Pixeltruppen under fire

[BletchleyGeek]

I'm liking CM:BN a lot - and CM:SF for that matter as well - as I find it very realistic... if one disregards "established" literature on the subject of fighting men under fire, as presented by Marshall classical work "Men Under Fire" or John Keegan's very popular "The Face Of Battle".

I recently came across a very nice little book:

Canadians Under Fire. Infantry Effectiveness in the Second World War.

By Robert Charles Engen, Montreal- Kingston: McGill- Queen’s University Press (2009)

which basically thrashes the "rate of fire" theory proposed by Marshall and promoted so much by Keegan. It concentrates on the experiences of infantry officers in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in Western Europe, while the former authors focus on American and British experiences.

I wonder from what sources did inspire Battlefront to write the infantrymen TacAI module that manages exactly this: how willing are your pixelsoldiers to shoot at other pixelsoldiers.

From my experience with the CMx2 engine, I'd say that things do not really fit into Keegan-Marshall discourse at all. And I think it's not bad modelling or whimsical AI routines, but rather, an example of using good sources.

BTW, how do other CMx2 players feel about this? Are the pixeltruppen too liberal using their firearms? Does it make sense to you?

[Sublime]

An interesting point. There has been much established research by the U.S. Army post WW2 about soldier's reluctance to fire their weapons. I hesitate to claim exact figures because I dont have a source at hand, but I do remember a suprisingly high proportion of troops wouldn't fire their weapons.

In fact I thought this had something to do with assault rifle development as well as training post WW2.

However I dont know how this could realistically be simulated, especially in the scope of cmbn. Nor would that make for very enjoyable gameplay, I find it maddening enough when my mg gunners status goes from 'firing' to 'waiting' in the middle of an ambush while some enemy squad scrambles to cover.

[YankeeDog]

An interesting point. There has been much established research by the U.S. Army post WW2 about soldier's reluctance to fire their weapons. I hesitate to claim exact figures because I dont have a source at hand, but I do remember a suprisingly high proportion of troops wouldn't fire their weapons.

In fact I thought this had something to do with assault rifle development as well as training post WW2.

However I dont know how this could realistically be simulated, especially in the scope of cmbn. Nor would that make for very enjoyable gameplay, I find it maddening enough when my mg gunners status goes from 'firing' to 'waiting' in the middle of an ambush while some enemy squad scrambles to cover.

This is what the OP was alluding too...

S. L. A. is the U.S. Military historian who originally popularized the thesis that most soldiers were generally very unwilling to fire their weapons at the enemy with an intent to kill. His research and especially his work Men Against Fire did indeed influence U.S. small arms technology development, and infantry small unit training methods, for decades.

More recently, though, Marshall's works have been the center of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that his data collection and collation methods were less disciplined than what they should have been for a professional historian. Some have even accused him of outright fabrication. Needless to say, all this casts doubt on his work as a whole.

I would suggests some Googling and reading if you're interested in more; it's a complex topic. My personal opinion is that Marshall's work does have some value, but that he does sometimes put the cart ahead of the horse.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, SLAM has been pretty thoroughly discredited by now. I find it hard to believe that many people in a shooting position would not fire their gun.

Firing their gun effectively is a whole other matter. I think BFC have been too generous to pixeltruppen, being too willing to return fire while shot at and entirely too accurate in doing so.

But since that is a thing pretty hard to quantify I guess someone would always disagree no matter what BFC comes up with. My gut says they got pretty close to getting it right with the scoped rifles, none of that one shot one kill stuff which is far beyond the typical rifleman.

[YankeeDog]

Well, SLAM has been pretty thoroughly discredited by now. I find it hard to believe that many people in a shooting position would not fire their gun.

There's an important nuance to SLAM's essential hypothesis that's missing in this statement -- his essential hypothesis was that most soldiers were reluctant to fire their gun with an intent to kill the enemy.

Take it for what you will. My personal opinion is that, SLAM's methods were a bit shoddy in that he went looking for data that would support the conclusion he wanted to draw, rather than withholding judgment until he had all the information. Therefore it's not surprising that the information he found supported his initial thoughts, especially since much of his "data" was in the form of oral interviews, which are easily skewed by bias.

But his overall conclusions may still be at least partially correct; other historians have put forth more disciplined works that support similar conclusions. Unfortunately, SLAM's lack of discipline means that his works, in and of themselves, can't really be taken at face value.

[womble]

...much of his "data" was in the form of oral interviews, which are easily skewed by bias.

Not to mention the entirely understandable wish of the interviewees to come across as civilised beings, rather than brutal dehumanised murderers.

Be clear that I'm not saying that soldiers are brutal dehumanised murderers, just that their perception of the potential perception would colour their responses.

[user38]

My military experience is 100% peace time so I never had to fire my rifle at another person. However, I did train as an infantryman and I did participate in military exercises. Even in the thick of battle I rarely fired my weapon. The reason: its a lot easier to clean a rifle that has never been fired.

[Vark]

Grossman's "On Killing" is a good source that suggests it was inherited neurological inhibitors that prevented soldiers from seeking to lethally aim their weapons. Demonstration and suppression fire during engagements were the norm, according to Grossman, and only the psychopaths or shepherds sought to shoot to kill.

The chapter on changes to Post-War training regimes, to try to suppress this inhibitors, does seem to offer evidence of a problem that faced the Allied armies. Then again it could just be the result of the current CM engine not simulating all the inhibiting factors experienced by soldiers in the field.

[Michael Emrys]

In the game, how willing the soldiers are to fire their weapons and how effectively is strongly conditioned by their experience and motivation levels, so it is possible to customize their behavior to fit whatever your perception of "realistic" is. So far in my games, I've noticed both my and my enemies troops seem to spend a lot of time cowering, i.e., keeping their heads down while the bullets are flying.

Michael

[Vark]

Realistic is when rounds directed toward the gamer, exit the screen and hit anything in their way!

[Michael Emrys]

Realistic is when rounds directed toward the gamer, exit the screen and hit anything in their way!

Your post is reminiscent of something Richard Berg wrote about 30 years ago. He said, "Those who insist on extreme realism in wargames should play with the firm understanding that the loser will be shot."

Michael

[Vark]

Your post is reminiscent of something Richard Berg wrote about 30 years ago. He said, "Those who insist on extreme realism in wargames should play with the firm understanding that the loser will be shot."

Michael

Yup, the Streets of Stalingrad issue of Fire and Movement, he rated his most realistic game he'd designed as a 3-10, it would get 7-10 if the loser was shot! CMBN is a game, a damn good one but a game, those clamouring for more 'realistic' results should always bear that in mind.

[hoolaman]

There are a lot of things that influence this in the game.

CM simulates the extreme point of the pointy end where the units are there and ready to brawl.

It does not simulate:

Areas with lots of civilians.

Battles where the enemy is completely annihilated by artillery.

Battles where the enemy is gone.

Enemies that immediately surrender because they know the broader situation is hopeless.

As has been noted elsewhere on the forums, the game also puts entire squads in good uninterrupted LOS to each other for longer periods of time than is realistic. Most infantrymen would not neccesarily see the enemy for long enough to get a good shot off, even if their squad was engaged. Probably a large % of infantrymen would have gone through the war without getting into anything like a CM style knifefight.

[LemuelG]

More recently, though, Marshall's works have been the center of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that his data collection and collation methods were less disciplined than what they should have been for a professional historian. Some have even accused him of outright fabrication. Needless to say, all this casts doubt on his work as a whole.

I would suggests some Googling and reading if you're interested in more; it's a complex topic. My personal opinion is that Marshall's work does have some value, but that he does sometimes put the cart ahead of the horse.

His conclusions and theories should be examined and challenged like any other; the work he and his team put in making interviews and gathering information has been of inestimable value to many historians, and has enriched the historiography immensely.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater

[Michael Emrys]

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater

True, but there is a real need to discard the dirty bathwater. Haven't suggested that his entire body of work should be viewed as worthless—for one, I enjoyed his one volume history of the First World War and felt that it was substantially reliable—but in some critical areas it seems that he had a tendency to work towards a pre-determined conclusion rather than let all the facts build their own case. This unfortunate human inclination is not his alone, so I would not suggest that he be flayed for it. But it should be kept in mind when reading him...or any other historian, for that matter.

Michael

[BletchleyGeek]

As has been noted elsewhere on the forums, the game also puts entire squads in good uninterrupted LOS to each other for longer periods of time than is realistic. Most infantrymen would not neccesarily see the enemy for long enough to get a good shot off, even if their squad was engaged. Probably a large % of infantrymen would have gone through the war without getting into anything like a CM style knifefight.

Well as Michael Emrys points out, it's all about experience and motivation. Indeed, squads are for extended periods of time in good LOS of enemy squads, but depending on these two factors the volume of fire directed at enemy pixeltruppen dwindles sharply with time as your pixelmen look for cover or just keep their heads down.