James Crowley Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 To get back to my original point, there does not appear to be any evidence as to the existence of a 'global morale' system. When any unit or force starts to get reduced by casualties it will start to lose cohesion. This applies particularly to an attacker but is germain to defence as well. At some point the effect of mounting casulaties will render the unit or force ineffective as a fighting force, as much through breakdown of C&C as bodycount. CMBN has a fairly sophisticated C2 system but this fails to stop a player from gathering up the broken remnants of squads who, by that time, would be acting mainly as individuals concerned for their own survival, and co-ordinating attacks with them. Throw into the mix crew from abandoned vehicles and you have something which is totally unrealistic and ahistoric. As to the control of victory locations, ponder the following. A single, good order, full strength squad enters a victory zone. The opponent already has two squads in that zone, opens up and shreds the new arrival. There is only 1 wounded soldier left in the attacking squad who promptly takes cover. The game ends. Technically, the zone is deemed to be in dispute, so neither side gets the allocated points. I would suggest that common sense and an appreciation for the reality of the situation would dictate that there is not a 'disputed' zone, at all. The games referred to in these posts would not have generated any controversy over disputed zones if they had automatically ended when the relative casualty levels had reached a cut off point, as per a global morale system. If games can be won, lost or drawn on the basis of the location of one or two soldiers, more often than not broken, rattled and out of command, then, IMO, that renders the complex C2 system in CMBN largely redundant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 To get back to my original point, there does not appear to be any evidence as to the existence of a 'global morale' system... Sorry, but this is incorrect; the effects of Global Morale are very easy to see in the game. For example, I very recently played a scenario attacking as Americans and the Germans had a number of PaK40s. The first few guns took a couple of dozen mortar rounds each to get the crew to abandon, and one one gun I eliminated early in the scenario, the last remaining survivor of the mortar fire I brought down on the gun still stuck to the gun got a shot off before being eliminated by tank direct fire. But by the end of the scenario, after I had caused something like 50% casualties to the German forces, the last two gun crews abandoned their guns after a few small arms rounds were fired at them by my scout infantry. Huge difference. On the other side, as an attacker, as casualties mount, it definitely becomes more and more difficult to order men to advance into even light fire. If you are able to "gather up a few broken remnants of squads... and coordinate attacks with them," in the game, I am impressed: you are definitely a better player than I am. My broken remnants are extremely brittle and good for some modest overwatch fire support, at best. But you don't have to take my anecdotal experience as proof of the existence of a Global Morale feature in CMBN. Search is your friend. From the horse's mouth: CMx2 does have Global Morale. The entire force's Morale is made more brittle by casualties, though it only really starts to show itself when casualties become serious... Posted by Steve here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1231587&highlight=global+morale#post1231587 Regards, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sorry, but this is incorrect; the effects of Global Morale are very easy to see in the game. [...] On the other side, as an attacker, as casualties mount, it definitely becomes more and more difficult to order men to advance into even light fire. If you are able to "gather up a few broken remnants of squads... and coordinate attacks with them," in the game, I am impressed: you are definitely a better player than I am. My broken remnants are extremely brittle and good for some modest overwatch fire support, at best. I have to agree with this. In a current PBEM, I had 3 full platoons of german pioneers to start with. I used two in an attack / assault on a small town, the first platoon almost got wiped out (4 men left), the second platoon also suffered around 50% - 60% casualties. I held back the third platoon to be used later to attack from a different direction. I checked their status before commencing the attack and they were all "Nervous", not "OK" as I would have expected. Also, as soon as they took even one casualty in the squad, they first became "Shaken" (cannot give any orders, moving out of fire by themselves, I think) and then, after recovering, "Rattled". This makes attacking now, with the global situation in mind, almost impossible, as the troops will turn and run away very easily. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 OK, perhaps I am using the wrong term. My definition of 'global morale' is the CMx1 one, whereby the game stopped automatically when one side took propotionately much higher casualties than the other. The 'global morale' as described by Yankee Dog, is a different animal and does not cause the battle to end, although it obviously does have a detrimental effect to the surviving units morale. What it doesn't do is stop the player (and Steve aludes to this behaviour in his post) from giving orders to broken remnants, such that a game that really should have finished - at least by real world standards - drags on (as other posters have pointed out) until the last man dies. And if those few last men are able to infiltrate into victory zone, they can alter the victory level outcome in a way that is totally dispropotionate to their status and numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sorry, but this is incorrect; the effects of Global Morale are very easy to see in the game. Absolutely. Why else would an AI ever hit "Surrender" when it still had troops on nearly all its VLs and I had yet to take more than the most minor of mine? Just because there are ways of masking it (those pesky not-appearing-in-this-episode reinforcements) doesn't mean it's not there. On the other side, as an attacker, as casualties mount, it definitely becomes more and more difficult to order men to advance into even light fire. If you are able to "gather up a few broken remnants of squads... and coordinate attacks with them," in the game, I am impressed: you are definitely a better player than I am. My broken remnants are extremely brittle and good for some modest overwatch fire support, at best. So far, in my experience, by the time I'm feeling the need to call upon the brittle broken butt-ends of squads which have been scavenging ammo from the dead for the last little while, the enemy have been in an even worse state, and the most desultory of preparatory area fire gets them ready to rabbit if my rag-tag remnants so much as wave an empty Thompson at them. OK, perhaps I am using the wrong term. My definition of 'global morale' is the CMx1 one, whereby the game stopped automatically when one side took propotionately much higher casualties than the other. No, it doesn't force a player to offer a ceasefire. It will cause the AI to, though. The 'global morale' as described by Yankee Dog, is a different animal and does not cause the battle to end, although it obviously does have a detrimental effect to the surviving units morale. What it doesn't do is stop the player (and Steve aludes to this behaviour in his post) from giving orders to broken remnants, such that a game that really should have finished - at least by real world standards - drags on (as other posters have pointed out) until the last man dies. And if those few last men are able to infiltrate into victory zone, they can alter the victory level outcome in a way that is totally dispropotionate to their status and numbers. No, you're right, it doesn't. All I can suggest is that when you believe you've won, offer a ceasefire, and if your opponent is a gamey bastidge and sneaks a VL out from under your nose with one broken crewman you didn't notice, consider whether you ever want to play them again. Personally, I'd be a bit miffed if the engine just cut me off for some arbitrary casualty percentage, or ratio. There are times when you have to spend men to get into a winning position from where you can inflict your own turn of disproportionate losses (getting past a sight screen to the MLR so you can call some heavy arty on well-known enemy positions, for example). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 OK, perhaps I am using the wrong term. My definition of 'global morale' is the CMx1 one, whereby the game stopped automatically when one side took propotionately much higher casualties than the other... This happens too -- if Global Morale (my definition) gets low enough, the side will autosurrender. I've won a number of battles this way against the AI. In several instances, the AI still had a fair number of troops on-map who were technically capable of combat, but they were all in a poor morale state and certainly no in a position to cause significant damage to my force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 True, YankeeDog. But as far as I know this can only happen when playing the AI, not another human player. I think this is what Mr. Crowley is advocating to avoid 'gamey' late game behaviour by human opponents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 Just finished a 'tiny' QB and got beaten by the AI side. Well, should have been beaten but my single German soldier in the victory zone, the sole survivor of a HMG crew and virtually out of ammo, denied the zone to either player. The AI had at least sixteen good-order men in the zone. If I had been the US player, particularly against a human opponent, I would not have been happy with that result. Nor do I want to argue the toss after the baattle; the game should adjudicate and that adjudication should be based a fairer assessment of zone control at games end. If the engine can be particular over casualty counts, surely it can be made to measure zone control based on some sort of ratio, rather than if one man is left standing the zone is still disputed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 So what ratio do you suggest? Number of active bodies? I'd suggest that any troops that are Broken, or "brittle" (still not sure precisely when a unit becomes "brittle") in the morale stakes shouldn't be counted for victory purposes unless, perhaps, their side does have sole possession of the VL. So you can use a broken unit to placehold a VL that you're sure you've cleared, but not to contest one that you might not have. That'd stop gamey sneakin' routers being used to deny control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 So what ratio do you suggest? Number of active bodies? I'd suggest that any troops that are Broken, or "brittle" (still not sure precisely when a unit becomes "brittle") in the morale stakes shouldn't be counted for victory purposes unless, perhaps, their side does have sole possession of the VL. So you can use a broken unit to placehold a VL that you're sure you've cleared, but not to contest one that you might not have. That'd stop gamey sneakin' routers being used to deny control. Hmmm, ratios are tricky but I would have thought 5-1 would be fair. So for one man you would need five men; for 10 men you would need 50. And I agree that only good-order units should count - OK only - the rest have movement or command restrictions which greatly reduces their abilities. I don't think wounded would be a problem either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 ...I agree that only good-order units should count - OK only - the rest have movement or command restrictions which greatly reduces their abilities. They do? I've not noticed anything above Shaken restrict movement or command issuance. Affects how they react to fire, sure, but I don't think I've ever finished a scenario with a single 'OK' troop except maybe tanks. Just losing a few men from a platoon drops the default state to 'Cautious'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 That's all fine for infantry, but what do you do about AFVs of all types? How many men is a Sherman worth (or different variations of them), how many a PSW 222, how many a StuG or a halftrack? Ammo should count as well, 100 men with no ammo at all are no match for 10 well armed enemies. Loads and loads of variables... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 That's all fine for infantry, but what do you do about AFVs of all types? How many men is a Sherman worth (or different variations of them), how many a PSW 222, how many a StuG or a halftrack? Ammo should count as well, 100 men with no ammo at all are no match for 10 well armed enemies. Loads and loads of variables... Just use the same formula as per casualties? 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.