The Morale Model is RETARDED...

[Squatdog]

I recently reinstalled the game after a year's hiatus and rapidly remembered why I stopped playing in the first place...

I think the problem is that in the pursuit of realism, morale is over-modeled to the point where it is unrealistic and infantry behave in an illogical fashion under fire.

I recall one classic example:

On a small CMAK assault map, I had a platoon sneak forward through a cornfield and occupy a rocky outcrop close to the enemy position and support the attack of an adjacent platoon with enfilading fire. The second platoon (supported by mortars) cleared their objective and went firm, allowing a third platoon to move through their position and continue the advance. An enemy counter-attack was monkey-stomped into oblivion and the remnants fled in disorder.

So far so good!

There was a single enemy soldier from a decimated rifle section skulking on the edge of a field nearby, so I tasked the first platoon with delivering the coup de grace. Not taking any chances, I sent forward two rifle sections set to Assault, covered by a LMG and the platoon HQ section.

What happened next caused my to switch off the PC in disgust...

This one intrepid rifleman somehow managed to cause both rifle sections to PANIC, without causing a SINGLE casualty! I then suffered the ignomy of watching two regular sections(under command) helplessly grovel in the mud instead of engaging a lone enemy 20m away, then flee back the way they came.

I mean seriously, this is just absurd and it happens far too often.

In my opinion, the solution would be to increase the amount of suppresion required to adversly affect morale by around 50%, so infantry can actually function in a realistic manner without running or faceplanting becauseof a few stray rounds.

Are their any mods that can tweak the morale settings?

[John Kettler]

Squatdog,

What kind of cover was he in? What kind of weapon was he armed with? What was his experience level? At what range and in what cover did your assaulting sections come under fire? Was the fire from any aspect other than more or less dead front? Was the firer higher than your men? Did they have grenades, and did they use them? Did he? If the advance was a slog across mud, this might explain a lot, as might knowing the full particulars of your HQ unit. Being in command may not buy you much if your HQ lacks the right modifiers.

Summing up, while we understand your frustration,

those of us who have more CM experience than you do can't really help you until we know a lot more about the detailed circumstances.

Regards,

John Kettler

[PFMM]

If you read Hackworth's About Face he describes an action where, during the Korean War, he witnessed a lone North Korean pin an entire company of Americans attacking him for about a quarter of an hour and then send them scrambling.

And there are plenty of others I'm sure.

It's not as absurd as you think.

[Guest Mike]

YOU know that it's jsut one enemy....your little pixellated troopers have no such helicopter view and universal understanding...the morale system isn't perfect, but it's not that that's retarded

[Sixxkiller]

Originally posted by PFMM:

If you read Hackworth's About Face he describes an action where, during the Korean War, he witnessed a lone North Korean pin an entire company of Americans attacking him for about a quarter of an hour and then send them scrambling.

And there are plenty of others I'm sure.

It's not as absurd as you think.

Look at Corporal Clair Goodblood for instance.

[Rocket-Man]

And has everybody forgotten Sergeant York?

[Squatdog]

Unless these two individuals managed to single-handedly ROUT two enemy rifle sections (composed entirely of regulars) at point blank range, while being suppressed by covering fire and additionally somehow managed to do so without inflicting a single casualty, then I don't think the comparison is valid

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Squatdog,

What kind of cover was he in? What kind of weapon was he armed with? What was his experience level? At what range and in what cover did your assaulting sections come under fire? Was the fire from any aspect other than more or less dead front? Was the firer higher than your men? Did they have grenades, and did they use them? Did he? If the advance was a slog across mud, this might explain a lot, as might knowing the full particulars of your HQ unit. Being in command may not buy you much if your HQ lacks the right modifiers.

The lone soldier (who should be recommended for a high decoration, incidently) was the last man of a regular Platoon HQ section,was positioned on the edge of a cornfield and had spent most of the preceding turns cowering in a ditch.

The two assaulting sections were regular and at at approximately 2/3 strength and either ready or rested. Presumably, they still had a full complement of grenades as they weren't previously involved in any close combat.

They were advancing 50-60 metres over a cornfield, with support of a LMG and the Platoon HQ, who kept the lone gunman pinned for the first 30metres until he popped his head up and miraculously routed the two attacking sections at pointblank range in a scene reminiscent of a mid-80s action movie. Without actually causing any casualties.

I was not amused.

[Squatdog]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

YOU know that it's jsut one enemy....your little pixellated troopers have no such helicopter view and universal understanding...the morale system isn't perfect, but it's not that that's retarded

I was playing with full fog of war and the unit was fully revealed (presumably by the troops subsequently tasked with assaulting).

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

I can't remember having seen such an exceptional occurence lately - or even having seen it at all...

It seems exagerate that this guy did't give up with as much incoming fire, but if he had a SMG it's not that weird that he could pin a couple depleted squads.

It looks like just plain bad luck, with a squad "failing" morale check at close range, and the other also (with maybe the negative effect of seeing the first squad rout).

I see no game-breaker here, anyway this incident shouldn't have changed much of the game result. You don't have to kill every single enemy trooper, we're not in ToW here !

[Soddball]

No mortars? Tch.

[Dook]

50-60 meters is too far for the assault command, at least in my experience. Save that for the last 20 meters. Use advance instead for the initial stretch.

[Redwolf]

The core point of the original post is valid, although I don't really agree with the way it comes together.

In my opinion, the core problem with the CMBB/CMAK morale model is that morale is used to issue a ton of automatically given commands to the units, no matter what the player's commands were.

Now, this is realistic as such - as people come under too heavy fire they do things that were not their original orders. The problem comes in when you look at what exactly is being ordered. From my observation, most of the automatically given orders in CMBB/CMAK are flawed. In particular, all that auto-sneaking of infantry is severely flawed, the choice of destination for automatically given run or sneak commands is unrealistic, even strong tanks in strong shooting positions retreat, ruining their hit chances, etc.

Compare that with a game like TacOps (also published by BFC). In TacOps, as units come under too heavy fire to carry out the orders you gave, the game engine just deletes all orders. The units just stay put.

Now, I don't say that, in general, staying put is more realistic than retreating or sneaking, given realistic sneaking and retreating. What I say is that in CMBB/CMAK the particular retreat and sneak commands given by the engine are not realistic, and they are unrealistic to the point where the TacOps model would work just plain better.

It also doesn't help that the new MG model in CMBB is severely underengineered, as is the treatment of trenches.

[jBrereton]

OK, well basically, your problem is that you were assauting over a type of ground with little or no cover value, against an enemy that was still alive.

You are also a bit unlucky - yes, often units do get back up in a last-ditch effort to stay alive, but it seems that both of your units were pretty cowardly, because squads do vary in terms of how prone they are to keep on charging or crawl off.

So yeah, don't get angry, because in a couple of turns of fire, you will have blown him away with your LMG in all likelihood, and your squaddies should get back up sharpish.

[The Coil]

So many times I've seen someone cry 'unrealistic' when in fact they mean 'something unlucky happened to me'. It's a if realism means 'things should always behave in a way that seems average, or if some improbably event happens, it should happen in my favor.' It's hard to justify a charge of 'unrealistic' based on one anecdotal story.

I'm not sure what happend is altogether unrealistic, anyway. Bunch of men in a cornfield (not sure if you specificed date, but a cornfield in the winter is not a good place to shelter from bullets, and come to think of it, a cornfield in the summer doesn't stop many bullets, either), who have just had a couple friends killed, ordered to charge a man in good cover with a gun...my reaction would be 'heck, no, let's stay here and shoot at him some more.' If I were the guy in cover, my reaction upon seeing a bunch of people charging across an open cornfield at me brandishing guns would be to start shooting for all I'm worth. So it seems to me like what happened is well within the bounds of probability, at least.

Your complaint seems to be 'my men's morale is unrealistically brittle, and the enemy's morale is unrealistically strong'. I suspect JasonC will be along in a moment to tell you what he thinks of that sort of reasoning...

[McIvan]

When a unit becomes aware of enmy moving close with the intention of ending that unit's life, it will quite often rally and commence firing in an act of self-preservation.

Presumably the guy has to have an SMG....I really can't see him supressing two squads otherwise. At close range, an SMG is quite capable of suppressing two squads....a bunch of SMG magazines being shot into the not-very-safe over of a wheatfield would scare the hell out of me.

Also possible that it went "fanatic".

I would call you unlucky, not that the morale model is broken.

[Squatdog]

I would call you unlucky, not that the morale model is broken. [/QB]

[Squatdog]

Originally posted by Soddball:

No mortars? Tch.

To take out a single pinned enemy soldier from a destroyed infantry section?

Overkill?

who have just had a couple friends killed, ordered to charge a man in good cover with a gun... [/QB]

The assaulting sections didn't recieve a SINGLE CASUALTY.

Originally posted by McIvan:

Presumably the guy has to have an SMG....I really can't see him supressing two squads otherwise.

Me neither!

Unfortunately the weapon in question may have been a rifle...

I would call you unlucky, not that the morale model is broken. [/QB]

The problem is that the suppressive effect of incoming fire in the game is HUGELY over-modeled to the point where it makes infantry behave in an unrealistic manner, especially under ineffective fire.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Squatdog:

The problem is that the suppressive effect of incoming fire in the game is HUGELY over-modeled to the point where it makes infantry behave in an unrealistic manner, especially under ineffective fire.

What's your evidence for this?

All the figures I've seen (which are few and far between, but from things like the Fort Sill suppression study) show that the target area you have to get a bullet into for suppressive effect is vastly greater than that required to inflict physical damage.

I have a few grouses myself about the way infantry react to bullet fire when there is cover to hand, but I'd have great difficulty naming another game (board, miniatures or computer, amateur or professional) that does a better job of modelling fire effects on dismounted infantry. Can you?

All the best,

John.

[Squatdog]

Incidently, the example I provided (which actually caused me to uninstall the game) was merely an illustration of what I consider a major problem in the game mechanics. Other examples abound...

I played a few rounds last night and witnessed the following:

.............................

A veteran rifle section under command of a double-morale HQ, advances (along with 3 other sections) 60m from a treeline to a row of houses on the outskirts of a town. They were under the covering fire of mortars, several HMGs and 3 Tigers who were supressing the enemy infantry at point blank range.

This veteran rifle section (at full complement and rested) recieved some sporadic rifle fire coming from a house around 120 metres away at a 45 degree angle. Rather than advance the last 20m to the empty house they were moving to, the section (incredibly) panicked and ran ALL THE WAY back...despite not taking a SINGLE casualty!

I reviewed the round several times and the section was only under fire for less than five seconds, by a depleted conscript unit (no less). Amazingly, this pathetically ineffectual fire was enough to cause them to panic...

...........................

In a different scenario, a green rifle section was advancing through a copse toward the flank of an enemy rifle section who were already being engaged from another direction. The section briefly came under fire (without recieving any casualties) and managed to panic and stay this way for three rounds despite not taking any incoming.

What happened next was painful to behold...

Rather than stay in the cover afforded by the trees, the panicked unit crawled out INTO THE OPEN and across a barren field, where it was promptly targetted by two enemy sections and a tank(!). Needless to say, this didn't work out well for them.

[Squatdog]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

All the figures I've seen (which are few and far between, but from things like the Fort Sill suppression study) show that the target area you have to get a bullet into for suppressive effect is vastly greater than that required to inflict physical damage.

Note the differnece between 'suppression' and 'catastrophic morale failure that results in the targetted unit running like little girls despite having overwhelming numerical and tactical superiority'

[Wicky]

So t the end of the battle there was a lone man left standing - How do you know he wasn't at full strength at the beginning of your assault?

IIRC In CMAK if he was a US HQ they can comprise of up to 10-12 men!

Add his HQ bonus modifiers, in a ditch (do you mean trench?)which is excellent cover against incoming, with possibly a dash of fanaticism against your squads assaulting low on ammo? and anything is possible.

Originally posted by Squatdog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

YOU know that it's jsut one enemy....your little pixellated troopers have no such helicopter view and universal understanding...the morale system isn't perfect, but it's not that that's retarded

I was playing with full fog of war and the unit was fully revealed (presumably by the troops subsequently tasked with assaulting). </font>

[Bannon DC]

Chalk it up to bad luck or "user error." Sounds like the defending HQ had gone "fanatical" and probably had his Thompson out. Was he in a trench, foxhole, or a "ditch?" Wherever he was, he had good cover.

In my experience, these sort of examples are rare. And when they do occur, it is usually a good thing, not bad. I get more of a "crazy things happen in war" reaction than a "this game is crap" reaction.

That said, Redwolf's comments above are right on target. This series of games has many flaws. But overall, the good points outweigh the bad and the game still provides fun.

Squatdog, I suggest you stop playing against the AI and play only against humans. That is where the most fun comes with this game.

Good luck

[PFMM]

No Squatdog, for every story of woe you can produce there are at least ten more recorded instances that are so surreal they make yours look sensible in comparison.

In short some people don't like being shot at, while others don't care how much lead you throw at them.

Maybe a little more caution on your part in future. Stop trying to steal all the glory while getting your men killed.

[Redwolf]

Funny how I heard all this talk defending the MG and infantry model just like this before - at the end of the CMBO lifetime

As I said, I don't think the morale model and parameters are too bad. Just the excessive issue of unrealistic orders as a reaction is killing me.

[McIvan]

I sort of agree about the AI orders, especially when you've almost reached cover and your men proceed to sneak all the way back across the open ground they'd almost finished with. But other than that it's not so bad.

Squatdog your second set of examples is interesting. I cannot see why a vet squad with a double morale leader would flee from a conscript squad at 120 metres from only one burst (that's all five secs would allow). You didn't say what terrain your boys were in...but I presume they were advancing in the open from the description. Open terrain is very vulnerable, but I would still expect your boys to take more than one burst. The possibility that occurred to me was that a sniper took a shot. There is a big morale hit from sniper fire....that can panic and/or rout a squad on the spot. Alternatively (or as well) you took fire from units that you haven't id'd yet under fog of war, such as MG's further back.

Despite the occasionaly silly AI sneak order, I like CM's morale modelling better than any game I've ever encountered.