Moondog Duke of Boots Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 In my humble opinion the way to get round the Fanatic problem, show they are 'Fanatic' and still keep it real is, well, keep it real. When troops go into a fanatic state as they have through history with Irish/Scottish Galloglasses Viking berserkers, most VC winners etc. up to and including modern day suicide bombers they are out of effective command and control. Therefore in CM you could have a Fanatic indicator appear at the relevant time for example: The death of a commander. This could induce a fanatic state almost as often as a rout, but at this point put the troops into the same control state as for panic. This would mean you could enjoy watching your Green blanket stackers and cooks take on the might of the opposition but could not use them in an unrealistic way. Once out of contact (if not wiped out) the troops would return to control but would Knackered and not fanatic anymore. It's just like Saturday night fighting if you ask me, you never know which one of the idiots in the pub is going to flip and pick up a bar stool and when he does there's no stopping him. (Except with a good stout pool cue) Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Nay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 This is how the old Squad Leader did it - I kind of liked it. You got a cool looking red squad counter, and he was required to charge at the nearest enemy unit. It was fun, but not very historical. The suggestion here is a good one; but what about a leader (HQ) that goes berserk? Can he order his troops to participate in headlong charges on the enemy with him? Would the leader be considered incapable of exercising command (ie all his command lines go black until such time as he is not berserk anymore?) I wonder if CM couldn't stand to have "optional" rules added, like this? I'm kind of against such optional rules on principle - EYSA really overdid it by making "lethality" optional - it seems to me you either stand behind the historicity of your work or you don't, and BFC does. And it is nice to have one solid set of rules that everyone plays with. However, FOW has four options at present (I presume EFOW is the setting the majority of us use?) and it hasn't seemed to hurt the integrity of the game any. [ February 25, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Rather suffers from the effect on you when you plan your other units moves with this ahistorical knowledge. No benefit to the game [but fun to watch] : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Yes, beserk squads were always a hoot in Squad Leader and I for one would be all for it in the Combat Mission series of games. There's nothing more entertaining than watching a beserk squad charge the nearest enemy unit...even if that enemy unit just happens to be a King Tiger! :eek: Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Uhh... berserkers? This is not a phecking viking game! Nor a board game, for that matter. Fighting fanatically hardly equals assaulting the nearest enemy. You could just as well make CM hex-based. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyBlademan Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 Well, historically if a delaying action were required, a commander would choose a squad or platoon that he was sure would be reliable. If for example, you have a platoon of SS soldiers who were groomed from the Hitler youth, or Soldiers and Marines who fought on either side in the Island Hopping campaign. If a squad or two (only) were to be randomly fanatic, it really wouldn't impact games above the company level. If they "improperly" were used on a suicide charge, they would be mowed down and so much for the big advantage. I would say that there are plenty of historical examples of squads fighting to the last man to buy time, or to break the first hole in enemy lines. Give them a wicked rarity penalty for purchase and they will probably be bought as rarely as they existed. Micheal makes a great point about the FOW not really having an impact on the game, I think this would be about the same. Just my two centavos. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 I may have overstated my point about berserk charges! I didn't mean to say I was for that, but was for the idea of losing command and control - a fanatic unit might be just as prone to holding in their defensive positions hell or high water. I did mean to ask, though, what the opinion was of an HQ who became fanatic in this way...would he extend his fanaticism to his troops, or would he go "battle mad" and forget about them altogether? Or should there be a chance of doing either? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moondog Duke of Boots Posted February 26, 2004 Author Share Posted February 26, 2004 Thanks for the many interesting replies. Sergei. I know it's not a Viking game I used berserkers as an example of how this state has always existed and been documented since records of conflict began !! To answer Michael's question "what the opinion was of an HQ who became fanatic in this way" I think the fanatic HQ unit would influence those in command but for programming purposes this could be as random as the unit becoming fanatic in the first place. And yes fanatic doesn't have to mean charge at anything, staying in your foxhole to the last man or the last round is more realistic anyway. Who wants to run and be shot in the back? Dead and a coward ! You mentioned the historicity of this game and that is what my point is about. At least after a battle indicate it. I spent 11 years in the British Infantry and you just know, exercise sport or training which unit has given 100% and who has rolled over. Without this knowledge how would a medal ever be won ? It only takes one nutter to spark fanatic behaviour in any group of men. Look at football violence. England isn't full of hooligans but violence is infectious. The fact that it's in the game proves the designers recognise it but it's unrealistic to not indicate it at least in the units AAR, under the kills perhaps. Enuff from me I fink I'm off to go berserk and wreck my house now !! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 a fanatic unit could just do what i believe it does now. perform it's orders with no morale drop from fire etc. i don't see the need to change really. a HQ unit could do the same and get a +2 or 3 morale rating. i don't think you can give increased acuracy etc because i don't think being fanatic would do that. as for going out of control...is that historical? i don't really think it is. an indicator that it has gone fanatic is a good idea. it's then up to the player how to use the unit. possibly remove command delay. i think this is analogous to an officer noting the mental state of a unit and deciding to make use of it. i don't think "fanatic" necessarily means going beserk. it could also mean the unit is just become extremely fatalistic. and that means that it will follow any order you give it until it's safe or dead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 I fundamentally disagree with identifying fanatics, after the battle maybe. Good troops are already identified as elite crack etc so they are already available for the important jobs. Fanatic HQ should only affect itself - you cannot inspire fanaticism in the space of a few minutes under fire no matter how good an officer you are. I recall reading only last week of an orderly who got hacked of and picked up a PIAT and stalked two Tigers and killed one. The other retreated. He was apologetic to his CO for his action. How in the hell are you meant to identify this bloke, squad and say he is being a fanatic. It is because he was successful, and he did not die, that he became a hero. AFTER THE EVENT. If the Tigers killed him 30 seconds in he would be classed as a brave but stupid man who got killed not obeying orders. Should we get advanced warning of dodgy stupid squads and officers. Course not. Rant over : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Ah, but I thought the original suggestion was to make the player unable to issue orders to that squad while they were "fanatic" - thus, "giving them important jobs" would not be an issue. They would be out of command and control, and the reason for that identified by a "Fanatic" label. Which I would immediately mod to "Berserk" FWIW, I do think it works fine in CM right now as it is. But red counters in SL - and even the messages in Close Combat identifying battle-crazed troops - were nonetheless dramatic and fun... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 Guys, I have played hundreds of CM games (BO, BB, & AK) almost all against opponents. In all of those games, I don't think that I have ever seen a squad become fanatic and go charging at the enemy or do anything for that matter. Maybe, I'm blind. :eek: Indeed, I have seen a fair number of squads be fired at by many, many enemies and hang onto a well covered position long past the point of supposed sanity. These guys might have been considered fanatic ... or stupid. Anyway, has anyone ever seen a fanatic/beserk squad? Also, what did it look like? What did it do? What happened to it after the enemy took a whack at it? :confused: Cheers, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredi Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Yeah, fanaticism does not in any way resemble being beserk. I'd describe fanaticism as determination beyond selfpreservation. Beserk is just.. cavemen on steroids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.