The Morale Model is RETARDED...

[Squatdog]

Originally posted by Wicky:

[QB] 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

Ugh.

The unit was fully revealed and was the sole survivor of a decimated HQ section and was pinned down on the edge of a cornfields with no cover. The attacking sections were nearly full strength, under command with ample ammunition and had the benefit of covering fire.

[Squatdog]

To define the problem, I'd have to say that (under the current game mechanics) ineffective fire has FAR too much effect on morale and it makes infantry react in a very unrealistic manner.

[John Kettler]

Squatdog,

Did the HQ remnant which caused so much grief have modifiers, and if so, what were they?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 27, 2007, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Squatdog]

I can't recall exactly, but it was combat/morale.

I used this particular example as an illustration of the one thing that really bugs me about the Combat Mission series.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

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

Redwolf - could you please provide more of your opinion about UNDER-engineered CMBB MGs (trenches, too, but I'm more interested in your MG opinions) - ? Just curious...

[jBrereton]

Originally posted by Squatdog:

To define the problem, I'd have to say that (under the current game mechanics) ineffective fire has FAR too much effect on morale and it makes infantry react in a very unrealistic manner.

I'd disagree, in that any kind of fire, no matter how sporadic or currently ineffective is going to worry your troops.

If you then dash them about with run orders, where they are at their worst, morale-wise, then you're asking for trouble, to be honest, just as you would be in the real world.

[NCOIC]

I've seen something similar happen, at night.

I had a full squad of brits assaulting a heavily suppressed german AT-team get completed routed in one volley of fire.

The fire came from his platoon though, when they engaged the AT team in close proximity to my assaulting squad, it shattered my guys. Maybe this can happen in day time too? Your fire effecting your troopers if they're extremely close?

JR

[Squatdog]

Originally posted by jBrereton:

]I'd disagree, in that any kind of fire, no matter how sporadic or currently ineffective is going to worry your troops.

Worry them, yes. That's what the Alerted and Cautious status are for. The problem is that ineffective fire has a disproportionately strong effect on morale to the point where infantry are incapable of performing their primary role.

If you then dash them about with run orders, where they are at their worst, morale-wise, then you're asking for trouble, to be honest, just as you would be in the real world.

That's what the Advance and Assault commands are for.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Squatdog:

To define the problem, I'd have to say that (under the current game mechanics) ineffective fire has FAR too much effect on morale and it makes infantry react in a very unrealistic manner.

It was not ineffective fire, after all, your men fled, right? Casualty means lethal or critical wounds. Your squads might suffered a couple of nonlethal but rather ugly wounds. Ears shot off, helmets shot through etc. use your imagination It was a heroic effort from the defenders, they have been awarded with a medal since then.

Don't forget that there is huge randomness built into the 'rules', maybe your situation only occurs 1 time in 10.

Infantry fire from close distance is very deadly/scary. It's the main killer in this game, together with the arty.

[John Kettler]

Squatdog,

Though I've never been in combat, I have been shot at, so closely that it practically parted my hair.

Felt the wind! The bullet was a "piddly" .22 Long Rifle, but it passed within inches of my skull and literally froze me in place, too shocked for words. There followed a period of several minutes in which I slowly regained my wits. Mind, this was with no further shots being directed my way. What happened?

I was plinking from a stream bank with family and friends and was partway downslope. Unbeknownst to me, my father somehow wound up some number of feet further upslope and immediately behind me. Since I was unaware of this, it came as a terrible shock to all concerned when I stood up to reload--just as he fired.

With that in mind, now imagine what a single trained determined man (those morale/combat modifiers you mentioned) could do, while in decent cover, against a bunch of exposed men trying to advance on him, with no real cover in which to go to ground when taken under fire. I would think that a stubborn defender who stands and fights when all rational expectations are that he should be cowering in his ditch, thanks to all kinds of suppressive fire, would be a daunting military and morale issue, and the outcome you got would appear to confirm my view. Did this lone stalwart, perhaps the platoon leader himself, happen to have any grenades, and if so, did he use them? That might explain a lot all by itself if he did and did.

Kineas is quite correct in pointing out that

a CM casualty occurs only when a disabling or fatal wound is sustained. If you're caught on the hop in the open, it might not take much to ruin your day, while at the same time not showing up in the CM casualty tolls. Many moons ago, I worked on a WW II squad and platoon level game, with individual men depicted, called H-Hour which tracked light nondisabling wounds, and a man could sustain several such before being rendered hors de combat. We had a former combat infantryman as the game designer, BTW.

Kineas's point about the lethality of small arm fire is also excellent. Back in the 1980s, the U.S. Army took a deep look at what the principal threats were to its rifle platoons and found that small arms caused 80% of the platoon level casualties, this despite the oft cited numbers (70-85%, depending on combat theater) about how artillery fire (to include mortar fire and rockets) was the big killer. This, in turn, led to the development and fielding of a whole new generation of body armor for the troops. Artillery does indeed kill lots of men, but most of it doesn't generally fall on the dug in front line troops, with attacks being the exception. Rather, it falls on the less well protected, more static and locatable company, battalion, regimental, and even divisional formations. Bridges, defiles, crossroads and the like received special attention, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 29, 2007, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Squatdog]

Felt the wind! The bullet was a "piddly" .22 Long Rifle, but it passed withing inches of my skull and literally froze me in place, too shocked for words. There followed a period of several minutes in which I slowly regained my wits. Mind, this was with no further shots being directed my way. What happened?

That's because you were an untrained civilian who was caught entirely by suprise by a negligent discharge.

If you were a highly motivated professional soldier fighting for the Motherland/Fatherland in the bloodiest campaign of recorded history, things would be a tad different...

At a tactical level, a rifleman is drilled to disregard ineffective fire and keep the enemy pinned down, then (depending on the circumstances) close with and eliminate them. The classic response to an ambush at section or platoon level is to immediately CHARGE the enemy position to get out of the killing ground.

The way the game is currently modeled, ineffective fire has FAR too much effect on morale. If the model applied to real life, the Napoleonic Wars would have seen massed formations of thousands drop to the ground and slink away as the first was fired...

With that in mind, now imagine what a single trained determined man (those morale/combat modifiers you mentioned) could do, while in decent cover, against a bunch of exposed men trying to advance on him, with no real cover in which to go to ground when taken under fire.

Against over a dozen trained determined men engaging him at point blank range also armed with grenades and occupying the same barren section of field? He miraculously managed to not harm them so I'm assuming he used harsh language to scare them off.

[Darkmath]

The problem is the morale include ALL soldiers of an unit because it is not 1:1 handling.

So, if the unit is routing, everyone in it will rout.

IRL, some would panic while some would continue advancing.

This phenomena is better reflected in wargames such as Close Combat.

I tend to think the infantry modelling is more realistic in CC, but some people think CM modelling is better in spite of the lack of individual morale model.

Maybe could they explain why CM morale is better?

Squatdog, maybe could you run several the same scenario/situation/turn in which you have encountered this kind of problem.

If your infantry often appears to succeed in the condition you have mentionned, so what you have seen was probably bad luck, as it's happen in the game (too often , sometimes )

[ April 28, 2007, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[John Kettler]

Squatdog,

For suppressive purposes, rifle fire cracking within inches of a man's head IS effective fire, though obviously not so from a casualty creating perspective. What I experienced IS what generates pins, a bullet close enough to the intended target to make him hesitate and remind him, in strong terms, of his own mortality. If you went through this with bullets tearing at your clothes and maybe grazing you and inflicting annoying small wounds, then the effect would, IMO, be even more pronounced.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Squatdog]

As a trained combat soldier in a large-sacle conventional conflict, you'd become desensitised to ineffective fire and to a lesser degree casualties after a very short while in the line. Especially when pumped up on adrenaline, knowing that the only way for you to preserve your life is to close with the enemy and eliminate them as a threat, which is the core doctrine of the infantry.

Under the present mechanics, it's very very difficult for infantry to perform their role because of the disproprtionately strong effect of fire on morale, which makes units panic at the slightest incoming, often without taking a single casualty.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Squatdog:

As a trained combat soldier in a large-sacle conventional conflict, you'd become desensitised to ineffective fire and to a lesser degree casualties after a very short while in the line.

Not true. As Lord Moran remarked ("Courage is a man's capital, and he is always spending"), and others who have studied the area have agreed since, you never get used to combat. There is value in "battle inoculation" training so that the first experience of combat is not totally disorienting, but if there is any evidence of soldiers becoming desensitized to fire or casualties, I haven't seen it.

One of the findings of historical analysis on suppression is that troops with a good knowledge of weapon capabilities are typically suppressed by less fire that troops lacking such experience (the CM morale model is open to criticism on that basis, but I know of no game that gets this bit right).

Originally posted by Squatdog:

Especially when pumped up on adrenaline, knowing that the only way for you to preserve your life is to close with the enemy and eliminate them as a threat, which is the core doctrine of the infantry.

But getting soldiers to close with the enemy is very hard to do. If soldiers really thought the way you think they do, there should be no difficulty at all.

Originally posted by Squatdog:

Under the present mechanics, it's very very difficult for infantry to perform their role because of the disproprtionately strong effect of fire on morale, which makes units panic at the slightest incoming, often without taking a single casualty.

Unless you're playing with Conscripts the whole time, sections do not "panic at the slightest incoming" unless you're very, very unlucky indeed. Either you are over-generalising from a single bout of lousy luck, or your minor tactics are dreadful.

All the best,

John.

[Broompatrol]

I've been following this thread and I think no one has mentioned that (IIRC) when a unit is on Assault they will not take cover until they reach their destination or panic. What this suggests to me is that the fire was close enough to cause them to take cover but the nature of the order prevented that. I think if they had been ordered to advance instead of assault they would have just ducked. SO the issue lies more with misunderstanding the ramifications of the order issued not necessarily that the entire morale model if broken.

I can think of a dozen examples where I think a unit should have panicked and didn't. Does that mean units don't panic enough?

[ April 29, 2007, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Broompatrol ]

[John Kettler]

John D Salt,

Not only do I agree wholeheartedly with the points you make, but would further mention the studies which found that not only did feats of combat derring not come from experienced soldiers, but that those with the least experience were the ballsiest, at least on the Allied side. The Screaming Eagles jumped on D-Day with zero combat experience, for example, and look what they did. Likewise, history records that the Desert Rats, on the sharp end of the spear from the Western Desert on precisely because they were veteran troops, got so fed up, worn out and disgusted that there was very nearly a mutiny in Normandy. The overall conclusion of that study is that while a little experience was useful in improving unit performance, the ones which had seen heavy combat actually declined in combat effectiveness as the veterans became not merely war weary but downright risk averse.

Broompatrol,

An excellent point I hadn't even considered and which I don't believe anyone mentioned earlier!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Brent Pollock]

Is it possible that the supporting fire caused the troops to hit the deck when they got too close to the enemy? I know I've messed up my own assaults sometimes because the supporting MGs or HE-chuckers didn't stop firing when my assault troops are on final approach. Area Fire seems to be the worst for this. It seems that friendly fire will be avoided if the friendlies are too close to the target when the fire order is issued, but if they start far enough away then the firer keeps on pouring it in, even if the only folks left are your own.

So far, the only weapon I've seen that doesn't have an effect on friendly troops is, of all things, flamethrowers. My troops regularly show a happy disregard for friendly flaming. They can be smack dab in the middle of the splash and not even break a sweat?!

How many turns were spent just trying to blast the guy before the advance went in?

[flamingknives]

Any small-arms fire can cause friendly-fire at night, and the morale effects are usually severe.

Unspotted troops, especially sharpshooters, have exceptionally good panic-inducing effects. Best is the 'sidearm' attack. A sharpshooter can be very close to the enemy, firing with the sidearm attack, and the enemy end up crawling all over the place because they are being attacked at close range by an enemy that they cannot see.

I think that Sqautdog's idea of how infantry are is grossly incorrect. Every observation of infantry in WW2 that I have read indicates that, despite what training they have, they still represent the average cross-section of the society from which they were drawn. Sources indicate that the Germans tended to fight battles with machine guns and were not inclined to close with and kill the enemy. Other (and sometimes the same) sources indicate that the desire to close with and kill was present only in a small proportion of Allied infantry. Warfare being what it is, these men are most frequently killed.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Squatdog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Felt the wind! The bullet was a "piddly" .22 Long Rifle, but it passed withing inches of my skull and literally froze me in place, too shocked for words. There followed a period of several minutes in which I slowly regained my wits. Mind, this was with no further shots being directed my way. What happened?

That's because you were an untrained civilian who was caught entirely by suprise by a negligent discharge.

If you were a highly motivated professional soldier fighting for the Motherland/Fatherland in the bloodiest campaign of recorded history, things would be a tad different...

At a tactical level, a rifleman is drilled to disregard ineffective fire and keep the enemy pinned down, then (depending on the circumstances) close with and eliminate them. The classic response to an ambush at section or platoon level is to immediately CHARGE the enemy position to get out of the killing ground.

The way the game is currently modeled, ineffective fire has FAR too much effect on morale. If the model applied to real life, the Napoleonic Wars would have seen massed formations of thousands drop to the ground and slink away as the first was fired...

With that in mind, now imagine what a single trained determined man (those morale/combat modifiers you mentioned) could do, while in decent cover, against a bunch of exposed men trying to advance on him, with no real cover in which to go to ground when taken under fire.

Against over a dozen trained determined men engaging him at point blank range also armed with grenades and occupying the same barren section of field? He miraculously managed to not harm them so I'm assuming he used harsh language to scare them off. </font>

[Aco4bn187inf]

I tend to agree with Brent Pollock, that the friendly supporting fire probably helped to panic the squads. If you are in woods or a house, you can get away with assaulting onto an enemy who's under fire, but not if you're in a wheatfield.

If the supporting MG won't cease or shift fire off the objective, (and the game never makes them do so) , the riflemen won't go onto the (exposed) objective, basically.

If the supporting units had been given, say, a move and hide with delay command to get them to stop shooting at a certain point, it might take care of this problem.

It is also possible, of course, that it was just very very bad luck on the morale 'dice roll'.

[MeatEtr]

Back when CMBB first came out in '02 there were a bunch of threads exactly like this one. All complaining about the morale and suppression being too much or too hard. So, what happen to all those people? Simple, they got better and realized the new suppression model is far better than CMBO, harder but much more realistic.

When in doubt, take another turn or two to suppress more. But the morale model isn't retarded, it's just threads like this that are.

[Squatdog]

The suppression system is fine; it's just that the effect of fire on morale is massively over-modelled to the point where infantry are totally incapable of functioning in a realistic manner.

Taking cover or even being pinned is understandable, but panicking at the slightest incoming and running back the opposite direction is ridiculous and happens far too often.

I think that Sqautdog's idea of how infantry are is grossly incorrect. Every observation of infantry in WW2 that I have read indicates that, despite what training they have, they still represent the average cross-section of the society from which they were drawn. Sources indicate that the Germans tended to fight battles with machine guns and were not inclined to close with and kill the enemy. Other (and sometimes the same) sources indicate that the desire to close with and kill was present only in a small proportion of Allied infantry. Warfare being what it is, these men are most frequently killed.

How do you think defended postions are overrun and taken? Would the opposing infantry just sit out of range of effective fire until the defenders died of old age?

[Squatdog]

Hell, let's look at a modern example:

In the Falklands, battles like Wireless Ridge and Tumbledown were decided by the British troops advancing to grenade throwing range and then fighting through the Argentine positions with fixed bayonet.

According to some posters here, this should be COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE (oh noes, the mean Argies are firing at me...WAHHHHHH!!!!!!)

[Guest Mike]

They would only fail if you were in command.