New feature is needed for low morale units

[GolasYH]

In FCSS, if you order a unit not to relocate in SOP manager, it will literally fight to its last man, even it's out of key ammo, even it's in very low morale.
I think low-morale units should be able to run away(like retreating in Armored Brigade) or surrender(like hands up in Combat Mission).

I come up with this topic for this: only one infantry left in this platoon, out of ammo and in very low morale, but it still fights with about 3 companies of T-72s in the game for more than 2 turns. For me, I can't barrage at such an "attractive" hex, for the enemy, they can't push forward as they should be able to.
And more than one time in other scenarios, I see low-morale units(less than 20) still firing at targets precisely 2-3 hexes away, assaulting troops stopped by a moribund unit that should not be able to fight. Either is unreasonable

[IronMikeGolf]

Thanks for posting this! It prompted me to go back and review work we've done in this direction. What you're asking for is a small piece of what we label "Tactical Psychology". I've been researching this for some time and am about 90% happy with the framework I've been working on. For some insight on that, I invite your attention to David Rowland's "The Stress of Battle". Chapter 7 speaks to his research on this and related battle phenomena.

What follows is my personal thoughts, ideas, noise, and rants. Tactical Psychology is definitely on our Road Map. Current work is about defining that for our game.

Broadly speaking, I think there are 4 phenomena to incorporate:

1. Surprise
2. Bombardment Shock (from non-precision munitions delivered in high volume. Largely plain old arty HE, cluster munitions, air strikes using iron bombs or cluster munitions)
3. Impact Shock: This is a large amount of enemy "lethality" moving swiftly enough that a defender can't get out of the way coupled with defender casualties. "Can I kill any of them? Can I kill enough of them before the overrun my position?" The main effect is paralysis.
4. Panic: This is induced by intense fear and can be contagious, elevating from a few individuals to the better part of a platoon. The battlefield effect is actions to remove the affected unit from the battle, either by flight or surrender.

Note, Rowland's research suggests a close coupling of Shock and Panic, with lots of evidence (both human and animal) of transition from either state to the other.

So, that's the framework in mind right now. The following post will talk to each phenomenon.

[IronMikeGolf]

Surprise:

In game, there's two levels of Surprise. First, there is the Player/Side scope, which is about getting your forces in a position where, when discovered by your enemy, there is insufficient time and space (keeping in mind Command Cycle, Order Delay, Transition Delay, and then physical movement of units) to make an effective response. The flip-side is actions taken by a Player to deny the enemy the capability of inflicting Surprise. Note the word "inflicting".

The flip-side to this is efforts to deny the enemy the capability if inflicting Surprise. These are actions like flank security screens to give early warning, forward guard or cover missions to destroy enemy recon efforts, etc.

The game currently provides adequate tools to deal with Surprise at that level.

The lower level of Surprise occurs during direct fire. We do a one-size-fit-all that we like to call "Rough Justice". This is when an unspotted unit shoots at an enemy, there are bonuses awarded: an extra shot and both shots are flank aspect.

This admittedly needs some work.

[IronMikeGolf]

Bombardment Shock:

I am breaking Shock down into two categories because the causes are different. First, let's consider bombardment shock. This is largely a sustained attack by non-precision HE, cluster munitions, or a combination of those. It can be delivered by mortars, artillery, rockets (ground or air launched), or strike aircraft (HE iron bombs or cluster munitions).

Let's contrast Shock with Suppression. What's the primary difference in terms of battlefield effect? With Suppression, as soon as fires are lifted, the targeted unit is back in action. A unit in Shock won't shoot nor respond to orders for a period of time. To put a defender in Shock requires a lot more weight of ammo and more time than mere Suppression. I suspect that it's on the order of several battalions of artillery firing on a defending battalion for several dozens of minutes. Historical research is needed to calibrate this.

Note that this means in this model, mortars or airstrikes alone don't induce shock.

[Comcikda]

Thanks for posting this! It prompted me to go back and review work we've done in this direction. What you're asking for is a small piece of what we label "Tactical Psychology".

Very detailed reply, but based on OP's posting, there seems to be another aspect that seems to have been neglected: why did 21 tanks do nothing to take out this 1 infantry squad?
I'm more interested in knowing what happened in this 500m hex that prevented them from wiping out this 1 infantry squad that had been spotted? What bunker was able to withstand the 125mm cannon from 21 T72's? Does this indicate a flaw in the combat settlement modeling of FCSS in urban areas?

[IronMikeGolf]

Impact Shock:

Here's a summary of my take on Rowland's work on this.
This goes waaay back to the era of nothing but edged weapons and horse cavalry. Consider that in those days, the main reason to build cavalry forces wasn't for reconnaissance, but to cause a decisive impact on a battle. By that I mean, the target of a cavalry assault was disrupted to the point if being unable to fight. In other words, put in a state of Shock. This leads to a momentum model (mass time velocity), which favors cavalry compared to infantry assault.

In ancient times, the shock caused by unit collision was within arm's reach. That means a prompt effect, but that's not the case in modern times. "Collision" can start at several kilometers, owing to weapon envelopes. So, I think there may be a cumulative effect over time. he extended range of weapons is, I suspect, a double-edged sword. It provides time for assessing, considering, and worrying about the next 10 minutes. If you can kill the attackers, but lack time, space, or ammo to really negate them, could Shock set in before close quarters contact? Possibly.

[IronMikeGolf]

Panic:

Where Shock is a period of paralysis, the battlefield effect of Panic is a unit active tries to remove itself from the battle by either flight or surrender. Preconditions seem to be:
1. Existential threat
2. Inability to counter that threat (lack of proper weapons or ammo, lack of fire support)
3. Prompt casualties (meaning, casualties from the immediate fight, not in the past)
4. Low Morale

In the above example, I don't feel the first condition is met. A tank battalion is driving through a mech squad's location while the mech squad is attempting to leave that location.

[IronMikeGolf]

Morale Dynamics

The current model is a "Rough Justice" one.
1. Initial Morale is set by the Scenario Designer
2. Morale is lowered by casualties
3. Morale decrements spread laterally to sibling units and immediate HQs
4. Destruction of a unit causes a bigger Morale loss to the siblings and the immediate HQs
5. Some Morale can be recovered over time

That's a simplistic model. I'll submit that Morale is also affected by the local METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available, and Time).

Terrain considerations might be things like "is there a covered or concealed route from the ordered location?" as well as "is that location 'good ground?" Assessing these kinds of things is pretty complicated.

This could be further modified by SOP settings, particularly Tactical Initiative, Acceptable Losses, and Relocate When settings. Setting a unit to "Do or Die" and "Relocate Never" sends a grim message to those soldiers and I believe there is a Morale impact.

[IronMikeGolf]

Thanks for posting this! It prompted me to go back and review work we've done in this direction. What you're asking for is a small piece of what we label "Tactical Psychology".

Very detailed reply, but based on OP's posting, there seems to be another aspect that seems to have been neglected: why did 21 tanks do nothing to take out this 1 infantry squad?
I'm more interested in knowing what happened in this 500m hex that prevented them from wiping out this 1 infantry squad that had been spotted? What bunker was able to withstand the 125mm cannon from 21 T72's? Does this indicate a flaw in the combat settlement modeling of FCSS in urban areas?

Looking at the screen shot, it appears the mech unit is not spotted. If that's the case, then there will be no direct fire by the tanks. Ammo loadout is unknown, but I assume there is some 125mm HE on board.

There is also an overkill limit of 2. By that I mean no more than 2 tanks per tank unit will engage that squad. I don't know what the circumstances were prior to the screen shot.

[GolasYH]

Thanks for posting this! It prompted me to go back and review work we've done in this direction. What you're asking for is a small piece of what we label "Tactical Psychology".

Very detailed reply, but based on OP's posting, there seems to be another aspect that seems to have been neglected: why did 21 tanks do nothing to take out this 1 infantry squad?
I'm more interested in knowing what happened in this 500m hex that prevented them from wiping out this 1 infantry squad that had been spotted? What bunker was able to withstand the 125mm cannon from 21 T72's? Does this indicate a flaw in the combat settlement modeling of FCSS in urban areas?

There is also an overkill limit of 2. By that I mean no more than 2 tanks per tank unit will engage that squad. I don't know what the circumstances were prior to the screen shot.

like I said, "but it still fights with about 3 companies of T-72s in the game for more than 2 turns", During the two turns, this inf unit is constantly engaging enemy tanks (there are sound and visual effects)
Maybe I can demonstrate my question in another way: Should there be a feature that a unit can leave the battle despite being directly killed (A withdrawing or relocating unit can still get valid orders from the player.)
Here is the save file, you can see the screenshot in hex 2722

[WildCatNL]

Thanks for the save game. The surviving squad is in urban terrain, with the T-72 ability to spot not only reduced by the terrain but also by the heavy rain and presence of five wrecks. The surviving squad makes use of the fact it is hard to spot to engage tanks until it runs out of AT ammo.
The surviving squad consistently is getting killed when I play the turn (development code).

[GolasYH]

Thanks for the save game. The surviving squad is in urban terrain, with the T-72 ability to spot not only reduced by the terrain but also by the heavy rain and presence of five wrecks. The surviving squad makes use of the fact it is hard to spot to engage tanks until it runs out of AT ammo.
The surviving squad consistently is getting killed when I play the turn (development code).

Thank you! Now I have figured out that both the terrain/weather factors and a computer opponent that is not smart enough cause this scene.
But I still get the question: Can a unit keep fighting(open fire, receiving and conducting orders) till the last moment he's killed

[WildCatNL]

But I still get the question: Can a unit keep fighting(open fire, receiving and conducting orders) till the last moment he's killed

Theoretically, yes. In practice, it depends. Every unit continuously evaluates its threats, and for each threat computes the cost-benefit ratio of engaging that threat. That cost-benefit ratio will be negative if the threat can dish out more damage than the unit can do the threat, in which case the unit is unlikely to start engaging the threat. It will be positive if the unit can dish out more damage than it is likely to receive.
Damage is expressed in the estimated amount of kills.
Under high stress situations (far from the HQ, low ammo, significant losses in its unit and immediate surroundings), the unit status goes to black, and the unit becomes very slow in receiving and executing new orders.

In the save game, the surviving squad figures out it cannot be easily spotted and it has AT weapons which at short range have a high probability of taking out a T-72. So it continues to fight until running out of AT missiles. Afterwards, it is no longer able to engage the threats. It is getting killed because firing the AT weapons raised its profile, or because without ammo it attempts to withdraw from the town.

[GolasYH]

But I still get the question: Can a unit keep fighting(open fire, receiving and conducting orders) till the last moment he's killed

Under high stress situations (far from the HQ, low ammo, significant losses in its unit and immediate surroundings), the unit status goes to black, and the unit becomes very slow in receiving and executing new orders.

Thank you!

So, in FCSS, there isn't a qualitative change or dividing point that the units run into panic/routed and lose control, they will always be under the player's command and conducting orders, just a matter of time, faster or slower. That's how the game designed.

[pzgndr]

Morale Dynamics

The current model is a "Rough Justice" one.
1. Initial Morale is set by the Scenario Designer
2. Morale is lowered by casualties
3. Morale decrements spread laterally to sibling units and immediate HQs
4. Destruction of a unit causes a bigger Morale loss to the siblings and the immediate HQs
5. Some Morale can be recovered over time

That's a simplistic model. I'll submit that Morale is also affected by the local METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available, and Time).

Terrain considerations might be things like "is there a covered or concealed route from the ordered location?" as well as "is that location 'good ground?" Assessing these kinds of things is pretty complicated.

This could be further modified by SOP settings, particularly Tactical Initiative, Acceptable Losses, and Relocate When settings. Setting a unit to "Do or Die" and "Relocate Never" sends a grim message to those soldiers and I believe there is a Morale impact.

A comment. A simplistic morale model is fine. But we also considered unit status IRL with a simplistic Red/Yellow/Green system, at least we did in the unit I served in. Units above 75% were Green, 50-75% was Yellow, and less than 50% was Red, etc. Now, being at ~40% does not necessarily make a unit combat ineffective, and historically some remnants of units continued to fight gallantly. But in response to the OP, the game should have some quantitative lower threshold where high casualties, equipment loss, and ammunition depletion renders a unit essentially combat ineffective and forces it to disengage and retreat. Maybe at 25% or 20% or something (or perhaps make this a game option for players to set the threshold). The idea is to address the OP's concern about a "Rambo Situation" as described that unnecessarily holds up the game where a hopelessly outnumbered unit continues to engage a much larger force, either human or AI. It's a valid concern and goes beyond a simplistic argument about unit morale.

[skeletonboi]

Just wanted to chime in here with a similar question: I just played Steel Rain as NATO and had a fantastic story-telling moment where a single squad of NATO infantry essentially stopped an entire PACT tank advance by themselves in an isolated town. Two screenshots here to illustrate this:

Superior NATO Infantry.png (1.32 MiB) Viewed 674 times

The first one shows 3 Soviet tank companies engaged in urban terrain with the chewed-up remains of a NATO mech. inf platoon on the left. There's only two squads remaining: I've cropped the image so you can see the time stamp.

Superior NATO Infantry 2.png (2.27 MiB) Viewed 674 times

Over a full hour later, the majority of the Soviet front line is held up in that little town: there's only a single squad remaining, entirely demoralised and with no AT ammo at all, but the Soviets can't destroy them and can't path through them. In this screenshot, I've finally commanded them to pull out because it's such a juicy arty target.

I really enjoyed this particular game, especially this vivid image of a single brave squad heroically holding back an entire Soviet push and giving their buddies time to redeploy. But I did wonder if something was going wrong with the combat calculations: at the very least, I expected those tank companies to eventually leave the hex (they all had movement arrows pointing south or southeast), but it looked like the whole column just got held up!

I've attached a save game from 0423.

[CapnDarwin]

We will have a look. I wonder if the depleted minefield is the cause of the delay and stack up more than the infantry unit in this case. Thanks for posting the issue.