More troops surrendering in CMAK?

[PeterX]

Whilst the war in the Western desert was no game of patty cake, maybe the 'war without hate' aspect has been modelled and the troops are simply more willing to surrender to a 'humane' opponent than they would be in Normandy or Russia

It's my impression that both sides took fewer and fewer prisoners as the war dragged on. The Germans bagged millions of POWs in 41-42. OTOH, I'll wager very few captives were taken during the Battle of Berlin.

BTW, I just completed the Desert scenario in CMAK and corralled 123 prisoners. A CM record!On turn 30, an entire platoon surrendered en masse- 32 men. The following turn anoter platoon-22 troops- threw in the towel. It was very satisfying in a curious way.

[shrek]

fwiw I'm playing the Italian scenario as American & have only captured the sole survivors of HMGs so far. The rest of the German units are fighting to the last man in most cases. Maybe I just drew a lot of fanatical defenders, who knows...

[General Bolt]

I know this is an old thread, but was there an official (realism) reason for the change in the number of prisoners?

Is it because of the no quarter given on the Eastern Front vice the Kinder Gentler American method of war?

[Moon]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

I know this is an old thread, but was there an official (realism) reason for the change in the number of prisoners?

Is it because of the no quarter given on the Eastern Front vice the Kinder Gentler American method of war?

There was no "official" realism change. That's not how CM works, there is no "capture prisoners probability" variable that could be tweaked even if we wanted.

Surrendering troops is (like most other things in CM) based on a fairly complicated function, taking into consideration among other things proximity of other friendly units, global morale, unit stats (like morale, experience, fitness etc.), terrain cover, type of battle and so on. There is more, but only Charles has a complete list somewhere. So it's quite possible that some of the tweaks done for CMAK led to a change in troop surrendering behavior.

This "fuzziness" of the CMAK engine is what makes it such a deep game, but at the same time makes it really difficult to, for example, write a manual

Martin

[Ligur]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

I know this is an old thread, but was there an official (realism) reason for the change in the number of prisoners?

Is it because of the no quarter given on the Eastern Front vice the Kinder Gentler American method of war?

I maybe be wrong... But I think I read a post by Moon where he said the variables that affect surrendering were tweaked for CMAK to reflect the less brutal war in West just like you thought. We all have noticed by now it is, indeed, a lot easier to capture troops by overwhelming positions or surrounding them with big tanks. I have no doubt this very intentional feature suits the CMAK locale well.

It is also mysteriously satisfying to capture troops and walk them towards your start line with a PIAT team on guard... Instead of the CMBB style "surround with battallion, drop 155mm treeburst on them, drive over with 12 Tigers" tactic of making troops stop shooting back for good. In CMBB you mostly captured 1 guy from some exhausted unit too tired to escape or shoot back, the rest had to be killed.

The CMAK way, you save a lot of ammo for shooting units that actually matter!

edit: Damn, beaten by Moon himself. Yeah, it is "possible" something was changed.

[General Bolt]

Thanks.

[Lt. Badger]

Can anyone advise on best means of handling prisoners in CMAK? I played On the Edge last night and managed to completely overwhelm the defenders of the AA emplacements and nearby trenches. Finally the last few units in that area all surrendered - several half-strength HQ units, a couple of partial squads, and a 1-man remnant of a Bren team. However, I still had about 12 turns to go in the scenario, and wanted to get as many of my troops as were still in good condition over to where they could support the fight at the crossroads. I left the guys who were really low on ammo to guard the prisoners.

1) The prisoners were very disobedient, considering that they were (presumably) disarmed and surrounded by guys who still had at least enough ammo to kill them all. I wanted to move all of the prisoners into one area for easier guarding, and they would take MOVE orders alright, they just wouldn't move. Well, some of them moved, and some didn't. Some moved a little ways, then sat down and refused to budge.

2) How many men does it take to guard them and keep them from rebelling? I had more guards than there were prisoners, because of the number of squads I had with low ammo after the fight.

3) What happens if you don't guard them? Do they mysteriously acquire weapons and return to the fight, or do they just wander off into the wilderness, or what?

Lt. Badger

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Lt. Badger:

1) The prisoners were very disobedient

2) How many men does it take to guard them and keep them from rebelling?

3) What happens if you don't guard them?

Lt. Badger

1) My prisoners only take their orders about 50% or 70% the time as well. Some seem very stubborn refusing to move round after round, some co-operate at once. Standing next to them and giving menacing looks does seem to help once in a while but it might all be just random. They'll start hauling ass after a while.

2) No idea. I think, basically, none. But I keep a few guys near just to be sure and to thwart any enemy units wandering nearby. My prisoners have never "rebelled" unless their own troops "rescued" them by coming very near. Last night I captured a gun crew by shooting them from a house 15 meters away. After they surrendered I told the little boogers to come inside the house, but the next turn they were out of control already: a lone sniper had been hiding in the buildings second floor and being very near somehow negated the capture effect. After I shot the sniper I ran after the gun crew and gunned them down on the open, where they were wandering forwards their own lines. Hurrrr shoulda not have tried to escape!

3) Nothing AFAIK, unless some of their own non-captured units wander near. They just stand there waiting for someone to tell them to go to the damn POW camp already.

edit: I once used area fire on top of some prisoners who refused to budge. They started moving. I'm sure it was a coincidence, and killing prisoners is bad point wise, but it was fun, hurr hurr hurr.

[ December 28, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Ligur:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lt. Badger:

3) What happens if you don't guard them?

Lt. Badger

3) Nothing AFAIK, unless some of their own non-captured units wander near. They just stand there waiting for someone to tell them to go to the damn POW camp already.

edit: I once used area fire on top of some prisoners who refused to budge. They started moving. I'm sure it was a coincidence, and killing prisoners is bad point wise, but it was fun, hurr hurr hurr. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Ligur:

I once used area fire on top of some prisoners who refused to budge. They started moving. I'm sure it was a coincidence, and killing prisoners is bad point wise, but it was fun, hurr hurr hurr.

I'm not sure if it was a coincidence. Playing CMBO, I had some POWs that had more than 60 seconds of command delay and, since it was very early in the game, I couldn't afford to waste any troops babysitting them. I opted to area fire on them. They started following their orders about 10 seconds after I fired on them.

[Lt. Badger]

Whatever it is that has changed the surrender determinations, it leads to some weird results sometimes. I played Mountain Retreat last night (great scenario, BTW) and had some infantry moving through a wheatfield when they were attacked by an entrenched AT gun and a bunker MG. They managed to take out the gun, and the crew suddenly surrendered - even though he was in a trench, only about 30 meters away from his own bunker, while my guys were about 60-70 meters away in the middle of a wheatfield!

Lt. Badger

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Lt. Badger:

Whatever it is that has changed the surrender determinations, it leads to some weird results sometimes. I played Mountain Retreat last night (great scenario, BTW) and had some infantry moving through a wheatfield when they were attacked by an entrenched AT gun and a bunker MG. They managed to take out the gun, and the crew suddenly surrendered - even though he was in a trench, only about 30 meters away from his own bunker, while my guys were about 60-70 meters away in the middle of a wheatfield!

Lt. Badger

I'm not sure if that sounds all that wrong. You know people used to surrender in the middle of firefights and just start walking from their own trench towards the enemy waving a kerchief? Depending on who you fought for and where, that could be a really bad idea though.

Maybe the gun crew had been on the front for two long and unsuccesfull years on row. Maybe they just had had enough. Maybe they felt, despite the bunker being there, that they were going to die during the next 60 secodns if they didn't do something radical. Maybe they knew the guys in the bunker were sick of it too, and wouldn't shoot them in the back.

[Lt. Badger]

Originally posted by Ligur:

Maybe the gun crew had been on the front for two long and unsuccesfull years on row. Maybe they just had had enough. Maybe they felt, despite the bunker being there, that they were going to die during the next 60 secodns if they didn't do something radical. Maybe they knew the guys in the bunker were sick of it too, and wouldn't shoot them in the back.

Wow, that CM Surrender_AI really makes some complex calculations! I wonder if it also figures in when they had their last letter from home, and whether it was good news or bad?

Lt. Badger

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Lt. Badger:

Wow, that CM Surrender_AI really makes some complex calculations! I wonder if it also figures in when they had their last letter from home, and whether it was good news or bad?

Lt. Badger

What they had for breakfast is also an issue. Bad rations in the morning makes for grumpy übermensch who want to get back at Himmler. I'm glad battlefront finally models that correctly.

[CRSutton]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

Those wacky Italians.

Yes, it is a tweak. My understanding is that this is a deliberate design feature. The War in the Western desert was relativly free of atrocities and units tended to surrender rather more frequently than you would see in say Russia or Europe later in the war where the prolonged conflict made for much more anamosity. Remember, you see no SS units in the desert. German units were Whermacht and tended to respect the British soldiers that they captured and vice versa. Likewise British and Italians had a long history of close relationships and many on both sides remembered that they were former allies just two decades earlier.