Morale & Rally & Leadership

Morale & Rally & Leadership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Moonwolf -> Morale & Rally & Leadership (6/19/2000 7:46:00 PM)
An item I think needs to be addressed at some time is the unrealistic (and grossly unfair) treatment of "minor" countries. principally among these is the subject of Morale & Rally numbers. Can anyone give me an explanation of how an Elite unit (say Italian Alpini) can perform close to reality when they have a Leadership of 28, Morale of 35 and Rally of 33? Hmm. This "elite" unit will break as soon they fire a shot, and keep running until they make it back home. What we need is a more realistic set of base numbers (for the average troops), and also a way to manually adjust these numbers when picking units (for elite/green troops). Sound reasonable? After all, the goal seems to be to model reality, not a particular person's prejudices. ------------------ \| Moonwolf \| ----------------

johnfmonahan -> (6/19/2000 9:33:00 PM)
A button like the one SP1 for troop quality. Some nationalities/daes have way to many command points. I spent 10 years in the American Army and it is never that simple. Also, I would like to suggest greatly reducing leader ranks in detachments, i.e, a sniper commanded by a 2LT. Great game, my all time favorite. I hope Matrix succeeds because you guys and Talonsoft are about the only hard core game makers left. ------------------ When in doubt, go on line.

Wild Bill -> (6/19/2000 10:23:00 PM)
There is some validity to Moonwolf's comments here. I don't think, however,that it is prejudice. That word is a little harsh. No one here, especially Michael Wood, has prejudice toward any country or people. Nor does anyone else that I know of on the Matrix Team. We have folks from the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, Poland, Italy, Finland and France (and maybe more) working on the beta team. They have seen these numbers before you have. This is not a USA clique of designers and testers by any means. I did not set up the tables for the various nationalities so I can't speak with total authority. We have argued this point between us. Some thoughts. 1. You can always find a unit with very low ratings in a scenario. You can find one with higher ratings too. You have to take a consensus of, say, 20-30 units to get a pattern. The Italians seem to be a bit low for my taste also, but history seems to point out that the Italian soldier, while brave as a rule, was often poorly led and poorly equipped. He really did not have a lot of motivation or proper training for war. Further, his training was on occasion woefully inadequate for combat. The same is true for some other nations. US forces initially have low experience and morale numbers. Drastically so sometimes. 2. And that is why, my friend, we have these settings in the preference menu. You can change that yourself by setting higher number for your infantry in toughness, skill and morale. Do that before you play the battle and you will see a difference. 3. In scenario design, you can also change these numbers. I often do. It can be done throught the SPWAW editor or the SPWAWed program from Fred Chlanda. Try changing the preference setting for your Italian troops. Raise the settings by 20 points and let me know if you see an improvement. I just finished designing a Beda Fomm scenario and the Italians really put up a good hard fight there. It is challenging. Ultimately, this is another one of those points in the game that will always have advocates for both sides. And someone will be unhappy. It just can't be avoided. But no prejudice here. None at all. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Moonwolf -> (6/20/2000 7:42:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: The Italians seem to be a bit low for my taste also, but history seems to point out that the Italian soldier, while brave as a rule, was often poorly led and poorly equipped. He really did not have a lot of motivation or proper training for war. [/B] Please, no offense is meant -- I'm just opening a dialogue. In many battles the Italians fought to the last man -- and in many more they fought knowing they did not have a chance to win because their equipment was so outclassed. Many times the US Army surrendered without a fight because they had no defense against the German tanks. We can each find the examples we want to find if we are only looking for one thing. The Italians are unfairly penalized BOTH in their equipment and in their low base ratings. Isn't it enough that their equipment, bad as it was, is even further devalued in the game by not accurately portraying their capabilities? Rommel's North African Army consisted of Italian troops in the majority. he constantly praised the Ariete Division -- even though they had poor equipment and terrible tanks. As you say: "brave as a rule" -- but not in SPWAW (or SP:WW2 or SP). The rule there is cowardly -- look at morale . . . and then there's the built-in surrendering . . . How can we have elite Alpini, Ariete, Bersaglieri (for example) when the base numbers are so low the average soldier breaks into retreat after firing his weapon? No joke that. It's not just the Italians either. I'm just using them to make a point. And the point is that this aspect of the game needs more development. There needs to be a way to accurately depict the "average" soldier, the elite soldier, and the green soldier. For instance, Italian commandoes regularly infiltrated Gibraltar all war long without getting caught. Their presence wasn't even known until after the war. Isn't this the meaning of "elite?" Elite Italian soldiers should be on a par with elite American soldiers, or elite Germans, or elite Indians. Fine, you can say there were less of them, but the quality of the elite is historically very similar. How about the Gurkhas? How they would get their exemplary reputation using the numbers in the various SP games? yes, you could "fix" the numbers each and every time you played (if your opponent agreed). But the object is to be accurate from the start. As for giving a good fight, I have found ways to use the Italians to great effect -- but many strategies are still closed to me because of the way they are modelled: many strategies that they actually employed. quote: 2. And that is why, my friend, we have these settings in the preference menu. You can change that yourself by setting higher number for your infantry in toughness, skill and morale. Do that before you play the battle and you will see a difference. 3. In scenario design, you can also change these numbers. I often do. It can be done throught the SPWAW editor or the SPWAWed program from Fred Chlanda. Try changing the preference setting for your Italian troops. [/B] The point is to not have to do this. Isn't it better to have them accurately modelled from the beginning -- not to ask the gamer to modify them? If it were the Americans or the Germans that you always had to tweak in every scenario . . . again, no offense intended. Just making an observation, and suggestion . . . and debating my point (maybe too strenuously, but forgive me if that is the case because I say everything without malice or anger). ------------------ \| Moonwolf \| ----------------

Skandranon -> (6/20/2000 10:09:00 AM)
Hmm... I thought the countries were fine as they were until I started reading this thread. You have a good point that some minor countries poor quality levels are taken to the point that there can't be any 'good' or 'elite' troops - at least not very easily. I agree with Wild Bill that the large majority of the time they are modeled accurately... but elite units like the Ariete did perform way beyond expectation with their horrifying equipment. And that's nigh-impossible to model presently without getting out the editor. How's this for a solution? In another thread, being able to buy experience and officer rank is being discussed, which I think is a good idea. What if in addition to that, you could buy slightly higher ratings for your troops to reflect 'elite' status? As someone else observed, this would add a whole new dimension to "am I facing a whole bunch of 'average' Italians, or am I facing a small, well trained force that won't break at the first shot?" Derek "Skandranon"

Drake666 -> (6/20/2000 10:48:00 AM)
I think the Italians were modeled right for the most part. For some reason you want to give them the skills of German troops when their skill level was not close to them. Their experince and morale levels modeled their compleat lack of leadership very will.

Moonwolf -> (6/20/2000 11:21:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Drake666: I think the Italians were modeled right for the most part. For some reason you want to give them the skills of German troops when their skill level was not close to them. Their experince and morale levels modeled their compleat lack of leadership very will. No, I don't want to give them the skill of the German professional soldier. They were not. However, they were not that bad. Here's a quote about Americans by Hanson Baldwin in "Battles Lost & Won": ". . . the Americans were inexperienced; save for a few units, under top-notch professionals, their early performance against the Germans in Tunisia left something to be desired. . . many of the Americans had not developed a concept of what they were fighting for . . . some of the early US leaders were badly picked . . . there were amazing deficiencies, too, in many of the fundamentals of the battlefield, such as map-reading, and there was rigidity about American tactical actions and reactions, which pleased the Germans and disturbed those who thought of the US soldier as possessing a high degree of flexibility and initiative . . . In short, except for the small core of professionals who provided the amalgam for the whole mass, the Americans entered North Africa as an army of amateurs . . . Many people, including some of Patton's own GI's hated their commander . . . Even some of the lesser commanders for "Husky" did not easily meld into a team; Omar Bradley . . . was revolted by Patton's form of leadership . . ." . . . and on and on. Sounds like what we usually hear about the Italians, doesn't it? My point is that for some countries this kind of report is evidently given more weight than for other countries. Yes, there were serious problems with the Italian armed forces. You'll get no argument from me on that. But there are many ways to model those problems, and I don't think they are modelled accurately at present. Getting off the Italians, let's look at the Gurkhas. In real life the Gurkhas would be a very welcome addition to any army -- an elite fighting force if ever there was one. What about in the game? How do they compare to German & US elite forces? See, instead of having, say, one country's skill/morale/rally variables within the 75-100, and another's within the 50-75, and so on (just numbers picked out of the air, don't get uptight :-) ) . . . why not have all the countries variables run the gamut from top to bottom -- but have a weighting factor that brings a majority of the units within the old limits. Thereby giving every country the chance to get good units even while the majority, and thus the average, would fall within the "previously documented limits." Also, of course, a control on the unit purchase screen which allows for manipulation of these numbers at a cost in points, is also a preferred method. If there were a way to make sure certain units ended up in the high end (like Gurkhas, Raiders, Commandoes, Alpini, etc), then that would also be a very acceptable fix. Likewise, that would mean certain units always ended up in the low range -- so you could keep that "average." ------------------ \| Moonwolf \| ----------------

Drake666 -> (6/20/2000 11:51:00 AM)
Also, of course, a control on the unit purchase screen which allows for manipulation of these numbers at a cost in points, is also a preferred method. I think this would take away from the game becouse who would want green troops or leaders when they could buy Elite. If there were a way to make sure certain units ended up in the high end (like Gurkhas, Raiders, Commandoes, Alpini, etc), then that would also be a very acceptable fix. Likewise, that would mean certain units always ended up in the low range -- so you could keep that "average." I think this idea is a lot better. It would make for more hictoric play. Just one thing about this is that you would really have to put in a botton stop people from buying all elite units or the players would have to agree on a limit before hand.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125