CMx2 green units a Gamble for performance

[aka_tom_w]

This is interesting

BDW

Member

Member # 30

posted September 07, 2005 04:52 AM

5 top things I'd like to see added:

"3. "Green" should NOT always translate to "slow, wimpy and a bad shot". "Green" should instead translate to "performance during combat will be unpredictable". I'd like the purchasing of green units to be more of a gamble. They might suck or they might kick ass. "

That is sort of interesting

is there any historical precedent for Green units doing the impossible or performing heroically in battle?

I don't know.

Sorry for the new topic on this one but it looked like an interesting new suggestion buried in the "Name 5 things" thread that deserved a closer look.

I like the idea that Green troops might be MORE unpredictable and might be somehow brave and heroic on occassion.

Your thoughts?

-tom w

[jim crowley]

Not a bad idea.

Green units, not knowing the form, may well try things that vets, with their experience, may baulk at.

I have certainly read as much, although I would be hard pressed to quote chapter and verse.

[stoat]

The 101st had yet to see combat before D-Day. Neither had the 29th Inf (4th?). These were divisions of green troops, and while I am sure not everyone acted heroically or bravely, some of them did.

[Cpl Steiner]

"Fulda Gap" board game (SPI), circa 1970s or 1980s, had "Untried" units. When they were in combat for the first time you had to roll to see how good they were.

[YankeeDog]

This could be an interesting idea.

Green units sometimes accomplish remarkable things in combat simply because they don't know what they're up against. I've read a number of account of Green, but very gung-ho US troops in particular doing things like rushing MG nests, and succeeding simply becuause such a move was so unexpected.

Of course, just as often, the Green troops simply get themselves killed rushing the MG nest. . .

So, if properly implemented, it might be interesting if Green troops were more unpredictable.

Even more interesting would be if experience and morale (in the general sense -- a unit's general attitude towards combat) were dealt with separately.

Then you could have Green, gung-ho troops in their first combat, who would willingly obey suicidal orders, at least for a while, and also low-morale Veteran troops; very skilled, but unwilling to execute orders they new might get them killed.

[vincere]

Hello guys, I've been lurking for some time and thought I'd chip into this topic.

aka_tom_w you raise a good point. Studies of Alied units' performance in Normandy highlighted some interesting issues. Some of the so called green units appeared to be more willing to push forward than their experienced comrades. It seems that experience doesn't always translate into better perfromance, especially if that's measured in 'willingness'. There was the impression that some of the veteren divisions were 'sticky' in offecive ops.

[Michael Dorosh]

What tom fails to realize is that BFC simply used convenient descriptors to apply to a sliding scale of unit value. The words themselves are meaningless; they could as easily have said Quality One, Quality Two etc. on a quality scale of 1 to 7 rather than Conscript, Green, etc..

For the example of the 101st Airborne, you could apply both the words "green" and "Elite" to them on 6 June 1944, as they refer to experience in the first instance, and training in the second.

In order to have a rational discussion about troop quality, I think you need to include both criteria. BFC lumped both together to come up with a troop quality template; I think even Steve would admit that it was inadequate to fully cover the spectrum of troop types, but was a necessary stopgap to get CM to work.

Many paradoxes become evident in closer examination - well trained troops are always inexperienced first time in battle, and poorly trained troops can go on to be Veterans, however unlikely, simply by living through lots of battles. Doesn't make them any better trained.

Then there is the question of Morale, which is seperate yet again, though tied to experience and training.

BFC included Fitness as another measure of troop quality.

All of them are really just ways to modify the way troops in the game shoot, move, and react to enemy fire. Quantifying human behaviour is difficult at best, impossible at worst.

[Guest Mike]

British veterans after Normandy are sometimes described as being "fought out" - especially troops who had fought in Nth Africa.

They had lots of experience, but were wary - veterans would hit the dirt at the first inkling of incoming whereas inexperienced troops might not even recognise it as hostile fire.

I'm pretty sure the Germans found the same sort of thing on the Eastern Front - inexperienced troops were prone to chargine ahead without realising what they were getting into.

There are various wargames rules that use 2 descriptors - one for morale, one for experience, eg troops might be rated as cautious veterans, or willing and green.

some other rules I've used use a single descriptor (fanatic, trained, thrusting (!), stubborn, dashing, green, conscript, irregular) - but each is precisely described in several areas - eg trained (= veterans) are easily stopped in attack - shoot at them and they all go to ground - but green troops dont' stop until they've taken quiet a lot more fire - but they're also more prone to being over-run whereas trained troosp put up a longer fight, etc.

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes; I would suggest a few different scales would be necessary to encapsulate the whole spectrum, but - what practical effects would it have? You can simulate "trained" or "untrained" troops in the game, but if the Braniac - you or me - using them in the game doesn't know beans about tactics, then the descriptors once again become a bit meaningless.

The question is - what practical differences do these troop qualities have?

Without knowing how things work "under the hood", we can make some guesses based on observed behaviour (JasonC would be best for this, I think), or look at how other manual games - like ASL - handled this.

SL had Morale factors as well as Experience Level Ratings. Sort of an elegant system, and morale checks were taken not just as a result of enemy fire, but as a "test of courage" before attempting even mundane tasks like moving a gun.

In CM, units on board

a) move

shoot

c) spot

d) die

and that's about it (well, ok, not "die" but "react to enemy fire.") The Fitness level no doubt effects how fast and how far they move. Don't know if it applies to shooting or not. The troop quality applies to how well they shoot and also how they react to enemy fire. Adverse reactions to enemy fire include cowering (not doing anything) and running away. There are also variable amounts of time to recover from these adverse reactions.

So does training effect how well you shoot? Absolutely. That's even quantifiable, to a degree.

Does it effect how fast you move? Probably not in any direct sense. A trained soldier will wear his gear correctly in order not to get slowed down. An experienced soldier on the other hand will know to throw away his gas mask and entrenching tool and sleeping bag in order to lighten his load. Should this have an effect in the game? Probably not at the tactical level.

Do experienced men shoot any better than inexperienced men, all other factors being equal? More importantly, did it matter? Do we believe SLA Marshall that most riflemen didn't hit anything any way? If so, does an experienced man really put out more suppressive fire than an inexperienced one? Couldn't an inexperienced man be just as prone to shoot off all his ammo (thereby suppressing the enemy greater) as he would be to hiding in the bottom of his hole?

Carwood Lipton said that in his first battle, he exposed himself in order to fire at German soldiers much more than he would have in later battles (the miniseries BoB shows him climbing a tree, which apparently was a true story). So he was well trained, but inexperienced - yet more likely to shoot at the enemy (or at least expose himself to do so) than he was after gaining experience.

Or is that really a Morale issue?

And how does CM address that?

I think this issue is very deep and without knowing what factors are at work "under the hood", probably impossible to discuss.

[ September 07, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[securityguard]

Without 1:1 in CMX2, applying these rules wouldn't have made sense. Random forms of bravery, per person, was too little importance to simulate through a single icon simulating 12 guys. The most generic applicator of bravery was fantacism, but that was applied to the entire squad and not just a few.

WITH 1:1, however, I'd really like to see remote forms of bravery. Lt. Yukov's squad begins running towards an offending building, then all of a sudden 105 rounds land around his squad. Lt. Yukovs green squad begins running away from him, without even looking back, in full route. Lt. Yukov fires at his own squad mates for cowardice, then runs into the building where a known MG42 position is and mows everyone down.

What are the chances of the above situation happening? Probably 0.01%, Lt. Yukov was a crazy man and his crazy bravery paid off. It wasn't possible to simulate this at all in CMx1, but it SHOULD be in CMx2, if 1:1 works the way it should (maybe sans traitor shooting, but you get the idea).

[Guest Mike]

It is perfectly sensible to include it at the CM scale - squads can reasonably be depicted as behaving as a whole and be graded into a band depending upon their aggregate performance.

1:1 scale is irrelevant for this.

[vincere]

Michael Dorosh, I think, hits the nail on the head. Lots of interrelated factors that will never be completely modelled. But it'd be interesting to know what's planned for CMx2 in this area.

securityguard's idea led me to think of cohesion being simulated. Like new guys in the squad more likely to break; or be ordered to run and draw fire etc.

[aka_tom_w]

Hey.....

BDW

Member

Member # 30

posted September 07, 2005 04:52 AM

BDW came up with this one!

I just populatized in the CMx2 forum.

I like the idea of the unpredictable nature of that troop quality.

Call them "untried in combat" I don't care, but the idea of an unpredictable combat performance that might include heroism sounds like it might make the game more fun and entertaining

Again credit BWD (Member #30!) with the idea.

-tom w

[RSColonel_131st]

Sounds interesting to me - why not? You may have a few talented guys in that "green" unit who will save the day.

[Cpl Steiner]

I think I saw a documentary on TV about D-Day that said the first wave were all green troops as these were believed to be more likely to storm up the beaches than veterans. The veterans would probably have refused to get in the boats!

This could make for some interesting force selection decisions before a Quick Battle. Veterans are better fighters, but an assault in which heavy casualties are expected would be better made by less experienced troops who are more likely to obey orders and advance.

[Guest Mike]

Another example of this occurs to me from the Franco-Prussian war on 1870-71 - in the first battle or 2 the Prussians were mainly attacking in close columns with skirmishers in front. The French Chassepot rifle was dangerous out to about 1500m......you figure the rest!

In subsequent battles even the Prussian Guards are recorded as refusing to advance until the artillery had been bought up to silence the French infantry - they'd all disperse and go to ground without orders.

Survival instinct is pretty strong once you realise what it is that's goign to kill you!!

[Ardem]

I think with green troops it should not be linked with morale, but possibly how easy it is for them to take deaths.

I would not say veteran troops were unwilling to take the hits and storm, but I would think they would do it at a slower pace.

On defence I would expect veteran defenders to hold against larger odds compared to green troops who would give into fear easier as they have been untried.

Again morale should be random to each unit agreed and not linked to status, but the amount of casualties would be higher in a green squad then a vet squad.

[Battlefront.com]

It is already in the plans, for a long time now, to have "training" be a modifier to a unit's abilities. However, for reasons I rather not get into, this will not be in the first release. The reason is because there are so many implications associated with putting this in. However, in it will go (eventually).

I do like the idea of Experience levels allowing for random results. This was, however, the case in CMx1. There were no hardcoded rules like "you are Green therefore you will always use a value of 2 for this equation". However, I think we can do a little more for CMx2. But I won't say what

And it is true, unit Experience and Training doesn't always translate into best/worst performance. Early Waffen SS troops were poorly equipped and under trained by Heer standards, but they did some absolutely amazing things. They also paid a heavy price for all that bravado, though, so in the big picture it probably was a bad thing. Likewise, units with the "thousand mile stare" were next to useless, despite their on paper qualifications.

Charles has a thick book on the study of psychological factors on combat performance. I have a chart somewhere from that book that shows the curve. IIRC the optimal time was 3 weeks of combat. It levels out after a while, but after that it drops off dramatically. The curve looked like a sharp rise, leveled off, then steady decline. Tired and desensitized troops get careless and complacent. Recharge their batteries, and they are right back into the swing of things.

BTW, the US military has done a lot of studies about this. One thing they are currently trying to figure out how to solve is units that have very high cohesion. You would think that is a good thing, but apparently not. They are slower and more reluctant in combat because they all like each other and nobody wants to get each other killed. They also are more likely to shirk duties because they can count on each other to cover up stuff. They parade well, but in combat they can be a bit of a liability in some ways, though superior in others. The military is trying to figure out how to get high levels of cohesion without the downsides. Apparently unit commanders play a big role in this because too often they lighten up on discipline when they should in fact do the opposite.

Steve

[Philippe]

One of the few things I took away from a too-brief reading of Closing with the Enemy was that green troops tend to be more likely to get themselves killed quickly in their first few combats because they don't know any better and don't take care of themselves. Veterans are veterans because they know how to stay alive. Risk-taking is fine for green troops and cyber-warriors, but the most important experience you gain is in the art of self-preservation. Green troops might have a certain initial impact on the enemy at first, but very soon they will be dead or will have figured out (by watching their buddies splattered all over the battlefield) that sometimes it is better to keep your head down and make the new guy take point. There was apparently a reluctance on the part of some veterans even to learn the names of new replacements until after they had been around long enough to absorb some basic survival skills.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Philippe:

green troops tend to be more likely to get themselves killed quickly

This is partly because the veterans send the new guys out on all the dangerous duties. In this way the green troops become casualties at a much higher rate, and the old men stay together.