A Question of Morale?

[Liam]

Here's an interesting Question for you... It's 1943, my comrades in Arms have just pushed backed fascist Europe from the threshold of victory in the Ukraine and Baltic region. My countries though at this point after over nearly a 2 million dead decides to put 300 thousand lives in Corps up for slaughter as Recon for Allied forces. First of all, if you command a ship to go into a doomed ocean expanse, are they smart enough to know that say they're going into 1000X the amount of firepower they posses as transports possess none at all they're merely going to die, will they obey the command? Perhaps Russians would, they may not be able to go home and even Germans could be forced to although would Italians-US-French-and Brits dot he same?

Would they walk unescorted. Bomber pilots had MGs on their planes they knew they could protect themselves to a degree. Some Trannies had mounted weapons but nothing big enough to use vs another Ship of any significance. From what I know of player morale there were plenty of suicidal men during WW2, but not even the leadership could patch the morale questions caused by the loss or destruction of entire armies. It's something almost impossible to patch with set rules. Although if there was an overall Army Morale rating, or for say surrounding units in a Army Group it could be decisive. In fact morale and experience go hand and hand. Decided Many Battles of WW2. We already are punished slightly with Experience on HQs, but perhaps we could take it a step further. Punish the entire Command, and sub-command of that field of combat. Similarly for Oceans and Skies. They already include Experience-Supply... Naturally why not the last... in hand to hand combat it always the 'true' deciding factor all the way up the line when equipment-tactics are the same

[Jordy]

Very Interesting. So to recover moral, of lets say, an Army, you would have to move it out of combat and in supply and allow it to stay there, unmolested (No attacks, air or ground) and its moral would increase back to acceptable levels. The longer it stayed there, the higher the moral gets. With a maximum, on a 1-10 scale, of 7. To get to level 8, 9, or 10 moral, combat victories would be needed with an acceptable amount of losses.

Another factor in moral, on an individual unit level, could be movement. If a unit is constantly on the move or in combat (for example, 3 months straight) with no rest (not moving for one turn) it would go down 1 level of moral.

On a strategic level though, this moral concept could be catastophic for the USSR, with the amount of losses they sustain early. So, maybe the moral characteristics of each nation could be different, or newly built units start with a moral of 8 (signifying the zeal many of the green troops would have, not yet having experienced the rigors of combat)

Moral levels above 7 would only stay that way if victories occured within a month of each other. Otherwise they would return to level 7. Its difficult for anybody to keep a high level of enthusiasm for too long.

Weather and terrain could also have an effect on moral. The Russian winter and fighting in Jungles (SC2 - The Pacific Theatre) come to mind.

Also, the longer a nation is at war, the more difficult it should be to reach/sustain the higher levels of moral.

I think I've started to ramble and obviously these numbers could be adjusted but I think I got the idea of what I am trying to say across.

[ October 02, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Jordy ]

[Liam]

Jordy:

Well, it kinda reflects the morale levels now by not having a single HQs in Russia at the start of the DOW upon them. What I'm purposing is to elaborate on Experience-Supply system that's already implemented. We have what you say, a unit that moves constantly. We re-equip it and we lose Experience as you've got a bunch of Green Boys with some guys use to shellshock.<very important in the Battle of Bulge in the South as I recall> Supply is fuel, food, ammo, etc.. That wouldn't matter in that instance.. However morale is the average fighting man's feelings about the war, is he happy. You're right, by overextending a unit, it get's tired, weary and morale drops significantly. You can't have an army group fight 24-7, eventually without R&R they're go nuts.<and that's proven> I am talking more about the way that players abuse say for instance throwing a Corps, or unit into harms way to kill it to achieve an objective. Not that it wasn't done in WW2, though mostly ended in catastrophe. The Kamikaze units of the Japanese, had no real impact and just killed off a bunch of Green Pilots, didn't really alter the Wars end just destructive. The cases of German U-Boat men who were captured saying they're losses were up in the 80-90% and that it was a death mission is what I'm trying to indicate. Each Navy, Army, Airforce should have a structure as a Army Group. An HQ in this game, athough fleets cannot be given such things<which is kinda foolish> Why not???

Each time you send a corps on a suicide mission, or an airfleet you pay, it decreases the overall morale of your troops not only the experience. Battle Hardened troops fight well with experience but like you say if they never get one second of rest and end up losing half their #s they really get depressed... If in one Year dozens of units are smashed, overall the feeling is that the War will be over. This could do wonders for the Russians, who would need special bonuses for Winter Counter-offensive. Though it could truly reflect that historically they were ill prepared to even defend against Finland let alone Germany As well as the Western Allies...

Though after some initial defeats, and saving units at Dunqurkue, taking Al Alemein...BOB, Western Allied morale finally caught on...Russians caught on heavy after Stalingrad and the Germans plummetted.

Overall the #1 goal of such a system would prevent Kamikaze Units, for such things as recon that are completely Ahistorical. Tens of thousands of men do not commit suicide<some Japs did > and if they did, it overall reflects on each HQ, and Army...Even Production on a whole... It forces you to perserve you men, treat them well...They're part of your country and wouldn't commit suicide, they want to commit to a real war effort and win and come home alive. The feeling of all soldats throughout the ages.

Germany and Russia payed heavy for that Price. Both Countries were near at the End at some point. Though Russia rallyed back and Germany had nowhere to retreat to, an intelligent German defense without Battle of Bulge and blunders in the initial D-Day landing may have held out for another year. Such a thing would've been costly, even though most average Germans believed the War was lost by Summer of '44

Perhaps why the War ended promptly the following year. The Germans had lost their will to fight

of course you'd have to include a random factor fo the fanatiscm<which isn't the majority and never is> Perhaps by this system we could force the introduction of a Destroyer type unit for Recon. Use of Bombers for Aerial...and no more kami-amphib landings..without a cost

[JerseyJohn]

Liam You've done it again!

A Very Interesting Topic.

Even the Japanese, whose war effort was tied in with worship of the Emperor, felt obiliged to lie big time to the population after Midway. The Japanese people continued being fed lies even past the Phillipines, Iwo Jima and Okinowa, though with their key cities in ruins and their soldiers retuning as ceremonial ashes it's inconceivable that they didn't know what was going on even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The German people were also lied to and only the Hitler Youth truly believed in victory by 1945.

But it's hard to guage who would and who would not carry out a suicide mission. The Kamikazee, for example, in many cases were volunteered rather than volunteers. Often the unacceptable humiliation of saying no when asked was the recruitment method. Other times pilots, usually new recruits, were assigned. The official understanding was they could ask to be struck from that list, but no Japanese serviceman of 1944-45 would have made that request.

It's also difficult to say how much more the Germans and Soviets could have endured beyond the hardships they actually did endure. The greatest Soviet victories came after they'd had entire Army Groups [Fronts in their terms] surrounded and annihlated during the summer and autumn of 1941. The German fiascos at Stalingrad and Tunesia were comparable disasters, yet they continued fighting very hard after those events in 1943.

I think Great Britain could have continued if the B. E. F. had been captured at Dunkirk; whether they would or wouldn't have is an open question, though. Their morale would have been shattered in any case.

Certainly the United States would have been severly affected by losses comparable to what the Russians and Germans suffered. It's difficult to say what the effect would have been.

Although the American public was told the truth about lost commands on the Chinese mainland, at Wake and Guam and the nightmare loss of an entire army in the Philipines. Philipinos were United States citizens at the time which means the entire force at Bataan and Corregidore, though written up as U. S. servicemen and Republic of the Phillipine troops, were all Americans. Which was MacArthur's selling point for Leyte over Formosa (Taiwan), that the Philipines were populated by loyal American citizens who HAD to be liberated first!

Getting back to the original point, however, I tend to believe the First and Second World Wars numbed both the public and the fighting men of all countries to huge losses.

But in the capacity to endure them, I'd rank the major powers as, top being most able and bottom being least able:

Japan

USSR

Germany

China

UK

USA

France*

Italy**

*This is largely speculation because with the fall of Paris most of France was also occupied and their army in ruins. Contrary to myth, France had little choice in the matter, other than to consent to national ruin, an unreasonable alternative to the one chosen.

**The Italians had huge losses almost from the start. Their troops fighting alongside the Afrika Korps performed well, but on the whole Italian morale was very low after the opening losses, which soon included their East African holdings, and they were considerable. It was shattered after the loss of Sicily and surrender followed soon after with the Salerno landings.

[pzgndr]

Morale effects in games have always been problematic. We have many historical examples of good units breaking down due to some minor effect on the battlefield, and of bad units holding out even under adverse conditions. Those are extremes, but they happen. If you include morale effects and random chances for heroic or cowardly behavior, how would you react to a game where the "extremes" occur with more frequency than you expect? That's almost worse than having no morale effects.

SC already has a +1/-1 variable for tactical combat results, specifically to capture all those unkowns on the battlefield. Maybe this range could be increased to +2/-2, but that might make things too erratic. Perhaps a game option for some random modifier that could be applied for national morale when a capital falls, like +1/0/-1 in addition to the tactical modifier, to simulate either steely resolution against invaders or resignation of impending defeat. Something broad and abstract like that would work well at this scale.

As for morale effects of individual units, some of the discussion here is getting too specific. If Corps transports are used for naval spotting, couldn't these be thought of as cheap destroyers doing their job rather than several divisions of real soldiers being sent out on suicide missions? We accept various abstractions already, like air attacks and seaborne invasions possibly including paratroopers to avoid having airborne units in the game. We should accept that all units are abstractions, essentially just expenditures of MPP's as combat power to be applied in support of grand strategy. I try not to scrutinize too closely what happens in a single hex during a single turn, because I invariably do not like what I see. Like an impressionist painting, you need to step back so that the details become a blur and you're able to appreciate the bigger picture.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

We should accept that all units are abstractions, essentially just expenditures of MPP's as combat power to be applied in support of grand strategy.

We might wish to do that. However, I have long been an advocate of expanding the parameters of SC so that there are MORE variables... that are... visible and (mostly) KNOWN to the player.

Well and good to say that most "cool & charming" aspects are... HIDDEN from view.

That is like saying that Chess is a board-game reproduction of the Crude and Romantic Conflicts of the entire Middle Ages... since the playing pieces represent the principle Power-centers of that particular historical world.

Better, I am thinking, to have more SPECIFIC pieces (... as I recently proposed in that thread where I suggested "specialized Corps units" such as Recon and Marine, etc), which would thereby geometrically increase the (mostly) KNOWN interacting factors.

For example, if we are to have ACTUAL Paratroopers in SC2 (... and, all indications suggest that Hubert is inclined to include this NEW! unit :cool: ), then the CHOICES each player must make are increased... do you employ that unique unit, to do a specific job, or do you save it for some other better function?

Having said that, I would agree that you must draw the line somewhere, else you will spend all your war-gaming days in terrible fits of confused attribution, and having separate "Morale" calculations probably isn't necessary or advised, IMHO.

Though, I have on several long ago occasions, consistently advocated some sort of separate calculation for... Momentum, and/or Esprit de Corps.

***The reason: this goes back to my baseball board playing games... in a simple statistical formulation, you are NEVER going to get-at the reasons for the constant year-by-year successes of certain players, such as Whitey Ford, of the (deservedly) hated NY Yankees.

His tantalizing mix of ploys & pitches and in-game MOXIE just CANNOT be translated to a cardboard playing card/charts.

Now, I long ago made my own baseball game, since I could never find ANY one that sufficiently satisfied my imagination, mostly due to reasons like the one stated above, and so... Viola! there IS a way to include such strange and apparently inexplicable phenomena as... Whitey Ford's extraordinary "winning ability" (... consistently over and above the team's won-loss performance.

I have done it, and it works like a charm!

In regard to SC, or SC2, I would suppose that you COULD incorporate some sort of fluxuating National elan, such as the Germans possessed in the first 2 or 3, or even 4 years of the War. Likewise, the Brits unflagging... grit & spit-fire could be somehow re-presented.

But, if you did that, it should be a quantifiable factor that the average gamer could recognize and include as part of his over-all GRAND Strategy.

Not, HIDDEN from view in some sort of Picasso-esque Abstraction that only the interested critics and Art Historians might access and explain.

I try not to scrutinize too closely what happens in a single hex during a single turn, because I invariably do not like what I see.

LOL! I hereby nominate this quote... as the VERY BEST single quote I have EVER seen on ANY forum at any time, anywere! in the whole wide world! :cool:

A similar thing might be said about each of our vantage point, from, and about... The World, The Nation, The City, The Neighborhood, The Backyard, The Front Porch, etc, etc. LOL!

Like an impressionist painting, you need to step back so that the details become a blur and you're able to appreciate the bigger picture.

Ah, Mr Bill... a true and dedicated Aesthete after all!

I always knew it to be true, and finally! actual evidence!

You'll have to change your signature-line from William Tecumsah Sherman, to... say, an inspired Symbolist comment, from... Odilon Redon perhaps?

[JerseyJohn]

An incredible revelation!

Immer

Here's something you might find interesting. By the 1961 post season Whitey Ford had been pitching for the Yankees more than a decade, was already at the peak of a distinguished career, etc & etc when he broke Babe Ruth's consecutive scoreless inning pitching record. When he was told of it he needed to have whose record he broke clarified a second time. His remark was, "Babe Ruth pitched? I never knew that, this is the first I'm hearing about it!" This came up in a fairly recent interview.

Agree with your assessment of his interesting pitching style.

Also agree with Bill; you don't want to know too much about what's going on inside that hex during a battle. Hell, people are getting killed! Stand clear!

[Liam]

John:

I like your elaboration. We as Americans never withstood high casaulty rates and succeeded in any war, save the Civil War. The fact is we lose our stomach even in Iraq after a few hundred.

During WW2 in the Island hopping scenario where our technology wasn't a great advantage over the Japanese, we were hurting bigtime. The Morale for our Marines there was at an all time low, in various opening failures to take the iniative and push off the Tenacious Japanese. The Japs had a Warrior Class society, different than our own. They're quite used to fighting to the death. I would gauge things very similarly to you. Many German Generals before Fall of France didn't believe in it... After they actually began to believe...

Bill:

As to what impact this should have on this game.. Well, I'm sorry to say but if you include a Corps as 10-20k of men and you send 4 or 5 of them into combat to definitely die! That's hardly a small Destroyer Figure of some Farmilies and Type '34s.. They're helpless cannon fodder. Although Morale overall by be too huge a concept too include, although it's one of the staples of victory in loss in true tactical combat and even strategic combat<sense the two are married> The fact is I'm trying to break the game away from the ugliness of Corp Recon. Suicide Fighter units and amphibious landings. Though the last two were often used they weren't for intelligence as far as I know

[Liam]

Immer, I'm impressed! As to the detail that could be added, the mind is the limit. We don't want 'extreme' detail, however perhaps a more thorough game... We already have huge Gaps in the Map-Unit-per-Hex, etc... I think that any idea of increasing units to some base units and doing away with say rocket detachments and Allied Subs in the Atlantic<two completely useless points> would be nice. Double tripe the size of the map, at least... It wouldn't hurt

[Shaka of Carthage]

To get back to what the original posting and responses were discussing, I think they have brought up a valid point but at too low of a level.

Its not Unit Morale that we need to concern ourselves with. The random +/-1 cover that. What we need to think about is National Morale. You could also think of it as War Weariness.

Now the cumlative losses in manpower means something, not to mention the effects of strategical bombing or rockets. By having different starting values for each nation, we have another strategical factor to deal with, just like our game counterparts in real life.

And we now have a realistic way of representing the war weariness of France, that resulted in its quick surrender to the Germans, once the defensive line was breached.

[Liam]

Shaka:

As far as National Morale is concerned the Rockets that the Germans used had little effect ont he citizens of Britian. The only ones that made it killed a few thousand people and did some property damage...they were highly inaccurate weapons and not until the 1960s would rockets be useful and then only for very advanced technological nations. ICBMS and Smart Bombs of sorts. The rockets attached to airplanes would replace dogfighting as air-to-air missiles. Smart bombs wouldn't come into their own until the last decade or so... the V-1/V-2 rockets were about as effective a weapon as the flu was on the British Populace during WW2.

Also to boot, Strategic bombing was useful however... It was a highly more accurate weapon than Rockets ever were. You could with a few thousands Bombs probably take out a percentage of a given target. Ranging... Most of the bombing done in WW2 was Terror bombing in an attempt to destroy the Morale of the Local Populace. It was a concept dreamt up in WW1, the thought was that it would break the Will of individuals to Fight. In WW2 however we found out that it only increased that will. Now did the Mass Strategic/Area Bombing the Brits-Americans did on Germany have a detrimental effect on their production. Most definitely... There were sooooo many Bombs dropped, it leveled cities, infrastructure and destroyed Materials-War Production. Not a significant amount for the expenditure in Bombers however... The money would've been better spent on what we call more precise Weapons. Dive-bombers, Battlefield useful bombers... Which most of those Heavy Bombers could be converted into. They were accurate enough to take out battlefield Targets, installations, and fortifications...to a degree. Sometimes, it worked in their favour and sometimes it didn't with the weather in Northern Europe often it didn't matter. The converted Fighter-Bombers used against the enemy were very accurate and powerful and that changed the complete ideology of the use of AirPower for all eternity.

Only well after WW2, during the Gulf Wars has AirPower been proven to cripple a Military Machine of a nation completely. During WW2 it was a great aide, but now we try to avoid collateral Damage as we know it doesn't help...

In the case of the A-bombs, I think that we cannot put to them alone as ending WW2. Many more died in Japan by FireBombing.Certianly enough of those puppies though would level a country completely

Morale is included in this game already in a Strategic Sense. However a lot of other gibberish is included too, like Rocket. My question is why? You say that morale is less a factor than rockets, that's perposterous. It was a trillion times more important in WW2 that Rockets ever were and that's no exaggeration

The only fine use of Bombing, was to destroy Military Targets to sum it up. Morale has no place in the game at all. You can send a million men to the bottom of the North Sea Literally in Transports and it doesn't matter and that's supposed to roughly represent a few thousand men aboard various Recon ships-planes??? I'm sorry but I don't swallow it. It's kinda makes about as much sense as the Maginot line did.The French thought they were safe behind their fortification, they didn't understand the modern concept of Blitzkrieg War. They didn't know how to group tanks and aircraft to prevent a huge breach like was done in Ardenne. They were completely cut off and destroyed. Sapped of all their Will to fight cause their was no more Capitol within a few weeks. It was a whole new concept.

Most nations gave in after their Capitol fell. Where did France have to reatreat to? In that case losing your Capitol was a HUGE blow to National Morale. Not only that but losing so poorly when you feel your armed forces are equal. However if 500 thousand french when on a Suicide Mission into N.Africa after France had fallen, when there was barely 1 free french corps left at the Wars End for Free French Units due to the Unpopularity of Britian Favoritism at Dunkqurkue... give me a break, that's a point... then you talk about having up to a Million free French... Why the heck would they fight when they don't have a country anymore? They most definitely didn't give two craps anymore about winning the War...their side was beaten, their morale was Nill