I Am a Troublemaker

[Hamstersss]

Does BTS have any obligation to represent the moral aspects of war?

First a disclaimer, this is a question and not a request, I neither expect nor want BTS to spend any time working on it, it just popped into my head and, I think, relates to the world at large. I hate qualifying, it takes forever and ruins meter, but I feel that I have to because I know how grogs act when they smell off-topic posts. This does relate directly to Combat Mission, it is, after all, the most accurate representation of squad-level combat, likely in existence, definitely in the realm of popular culture, and yet there's no blood, there're no civilians, no livestock (Excepting the occasional cow-tree mod), as if we were looking at the WWII suburb of Valhalla, a detached war, with no world.

Again, I'm not advocating that BTS spend time on these things, and I sure as hell don't want to evoke inumerable, "If it delays CMBB by a day, then forget it" posts, I just want to know if this rings true with anyone else, or if it's merely the odd fancy of an odd guy.

[Michael Dorosh]

One might argue that the absence of the items you mentioned is what makes it such a "pure" distillation of modern tactical combat. Add to your list rear echelon soldiers - ammunition carriers, medics, company clerks, etc.

In a purely cold manner of speaking, what you are describing is "impedimenta" - irrelevant to the subject CM seeks to portray, ie, decision making at the company and battalion level.

And it is scarcely the point. If you want people turned off of war, there is Sassoon poetry and Oliver Stone movies for that (I'm quite serious).

Some movies (books, games, poems, songs, paintings) seek to show war for what it is in all its repulsiveness, others seek to highlight certain aspects of it to lead to greater understanding. CM, I would presume to say, seeks to highlight the tactical aspects. It's no less intellectually honest than a book that studies Medal of Honor winners, which also excludes the blood and guts stuff simply because to dwell on it would do the subject a disservice and be self-defeating.

[Mace]

..or in other words, Combat Mission models the art of war rather than the actuality of it.

Mace

[dalem]

I don't think the aspects you mention are relevant to what CM is trying to simulate/game. Certainly moral decisions are part of battlefield reality, but it would make CM a different kind of game to try to include them.

-dale

[Hamstersss]

Michael, you've mistaken my position, I don't want to turn people off of war, far from it, I think the actions of men in combat have been, apart from certain pieces of poetry (I thought Sassoon was a brand of hair products), philosophy and art, the highest point of human achievement. I'm struck by the question, is all, and with it the definition of realism and the delineation, as if 'impedimenta' never had anything to do with decision-making at the tactical level.

One might argue that what makes the Medal of Honor so important, the goings-on that relate to it so pungeant and its recipients so special, is their very humanity in inhumane situations. I am at a loss, however, as to how you can discuss a Medal of Honor winner without discussing his exploits, which are necessarily valor in combat above and beyond the call of duty, which to my knowledge always involves blood and guts.

I'm asking the question without having an answer myself, I don't know if it's right to reduce war to simple tactical decisions, after all isn't one of CM's best features its morale model? Isn't that model an abstraction of the human element of war? I also know CM is a game, not an educational tool nor a piece of literature, and how fun would it be to see the senseless death of innocent livestock? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, but I do know the answer's not so pat.

[Michael Dorosh]

Ok, I can sort of see what you are saying. The question of how combat stress affects people is an important one, and a complicated one, and of course you are right to ask the question. But if you're asking if it's possible to codify that into a wargame, and make it part of the decision making process, there is one possible answer -

a) it is already factored in

and one question in response

if it is not already "factored in" (a favourite expression of Squad Leader apologists), where would you start to factor it in? How do you reduce it to numbers and algorithms?

I hope this doesn't read like I'm dismissing you - I'm not, just presenting how I look at the very real problems you pose.

[Berlichtingen]

Oddly enough, I think I know what you are talking about. The book Seven Days In January details an action that took place over several days in the town of Wingen-sur-Moder. The civilain population was still in the village, and the Germans put effort into minimising their casualties. Also in that account, there was a building that was used as an aid station (for both sides), and the combatants avoided firing on it.

I would think that this would best be handled on the AI/Scenario design level rather than having actual civilians running about. For instance, if a scenario is set in Germany and the scenario designer indicates that the civilian population has not evacuated, the AI becomes much more careful in its firing... including overriding player orders to fire blind into buildings

[Hamstersss]

Absolutely right, I like to look at the theoretical, there's always the formal questions of how. I'd love to list a bunch of cool, simple advances that I'd thunk up, but I don't have any and, really, it'd be disingenuous for me to list any because I don't want BTS to change anything, I just wonder if they should. Odd distinction, I know, and maybe that's too abstract to mess with...

[dalem]

Originally posted by dalem:

I don't think the aspects you mention are relevant to what CM is trying to simulate/game. Certainly moral decisions are part of battlefield reality, but it would make CM a different kind of game to try to include them.

-dale

Egads - having to respond to my own post, seems improper somehow. But Meeks asked...

Relevancy: CM is a tactical simulation/game. The puzzles you are required to solve are therefore merely tactical in nature. "Can this gun see that bridge?" "Will this platoon last long enough in this position?" "Should I use natural cover to advance or waste fire missions on smoke to obscure LOS?"

To me, moral questions would be along the lines of "should I shell that church because I think the FO is probably there?" "Should I shell the town 'blind' or should I make sure there are no civilians present?" "I see an enemy soldier down but still moving - should I put another round into him?" Things of that nature. CM doesn't include the kinds of details that would be necessary to make those moral choices even available: There are no "flitting shadows" of someone running from building to building who doesn't quite look like he's in uniform, no screams of the wounded, no cries for help in a language you can't understand, no medics, no individual decisions to pull triggers. So it's currently impossible to "game" or simulate the moral layer at all, really.

Different kind of game: "How would CM be different?" Well, obviously you'd need at least some of the elements I noted above to be modeled. So the average CM battle would be more complicated graphically. I would suspect that it would be slower-paced as well. Verifying targets, checking each extra shout or whimper, would all add time to the game. I can't imagine being able to include gore and shock effects - it's still just a game no matter how many squibs go off.

But to me the real issue is one of scale - since you, as the gameplayer, are supposed to be filling the shoes of a company or battalion commander, the moral decisions at your level would generally come before or after the battle, not during. If I'm correct in that, then the current treatment of "battlefield moral decisions" is properly gamed and simulated after all - i.e. "none happening during the battle".

-dale

[mchlstrt]

Intelligent messing with the abstract is one of the things that makes this board special.

[Berlichtingen]

Hmmm... I was thinking...

Perhaps certain moral issues could be tied to victory conditions. Example: You must take the village, but you lose points for damage done to the village

[dalem]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Hmmm... I was thinking...

Perhaps certain moral issues could be tied to victory conditions. Example: You must take the village, but you lose points for damage done to the village

I would love to be able to attach VPs to intact buildings/bridges. I think that would add a huge dimension to game play and scenario design.

Huge.

-dale

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

For instance, if a scenario is set in Germany and the scenario designer indicates that the civilian population has not evacuated, the AI becomes much more careful in its firing... including overriding player orders to fire blind into buildings

Interesting idea!

I think this would be true for German troops, but Allied troops would probably be more prone to destroy suspected buildings once the fighting were inside Germany's borders.

[chrisl]

I think Berli has the right approach to this-- the issues should be in the game insofar as they affect your tactical decisions. There's not much game reason to have civilians and medics and cows running around just to eat processor cycles and look realistic. And given the level of abstraction of the game, the factors that drive the moral decisions could be factored in without all the extra little icons running around (with a few exceptions).

People who grew up playing Squad Leader are probably familiar with some of the complex victory conditions-- it wasn't simply a game of capture the flag.

Some examples could be:

Town that hasn'tbeen evacuated: Lose points for damaging/destroying buildings that don't contain live enemy units. Depending on how complex you want to get, you could either assume that any building containing live armed units has had the civilians chased out, or you could whack points for going being shot at in a building (for putting the civilians in danger).

Aid station (or other buildings that shouldn't be damaged, sometimes even churches that were serious architectural/historical sites): Scenario creator can designate buildings neutral-- you lose points for damaging them. For an aid station you might even allow units with losses to enter but not leave--you save the victory points, but might take a global morale hit.

Other important buildings: SL had a few scenarios that required things like sole occupation of some fraction of a particular set of buildings. Something like this could also be somehow mapped into the "moral" aspects.

Cows-- I really don't think that other than one or two incidents cows were important enough tactically to be worth worrying about. One could probably assume that any cow KIA would be used as food by whoever wins the battle.

VIP civilians - Who remembers having to get the Belgian Royal Family off the map in SL? There could be units that have to be exited by one side or captured unharmed by the other.

Ark of the Covenant- the designer could designate a vehicle or vehicles (typically trucks) to have special significance (it has the lost Ark or a bunch of gold being taken to Switzerland or whatever) and have to be exited or captured, as appropriate. This is essentially in CM already, but in a relatively minor way as far as victory calcs are concerned. One truck won't be worth enough points to be significant.

So my answer is yes, BTS should include what Meeks refers to as the "moral aspects", but they can probably be effectively implemented with more sophisticated ways to set victory conditions, rather than a bunch of bystanders in the game.

By setting particular victory conditions, one can force the player to incorporate the "moral aspects" without having to check the street for old men carrying baguettes. The player would still have some freedom to area fire unoccupied buildings, level big stone churches, shoot everything that moves, etc, but with the possibility of some loss of victory points. The importance of a particular aspect is determined by its value in the victory calculation.

As I type this, another aspect becomes obvious as a moral aspect: the tendency to continue the battle with amazingly high casualties. From a realism standpoint, BTS should require players to retreat back off the map after casualties get to somewhere between 10% and 30%. From an entertaining game standpoint, I prefer it the way it is.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

The game is really quite plump.

But not enough brain matter is seen after a gamey SMG charge.

[Panzer76]

No.

[xerxes]

More flexible and sophisticated victory point options would be wonderful. Attaching VPs (+/-) to buildings/bridges and units would be great. It would allow huge flexibility in scenario design.

One can only hope.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah, that'd be great. Then you could just shoot all the buildings, bridges, trees and cows and scarf up the VP's.

[EricS.]

It would be nice (i.e. realistic) to decide whether rushing a tank with a wounded commander back to a medic station (in order to keep him from bleeding to death) was worth avoiding a morale loss or a victory point penalty. But it stands to reason that as soon as you assign numerical values to moral issues, you are no longer dealing with morality (unless you be a utilitarian). It would become just one more strategic calculation.

[Lars]

You could argue Berli's idea the other way too. Imagine a scenario where it's the Russian Commanders job to raze a village before the Germans capture it, and the Germans need to secure enough shelter to make it through the night. Could be done by attaching VP's to each building or simply adding the victory conditions to a scenario brief (i.e. burn the lot/you must take at least 5 buildings intact).

[Humus B. Chittenbee]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

One might argue that what makes the Medal of Honor so important, the goings-on that relate to it so pungeant and its recipients so special, is their very humanity in inhumane situations.

Interesting thread. I would, however, disagree with you here. War is the most human of conditions.

[Cooper]

Don't forget we are talking about the Eastern Front here. While it is the mother of all land wars it was also (probably) the most savage war in history. The accounts of war atrocities seem to never end and the bestiality of these attacks scare you. I really doubt a russian commander had any thoughts of reducing civilian casualities on enemy occupied town (German or Russian). The same thing goes for the Germans.

[Hamstersss]

Originally posted by Humus B. Chittenbee:

Human in that it is an ultimate expression of humanity, one of its most striking attempts to reach god, but not, I'm afraid, humane, a word representing the noble ethic of compassion.

But the actions of some few heroes, in their attempts to stand up for what is right, to brave impossible odds just to save their fellows, whether in fact or in ideal, seems to me to fit the definition of humane.

[Nukem]

I think if moral issues were brought into the game it would actually have more of a detrimental effect than whatever would be gained realism wise. Suppose you did have civilians wandering around? Wouldn't this just allow evil little bastiches to commit virtual warcrimes in the comfort of their own homes. I know I would certainly be offended if my PBEM opponent started executing his POWs or slaughtering civilians. And as soon as you have these kind of sensitive themes in a game, it just takes one ten year old's mother to take a dislike to the subject matter and boom, various govt agencies are all over BTS trying to get CM banned. Look at all the fuss over the use of swastikas in the graphics to see this.

Also by imposing such moral issues aren't we all being just a little judgemental? Bad things happen in war, but they are committed by both sides - separating it into good guys and bad guys is feintly patronising to all concerned.

And worst of all how long is it before some sick neo-nazi type makes scenarios where the objective is to 'liquidate' as many virtual civilians as possible?

It is all very thin ice IMO and not worth messing around with. If you want ultra-realism, then join the army.

[The_Capt]

I think you get closer to real war watching WWF.

It is a game gents, so far removed from the realites of combat that to try and use it as a tool to demonstrate anything about said action is sadly laughable.

Hell, CM can barely duplicate the complex nuts and bolts of combat (MGs, Arty ranges anyone) let alone serve as a mirror into the human aspect.

Not to chastize the question but I will be blunt in my response...

[ May 13, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]