Does National Pride Really Play a Part in These Discussions?

[264rifle]

Gentlemen, the author of the article also mentions some of the "lower" quality SS troops shooting their own officers and running away from difficult tasks.

But I did not post this to try to change the SS ratings.

Repeating that many nations had both good and bad troops. The spread of quality may be outside of the games ability to model.

Other factors not in the game (or not properly modeled in the game) may affect morale if not experience.

U.S. Marines vrs Japanese, most combat on islands, small islands, no place to retreat to, for either side. Did Japanese retreat in New Guinea or Indo-china??
A Unit Knowing that it is out of supply, low on ammo, and food, and more IS NOT coming in the next few days (or weeks).
Training, Doing extra forced marches and push-ups and being told 20 times a day that the unit is "Elite" might not help their weapons skills but might make a unit push just a little harder or hold a little longer. What was Napoleon's quote on Morale? Morale is to material as 3 to 1.

Some minor countries had fewer AFVs in their entire army than the US and British had in ONE division. Given the usual obsolescence of the minor countries tank parks (Hungarian Fast Corps that attacked Russia on 27 June 1941 had 81 Toldis tanks, 48 Csaba armoured cars and 60 CV 35 Tankettes) Most armour to armour match-ups (rare as they would be to begin with) would be blow outs. And Major country armour vrs Minor country infantry would not be much fun either unless minor country was given an unhistoric amount of anti-tank equipment.

While scenerio designers can tweak things a bit better to suit ONE situation at a time the game does have to average things.

We have trouble even modeling AFV's which can be measured, timed and looked at. This is not usually subjective but mistakes and errors creep in. The game engine (maybe developed on 486 or older computers) does a fine job with average vehicles but gets a little confused with the odd-balls. Anything with a strange armament layout or crew layout gets strange game results. Take Italian Autoballinde car AB40 with 4 MGs. One fired by radio operater or rear driver over the engine covers to rear of vehicle. Two co-ax guns in turret (one man turret) and an AA gun on top of turret manned by same guy trying to shoot the turret guns. All guns fed by 24 round magazines mounted on top of the guns. How do you model this[&:]

Moral and experience are subjective. No one wants to see their "HOME" country near the bottom of the barrel.

Many things affect the out come of historic battles that can't be modelled in the game.
One story is told of a few British armoured cars capturing an Italian Engineer general and two lady companions out for a "drive" on the 15 June 1940. He also happened to have a set of detailed plans of the fortifcations around Bardia with him. The British put the plans to good use when they stormed the fortress in January.
How much does the average trooper get down graded to average in the General's stupidity?

We can tinker with the Morale ratings to get "historic" results in the game but maybe we are getting our "Historic" results for the wrong reasons. Maybe we can't get the right reasons into the game.

[Puukkoo]

These "historic outcomes" only apply to the Long Campaign engagements, which are the most popular battles among the users anyway. The Italians who have 30 exp/mor are lead by a very poor general as well as the Soviets with low ratings are lead by Bolshevik propagada that sang praises of the "Invincible Red Army".

Only "true" history in SPWAW is represented by historical scenarios and campaigns, which are modelled as carefully as possible from actual sources. Creating an accurate historical scenario is just as tough task as writing an article for scientific journal. It is however much more easier as practically all the players just want action and don't pay too much heed on historical details.

The question of historicity is to large extent a "how much" question. If everything should be as realistic as the game engine can produce, we'd only have one or two scenarios ever made. It is also a matter of playability.

[FNG]

First of all, vote Mike Wood for Supreme Ruler of the Universe (if you're looking for someone to run the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I'm your man [;)] )

The two biggest problems that I encounter with troop quality when playing the Long Campaign:

1. The countries with the lowest scores are IMHO too low and/or those with the highest are too high - either way I think the band is too wide.

2. Experience is gained far too quickly - I'm guessing the same formula is used for each battle?

I would really like to see an experience system similar to that seen in some role-playing games where skills are a percentile value: if a unit fulfils the criteria for an experience check, then a roll against 100 - current skill must be made to actually learn something. This nicely models the fact that when you don't know much, it is very easy to learn, but it then becomes less likely that you have picked up anything new from a similar experience. In SPWaW I guess the 'roll' could be weighted by factors from the battle; was it a draw, MV or DV? Did the unit score > 'x' kills? Did the unit take casualties?

If we say a DV is worth 2, some casualties worth 4 and a kill is worth 1, then an 85 exp unit would have a 22% chance of gaining 'x' experience (100 - 85 + 7 points of modifiers).

I would love it if it was a big deal when one of my units got to elite. I would also love it if infantry replacements to damaged squads cost points, and destroyed units were replaced by the basic version - not a copy of the dead one. Apart from the shock of losing elite Sergeant Drake "splendid chap, remember that time outside Bardia when he killed 47 Germans with a rusty penknife?" <or is it just me that empathises with my squad leaders?[:)] >, beyond the actual battle result, there is no down side to getting an experienced unit killed.

Oh, and an Italian long campaign, including the switch to co-belligerent, would be a fantastic addition if national ratings were adjusted. As stated by many others with greater knowledge than I, it is a myth that all Italian combatants were second-rate. Hans von Luck rated at least some Italian tankers very highly, some performed very creditably in Russia and they gave the British a bloody nose on several occasions (the British usually down-played any Italian role in Axis victories, giving credit instead to the Germans).

I'll crawl back under my rock now.

[RockinHarry]

Beeing german, expressing something as "national pride" is still a delicate thing, at least in germany due to the known history. Since I did not have any choice where I was born almost 40 years ago (Aargh[X(] [:D]), I do not really see any reason to make more thoughts about that as necessary. [;)]Same goes for the wargaming hobby. I have better sources avilable for german stuff, but if it comes to just playing, I do not handle my virtual troopers any different. Hunting tigers with T-34 is oftenly more "fun" than hunting T-34 with Tigers. [8D]Same goes for the experience/morale rating in the game. I don´t see a reason to make germans stronger than they really were. At last it´s up to the "overall commander" playing the troops to get the most out of them. A bad commander playing crack germans will surely stand no chance against a superb commander playing other nations with worse ratings. [;)]Really not more to say about that topic.

[Dusan]

ORIGINAL: Puukkoo
As for the SS troops with exp/mor 30, there were some troops in the SS Police forces who were mostly motivated with the political ideology and their leaders too were nazi political activists and not proper soldiers. Such troops deserve considerably lower ratings anyway.

Well, that's questionable. I think that the quality of troops depends on their experience/training + equipment + belief. And the last parameter should not be underestimated. Be in war is the ultimate sacrifice when men are facing the worst conditions and also risk their lives every minute. They have to have something, some reason to do this, if they are doing it only because they are forced to, that's no good. So the soldiers well "motivated with the political ideology" are knowing what they're fighting for and that would increase their morale (i.e. combat value).
The opposite could be seen in Vietnam or these days in Iraq where probably well trained and extremely well equipped American soldiers simply failed. Of course, even there the exception are elite forces (some Marines, Rangers, etc.) fighting well, because they were told so many times they're simply the best and can't fail, that they are believing in it. [:D]

[Puukkoo]

I dunno...

Why...

No scenario has troops with exp 20 and morale 110. Some die hard wackos. But a good call there, Dusan.

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Dusan

Well, that's questionable. I think that the quality of troops depends on their experience/training + equipment + belief. And the last parameter should not be underestimated. Be in war is the ultimate sacrifice when men are facing the worst conditions and also risk their lives every minute. They have to have something, some reason to do this, if they are doing it only because they are forced to, that's no good. So the soldiers well "motivated with the political ideology" are knowing what they're fighting for and that would increase their morale (i.e. combat value).

True and not true, I think. Some Finnish Winter War veterans write down their thoughts about particular SS troops' attacks on summer/fall 41. SS troops were extremely highly motivated yes, but they'd no combat experience. The results were unnecessary high casualties when running on open field towards the MG fire etc. Their idea was that being ûbermenschen will bring you victory with low casualties...

Another thing was when Soviets made their first counterattacks. "Was?! These Untermenschen cannot attack! Impossible!" The world view of inexperienced soldiers collapsed and the panic was close.

Source: Prof. Mauno Jokipii: Panttipataljoona

Of course these are radical examples - but still true ones. However in the defence and with some experience high motivation can make you to keep the positions even in hopeless situation. Examples of that can surely be found from every nations history (not only from Berlin '45 or Alby's logo [;)]).

[soldier]

I think your both right.
Soldiers who have a strong belief in what thier fighting for are often some of the most fierce and fanatical, leading to bravery and extremes in combat. On the other hand they are often lead to believe that they are invincible and their world shatters quickly when they discover this to be false. The same can be said of thier enemies, When things didn't go as expected at Cassino the Allies began to believe that the defenders were all fanatical Nazis when in fact they were more likely very skilled and well lead, making the most of the advantages they had (They were Paratroopers not SS).
I like a scene out of Band of Brothers towards the end when a new recruit is worried he won't see any combat. Upon hearing that the SS are around one of the veterans says "looks like you'll get your wish, the Waffen SS, those guys are F----n crazy. Suddenly the recruit dosn't look so keen
[:D]

[Puukkoo]

Terho!

All Finns at least should know Mauno Jokipii. There were a huge difference between Waffen SS forces and some Police SS troops. The 6th SS Division that fought in Lapland was actually a police unit that suffered heavy casualties under its incompetent leader. The unit attempted to take Russian positions by direct WW1 style charge and only took heavy losses without any considerable gains.

The politically motivated Germans were not any better than Soviets in the Winter War who were instructed by political commissares in addition to normal military commanders. The tactics used were all of large scale, where individualism played no part, which lead into distortion between concepts and reality.

[Korpraali V]

True. I know the difference. But the division those Finns (and Jokipii) were talking about was the 5th one, the Wiking. It was the Waffen SS unit. German soldiers in that unit were not veterans but mainly green ones. Later on the tactics of course developed due gained experience. But these were the first feelings of Finnish veterans about their officers: Lots of ideology but not much understanding of tactics.

[Puukkoo]

Well, the Wiking Div was a moderately successful unit at least. I see it now that the Waffen SS is completely misleading term when it comes to combat efficiency. Some of them were elite, some not. It is true that they all had to take an oath to Hitler and part of their training contained political lessons. Finns originally wanted their battalion to belong to the Wehrmacht and not into Himmler's organization.

Btw. have you looked up the Jatkosodan Pikkujättiläinen?

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Puukkoo

Btw. have you looked up the Jatkosodan Pikkujättiläinen?

Not yet. But am going to (So much to read, so little time).

[Mau Fox]

ORIGINAL: FNG
Oh, and an Italian long campaign, including the switch to co-belligerent, would be a fantastic addition if national ratings were adjusted.

This would be really nice. Allowing gamers, after the Armistice, to choose either the RSI side or the Co-belligerent side. [:)]

Mau Fox.