The Morale Model is RETARDED...

[Soddball]

Whatever, Squatdog. I've shown that you were wrong. If you are convinced of your own ultimate superiority, then so be it. I've played thousands of games and written a couple of dozen scenarios. What would I know.

The morale model will continue to be 'retarded' - at least until you get off that horse.

[John Kettler]

Soddball,

If you're going to argue from authority, be sure to cite your ROW credentials, too! Why shortchange yourself?

Squatdog,

Soddball and I disagree on many things, but when it comes to CM, you ignore him at your peril. He knows whereof he speaks! As for canister, imagine being taken under fire, while on the move, by a gigantic shotgun with a 3 inch bore.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

I think this is a pointless conversation. In the left corner Mr. NananananaIcanthearyouCMsucksIrockasCommander YouareallcluelessandIwontevergetmyfactsright aka Squatdog.

In the opposite corner the assembled wisdom of many experienced CM players.

Result? As expected, none.

All the best

Andreas

[GreenAsJade]

What he said.

Once you've come into a forum yelling CM is RETARDED ,

it's pretty hard to retract, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you goofed

GaJ

[Darkmath]

I have not seen the video, but a canister shell in CM is way enough to cause several casualties to an infantry squad.I would say it is the deadliest weapon, along with flamethrower, against infantry in CM.

BTW, some CM grogs like JasonC say the canister is overmodelled in CM.

Now, if your squad is routing very quickly, it is due to the canister round.

Period.

As for the other examples you mentionned, I agree it is wierd that a squad rout without any casualty. But in my personnal experience, it is bad luck.

[ May 17, 2007, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Redwolf]

Can somebody do the merciful thing and convert the video to something readable? I even have a FRAPS capable viewer, but DING DING it can only do fraps 1 and 2 but not Fraps 4. Losers...

[Squatdog]

Whatever, Squatdog. I've shown that you were wrong.

You failed to come up with a plausible real-world explanation for what occured and resorted to making up stuff that wasn't even in the video! (Tanks firing canister etc)

As far as the canister rounds go; I reviewed the clip carefully and they came from an enemy light gun (which is what the tanks are firing at). The gun was probably engaging the MG42 covering the advance and was incapable of hitting the lead section because of the contours of the terrain, which shielded them from hostile fire.

The advancing section was ROUTED by three seconds of ineffective friendly fire directed at a target at least 10metres higher elavation than them (by a weapon and roughly the same elevation) and a canister shot that was completely incapable of harming them. They were totally routed and remained out of command for six turns despite sustaining NO CASUALTIES and not being under enemy fire for the duration.

[ May 18, 2007, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Squatdog ]

[Andreas]

It is like watching the energizer bunny.

All the best

Andreas

[Broompatrol]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Broompatrol,

Appreciate the clarification, but what's the correct term for when the body starts eating itself by converting muscles and organs to energy?

John Kettler

Not to sound like a smart alec but I believe it is called starvation.

Here is a person smarter than I describing the procress: http://weightloss.beldholm.com/weightlossadvice/starvation.html

[Squatdog]

How did ketosis make it's way onto this thread???

Ketosis is basically when there are little available carbohydrates and the body metabolises fats and proteins almost exclusively. This can be achieved by a diet with a very low carbohydrate diet and tested for with Ketostix (which you urine turns purple when you are in a state of ketosis).

Achieving ketosis is the core of a few 'hardcore' diets, including Dan Duchaine's Body Opus and even the Atkins diet was originally a ketogenic diet. The downside is that experiencing ketosis can be unpleasent and requires a degree of willpower to maintain...

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Andreas:

It is like watching the energizer bunny.

All the best

Andreas

Sad, isn't it? I'm not going to offer any more advice to Squatdog. I've devoted a considerable amount of time getting his crappy, low-res video to work and then a further chunk of time explaining his wrongness to him twice. It just goes to show that some people will not be helped.

On the bright side though, 50,000 CM players feel the morale model is probably not the RETARDED thing around here.

[David I]

Move on, nothing to see here.

DavidI

[Squatdog]

Sad, isn't it? I'm not going to offer any more advice to Squatdog. I've devoted a considerable amount of time getting his crappy, low-res video to work and then a further chunk of time explaining his wrongness to him twice. It just goes to show that some people will not be helped.

If I were to offer a piece of advice, it would be to visit a cult de-programmer to help you diferentiate between reality and what is esentially a video game.

A spell in the armed forces may also do you good. I hear Iraq is lovely this time of year!

[GreenAsJade]

Yoo hoo - BFC! You out there?

Time to lock this one up...

GaJ

[Vark]

As a new member to this forum can I tentatively suggest the insults and name-calling stop and the discussion once more centres on the mechanics of the game/ineresting observations etc. See, you can tell I'm a teacher!!

p.s. Squatdog, could you have come up with a less inflamatory term to describe your criticisms of the moral model?

[Kineas]

When human stupidity is enough to explain a phenomenon then usually there's no need to search for other explanations.

This topic is a live proof of that good old tip.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Vark:

As a new member to this forum can I tentatively suggest the insults and name-calling stop and the discussion once more centres on the mechanics of the game/ineresting observations etc. See, you can tell I'm a teacher!!

p.s. Squatdog, could you have come up with a less inflamatory term to describe your criticisms of the moral model?

Right early in the thread, I asked Squatdog what evidence he had for his criticism, and what watrgames he could point to that had better morale models than CM, but he did not apparently think either question worth responding to. Good luck encouraging him to make a more constructive contribution. It would be great if he could describe a fire effects model better than that embodied in CM, especially if it could be placed on a basis of factual findings; but I don't hold out much hope.

I think there probably is a worthwhile point lurking under Squatdog's criticism, in that I tend to agree that the suppressive effect of fire should impose inertia much more than panic flight, or, to put it another way, there should be quite a wide band of morale "health" between pin/suppress and "run AWAAAY!", at least for bullet fire, and especially for troops who have already gone to ground -- micro-terrain in apparently bare-arsed ground can surprisingly often offer near-complete immunity to bullet fire. I have previously expressed my dissatisfaction with the way bullet fire can rout people out of entrenchments, which is not somnething I can recall hearing of in combat -- I would expect to have to go in and clear them with grenade or bayonet.

But the whole question of when people freeze, take cover, or run away on the battlefield is one about which frighteningly little is known, even by professionals in the field. I bet the morale model in CAEN or Urbat or OneSAF is substantially more retarded than the one in CM.

All the best,

John.

[Redwolf]

I would really like to have a serious discussion of the situation involved, but that video codec is just too exotic.

It must be possible to youtube that sucker.

[Vark]

Talking of the reactions of men under fire, does the pinning of a unit affect its situational awareness? I can find an enemy easily, but when I try to fix and flank things often fall apart. Although the suppressing fire is of the same intensity that caused the enemy unit to be pinned, as soon as my flanking unit appears, often at ninety degress to the enemy frontage a miraculous transformation occurs. The enemy unit rallies, turns to face the new threat and often dispatches it, seemingly with little firepower penalties. Only after this process will it resume being suppressed.

What are the penalties for being suppressed in CM? I often feel the suppressive effects of fire, especially MG's, are under-modelled, resulting in extended slug-fests to capture objectives.

I'm battling with "Hunters in the Groves" on CMAK and have had an advancing unit of FJ (Elite) panicked by a previously spotted NZ section in a foxhole. The covering force used was a Crack MG-34 (150m) an Elite sniper (200m) a Crack FJ section, less 3 rifles (55m) and a Veteran FJ section, less 1 SMG 2 rifles (65m). All were in command control of a 2+ Combat leader and all FJ sections had 2 MG-34's. The assault was conducted by a rested and fit squad through scattered trees and it failed at approx 40m. I had even delayed the attacking unit for 30 secs to allow the covering fire to take effect.

Because the Platoon HQ has a stealth +2 rating the platoon had spotted the foxhole before the attack. Please any helpful advice out there in CM forum land? I have a semi-academic interest/knowledge in the military, and this result seems a little peverse. If 5 MG-34's (not including the 2 from the advancing unit) cannot suppress a foxhole what can?

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Tiger Is. Seem to work great for NG Cavscout! On a more serious note, I suspect that JasonC will show up shortly and inform you that 30 seconds of fire simply don't constitute enough time to suppress a dug-in defender.

You don't indicate the quality of the defending section or whether it's in command (HQ mods can make a huge difference), but even ignoring HQ bonuses, if the Kiwi section is in a foxhole in scattered trees, you are only applying 23% at most of your firepower to your intended assault target,

as shown here in this most useful analysis.

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=39848

The defending section might also be fanatical. Are you sure you didn't get shot by your suppressive fires?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

Not air portable I'm afraid! My sections were positioned in textbook supporting roles (ie out to a flank) and as the unit ran away at 40m I dont't thing friendly fire got in the way. If I remember correctly from previous posts, small arms fire affects within 25m of the aim point.

I have since managed to destroy the offending die-hards by moving up a section in short bounds and wiped it out using grenades (only then did I find it was a Regular half section) . After clearing the foxhole the unit went firm and covered as the two other sections advanced to contact The Veteran section then took fire from another position (foxhole in scattered woods)at a range of 45m and wiped it out with two bursts of fire! On closer inspection it too turned out to be a Veteran half section. Why the disparity in results? 5 Mg-34's generate seemingly minimal returns in one minute yet 2 wipe out a similar target in 10 odd seconds. From the replay it tried to bolt, instead of hugging the bottom of its fighting position.

At the moment I'm fighting a demonically possessed crew of a bofors gun. To use the term fanatic is an inadequate description for their performance. Ignoring point blank MG fire (are my 34's fitted with blank adapters) and a shower of grenades they bravely traverse their gun and shred an advancing section. Oh, and my elite sniper is unable to effectively target a gun crew at 300m. I don't know what those Kiwi's had for breakfast but my elite paras desperately need some of it!

Perhaps the scenario designer has tried to replicate the stubborn defense, by the Commonwealth troops during the battle, by setting the fanatic generator to maximum. I've played some tough scenarios before but this is a slog.

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Not air portable? Too funny! If all the trouble was caused by a Regular half section, then it must've gone fanatic and stayed put. Fanaticism is a tweakable setting in the Scenario Designer and is a percentage chance applied at the smallest unit level.

As for the Bofors crew, I believe you, having had one of those myself. Who else would be crazy enough to open up on a Tiger I at some 1600 meters, pelt it with fire, immobilize it, only to get round after round of 88 HE in reply, get beaten down, rally, shoot up a much closer halftrack, then duel a second Tiger I, immobilize it, then finally succumb to its enraged fire? Be grateful the one you're fighting doesn't have a gun shield!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

Verdamt! That was tough. I finally realised my error after the fourth attempt. Previously I'd tried to regroup my FJ's into platoon units by selecting two RVs. This wasted half the scenario as they moved to contact, with short arcs selected, using all available cover and crawling where the tactical situation demanded it. Although I hit the enemy hard from multiple directions I only had to suffer one setback and I'd lose on time. Demon Bofors crews, Stonewall Jackson reincarnated in a NZ platoon leader and a 'blind' sniper meant the plan was hopelessly optimistic and doomed to fail.

Going back to basics I looked at the disposition of my troops and their abilities and realised that my scattered force should just attack the nearest objective to it. Even though half the troops were out of command and attacked as fire teams they demonstrated the true value of good quality troops. Result a major victory with 21 casualties taken and 56 inflicted, plus those sodding guns were finally destroyed, after their crews were exorcised first! At first I questioned the morale model for may defeat, now I realise the game was just punishing a plan that ignored a basic METT-T analysis, especially the last T,.. time!

I still think the morale model leads to bizzare results but only at a local level and not enough to skew the inevitable result. Well executed plans lead to victory, hopelessly optimistic ones, or ones reliant on predictions, end up in telegrams home to electronic families!!

[John Kettler]

Vark,

Glad you're getting a handle on it! CM takes work, but it is a marvel to behold as you gradually gain mastery. Of course, sometimes things don't work out. I have, for example, read story after story of how people triumphed in one of JasonC's Russian Training Scenarios (the one with the entrenched MG and German sand Russians alike armed with rifles, MGs and grenades only), but have yet to succeed myself. This game will give you the highest highs and the lowest lows, often in rapid succession!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 25, 2007, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Squatdog]

p.s. Squatdog, could you have come up with a less inflamatory term to describe your criticisms of the moral model?

The word I was searching for would be 'broken', but watching units being routed by an enemy section farting in their general direction led me to use a more expressive term.

It would be great if he could describe a fire effects model better than that embodied in CM, especially if it could be placed on a basis of factual findings; but I don't hold out much hope.

It would be great if you could describe some instances in which rested, hardened combat soldiers tasked to assault an enemy position in the midst of a major setpiece battle would flee uncontrollably in the face of sporadic, ineffective fire that was insufficent to cause a single casulty, even when they were running away helplessly in the open.

(Italians don't count)

I asked Squatdog what evidence he had for his criticism, and what watrgames he could point to that had better morale models than CM, but he did not apparently think either question worth responding to.

Total War series, Close Combat series.

Any game, series, or boardgame that doesn't feature units fleeing uncontrollably in the face of inefffective fire while not actually sustaining any casualties...