Weasel | 03 Oct 2014 10:17 p.m. PST |
So for lower level games (company and down), do you want "national characteristics" where each nation gets some special rules Chain of Command style or do you prefer to let the player play (or not) in the way they may have fought? (ala Nuts f.x.). |
saltflats1929 | 03 Oct 2014 10:38 p.m. PST |
National characteristics. Some groups just operate differently and although its kind of gamey to "forbid" certain things (or only allow under special circumstance or die roll), it matches reality better. |
skippy0001 | 03 Oct 2014 11:10 p.m. PST |
In WWII US soldiers in general, all could drive. Others, like Germany had special schools for their troops for driving. If there are blatant differences, I'd say yes. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 03 Oct 2014 11:26 p.m. PST |
I would describe them as cultural rather than National characteristics. An example would be armies where there is a distinct educated upper-class officer class and uneducated lower-class soldiers, or where commissions can be bought, or where officers and men are socially and educationally considered more-or-less equals. |
Ascent | 03 Oct 2014 11:51 p.m. PST |
A man is a man but all armies train differently. How a man acts on the battlefield is conditioned by his training and his equipment, I think it's fair having rules that reflect that. |
John Secker | 04 Oct 2014 5:34 a.m. PST |
Equipment, yes obviously. Training and doctrine, probably, especially for gaming at higher levels of the organisation. But rules which assume that, say, individual Germans are automatically brave or individual Spaniards are cowardly don't do it for me. |
BW1959 | 04 Oct 2014 6:06 a.m. PST |
I think I'll stick with "A man is a man" I've played too many games where national characteristics have been used rather gamey and not historical. An example, a 7YW game where the Prussians could move, fire then win initiative fire and move back out of range. |
ravachol | 04 Oct 2014 6:41 a.m. PST |
basicaly on an humanistic view, more of a 'man is a man'. but then as garrisonMiniatures said , cultural traits would be a nice thing if not too gamey. and as john mentioned doctrine is one of the most obvious 'national characteristic' when not giving in caricaturious handling of it. how squads were handled , what tactics where 'allowed' or commonly used by one national doctrine rather then another. But those where also subjet to changes as war went on and each sides begun to know better of opponent or allies doctrinal ways , either mimicrying those or adapting theirs in accordance with or without support from upper echelons. Maybe a mix of both depending upon timeline and combat-experience of the men ? |
Martin Rapier | 04 Oct 2014 7:43 a.m. PST |
A man is man, however if they've never been trained to operate in gun and rifle groups, fire tripod MGs indirect, have FOs request/order fire missions, always refer orders up the chain of command (or not), how to regsiter artillery in 2 minutes (or 45 minutes) or how to call in an airstrike. Then they can't. I'd call those 'national characteristics', wouldn't you? |
GGouveia | 04 Oct 2014 8:17 a.m. PST |
I found individual characteristics like in Nuts seem to bog the game down. I prefer national doctrine chracteristics like in CoC or FoW. |
donlowry | 04 Oct 2014 10:17 a.m. PST |
There were differences in doctrine, training and experience, as well as some cultural differences that might effect these. So I think some reflection of these things would be appropriate, if accurately done. |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Oct 2014 11:22 a.m. PST |
Doctrinal differences should definitely be modeled. I can even see adjusting the morale levels of a force as a 'national' characteristic, to model the documented fanaticism and/or idiots in charge not understanding that refusing to charge into a MG nest from the front is not cowardice, whatever. But it does need to be carefully handled. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 04 Oct 2014 12:11 p.m. PST |
I think this thread gives a good example of what I posted here earlier: TMP link 'Soldiers fighting in Anbar Province bordering Syria where large swathes of territory are controlled by ISIL complain bitterly about the performance and courage of their officers, and their inability to supply food, water and ammunition to army bases scattered around like mini-Alamos. Behind every defeat lurks a suspicion that the officers were the first to flee.' |
Weasel | 04 Oct 2014 2:37 p.m. PST |
I guess a flip side to the doctrine question is stereotypes. F.x. ASL (which I'm just getting into) gives Americans lower morale in general, but higher morale to rally so they hit the dirt faster than Germans but also get back in the fight quicker. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 04 Oct 2014 4:43 p.m. PST |
The thing about stereotypes is that they either have to be true to a significant degree within a 'population' or has to be stated as true by quite a high ranking authority. Enough people need to have formed that opinion for it to take hold – that can only really happen as a result of direct observation or targetted propaganda. Of course, direct observations are also prone to error and misinterpretation, but something has to have started the process of building a stereotype. |
Weasel | 04 Oct 2014 7:15 p.m. PST |
GM – Right on. The question really then becomes: What happens when gamers begin to expect a particular stereotype? And is a certain amount of those stereotypes (arbitrarily picked by the designer or scenario writers) part of what makes the game fun or is it bothersome fluff? Some games get quite heavy in this stuff, others never touch it at all. |
GreenLeader | 05 Oct 2014 2:32 a.m. PST |
Its certainly a minefield in these enlightened times, but surely, based on historical records, we have to say that (eg) Zulus and Dervishes would charge with supreme courage while (eg) Mashona tribesmen in general would not. Does that mean that every Zulu was braver than every Mashona? Of course not, but I think it was a recognisable enough trait to be worth representing in our games. Would Boers obey orders to charge defensive British positions? Generally, no. Would British troops obey orders to charge Boer positions? Generally (in fact, almost always) yes. Again, this is not to cast aspersions about the relative bravery of different 'races' – there were a hundred-and-one reasons why the troops of different nations fought the way they did – but any wargame that permits Boers to act like Brits, or Mashona warriors to act like Zulus, is not going to be satisfactory to many. I have used Colonial-era examples, but one can say similar things in more modern conflicts: would WW2 Russian troops push forwards regardless of casualties more often than troops of the Western allies? Yes, I think they probably would, as would Japanese troops and the more insane / fanatical SS ones towards the end. And things change over time too – would British troops of WW2 or (even more so) the modern era, endure the sort of casualities in an attack which their fore-fathers weathered in WW1? I can't prove this, of course, but I doubt it. Does it mean modern Brits are less brave than their grandfathers? Of course not, but society has changed, education levels have improved, personal expectations and what has become acceptable has altered etc etc. All broad-brush statements, I know, and if you don't agree with them, then that's fine – I am not interested in trying to convince you. Sure, there are some unfair stereotypes which can skew all this, but I think to claim that men of different races / cultures / religions / nationalities behaved the same in war time is simply untrue. |
sidley | 10 Oct 2014 2:38 p.m. PST |
The problem here is the title @National Characteristics', it would be better phrased a something similar to National Doctrine. The opening question refers to chain of command. For US troops in Chain of Command (also Bolt Action) the emphasis is on marching fire which is listed as a National Characteristic and was a known US doctrine practically unique to them. It was part of US small unit tactics and no other nation could duplicate it as apart from some German units in 1945 no other nation had the distribution of semi automatic rifles. It is not 'gamey' to restrict certain tactics to certain nations. It is however historically inaccurate to allow troops to operate outside their national doctrine. As a young infantry soldier I was trained to conduct section and platoon attacks in a certain way and would/could not conduct them in a radically different manner. |
Murvihill | 13 Oct 2014 8:28 a.m. PST |
The different percentages of people who can drive would be a national characteristic. The differences in how people are trained would be national doctrine. The expectation that someone would blindly charge into a machine gun nest would be a national characteristic. Whether someone would run for cover under air attack or shoot back with small arms is national doctrine. "No Prisoners" may blur the line between them. |
UshCha | 13 Oct 2014 11:51 a.m. PST |
In reality the question is who are you? If you are a Russian general you would adopt Russian tactics without need for rules. If you are a rash general given to wild charges then that is wahat you would do. If you are not a rash general no sensible set of rules will make you one. Training and leadership and fatigue/ammo are just about possible to get some effects in the rules. Beyond that rules cannot realy lead the way. In many cases the equpment will dictate docterine anyway. If your troops like Russians, are no good with long range shooting, you have to close with the enemy do do damage and you can afford the losses. That practical not national identity. Poorly lead troops ar just that, regardless of nationality. If the leaders run first no toops will behave well irrespective of nationality. How would you write a set of rules that was interesting to play that made the leaders run off as soon as the enemy appeared. Real but to me of no interest. You would not hone your skills of concentration in time and space whith no chain of command. Real yes intersting no! Its like in our tank lists for WWII Italians have almost no radios in their tanks. The rules model this well but being an Italian general is pointless you have no useable chain of command that works. We suggest you assume thay have radios or otherwise the game is so poor its a pointless excercise and no fun even if its realistic. Same with characteristics there is a point where they are not usefull/interesting. |
Milites | 13 Oct 2014 3:05 p.m. PST |
Imagine the howls, if you produced a set of rules where each category of tank is identical. Assuming soldiers from different nationalities, with different educational, social and military cultures are the same is similar. The trouble is, soldiers from different units, not nationalities, behave differently, thanks to differing recruitment, selection and training. There are regional differences as well, to be considered, with the British Army believing the more North you went the tougher the soldiers you recruited. The big bug-bear is the slip to stereo-types, beloved by some wargamers. Ivan becomes a gormless peasant, tough but who will only blow his nose after being given orders, Luigi is emotional but cowardly, Kurt is good at everything, and Hank is either a resourceful scrapper or a buffoon. Who said Russians are bad at long-range shooting? They did not expect their infantry to do so (most armies riflemen failed dismally at long range shooting anyway) but saw DM, snipers and MMG/HMG's as more than adequate for the job. So, yes to diversity but don't restrict yourself to just broad national differences, which requires historical extrapolation of existing battlefield performance, a veritable Pandora's Box. |
tuscaloosa | 13 Oct 2014 4:36 p.m. PST |
"Who said Russians are bad at long-range shooting? They did not expect their infantry to do so (most armies riflemen failed dismally at long range shooting anyway) but saw DM, snipers and MMG/HMG's as more than adequate for the job." Russian infantry excelled at sniping during the battle of Stalingrad, and both sides agreed the Russian infantry were better at it than the Germans. Agree about Milites' bigger point about stereotypes, though. |
General Ism | 14 Oct 2014 7:52 a.m. PST |
I can see both sides of the argument… I think the concept of national or cultural characteristics is a correct one… German speed and movement, Soviet fear etc.. etc.. the problem in my view is in how these are represented within the construct of a given rule-set… and fundamentally whether the objective of the rule-set is to create a playable "game" as opposed to an attempt at "simulation"… I think the difference here is one of scale… Take for example FOW – I used to love this "game".. but I found after some months of playing it that the national characteristics associated with the various nations were just too gamey and present for far too many units…. I think that the crux of this problem was in the fact that FOW is intended to be a large-scale game and in the attempt to take account of all the different national variations it ventured too far into the attempted "simulation" territory… which led to more arguments on table than I care to remember… Having said that, I agree with Milites… societies are not homogenous – there is no such thing as a standard person – I do however recognize that when dealing with a large-scale wargame you have to accept some level of stereotype in order for the game to function… my experience with FOW proved that to me… Where the size of game is skirmish-level or smaller, I do believe that you can successfully venture into the realms of variation… I believe that it is possible to take account of the varying stereotypes and allow for local, regional and even chance variations within a single unit… At the end of the day I think it comes down to personal choice and balance of playability… I have no doubt that someone could produce a workable set of rules for a large-scale wargame accounting for intra-unit/local/regional/chance modification within individual units…. but would anyone have the time to play it!!!!! |
OSchmidt | 14 Oct 2014 8:13 a.m. PST |
It's a game and nothing but a game, a man is a man. |
4th Cuirassier | 14 Oct 2014 9:37 a.m. PST |
The Axis in the Western Desert didn't regard their opponents as uniformly equivalent. They rated the Australians above all others, as did the Japanese in New Guinea. Likewise, the Empire forces in the Western Desert rated the Italians below the Germans. This is not just in the context of Operation Compass, either. Italian troops had a notable propensity to surrender. One can attribute these perceptions to anything one likes that's politically acceptable this week. However, I think you need a lot of evidence before you lightly dismiss contemporary perceptions based on observation in favour of modern prejudice. Of course, there are always counter-examples. The Netherlands troops were perceived as unreliable by all sides, including their own leadership, before Waterloo. The course of events showed this to be inaccurate, but it's not an ex post British myth. Likewise, consider Rorke's Drift. 150 rifle-armed defenders fired 19,000 rounds at 3,000 Zulus over a period of 10 hours, a rate of fire of only 13 rounds per man per hour. At least 21 out of every 22 rounds they fired missed. The Zulus for their part suffered 850 casualties, but despite a close-quarters battle lasting for 10 hours they inflicted only about two dozen casualties in return. Both redcoat riflemen and Zulus are widely regarded as highly effective soldiers but there is little evidence of it in either's conduct of the battle. |
Milites | 14 Oct 2014 2:44 p.m. PST |
The Italian troops saved Rommel's hide on quite a few occasions. The rating of forces was done by friendly units as well. I was told by a Korean war veteran that the order of popularity for air support was as follows USAF RAF RAAF But everybody wanted the SAAF as their pilots were the most aggressive and more willing to take risks. I've also just been reading about a RM platoon cut off, on the approaches to Basra, by an Iraqi Battalion. Their USMC comrades were desperately worried and began to arrange massive support and a relief column. To their utter astonishment, when they radioed the beleaguered Brits they heard a chorus of laughing and were told. 'Thanks, but we reckon we can handle it ok'. they did, retreating in good order. Both countries Marines are highly thought of and have cross-trained on numerous occasions, but their response to the situation could not have been more different. If a man is just a man, then a tank is just a tank and I'll play my massed Russian T-34's v's your handful of Panthers, both were classified as medium tanks and therefore equal in their capabilities. |
number4 | 14 Oct 2014 8:19 p.m. PST |
Well I think the French should get +1 for being French – oh, sorry, I thought this was the Napoleonics board :) |
GreenLeader | 14 Oct 2014 11:38 p.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier Those stats about Rorkes Drift really are an eye-opener. I suppose some Zulus might have been hit by several bullets (though this will hardly be statistically relevant, I guess). A more important factor is that the Zulu casualities can only really be guessed at – they tended to drag their dead away and no written records / roll-calls existed, so difficult to know if that 850 is in anyway accurate. The War Museum in Johannesburg claims the Zulus took a similar number of casualties at Isandlwana – something which is disputed by pretty much every other account of the action (I have seen numbers up to about 5000). But yes – overall, I completely agree that the numbers of casualties inflicted against the number of rounds expended are remarkable. |
OSchmidt | 15 Oct 2014 7:17 a.m. PST |
Dear number 4 That's OK, if it was the Napoleonics board the French would get +2. Miletes, and if a man is a man and a tank is a tank what makes you think you'd get your hordes of T34's on the board? |
4th Cuirassier | 15 Oct 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
@ Milites The Italian troops saved Rommel's hide on quite a few occasions. Agreed. In the main, though, in Greece, Abyssinia, and Libya they were rubbish more often than not. This is for reasons to do with doctrine and motivation – Napoleon rated them and the Republican-era mainly Italian Roman army is generally understood to have been really not bad :-) I think the issue with national characteristics was that a certain type of non thinker assumed all national differences to be racial, and was schooled not to tolerate them. In fact, if two different armies have different training, doctrine and political motivation, then the sum is observable national characteristics between the two, that may be augmented or nullified by circumstance. @ GreenLeader Those stats about Rorkes Drift really are an eye-opener. The best explanation, in my view, for the pitiful effectiveness of both sides at Rorke's Drift is one set out (for other cases) in Murray's "Bullets and Brains". He suggests that attackers waver at what he calls the last point of safety, which is often a shell hole or piece of cover right on the brink of the defender's position. This is the last chance the attacker has to be fairly sure of not being killed, so they tend to take it. Equally, defenders' fire gets progressively more effective at ranges from 400 metres down to 100, but counter-intuitively, it then gets less effective. Maybe the defenders start to wonder if, with the attack not stopped, now might be a good time to leave. Maybe it's that a rifle shot at a running man 200 yards away will usually miss, so you're fine to press the trigger, whereas the same shot at 50 yards means you kill someone, which very few are happy to do. At Rorke's Drift, the Zulus took losses closing the range. Once they were at the defences they very sensibly skulked around close to the walls where few weapons would bear and those that would were not aimed properly anyway, because soldiers like the rest of us are socialised not to shoot people. In that light what ensued was a 10-hour Mexican standoff in which neither side was particularly inclined to slaughter the other. Effectively, both stopped fighting. The casualties I cited are an estimate. Around 350 dead Zulus were counted afterward about the kraal. If we allow for the likelihood that some of the dead were wounded to begin with, and had died by the time the count took place, then a figure of 300 killed and 600 wounded looks plausible, with 50 of the wounded dying on the battlefield. Martini-Henry bullets were so huge that the WIA:KIA ratio may have been lower, i.e. it was 300 dead, 300 wounded and 50 died on the battlefield leaving 250 who crawled or were assisted away. In other words 850 casualties may be a highish estimate. Isandhlwana is harder to explain but the fact that the line's fire slackened probably ensured that few Zulus stopped and went to ground at the last point of safety. I would still guess though that the majority of the killing was done by a minority of the Zulu infantry. |
Milites | 15 Oct 2014 11:56 a.m. PST |
So a man is a man, a tank is a tank and a system of production is a system of production? Anything else you want to massively generalise? Agree about the Italians, which then suggests operational deployment and leadership shape tactical performance, adding another layer of variation. |
donlowry | 15 Oct 2014 5:52 p.m. PST |
The Italians' problem in WW2 was lack of motivation. Many of them saw no reason to be in this war at all, let alone on the side of the guys they fought against in the last war. As for Rorke's Drift: who know how many men of either side took multiple hits? By your stats, if one Zulu was hit 5 times before he went down, you'd count that as 4 misses! |
4th Cuirassier | 16 Oct 2014 2:51 a.m. PST |
@ milites Yes, I think I'd agree; combat effectiveness and behaviour is largely circumstantial, arising from factors such as training and doctrine. Except perhaps to the extent that soldiers are previously socialised by civilian life to perform in a certain way. You could get British troops to carry out human wave attacks in 1916, for example, but they wouldn't have done so by the time of Korea 40 years later, whereas the Chinese still would. @ don I doubt very, very much indeed that anyone could take five Martini-Henry 0.46" bullet hits before going down! Even if that were possible, it wouldn't alter the conclusion. If it took 19,000 rounds to bring down 800 or so attackers, rifle fire was clearly not very effective in practice, regardless of the theoretical effectiveness of a European rifleman. This could be because they all missed, or because four out of five shooters aimed at an already wounded man, or because their fire could be nullified by skilled light infantry tactics, or for any other reason. |
donlowry | 16 Oct 2014 11:17 a.m. PST |
My point is that 5 Brits could all be firing at, and hit, the same Zulu at (about) the same time (before he is obviously hors de combat). Your stats would count that as 1 hit and 4 misses. Perhaps an exaggerated case, but theoretically possible. (If not 5 hits, maybe 4, 3, or 2.) |
Sierra19 | 16 Oct 2014 5:58 p.m. PST |
National Army characteristics would be a better descriptor for army special rules. In the US army in WW2, every soldier had a semi-automatic rifle, automatic rifle (BAR), or SMG. Which is why the U.S. typically gets marching fire, or the like. The Russians used the sledgehammer approach, they knew they had numbers, so they used them, quite foolishly at first, but pretty effectively towards the end of WW2. So they typically get a free squad, or something along those lines. The Germans had pretty effective leadership at the company and platoon level, and they were known to mount pretty ferocious counter attacks to regain lost ground, so they get something like a free extra move, or if an NCO is hit, you can have another take his place (with a die roll or something). The Germans were also masters at cobbling together ad hoc units into kampfgruppen, so they might get a rule to be able to roll 2 depleted squads together to make one full strength squad. So these things aren't really "national" characteristics, but rather "national army" doctorine. |