Squads going fanatic?

[vincere]

Playing the AI I've enjoyed the challenge and fun of encountering what I believed were fanatic squads. One even flanked a platoon of mine and mauled it to two understrength squads.

Just started playing PBEM, (I now know I should have started years ago). What joy I had when two of my rifle squads rallied from rout to fight back against two platoons Russian SMGs.

Fanatic troops, for me add an unpredictable X factor which I hope continues with CMx2. I think that it's rare enough to not be gamey, but when it happens adds to the tactical challenge and fun.

I guess the argument for possible fanatical squads for the Syrians is fairly obvious. However, what about the US? Should this feature be included for the US, to simulate the possibility of Berserker reactions to combat, its losses and stresses? If so, should it be have any less, or masivly less chance than Syrian?

My own thoughts are that 'Western' societies still produce soldiers that will fight fanatcially from time to time when it hits the fan.

[ March 20, 2006, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[Peter Cairns]

I think that fanaticism is a hard one to call, as what you are actually simulating in CM1 was specific to the era. It's not that a modern US unit might not be extremely brave, but rather that their training and ROE would suggest that they wouldn't throw away their lives to hold and objective that the US could just come back and re-take, (or indeed flatten) tommorrow.

You may get Syrian irregulars who display suicidal tendancies, and that might make them harder to dig out (or easier if they stand a fight to hold a farm house when you bring up an M1A2).

I'd rather there was a bit of variation in how everybody responded with the very occasional unit breaking far easier or harder than you would expect (I think Chicken is as valid as Fanatic), than have a fanatic setting as such.

Peter.

[vincere]

I think that fanaticism is a hard one to call, as what you are actually simulating in CM1 was specific to the era. It's not that a modern US unit might not be extremely brave, but rather that their training and ROE would suggest that they wouldn't throw away their lives to hold and objective that the US could just come back and re-take, (or indeed flatten) tommorrow.

Yeah, I think there's definately a case to be made as you're suggesting. However, I do not think combat is always rational, especially when casualties are involved. Off the top of my head: consider the sniper team that landed in Mog to protect Durant and his Blackhawk crew.

I'd rather there was a bit of variation in how everybody responded with the very occasional unit breaking far easier or harder than you would expect (I think Chicken is as valid as Fanatic), than have a fanatic setting as such

It's a good point, but don't you think routing covers this end of the spectrum?

[ March 24, 2006, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[Lee_DiSantis]

those delta guys that landed to protect durant and his crew were special cases, i think. they were both awarded the medal of honor.

[c3k]

Different era?!? Fanatacism should not be considered to represent a suicidal gleam in one's eye. Rather, a commitment to fight. To fight to the end, regardless of consequences, odds, or what one's sister units may be doing. As such, it is a timeless characteristic of soldiers.

Now, for an example, let's look to OIF and Thunder Run. There is a picture of a battalion First Sergeant who is firing across the back of an M1 Abrams, seemingly as cool as if he were on a firing range, while another soldier is dressing the bullet wound in the sergeant's leg! That, to me, represents fanaticism. A tendency to hold to training and duty, despite any and all distractions.

This type of interpretation of in-game fanatacism could also be regarded as ignoring any morale loss. No pinning, no routing, no cowering, etc.

Obviously, to successfully drive a car-bomb into a checkpoint while under fire would also require the ability to ignore those same distractions.

The almost requisite fanatacism of suicide attackers should not corrupt the meaning of fanatacism.

Regards,

Ken

[vincere]

Lee_DiSantis

those delta guys that landed to protect durant and his crew were special cases, i think. they were both awarded the medal of honor.

Yes, we're talking special cases; but my current thinking is that special cases are probably not exclusively limited to special forces.

c3k

Different era?!? Fanatacism should not be considered to represent a suicidal gleam in one's eye. Rather, a commitment to fight. To fight to the end, regardless of consequences, odds, or what one's sister units may be doing. As such, it is a timeless characteristic of soldiers.

Now, for an example, let's look to OIF and Thunder Run. There is a picture of a battalion First Sergeant who is firing across the back of an M1 Abrams, seemingly as cool as if he were on a firing range, while another soldier is dressing the bullet wound in the sergeant's leg! That, to me, represents fanaticism. A tendency to hold to training and duty, despite any and all distractions.

This type of interpretation of in-game fanatacism could also be regarded as ignoring any morale loss. No pinning, no routing, no cowering, etc.

Thanks C3k, that's the kind of approach I was thinking of. Combat and troops responses to it, by all accounts, can be very dynamic and sometimes regular troops will fight fanatically because at that point in time rational thinking takes a back seat.

The almost requisite fanatacism of suicide attackers should not corrupt the meaning of fanatacism.

Absolutely agree. Also, many suicide attackers are not all what they seem on face value. Especially when aspects, like reports that some suicide teams are followed by an armed 'controler' in case the suicidee decides to live a lttle longer are considered.

[LongLeftFlank]

Originally posted by c3k:

There is a picture of a battalion First Sergeant who is firing across the back of an M1 Abrams, seemingly as cool as if he were on a firing range, while another soldier is dressing the bullet wound in the sergeant's leg! That, to me, represents fanaticism. A tendency to hold to training and duty, despite any and all distractions.

No disrespect to the bravery of the GI noted above, but that "fanaticism" could also be a manifestation of overconfident but green troops.

As many veterans noted, they pulled "brave" stunts in their first few days in combat (e.g. in BoB the sergeant climbing a tree at Brecourt Manor to fire on entrenched enemy MG) that they'd never have tried subsequently once they knew the real risks involved.

But perhaps motive -- fanaticism, esprit or simply plain ignorance -- doesn't matter so much.

[MikeyD]

"Fanatacism should not be considered to represent a suicidal gleam in one's eye. Rather, a commitment to... fight to the end, regardless of consequences."

Read the book "Achilles in Vietnam" and fanatical or "berserker" behavior in combat looks more pathological than heroic. Its more a symptom of stress levels spiralling out of control, something that could haunt survivors for the rest of their lives. There's a qualitative difference between a soldier steadfastly doing his job and a soldier cracking and going 'Rambo' on the enemy's arse.

[c3k]

MikeyD,

Agreed, there IS a difference between a "soldier steadfastly doing his job and a soldier carcking and going 'Rambo' on the enemy's arse."

I think the fanatacism benefit primarily reflects the steadfastness. For a simulation of a 'Rambo' action, the term "Berserk" (thank you to ASL) seems to be more appropriate. I would welcome a simulation of both. So, I do NOT think fanatacism inherently means going 'Rambo'. (It could, if there is no other game methodology which embodies that behavior.)

Regards,

Ken

[Peter Cairns]

I am pretty much against "Berserk, Rambo, or Fanatic"', in that it's a bit like "Short, Medium, and Long" for range.

Things like "Short range are good on a table is CM1, to give you an idea of firepower, but the game uses an algorithm to calculate it precisely taking in to account all relevant factors.

In the same way the game should use a sort of response "bell curve", from " run like hell to fight to the death", with both low probabilities, adapted by circumstance.

Players should be able to influence the factors in game design, and they will need to be given broad names, like "high' and "low" for ammo, or "tired and exhausted" so that people have a simple quick way of assessing unit effectiveness.

I think a fanatical setting is a bit crude and unrealistic and I would rather it was a random and rare product of circumstances than a button you could press.

Peter.

[mav1]

Maybe there should be degrees of fanatasim (morale), just like there are degrees of experiance. A green unit can hve low fanatic value where it gives up easily. Or high fanatic value where it fights to the death. So the same with veteran units, which can have high or low fanatic values. Just bcause a unit is veteran doesn't mean it will fight to the death. As well just because a unit is green it will not run away. A veteren unit can be professional but not suicidal. A green unit can be inexperiance, but is willing to die for a cause.

[ March 29, 2006, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

[vincere]

Read the book "Achilles in Vietnam" and fanatical or "berserker" behavior in combat looks more pathological than heroic. Its more a symptom of stress levels spiralling out of control, something that could haunt survivors for the rest of their lives. There's a qualitative difference between a soldier steadfastly doing his job and a soldier cracking and going 'Rambo' on the enemy's arse.

Looking at it like that could have implications for collateral damage, especially if BF get round to modelling civilians in later games.

[MikeyD]

I half get the feeling (my own theory here) that BFC has avoided civilians in the game for the same reason that they avoided chain link fencing in the earlier titles. Civilians implies the ability for the more perverse players to construct 'slaughter' scenarios. Chain link fencing would permit the construction of virtual concentration camps! Currently in CM its rather difficult to construct a 'liberation of Belsun' scenario using the available tiles - which is just what BFC may want. They'd probably want to keep their product more of a 'pure' tactical warfighting game as opposed to a 'horrors of war' simulation.

[Mike Summers]

I read an interesting article on heroism not too long ago (I believe it was an old issue of MHQ). The authors basic premise was that heroism on the battlefield was more a result of a compounding of stresses than anything else. I imagine heroism could be linked to fanaticism, as well. Very definitely a fine line between cracking under fire and deciding to "put the wood to the other guy".

[Peter Cairns]

I remember watching an inerview with an Indian who won the VC during WW2 by defending his gun while wounded after most of the crew had been killed. He came across as the most rational guy you could meet. His line was "My orders were to hold my position and defend my gun at all costs, so I did", he didn't see himself as a hero.

Latter on in the interview he almost cried when talking about the Indians he had killed during the war. they had sided with the japanese who had promised India independence while he was serviing in the Indian Army under British rule.

The man simply placed duty higher than his own personal safety or well being, he didn't go crazy he just wouldn't give in regardless of cost. I suppose some of the elite Nazi's were probably like that in that like the japanese they placed country above their own lives.

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Peter,

Here is an example of what one could call heroism. Please take the trouble to read it and then consider my comments below.

Colonel H Jones - VC - Falklands War

This has to be one of the most ludicrous events in recent British military history, if you ask me. Colonel H Jones was undoubtedly a brave man who liked to lead from the front, but a battalion commander should not be charging enemy positions with an SMG. If he has to, then something has gone seriously wrong with his battle plan!

[Peter Cairns]

As I recall the Paras had less than 600men the Argentinians more than twice that. The Argentinians were dug in and had superior fire power, and the attack was dragging on and it was getting light, with the probability of daylight attacks from the argentinian airforce.

So Jones went forward to stop the attack from stalling, and he got killed, but the attack didn't stall and the Paras one, taking 1,400 prisoners.

You can argue that in those conditions the Paras were nuts to attack ( although some form of insanity is almost a prerequisit for joining), or that he should have pulled his men back (though that might have been even more costly given the terrain if the Argentinians had been able to use their .50cals in daylight), but what would you have done.

Oddly enough I've played a few few CMx1 battalion games in my time and when the going gets tough I've found myself plugging a gap with a Bn HQ.

Try reading "A Bridge Too Far", you'll see the Paras have a sort of tradition of this kind of thing, its a very lean fighting unit, as in everybody fights.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

Actually I've done some checking and I am probably a fair bit off with my timings.

however this is quite a good overview of the battle, and wouldn't it just make a great CM:SF scenario, even if it is a bit on the big side.....

Goose Green

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Actually I've done some checking and I am probably a fair bit off with my timings.

however this is quite a good overview of the battle, and wouldn't it just make a great CM:SF scenario, even if it is a bit on the big side.....

Goose Green

Peter.

Peter,

Thanks for the link - it is an interesting site.

I agree that the Falklands War would be a good subject for CMx2. Few wars in recent history have pitted equally well equipped state armies against each other in a clear-cut military campaign with no civilian collateral damage to worry about.

I remember that British medics treated Argentinian casualties with just as much care and attention as British casualties, and the Argentinian commanders surrendered very honorably to British forces, having put up a good fight. It is as close to a gentleman's war as you can find these days.

Don't get me wrong, war is still war, and horrible in any circumstances, but compared to Iraq, it was much more civilized, with clear-cut military objectives and virtually zero civilian casualties.

[Peter Cairns]

If you look on "Google Earth" at

51 50'29.29"S 58 56'56.50"W you'll find a good picture of the battlefield (type in Falkland Islands and zoom in by hand).

From about 20,000 ft you can pick out almost everything from the map on the site above, and as you move the pointer it gives you heights above sea level.

It would actually make a good CMAF battle with Elite or Veteran UK Paras, v Regular or conscript Argentinian ( don't know what nationality to use, maybe Italian).

Of Course if BF went with my idea of letting you import an overlay to trace on too this could be a lot easier, and as for being able to import Google Earth maps so that it put in the heights as well to give accurate 3D models of anywhere in the world, well that would be a scenario designers dream.

Peter.

[vincere]

If memory serves me part of the reason for the Agentine commander's surrender was the firepower a SAS fighting patrol was putting down. It Argentines interpreted this fire to mean a much larger force was attacking.

From the diverse aspects of actions in combat that you guys are mentioning, I guess that there's alot to fanatical fighting that would be hard to describe and analyse, let alone model. That said, I still think that an X factor to fanatical fighting add to the game.

[MikeyD]

Let's not forget that 'most' fanatical fighting probably only lasts for a few seconds - long enough for someone to jump up, do something foolhearty, and die. From anecdotes it seems the guy who goes berserk on the battlefield and survives is usually astonished to find that he's still alive.

Translated into the game, that means every once in awhile one of the little men in your team would suddenly jump up, go screaming John Wayne-style in the direction of the enemy, and get shot down. After a few games of this that move would probably tend to get annoying

[vincere]

Translated into the game, that means every once in awhile one of the little men in your team would suddenly jump up, go screaming John Wayne-style in the direction of the enemy, and get shot down. After a few games of this that move would probably tend to get annoying

Interesting slant on it. Not so annoying watching your apponents squad do it.