Proficiency vs. Commitment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message

Curtis Lemay -> Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 8:29:49 AM)

Suppose Unit Proficiency were split up into two parameters: Unit Skill (still named Proficiency but a measure of how well trained the unit was) and Unit Commitment (how ready to die for the cause the unit was).

Skill (aka Proficiency) would primarily determine combat strength as the old, combined, parameter did. It would be increased by experience (and perhaps training). Seeing the Elephant would still scramble it, though, for green units.

Commitment would determine morale for purposes of breaking off/retreating/reorganizing/routing from combat and recovery from reorganization/routing. It would not be increased by experience (or training). Seeing the Elephant would still scramble it.

My question is: Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure. If you have a unit with high Skill but low Commitment, should its combat strength be the same as a unit with high skill and high commitment? If it should have an impact, how much of one? 3xSkill + 1xCommitment, for example?

Think of forces that had very low commitment but moderate proficiency (Italians), very high commitment but high proficiency (Japanese), high commitment but low proficiency (Soviets), etc.



cathar1244 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 10:44:42 AM)

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".

A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.

2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)

I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better, -but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).

Cheers



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 12:51:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".

A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.

2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)

I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better, -but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).


Cheers


Proficiency is the skill with which something is used. It's training. It has nothing to do with commitment. That is something entirely different. Leaders, morale, bravery, losses, poor supply, none of it has anything to do with how bad or good training is. I can become an expert rifleman and who my leader is, what country I was born in, what my supply level is will make zero difference in that. I will still be expert with a rifle until I'm unable to use it. ie, dead or incapacitated.

Instead of splitting something that does not need splitting just add in morale. 1x1 as suggested and scenario designer adjustable would be best.

How will this play out regarding the way morale is arrived at now? Personally I prefer the way it's handled in the Panzer Campaign series where morale is a known value and isn't some value hidden behind a vague definition. So I know what the morale is and then it's affected by all the magicary of the game. Currently:
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Proficiency,
Supply Level, and Readiness.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 2:27:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".


Right. But was he right? And was he talking about every aspect of war or just the tactical resolution of an attack?

quote:

A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.


Right. Charisma will do just that.

quote:

2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)


Agree, but that may have to wait down the road a bit.

quote:

I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better,


You mean for combat strength? That's a significant influence. More than I figured.

quote:

-but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).


All of those do or will have impact.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 2:33:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Proficiency is the skill with which something is used. It's training. It has nothing to do with commitment. That is something entirely different. Leaders, morale, bravery, losses, poor supply, none of it has anything to do with how bad or good training is. I can become an expert rifleman and who my leader is, what country I was born in, what my supply level is will make zero difference in that. I will still be expert with a rifle until I'm unable to use it. ie, dead or incapacitated.


Right. As I said, experience and training will only impact proficiency, not commitment.

quote:

Instead of splitting something that does not need splitting just add in morale. 1x1 as suggested and scenario designer adjustable would be best.


We already have morale, but it depends upon proficiency. That will change to commitment. This is another vote for 1:1 ratio of the two for combat strength?

quote:

How will this play out regarding the way morale is arrived at now? Personally I prefer the way it's handled in the Panzer Campaign series where morale is a known value and isn't some value hidden behind a vague definition. So I know what the morale is and then it's affected by all the magicary of the game.


I thought the formula was out there. If not, it will be. Just with proficiency replaced by commitment.



76mm -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 2:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure.

I definitely think that units with high "commitment" should be more deadly. In the attack, they will press the attack and be less likely to get pinned by the first sniper shot or mortar round. In defense, they will be less likely to cower in their foxholes, etc. If you're pinned or cowering, you're not going to kill anybody... I would think of "Proficiency" as a unit's ability to kill the enemy, and Morale as their willingness to risk their own lives to do so. IMHO, it seems clear that someone less willing to risk their own life to kill the enemy is less likely to kill the enemy.

I'm not sure about how much weight it should be given; I would guess less than Proficiency, but still something significant. 25%? Let me think about it...

Also, why not call a spade a spade and just call it "Morale" instead of commitment? Not a big deal, but I would suggest "Morale". You can keep Proficiency as Proficiency.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 3:00:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure.

I definitely think that units with high "commitment" should be more deadly. In the attack, they will press the attack and be less likely to get pinned by the first sniper shot or mortar round. In defense, they will be less likely to cower in their foxholes, etc. If you're pinned or cowering, you're not going to kill anybody... I would think of "Proficiency" as a unit's ability to kill the enemy, and Morale as their willingness to risk their own lives to do so. IMHO, it seems clear that someone less willing to risk their own life to kill the enemy is less likely to kill the enemy.

I'm not sure about how much weight it should be given; I would guess less than Proficiency, but still something significant. 25%? Let me think about it...


So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.

quote:

Also, why not call a spade a spade and just call it "Morale" instead of commitment? Not a big deal, but I would suggest "Morale". You can keep Proficiency as Proficiency.


We already have morale, and it's more complex than commitment - influenced by losses and health, etc.



76mm -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 3:30:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.

3:1 sounds best to me, but since it so subjective, I suppose that 4:1 would be OK as well. 2:1 would be too much IMHO.



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 3:36:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Right. As I said, experience and training will only impact proficiency, not commitment.


I thought the formula was out there. If not, it will be. Just with proficiency replaced by commitment.



Here you are obfuscating things. It can't be both.



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 3:47:29 PM)

Ah, so you mean something like this:

8.2.4. Unit Morale
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Commitment,
Supply Level, and Readiness. Regardless of actual
Commitment, Supply Level or Readiness, Morale can
be no lower than 10% and no higher than 100%. This
value is multiplied by the raw equipment Strengths
to calculate the actual effective Strengths of the unit.

Is there anyplace where someone can look at a unit and say, 'ah, that's what the moral is right now'? I don't recall.




Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 3:58:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.

3:1 sounds best to me, but since it so subjective, I suppose that 4:1 would be OK as well. 2:1 would be too much IMHO.


Aye. Let the scenario designer decide where it should be.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 4:19:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Ah, so you mean something like this:

8.2.4. Unit Morale
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Commitment,
Supply Level, and Readiness. Regardless of actual
Commitment, Supply Level or Readiness, Morale can
be no lower than 10% and no higher than 100%. This
value is multiplied by the raw equipment Strengths
to calculate the actual effective Strengths of the unit.


That, I believe, is the formula for combat strength, regardless of calling it morate.

A "Morale Check" tests a slightly different formula. That's what will have proficiency replaced by commitment.

The above will become more complex as proficiency is merged with commitment in whatever ratio gets finalized.



JTFox001 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 6:36:04 PM)

Just my opinion.

Two unit's with the the same level of training and equipment are equally deadly at the initial point of attack regardless of commitment.

How the units reattract to taking casualties is where commitment can impact further attacks. Isn't this handled by a "Quality Check" and "Unit Loss Tolerance Orders"?

Commitment can be effected by a number of things:-

1. Professional full time army vs a conscript army.
2. Unit moral.
3. Leadership.
4. Fanaticism.

The list could go on.

Cheers




Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 6:48:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JTFox001

Just my opinion.

Two unit's with the the same level of training and equipment are equally deadly at the initial point of attack regardless of commitment.


So...a vote for 1:0.



76mm -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 7:21:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTFox001
How the units reattract to taking casualties is where commitment can impact further attacks. Isn't this handled by a "Quality Check" and "Unit Loss Tolerance Orders"?

I don't really agree wit this...units begin taking casualties immediately, so I don't think you can separate the "initial point of attack" from the actual battle.

And "Quality Checks" and "Loss Tolerance" settings seem to cover different things, IMO. Quality Checks check, well, Unit Quality, which is based on Proficiency and Readiness...from the manual it looks like Quality Checks are generally used as an indicia of unit organization/disorganization more than commitment/motivation. And I have always thought that Loss Tolerance orders were what I ordered my troops to do, but their ability and willingness to obey those orders would in turn depend on their "commitment", etc.



Zovs -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 7:48:27 PM)

Why use weird and non-sensical war gaming terms like "commitment" it means nothing to me. But morale, firepower, training, proficiency, and fatigue make much more sense.

If your going to change things then make it right.

Proficiency and Morale make more sense.

Commitment sounds like your trying to decide to get married or not to a female (or male).



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 8:21:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Why use weird and non-sensical war gaming terms like "commitment" it means nothing to me. But morale, firepower, training, proficiency, and fatigue make much more sense.

If your going to change things then make it right.

Proficiency and Morale make more sense.

Commitment sounds like your trying to decide to get married or not to a female (or male).

commitment
[kəˈmitmənt]
NOUN
the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause...



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 10:37:33 PM)

Without pulling out a scientific calculator how will a player know the moral of a unit at any given moment?

commitment
[kəˈmitmənt]
NOUN
the state of insanity of being dedicated to a woman... [:D]



Zovs -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/4/2021 11:10:51 PM)

Morale

noun
the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
"their morale was high"



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/5/2021 12:34:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Morale

noun
the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
"their morale was high"

Exactly: It depends upon circumstances: Food, rest, light losses, good leaders, etc.

Commitment is more fundamental.



Lobster -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/5/2021 2:00:13 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/5/2021 2:29:26 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/5/2021 4:57:50 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/6/2021 1:30:22 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/6/2021 3:10:35 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/6/2021 3:15:09 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/6/2021 4:48:34 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/10/2021 6:28:29 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/12/2021 2:04:41 PM)

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 -> RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment (2/14/2021 6:14:08 AM)


quote:

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.









Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375