Morale Issues

[Krotos]

Perhaps someone can help me out with a few issues I have noticed in the game.

1) Even after slaughtering all of an enemy's armoured units and the overwhelming majority of his infantry as well, the dregs of his force just keep on coming at me. Even squads that have been reduced to 1 or 2 men attempt to assault passing COLUMNS of heavy armour while their remaining RPG or ATM teams attempt to converge on any victory hexs in a seeming last ditch atempt to throw me out (even though I have local force ratios as high as 30 -35 to 1. What kind of fanatics are those troops anyhow...I mean once an enemy force is so completely routed (after a loss of 90% of its material assets) wouldn't the remaining infantry retreat and attempt to evade?

BTW. The troops of which I speak are Soviet and East German (1980's campaign)

2) My second question concerns opportunity fire. I will illustrate with an example which is typical.

I move a single tank from cover into a wide open field full of retreating (routed) infantry and fire on the nearest unit with my coax and AA MG. Then, almost every unit within range on the field stops, turns, and takes opportunity fire on me. I have been in situations where over 12 different infantry units have fired on me in succession (and repeatedly) every time I either move or attempt to shoot at them. I have had a singe tank take what must be over 50 separate fires from everyting to supposedly retreating infantry with AK47s and nades to half a dozen RPG or ATGM teams (that were supposed to be in retreat). Naturally eneough, the tank is either eventually killed or disabled -- statistically how can it survive in such a case.

My question therefore is this: is it normal to have every unit in range -- even those supposedly pinned or retreating -- drop everything they are doing to fire on each and every unit that moves into their line of sight? Wouldn't it be more natural for them to have a probability of taking opportunity fire commencerate with the degree of suppression they are under? The way the opportunity fire system works right now, game play is tedious affair -- particularly with the apparant uber moral the enemy seems to have.

Please tell me if I am doing something wrong. I really want to enjoy the game, but the above issues are making it a frustrating affair.

Thanks in advance,

Krotos

[hoplitis]

Even seriously depleted AI units have a chance of rallying (so do your battered units, too). As soon as they do, they'll do their "normal" business as usual (move towards closer objective hexes, OP fire your advancing armor, etc). Even crews from destroyed vehicles may harass you and cost you an unguarded objective hex. It may be annoying but hey! do you think that "clearing" a battlezone is easy? Mopping up retreating infantry with armor has its risks! (sounds more like an "infantry" task)
Also, there are numerous posts in this forum concerning these issues (and in depth). Do a search!

[Mustang]

It is kind of ridiculous, though, that an enemy will keep fighting after 90% losses. Any unit that has been cut down from, say, 9 to 2 men should be permanently routed.

And it seems like you overestimate the effects of surpression. Ocassionaly, you will pin a unit for a long time, but usually the unit will rally after a few turns and return to normal. Even retreating units without too much supression will Op-Fire.

[narwan]

Were those units retreating or routed ON THE TURN YOU MOVED YOUR ARMOR IN, or did that happen on an earlier turn? Because only pinned or ready troops will return fire. And just like you rally your troops during your turn, so will the AI. So a unit which was retreating on one turn can easily be ready to take a few more shots the next turn.

The amount of suppression of those pinned and ready units determines how many shots they will have for opportunity fire and it affects the hit chance for those shots. It also affects the chance of those units taking a shot. If you move a big heavy tank close to them, they will notice it and they will realise that they have to either take it out or die (the units whose status is still retreating or routed will either crawl in a ditch and hope for the best or keep running away). All those other squads taking shots at an enemy unit which is trying to kill them from close range sounds realistic to me.

The amount of damage a squad has taken also affects the number of shots it will have for the 2nd till 4th weapon slot. So they'll be mostly just firing rifles.
Clearing out infantry IS tedious bussiness and not a job for tanks unless you're willing to risk the occassional brew up.

Something which is often forgotten is that many, if not most, casualties (including POW's) will be suffered by the loser AFTER he has lost the battle. The old Greeks however already figured out that small groups of men conducting a methodical and 'fighting' retreat after their army had been defeated had far less chance of being one of those 'post-battle' casualties. For one thing the winning troops, having already won the battle, had little interest in further skirmishes in which they could become a casualty themselves. Fleeing troops however, their backs turned to them, usually without weapons and armor, on their own, oblivious to their surroundings, now there was an easy target to still their hunger for blood on! So just running away is NOT the smartest thing to do. It'll most likely get you killed or captured. This is a known phenomenon and it means that when an army 'breaks', you should NOT expect all enemy troops to just run away. There will be enough of them around who'll remember their lesson and conduct a fighting retreat to maximise their own chance of getting back. In a way that's reflected in the game, by just the mechanism you described. If the 'winner' has to be careful while advancing more of the surviving losers are likely to get out.

Narwan

[Basileus]

Hello all. I concur with hoplitis and narwan, it is assumed these routed/retreating men are trained soldiers and not "civilians with guns". By firing small arms on your tanks, they're trying to button up the crew to reduce their situational awareness and to silence externally mounted crew machineguns. This will allow any nearby "friendlies" that may have anti-armor rounds remaining to try and get a shot at the offending tanks. The objective is to either disable/disrupt the enemy tank formation, or at least slow them down so the "friendlies" can make good their escape. It is also assumed that the victory hexes are a rally point, so maybe the cut-off elements are trying to retreat to that location; this will allow surviving elements of shattered units to consolidate and mount a solid defense (strength in numbers, which is a lot better than dying alone, and surrendering to an enemy is no guarantee of survival so why not continue the fight?). We have to remember that prior to battlefield computer networks, most of these units had no idea where all the enemy and friendlies were, unlike the "God-view" we players enjoy, so they're reacting to what they can see, what they know.

In mustang's defense, though, in the case of NATO vs WP, morale rules may need to be modified depending on who they're fighting against. Despite what their kommissars may want, line East Germans facing West Germans may be more amenable to surrender than say Czechs or Poles. This was an ongoing debate before the end of the Cold War, how non-Soviet Warsaw Pact (NSWP) troops would fight against certain NATO nationalities. The speed at which Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians were integrated into NATO during the '90s may be an indication of how they felt in this regard. Certainly no love was lost between certain NSWP and the Russians after the ruthless suppressions of uprisings in 1956 and 1968. Despite this, there were more nasty incidents along the Czech border during the Cold War than along the inner German border, so it's not a given either way. Protecting their homeland would have been one thing, an invasion of West Germany could have brought "chinks in the armor" of the Warsaw Pact to the surface. It's hard to quantify. In the absence of such data, it must be assumed that they would fight as well as they were trained, and as trained soldiers anywhere would when faced with a reverse on the battlefield.

Basileus

[Krotos]

With all due respect to Narwan and Basileus' points of view, I really don't beleive that an infantry squad -- or even an entire infantry batallion -- that has just had 90% of their buddies blow away in unsupported suicidal assaults on heavy armour, and after having been thrown into retreat or totally routed are really thinking allong the following lines..."hum, lets brave the withering MG fire from those tanks and fire our rifles at them...maby we can get their commanders to button up". I think what they would be thinking is ..."holy shi*, lets bug out of here while we can"... or ... "run for your life"!!

Professional soldiers or not, the scene of 8 - 10 heavily suppressed or retreating infantry squads stoping (even when in cover) to fire on a platoon of heavy armour that isn't even firing at them or moving in their direction, is rather rediculous to me.

When even routed infantry is in direct contact with armour and their very lives are at stake, I can see them trying something desperate to survive; but a squad or platoon that has just taken a 90% loss, at a distance of 300 m (and in good cover) revealing themselves to fire AKs at a platoon of heavy armour moving away from them is ... well, questionable.

I look forward to further debate.

Krotos

[narwan]

Hi Krotos,
losses incurred in this game are not necessairily outright human kills. If a 10 men squad has 4 men left that does not men 6 men were killed. It means that there are 4 combat effective men left. The others are either KIA, WIA, POW, shellshocked, deserting, fleeing, gorging on captured supplies of french wine, etc. The game does call losses 'kills' but that is an abstraction to cover all possible reasons why soldiers become combat ineffective.

In other words, if 90% of the battallion is lost, not all of those have died. In fact, most probably won't have been. The troops you described with: "I think what they would be thinking is ..."holy shi*, lets bug out of here while we can"... or ... "run for your life"!!" are part of those 90% losses. Their state of mind is effectively beyond the limited time scale of the game to rally.
The 10% troops that are left constitute those soldiers who are still doing exactly what you see them doing in the game. And keep in mind they did not see 90% of their buddies being blown away; for one because only a fraction of those were actually killed and also because the troops on the field don't have the players godview. Individual troops will not be much aware of events beyond their own squad and platoon within the short time span of the game. They may very well carry on with their subunits mission when it is unlikely to affect the battles outcome. In the chaos of command breakdown a significant portion of the troops will simply carry out their last orders.
Also they will likely have seen some comrades get wounded. Besides flaming their desire for revenge they may well be motivated to fight on to buy the time needed to get their wounded comrades evacuated safely.

Narwan

[Basileus]

I decided to re-read the accounts of the Battle of the Imjin River, a meeting engagement fought by the British 29th Brigade against vastly superior numbers of Chinese in April 1951. It was a bloodbath...four battalions on a 12,000 yard front, with one, the 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire Regiment getting cut off and wiped out. One squadron (company) of Centurion tanks supported the brigade but couldn't reach the Gloucesters on the far left. Another battalion, the Ulsters, was severely mauled. The Besa coax machineguns on the tanks were firing nearly constantly. Many Chinese got run over by the treads. Others who managed to clamber aboard with grenades and sticky bombs were hosed off by fellow tanks' machinegun fire. One tank drove through a building to knock off the Chinese. When the UN troops took casualties, they pulled back...when the Chinese took casualties, they kept on coming, wave after wave, oblivious to the murderous fire of the tanks. I'm sure that seeing their mates getting blasted by the dozen would have had a negative impact on Chinese morale, if it was daytime and they could see the fallen. But it was night action, all they could see were the tanks blazing away, a beacon for them to focus their assault on. Perhaps this was intentional on the part of the Chinese leaders? Or superhuman morale combined with a total disregard for casualties?

The Communist forces in Korea weren't always so superhuman, though. In September 1950 along the Pusan Perimeter, a few days after the Inchon landings, the lack of resupply and a newfound vigor among the UN troops caused the nearly invincible North Koreans to crack and fall apart. They were worn out, underfed, underequipped (resorting to using captured vehicles, weapons, ammo), and no amount of bleating by the Kommissars could prevent the inevitable rout. Many hardened troops fled to the hills and formed guerrilla bands that harrassed UN rear areas for months, whereas South Koreans drafted by the then-victorious North Koreans gladly surrendered to UN forces.

Taking just the experience of the Brits at the Imjin and the North Koreans at the Naktong, it would appear that it took considerably less than 90% casualties to cause one side to break and withdraw. On the other hand, US Marines storming Obong-ni Ridge on 17 August 1950 had a hell of a time...they'd climb all the way to the top of a hill, get knocked back down, then climb it again. The 2nd Battalion 5th Marines suffered 60% casualties in seven hours. One platoon managed to reach the top with 20 of the 30 men it started the attack with; as it did so, machinegun fire caused five more casualties, and the rest were ordered back off the crest. Corsairs were called in, and worked over the North Korean positions, but as soon as the planes were gone, they reoccupied their trenches. As the 15 survivors of the Marine platoon started back up the hill at 50% casualties, they took six more casualties, reducing their numbers to nine effectives. Regaining the crest, the platoon was again forced to retreat. The 2nd Battalion was combat ineffective by 1500 hours, and the 1st Battalion had to pass through them to take the hills of Obong-ni Ridge by nightfall. Seven hours is roughly 140 game turns, and in that time 60% casualties were inflicted on a battalion sized formation, finally rendering them ineffective. That one platoon suffered 70% casualties, but it was still fighting up until that time. But they weren't at 90%, no.

And yes, infantry will attack an armored enemy even when reduced by casualties. Morale tends to be the deciding factor then. Americans in July 1950 had low morale because they just couldn't seem to stop the Red Tide, so when confronted by T-34s had a propensity to run. But not always. When a North Korean tank went tear-assing through downtown Taejon, General Dean saw it, rallied some 3.5 inch bazooka teams, and led them on a tank hunt through the narrow streets of the town. That takes guts.

Basileus

[Krotos]

Hey Basileus,

An excellent piece on the Battle of the Imjin River.

Notice though how the Brits and Chinese reacted differently. The Brits often fell back while the Chinese advanced regardless of cost. A similar comparision could be made with the Soviets in certain battles in WW II, and the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. What is being described are human wave tactics. In the case of the Iranians and Soviets, Guards Units and Commisars respectively were behind the waves and shoot anyone retreating on sight -- in the case of the Soviets, even their families would be exicuted! In such a case the ordinary soldier is, to put it bluntly, screwed! He is likely dead no matter what happens, so he might as well take a bullet from the enemy as one of his own. Human wave assaults are not the usual strategy or tactic of most of the worlds armies though -- thank the gods.

I will admit, certain "motivated" opponents, and / or, extremely professional formations (like some of the Waffen SS Divisions) will rally and fight inspite of alarming losses, but such formations (and the individuals that lead them) are the exception not the rule.

Krotos

[Mobhack]

game does call losses 'kills' but that is an abstraction to cover all possible reasons why soldiers become combat ineffective.

Actually, one of the first things we did way back in spww2 days, was to change "killed" to "casualties".

Otherwise - you are correct, in that some of the casualties will be those rendered combat-innefectives for some reason or other, such as helping wounded to the rear, or being wounded or battle-shocked etc, rather than just dead.

It also answers the question some folk ask "how does a section which is reduced to one "man" fire rifles, an LMG and maybe a LAW on its first shot opportunity of a turn" - the section may have only one man listed, but there will be some "hangers on". The one man is either one effective, or better yet - think of the crew count as an indicator of "hit points remaining" rather than some accountant's bean-count view of actual men left standing. Real war is messier than that neat ledger-book approach.

So the one man remaining is effectively one hit point remaining. i.e. that section is verging on being wiped out, not that the section has only one lonely guy carrying lots of weaponry in it. Sone of the other 9 men of the section may well still be hanging around, but are not effectively contributing to the battle any more.



Cheers
Andy