiers that don't have the initiative to work out they're are going to certain death if they don't give up now. I want to help them live.

P.S. thanks for keeping this an interesting debate, and not becoming confrontational etc.

[Bruno Weiss]

Someone said tanks tend to ignore crews now in v1.1, and I do not know what the global average PC to PC, game to game is, but I do know I just sat and watched a v1.1 SPW251/9 target a crew in a woods hex at 200 meters, (after I cancelled it's target), meantime a Sherman pops up to the left of that target and while the 251/9 was preoccupied with the crew, the Sherman did the right thing and took the 251/9 out. I have seen this before and don't think it is a tank aspect per se. Many of the units seem to be preoccupied with crews. If they were not identified as such, then I'd say they were firing on suspected infantry, but when identified as a crew then it leaves me wondering what that actually says to the AI.

Anyway, having told the 251/9 to cancel target, and then watching it re-target the crew because the crew moved, and other such examples, I would agree with Lordfluffers and those before him, who have stated a desire for an ignore target option of some sort.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lordfluffers:

Interesting points Mike,

Im afraid I have't got any figures about POWs or anything but Im sure their proportion of captured to killed or injured was quite high esp. for Germany and USSR. The German's began surrendering in droves to the US Brits etc,especially after the breakout from Normandy and push into Germany. The war was lost and most did not see the point of wasting their lives needlessly. Troops also knew generally the enemy would give them clemency, particularly on the Wesetern Front.

You are correct on all counts - however, I think the majority of prisoners were taken in mass surrenders, not in tactical situations we see in CM. Look at the numbers I gave for Canadians - of the 7000 men that actually became prisoners, 1600 of them were at Hong Kong and 1900 at Dieppe - over fifty percent, in other words, were not taken in tactical situations but rather in mass surrender. In other words, situations you would not encounter in Combat Mission.

Western Allied troops surrendered relatively little after DDay because they were generally not the ones being attack, overrun etc. Most prisoners are usually captured whilst defending. Troops that are attacking can usually just slip back to friendly lines.

Agreed.

BTW Im not asking for a surrender option solely from a point of command much like a commander wouldn't neccessarily know what his units could tarket. It is an abstraction. I think to code in realistic AI for realistic surrender would be extremely difficult. When would the AI it know when a situation is hopeless, or whether breaking and running back behind lines has the best chance of staying alive. The average soldier (ignoring those gone berserk or mad etc) at all times is most concerned about surviving, they don't want to die. I just feel sorry for those poor CM soldiers that don't have the initiative to work out they're are going to certain death if they don't give up now. I want to help them live.

I feel your pain! LOL! Part of being a commander is toughening yourself to the fact that your men will get killed in horrible ways and there is nothing you can do about it - except lead them as best you can.

P.S. thanks for keeping this an interesting debate, and not becoming confrontational etc.

I rather enjoyed it. I am inspired to do some more research into this - a fascinating topic. Thanks for indulging me.

[engy]

I'm going to stay away from the historical discussion here and give one CM example of a *very interesting* surrender from a current PBEM. (In fact, this just occurred on the movie this morning.)

Situation: Fog, I'm attacking. Defender (German) has set up a platoon in an isolated clump of woods and thrashed me with a vicious ambush. However, I have troops he hasn't seen on the left and right of his ambush. I run a Company HQ and 1 squad into a building *behind* the ambush (it's fog, remember, so he has no idea I'm there) and begin to attack the ambush platoon with the rest of my forces on the left and right (which include some armor) and some arty. The German squad at the rear of the ambush breaks and retreats toward the building I have just occupied. My men open up, the German squad immediately surrenders (with very few casualties) and begins walking back toward the rest of the German platoon. As soon as the surrendered squad is in range of his comrades, the other two German squads (the rest of the "ambush") also surrender.

I've never seen it before in CM and wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't watched 3 times. Roughly 25 men surrendered based on the knowledge that they were surrounded (and, at least it appeared that the first squad to surrender influenced the other two).

engy

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

"He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long."

Napoleon Bonaparte

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

From things that I have read, I don't think a lot of people surrendered in CM-type battles; instead, it seemed to occur in situations where the surrendering troops were significantly outnumbered or were otherwise combat-ineffective.

During the Bulge, a lot of prisoners were taken when their units were surrounded, cut off, and individual groups of soldiers attempted to break out. Other surrenders occurred when small units were completely overmatched (i.e., two platoons in a village are overrun by a battalion); in many cases, though, after a perfunctory firefight, the Germans would ask the troops to surrender, upon threat of overwhelming attack or bombardment or whatever, and after some negotiations, the troops would surrender. This failed at bastogne, of course, but there were really quite a lot of troops there.

There were, of course, also some surrenders in CM style battles, but CM seems to get them about right, based on what I've read on the Western front, anyway.

[Guest wwb_99]

One thing to remeber, surrender on the battlefield was at best a dangerous operation. Basically because exposing oneself on the battlefield is a very dangerous operation. Especailly when you toss in language barriers, and the fact that you were just shooting at the guys you are surrendering to.

Most captives were taken in large negotiated surrenders (like an entire regiment in the Battle of the Bulge), rather than on the battlfield.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[illo]

WWB many individual soldiers are intentionally captured by advancing forces in RL. Its part of reconaissance.

[IPA]

I think I'd have to agree with Andrew here, that at the scale and type of battle depicted by CM, surrendering would not occur on large scale. On the other hand historically fighting to the last man was not the norm and when this did occur, accounts of such actions often became legendary. Historically the issue cannot be summed up using wide sweeping statistical info such as a particular nation's POWs for a fixed period of the War, though a general national ideology/culture may have contibruted to a limited extent. Whether troops surrendered historically was very much dependent on their specific situation and state of morale (I don't think for the allies that penalties under military law would be a major consideration).

What would you list as the major factors affecting the likelihood of surrender common to both small units (squad level) and larger units say (company level)? Here's the start of a list (most are pretty obvious and pls excuse the less than eliqent terminology).

1/ Surrounded, outnumbered, cut off behind enemy lines without hope of relief.

2/ Leadership. Ultimately the decision to surrender would lie with the unit CO present not the ORs themselves.

3/ Are we winning the battle, defending the fatherland or what is mission purpose (have we got a reason worth dying for?)

4/ Low or no amunition.

5/ Ideology/level of fanatism.

6/ Chances of enemy taking prisoners.

7/ Level of casualties received.

8/ Level of hostile fire.

There's probably a previous post where BTS states in detail how surrendering is determined in CM.

If anyone's interested I do have fairly detailed statistics for British prisoners taken at the Battle of Arnhem, but that action is probably not a good example as it was a fairly unique situation.

My 2p

IPA

[Guest wwb_99]

Originally posted by illo:

WWB many individual soldiers are intentionally captured by advancing forces in RL. Its part of reconaissance.

True, for recon. But as BTS has stated many times, CM does combat not recon, patrol actions, etc.

Once the general pandemonium of battle starts, I would not want to be the one walking out with the white flag.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Lordfluffers]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting!!

I realise that the vast majority or surrenders were organised (Singapore 1941,IIRC 250 000 British and Commonwealth troops surrendered to Japanese). Im sure such odds as the following existed, soldiers be tempted to surrender: becoming cut off, ammo runs dry, surrounded and/or out-numbered by superior forces, terrible casualties in the unit etc., or in the case that grieves me most, an enemy tank drives up to within 10 meters if your unit (in this case a vehicle crew)and mercilessly mows them down. The immediate logic would be to stick the hands in the air and pray. If there was a possibility of returning to friendly lines, I'm sure most soldiers would, its just the extreme cases where escaping is impossible I would like to surrender those troops.

BTW Engy, I've never heard of that occuring before. I often flank enemy positions and batter them from all sides and the only captives I ever get are immobile mg teams. Maybe I've just been unlucky. CM is pretty non-linear so I could have just been unfortunate. Maybe BTS could put in another word??

Agreed Mike, it has been an interesting conversation.

[Guest Germanboy]

Also an excellent discussion of the 'Captor's Dilemma' (whether to accept surrender or not) is in 'The pity of war' by Niall Ferguson (I think) - it is WW I, but none the less relevant.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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