Waving the white flag

[jp10]

While this question applies to both MBT and WW2 I shall post it here because an owl hooted three times this morning.
Surrender. It just does not seem to sim appropriately in the game. While the moral/national characteristics effects seem a good concept the "surrenders if no path to retreat" seems weak to me. The game would feel a 1 hex retreat into a valid hex to be good enough to avoid surrender. It seems that commonly in battle soldiers do not believe the odds of a 50 yard dash while under pressure and already suffering the effects of battle worth the risk and prefer their chances as a POW.
I feel the game is close and granted certain historical venues saw greater or lesser amounts of surrender but does lowering a side's morale suffice or just make one side run away faster as opposed to giving a good fight till being overrun.
I pose these question about the surrender mechanism in WINSP, not so much for designed battles where units can be modified to produce results but more for generated battles and campaigns.
Should a 'prone to surrender' switch be created that modifies a side for a specific battle as opposed to the whole campaign?
Should a WINSP 'leader' being killed increase that units chance of surrender?
Should a unit in 'hand to hand' suffer surrender loses in addition to KIA casualties.
Could surrender losses be tallied separately from KIA totals?
Should the surrender rather than retreat occurrence be greater for urban or fortification hexes?

I apologize if some of these effects are already in the game but have not been encountered or noticed by myself. I am not looking for a weaker enemy but just a greater decision point of "Do I fight, run or give up?" which in reality is a snap decision made hastily in judgement of the outcome of the entire situation rather than "I calculate a clear hex is behind me". Too many times the unit will rout a hex only to be wiped out the next turn.

I now return you to your regular programming.

[Felix Nephthys]

The way I always understood it was that the game didn't differentiate between killed, wounded, and troops that for one reason or another are simply incapable of fighting any longer. Troops will disperse at times which means that the ones who are left simply ran away. And, sometimes, they will surrender. I for one feel the game models these things pretty well already. As for a prone to surrender switch, I'm not sure what that would do that can't already be accomplished with the selectors in the Preferences menu. As for a leader being killed, that will already reduce the chances for subordinate units to rally which will increase their chances of retreating/routing.

[Imp]

No idea if you meant units should surrender more or less often.
Lots of factors affect it by making morale plummet, seeing friendly units die for example or enemy’s killed.
Encircle them and they are more likely to surrender, then of course there’s the Japs.
Game works well and does something most don’t, throws you a surprise when routed troops suddenly decide to make a stand because somebody killed a few enemy soldiers.

[DRG]

Yes it's always interesting when a unit that is on the ropes has a fire volley that causes enemy casualties suddenly realizes all is not lost and they start fighting back more effectively.

[Aeraaa]

Found an interesting link with similar topic:

https://wavellroom.com/2018/09/25/sl...nd-psychology/

Generally speaking according to the article, combined arms, successful flanking and close combat have a larger impact on morale and tend to produce more casualties to surrenders.

[jp10]

What specifically started this subject for me was historical scenario battles (understandably more available in WW2, MBT has many hypothetical battles) like the Wolmi Do landing (136 captured) 2nd Para in Darwin (1000 prisoners) and the battle of Asal Uttar where after the end of the battle a Second Lieutenant leading a team of 20 soldiers searched a sugarcane field and shouting out for those hidden inside to come out – the Commanding Officer of Pakistan’s 4 Cavalry came out along with two majors, one captain and 17 other ranks to be made prisoners of war.
I have tested these battles and other scenarios that had a notable POW tally several times and only rarely have units surrendering. Holding their positions, pinned or routed till they disperse (and using up my ammo) yes, but routed, HQ broken and in contact with my forces they still refuse to wave that white rag.

The requirement to be encircled is too constrained in my opinion. I offer that a routed unit with an adjacent enemy unit triggering a surrender check would be an appropriate standard. If they don't surrender then (Hande hoch! Waffen weg!) then they can be fired up.

[Felix Nephthys]

Originally Posted by jp10

What specifically started this subject for me was historical scenario battles (understandably more available in WW2, MBT has many hypothetical battles) like the Wolmi Do landing (136 captured) 2nd Para in Darwin (1000 prisoners) and the battle of Asal Uttar where after the end of the battle a Second Lieutenant leading a team of 20 soldiers searched a sugarcane field and shouting out for those hidden inside to come out – the Commanding Officer of Pakistan’s 4 Cavalry came out along with two majors, one captain and 17 other ranks to be made prisoners of war.
I have tested these battles and other scenarios that had a notable POW tally several times and only rarely have units surrendering. Holding their positions, pinned or routed till they disperse (and using up my ammo) yes, but routed, HQ broken and in contact with my forces they still refuse to wave that white rag.

The requirement to be encircled is too constrained in my opinion. I offer that a routed unit with an adjacent enemy unit triggering a surrender check would be an appropriate standard. If they don't surrender then (Hande hoch! Waffen weg!) then they can be fired up.

But the game isn't meant to play that way though as I understand it. You can play most scenarios over and over again and never get the same outcome as before, that was the fun of it in my opinion. There will always be that random element where one unit might screw up horribly in one battle and the next day you play the same battle again and it might save the entire position. If it wasn't for that then what's the point of playing? It's fun to take a historical scenario and see how well you might do in that situation but at the end of the day, it's just a game. If I wanted it to come out the same way it did historically then I might as well just read the book. Besides, those situations I don't think could be handled by any game on the market anyways because they are of such an extraordinary nature to begin with. I'm reminded of Kirk with the Kobyashi Maru test in Star Trek, to change the conditions of the test in order to win.

As for the adjacent unit next to a routed unit, doesn't the game already handle this appropriately? With preferences you can already make a unit into either Terminators on one hand or a 3 year old with a skinned knee on the other. Then sometimes you always have the element of surprise where your whole day just goes to hell, like in the picture below.

[jp10]

IMO the most replay limiting factor in a war game is terrain. You can try different formations, strategies and nations but good attack routes and danger areas will always be the same. The right flank attack thru the forest will usually be better than the left wing attack across the open field.
This is why I always found the Close Combat series lacking. You could change the units/sides but the unchanging map terrain would always dictate the same tactics/routes for success.
I find the preferences solution too global. Lowering appropriate values usually only produces quicker routing than surrenders.

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by jp10

IMO the most replay limiting factor in a war game is terrain. You can try different formations, strategies and nations but good attack routes and danger areas will always be the same. The right flank attack thru the forest will usually be better than the left wing attack across the open field.
This is why I always found the Close Combat series lacking. You could change the units/sides but the unchanging map terrain would always dictate the same tactics/routes for success.
I find the preferences solution too global. Lowering appropriate values usually only produces quicker routing than surrenders.

Are you talking about scenarios only or in general?
Cause the game has random maps outside of scenarios.
And where the maps have to be the same because they were designed that way, it makes again no sense to complain about it.
Or did I misunderstood what you are saying?

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by jp10

What specifically started this subject for me was historical scenario battles (understandably more available in WW2, MBT has many hypothetical battles) like the Wolmi Do landing (136 captured) 2nd Para in Darwin (1000 prisoners) and the battle of Asal Uttar where after the end of the battle a Second Lieutenant leading a team of 20 soldiers searched a sugarcane field and shouting out for those hidden inside to come out – the Commanding Officer of Pakistan’s 4 Cavalry came out along with two majors, one captain and 17 other ranks to be made prisoners of war.
I have tested these battles and other scenarios that had a notable POW tally several times and only rarely have units surrendering. Holding their positions, pinned or routed till they disperse (and using up my ammo) yes, but routed, HQ broken and in contact with my forces they still refuse to wave that white rag.

The requirement to be encircled is too constrained in my opinion. I offer that a routed unit with an adjacent enemy unit triggering a surrender check would be an appropriate standard. If they don't surrender then (Hande hoch! Waffen weg!) then they can be fired up.

Remember when the last few men of a unit "disappear" when the unit disperses they are more than likely captured rather than killed (or at least hiding in that field).