Proficiency vs. Commitment

[Lobster]

Commitment can also depend on what is being attempted. It's not so clear cut as you think. Trying to pull a kid out of a burning house would produce a more committed attitude towards fighting a fire than if it was an abandoned house. Same goes for the battlefield. Fighting a foe in your home country produces a more committed attitude than fighting a foe in some bug infested god forsaken swamp on the other side of the planet.

It's something the scenario designer needs control of so it can be tailored to the scenario.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Commitment can also depend on what is being attempted. It's not so clear cut as you think. Trying to pull a kid out of a burning house would produce a more committed attitude towards fighting a fire than if it was an abandoned house. Same goes for the battlefield. Fighting a foe in your home country produces a more committed attitude than fighting a foe in some bug infested god forsaken swamp on the other side of the planet.

It's something the scenario designer needs control of so it can be tailored to the scenario.

Morale is something that can change from day to day or even hour to hour. Commitment is much more stable. One's attitude about that jungle war is not going to change day to day. Same for that war on main street.

Now, if you have a scenario that includes both a war in that jungle and on main street, you'll have to live with TOAWs limitations - for the time being.

[Lobster]

Commitment can also change day to day and hour to hour. And since we do have scenarios that last weeks and months and years it does matter.

In fact it would be quite logical to make it an event.

[Zovs]

For my self for operational wargame JTS Panzer Campaigns and Panzer Battles have a better representation than TOAW does in this regard. JTS uses morale and fatigue.

[Curtis Lemay]

OK. Two votes for 1:1; Two votes for 3:1 (including mine); And one vote for 1:0 (infinity).

Probably the best average for that is 3:1, and that's what I'll go with.

So...the old combat formula was: (2P + S + R)/4.

The new one will be: (3P + C + 2S + 2R)/8.

And it will get even more complex when supply is split up into components.

[76mm]

I agree with Lobster that it would be nice to be able to see morale (and commitment for that matter) without having to break out a calculator.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I agree with Lobster that it would be nice to be able to see morale (and commitment for that matter) without having to break out a calculator.

Seems a rut has been driven into and no attempt will be made to get out of it.

[gliz2]

Seems very artificial.
Take for example two opposites:
1. Soviet conscripts in summer of '41 which were poorly equipped, with almost zero training but they operated as human waves (backs against NKVD units).
2. LSSAH or Viking which were elite units and they dedication and morale allowed them on various occasions to overcome lack of supply and being outnumbered or encircled.

Morale, Proficiency (training but also experience both with weapons and tactics), Supply, Fatigue. Those are the ones used in military books. Commitment is not.
And morale is not some sum/weighted average. An elite unit (elite proficiency and morale) is rarely affected by lack of supplies.

Also where is the very important factor of commander's influence?

[gliz2]

After giving it moree thought here is my opinion on the matter.
Things to consider:
1. Elite units (LSSAH, Paras): this are units which were cream de la creme of given army. Normally best trained, best equipped and specially treated. Such units were tough cookies and their morale was rarely affected by lack of supplies, losses or being encirlced. Their combat efficiency was exceptional
2. Fanatic units (e.g. 12.SS.pzDiv or Kamikaze): their morale was also rarely affected by the supply, losses or combat situation. But they combat efficiency was a mixed bag. More on the fanatically following orders side.
3. Rugged defense: this happened even in case of green units, conscripts or decimated regulars. Somehow, somewhere it just clicked and they would stay their ground against the odds.
4. Conscripts i.e. Volkssturm: poor morale, poorly trained and equipped but acted of fear of consequences of not following orders. This were very inefficient although en masse could be dangerous like Banzai attacks.
5. Pride: very important factor. There were nations with long and rooted military lineage where it was seen as honour to serve. Some units were seen as giving special pride to its troopers. Take for example the Irish Guards or Alpini.
6. Morale is definitely not a simple outcome of calculating parts. As mentioned above it actually derives from many things.
7. Leadership: it was many times the differentiator. Even a tactically dumb commander like Sepp Dietrich but with great personal skills or agenda would inspire troops. And efficiency of carrying out orders from higher brass depends on quality of the COs. That's why ze Germans were so efficient and Soviets were not.
8. Military mentality: there was much difference to the treatment of troops, officers, losses etc. amongst nations. While US was focused on limiting personnel losses the Soviets or Japanese didn't care. While Nazis were fixating on creating elitist army the Brits were somewhat in the middle.
9. The term "commitment" involves all above and even more. Don't see a point in adding it to the engine while the above are more or less missing. It would make things more opaque and how it is described by Curtis Lemay it would be a very artificial parameter of a unit.
10. While I do see where this idea is coming from I do not see the proposal as a solution. It looks more like forced to me (there is a problem let's solve it in the quickest way).

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. Two votes for 1:1; Two votes for 3:1 (including mine); And one vote for 1:0 (infinity).

Probably the best average for that is 3:1, and that's what I'll go with.

So...the old combat formula was: (2P + S + R)/4.

The new one will be: (3P + C + 2S + 2R)/8.

And it will get even more complex when supply is split up into components.

Sorry I got late to this to cast my vote .

It would be useful if the multiplying factors for this formula could be set by the future scenario designers.

(P1*P + P2*C + P3*S + P4*R)/8.

The suggested values for P[1,2,3,4] look reasonable, but I do not think they can be correct for every scale and scenario, also I am a bit wary of adding complexity to an already complex game.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Seems very artificial.
Take for example two opposites:
1. Soviet conscripts in summer of '41 which were poorly equipped, with almost zero training but they operated as human waves (backs against NKVD units).

Very low Proficiency but moderate Commitment.

2. LSSAH or Viking which were elite units and they dedication and morale allowed them on various occasions to overcome lack of supply and being outnumbered or encircled.

High Proficiency and high Commitment.

Also where is the very important factor of commander's influence?

Commanders are coming too.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

After giving it moree thought here is my opinion on the matter.
Things to consider:
1. Elite units (LSSAH, Paras): this are units which were cream de la creme of given army. Normally best trained, best equipped and specially treated. Such units were tough cookies and their morale was rarely affected by lack of supplies, losses or being encirlced. Their combat efficiency was exceptional

Very high Proficiency and very high Commitment.

2. Fanatic units (e.g. 12.SS.pzDiv or Kamikaze): their morale was also rarely affected by the supply, losses or combat situation. But they combat efficiency was a mixed bag. More on the fanatically following orders side.

Very high Commitment.

3. Rugged defense: this happened even in case of green units, conscripts or decimated regulars. Somehow, somewhere it just clicked and they would stay their ground against the odds.

Terrain effects.

4. Conscripts i.e. Volkssturm: poor morale, poorly trained and equipped but acted of fear of consequences of not following orders. This were very inefficient although en masse could be dangerous like Banzai attacks.

Very low Proficiency and moderate Commitment.

5. Pride: very important factor. There were nations with long and rooted military lineage where it was seen as honour to serve. Some units were seen as giving special pride to its troopers. Take for example the Irish Guards or Alpini.

High Commitment.

6. Morale is definitely not a simple outcome of calculating parts. As mentioned above it actually derives from many things.

As it does in TOAW.

7. Leadership: it was many times the differentiator. Even a tactically dumb commander like Sepp Dietrich but with great personal skills or agenda would inspire troops. And efficiency of carrying out orders from higher brass depends on quality of the COs. That's why ze Germans were so efficient and Soviets were not.

Commanders are coming.

8. Military mentality: there was much difference to the treatment of troops, officers, losses etc. amongst nations. While US was focused on limiting personnel losses the Soviets or Japanese didn't care. While Nazis were fixating on creating elitist army the Brits were somewhat in the middle.

This is other higher factors like Force Proficiency and Formation Proficiency.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

OK. Two votes for 1:1; Two votes for 3:1 (including mine); And one vote for 1:0 (infinity).

Probably the best average for that is 3:1, and that's what I'll go with.

So...the old combat formula was: (2P + S + R)/4.

The new one will be: (3P + C + 2S + 2R)/8.

And it will get even more complex when supply is split up into components.

Sorry I got late to this to cast my vote .

It would be useful if the multiplying factors for this formula could be set by the future scenario designers.

(P1*P + P2*C + P3*S + P4*R)/8.

The suggested values for P[1,2,3,4] look reasonable, but I do not think they can be correct for every scale and scenario, also I am a bit wary of adding complexity to an already complex game.

Players are going to be confused enough - especially when supply is split up - without making the factors all variable. That will have to wait till the new formulas have sunk into everyone's minds.

[gliz2]

Thanks Curtis for replay.

As to the rugged defence maybe I'm using a wrong term but it has nothing to do with terrain. Simply an unit performing exceptionally against their proficiency (and "commitment"). It could happen also on a flatland.

Also when reading about Force and Foemarion Proficiency I am not sure if we are talking the same thing.
The Soviet tactics and use of resources were not lesser to the Germans. They were different.
Same for Americans.
An elitist army is not better performing per se on a grand scale. Actually it is "performing" worse as the losses are very hard on such a force. Whereas a mediocre force can easily replace most of their losses.
An example: while in '43 Germans had decimated the Soviet armour with their limited numbers of Tigers the STAVKA soon learned how to deal with the threat: bypass them and force them to travel. In effect already in late summer '43 the Tigers lost their strategical meaning. And their efficiency as units plummeted and never recovered.
Superb piece as their were their combat proficiency was rather underwhelming in '44-'45 on Eastern Front.

I recently replayed some Tiller's Panzer Campaigns. It is so transparent and easy to understand logic (e.g "disrupted" or "broken" status).

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?

I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

PS. Banzai attacks were defo not "moderate commitment". I would also not put the Soviet human waves of '41 as just moderate commitment.
This were examples of commitment against logic.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Thanks Curtis for replay.
I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

I can't speak for Curtis, but my understanding is as follows:

"Commitment" represents troops' base motivation level--their "willingness to die", so to speak.

"Morale" represents their aggregate motivation with consideration of their Commitment, but also other factors, such as supply, readiness, etc. In other words, troops that may initially have had really high Commitment might find themselves a bit less motivated after they've been out of supply or in non-stop combat for some prolonged period.

Curtis can jump in if he has some other view.

Sure, it makes things more complicated, but as long as the formula are clear I think it is a good idea. Also, since it looks like morale will be the composite result of various states, it would be really nice if morale levels would be visible in-game somehow.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: gliz2
Thanks Curtis for replay.
I am not trying to dismiss the idea but I am simply having difficulty to place this based in the boardgame logic.

I can't speak for Curtis, but my understanding is as follows:

"Commitment" represents troops' base motivation level--their "willingness to die", so to speak.

"Morale" represents their aggregate motivation with consideration of their Commitment, but also other factors, such as supply, readiness, etc. In other words, troops that may initially have had really high Commitment might find themselves a bit less motivated after they've been out of supply or in non-stop combat for some prolonged period.

Curtis can jump in if he has some other view.

Sure, it makes things more complicated, but as long as the formula are clear I think it is a good idea. Also, since it looks like morale will be the composite result of various states, it would be really nice if morale levels would be visible in-game somehow.

That's about it. I would add "for the cause" to "willingness to die".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?

Proficiency (as it currently stands) goes up with experience. In long campaigns eventually even the Italians are 100 prof. This is obviously wrong. So, lets split it into two parameters: One that still rises with experience (i. e. like skill), and one that doesn't (i. e. something akin to dedication to the war). Now the Italians can get more and more skillful, but their willingness to stand and die will stay at the same low level and they will never match the truly committed forces.

[gliz2]

Ha! Didn't know that!
Now it's much clearer.

Just one more thing: and how are then new equipment and reinforcements treated?
Cause this can get pretty messy pretty darn quick (commitment vs proficiency).

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: gliz2

I have trouble understanding what is the purpose of the commitment. Is this just some (another) hidden calculus that won't be visible to the player?

Proficiency (as it currently stands) goes up with experience. In long campaigns eventually even the Italians are 100 prof. This is obviously wrong. So, lets split it into two parameters: One that still rises with experience (i. e. like skill), and one that doesn't (i. e. something akin to dedication to the war). Now the Italians can get more and more skillful, but their willingness to stand and die will stay at the same low level and they will never match the truly committed forces.

With the goal of being constructive I am still non convinced for the need to add one additional parameter to a unit strength calculation. Commitment mostly adds redundant complexity.
Sure, one can rationalize adding Commitment any way you want but if one looks at the math

1) IF Proficiency and Commitment are set in the same ballpark then the effect is mostly
to slow down the upward proficiency drift by 25%. That is not much.

2) If Proficiency and Commitment are set at very different values the effect is to
decrease the weight of Proficiency by 25% in the unit strength calculation, again a small effect.


The scenario allows designers to rescale parameters such as engineering/entrenchment, shock values, you name it. A good designer will tweak them accordingly. Better designers may even let them alone.
Just allow the designers to add weights to Proficiency, Supply and Readiness, simpler and most most will stick to defaults anyway.


And, forgetting about Italian stereotypes enforced by ass-whopped German generals and old SPI boardgames (the pasta rule lives!), surely the Axis satellites commitment to the cause went down over 4 years. So why keep Commitment fixed? That would be as wrong as allowing proficiency to drift upward.

And what if a unit reconstitutes? will commitment stay the same or be reset to a national average as proficiency does?

Yes I have doubts .

[Lobster]

Looking at this from a war in the Pacific angle, the Japanese at Guadalcanal had horrible supply. They had to run an Allied gauntlet to get anything to the island. Even at that it seems their moral was relatively high. It seems to me that high moral does not tell you to charge across a stream into machine gun fire. That takes commitment. You have to be committed to your cause. It was the same across the entire Pacific. Maybe it wasn't moral as much as commitment that made the Japanese such difficult foes even when not fighting badly outnumbered on their own soil. For the Soviet soldier it was get shot by the Germans or get shot by the NKVD. A different sort of commitment.

Commitment does have a place in TOAW and some device to mitigate proficiency increase should be desirable. It's hard to imagine a Rumanian unit being as elite as say an SS armored division. But it needs to be up to the scenario designer to enact it and to what degree. In a campaign lasting years it also needs to be variable.

I wonder if it might be convenient to use commitment to place a negative value against proficiency. Not so committed you take some off proficiency when combat is calculated as well as slowing down overall proficiency gain.