"National Characteristics: Some Questions" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleEveryone has a pile of shame - miniatures that you were all hot to get, had big plans for, and then never did anything with...
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Whirlwind | 03 Jan 2015 4:00 a.m. PST |
Ih his (excellent) book The Human Face of War link ,Jim Storr refers to a 'residual variation in combat effectiveness which cannot be ascribed to any cause other than nationality'. In which conflicts and at which levels do you think simple* national characteristics are useful/appropriate, and if so, which ones? (* By 'simple', here I mean the proverbial +1 to French skirmishers/WW2 Germans/Israeli fighter pilots, not trying to model the low-level doctrinal or equipment differences which generated that national variation in the firsyt place. So I explicitly don't mean detailed modelling of the extra Panzergrenadier machineguns, I mean "PzGr Pl: +1". I hope that makes sense!) |
McWong73 | 03 Jan 2015 4:49 a.m. PST |
At a certain level these characteristics start looking like well meaning caricatures. In a big game like FoW the original baseline national characteristics worked well, but then I found not so much "codex creep" but a growing list of exceptions as more books came out. This is where the special rules for unit characteristics focused more on being immune to negative game rules like Nissei special rules for assaulting. Or cheap Panther tanks. So in that context I think mid war vanilla FoW has an optimal level of these rules when talkin ww2. |
GildasFacit | 03 Jan 2015 5:13 a.m. PST |
I think that so called 'national characteristics' are often seen as an easy way for rule writers to make their rules fit real results. What they SHOULD be doing is fixing the problems that stopped them doing that in the first place. |
Maddaz111 | 03 Jan 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
When I was very young, I wrote a set of rules for refighting Waterloo. National characteristics were the following. Nationality. Melee modifier, shooting modifier, morale mod. British. – +1. - French ln. +1. – - French gd. +1. – +1 Scots. +1. -1. +1 Dutch. – +1. -1 And so on… this was in my mind the best way to give each nationality a flavour, without having to write copious rules to simulate historical behaviours. As a result, French didn't want to stand in firefights with English troops, but try and get into melee. Dutch and kgl, and British wanted to shoot and not risk melee… If these characteristics were caricatures of the nation's… who knows, but they fitted my fourteen year olds perspectives based on the reading of the sources… |
etotheipi | 03 Jan 2015 8:21 a.m. PST |
I believe "national characteristics" are a side effect of history not having do-overs. The only battles we can see are the ones that actually happened. Being able to compare performance over a wide variety of situations is essential in being able to tell the difference between environmental (the equipment side A had worked better in the light rain), situational (side B had the element of surprise), temporal (side B, however, had just marched all night in the rain), information-based (side A had home field advantage), or due to other circumstances. Without a lot of examples, it is not possible to tease out how much of an effect each of the above factors had in the single engagement between side A and side B. This is a fundamental operations analysis problem that has vexed militaries forever. A recurring and particularly fatal instance of this problem is not knowing why you side won an engagement and attributing it to "we" are better than "them". |
(Phil Dutre) | 03 Jan 2015 9:19 a.m. PST |
A 'residual variation in combat effectiveness which cannot be ascribed to any cause other than nationality' is, in my opinion, a strong indication that nothing more but simple statistical variation is at play. I concur with etotheipi. It is very shaky to introduce national modifiers based on nothing more than a few performances. Certainly the outcome itself of an engagement cannot be used as "proof" that one side is inherently better than the other. If you give side A a +1 for firing, and if that is based on superior technology, tactics, drill possibly influencing the outcome – but *irrespective* of any historical outcomes – that is okay. If it's based on "better" behaviour on the battlefield alone, it is not okay, because they might just have gotten lucky with the dice. The closest analogy we have is sports. Commentators argue at length which was the better team in a game, independent from the outcome. Same discussion. |
TNE2300 | 03 Jan 2015 11:14 a.m. PST |
check out the designer's notes for 'classic' squad leader there is an interesting section on why the different nationalities have different moral values and rules |
basileus66 | 03 Jan 2015 2:01 p.m. PST |
Rather than "national" characteristics, I would say "cultural" characteristics which could or could not coincide with "nations". For instance, WWII German infantry was trained to exercise initiative down to squad level which was a development of Prussian doctrine as used from the 60s in the XIXth Century. However, the same can be said of other nations elite forces -US paratroopers, for example- which precludes the idea of a national characteristic and enter the function of training on how to engage the enemy. If you look at the history of the French-Prussian War before the hostilities the French were famous for the elan of their soldiers, but in the war itself French soldiers, being trained to take advantage of their powerful Chassepots, usually took defensive positions while Germans advanced aggressively looking for weak spots in the French line of defense. Again training rather than national character. It can be argued that how soldiers are trained is a reflection of the military culture of the nation. While that assertion would be correct, it is also misleading, because culture is a product of forces that are not necessarily "national". In wargaming terms is more difficult to represent the small, but perhaps significant, differences between armies without recurring to the whole "national characteristics" modifier. I've been toying with the idea of descriptive characteristics, that wouldn't be national per se but a reflection of training and culture. For example, say that troops that are considered Steady will usually hold their fire when assaulted until the last possible moment; now while most British units would be considered Steady -therefore their fire would benefit from that characteristic- it wouldn't preclude the existence of the odd British regiment being less well trained and therefore not being Steady or that other armies would have units that would also be considered Steady -French veterans or Russian grenadiers, for instance-. I find that idea more attractive than the proverbial +1 to British fire or to French morale. |
ochoin | 03 Jan 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
Firstly, some admiration for Whirlwind to bring up the fraught 'National Characteristics' debate. Brave move. It's a wargaming device that's been previously used almost to the point of parody. Ww is suggesting a limited & careful use of various +1/-1 modifiers. Personally, I can see nothing inherently wrong with this. Rules can accommodate differences in other, more complex ways but if you want an economical means to allow for British Napoleonic infantry's tactical doctrines re: musketry, it seems OK to me to add the +1. Additionally how do you show, say, the poor fighting abilities of Neapolitan troops in the Napoleonic era? Clearly, there are all sorts of political & social reasons for their lack of engagement to combat engagements so isn't a negative morale score an easy way to show that troops from Naples have a tendency to break & run? All wargaming rules are in various ways a compromise in an effort to approach reality. National Characteristics, carefully & sparsely used, would be merely another such device. |
Whirlwind | 03 Jan 2015 3:39 p.m. PST |
@Phil Dutre A 'residual variation in combat effectiveness which cannot be ascribed to any cause other than nationality' is, in my opinion, a strong indication that nothing more but simple statistical variation is at play.I concur with etotheipi. It is very shaky to introduce national modifiers based on nothing more than a few performances. Certainly the outcome itself of an engagement cannot be used as "proof" that one side is inherently better than the other. I believe that the data is taken from a very large number of instances, mainly from WW1, WW2 and the Arab-Israeli Wars. The specific referencing in the book mainly draws on the work of David Rowland link and Dupuy. |
Whirlwind | 03 Jan 2015 3:43 p.m. PST |
@Basileus, Rather than "national" characteristics, I would say "cultural" characteristics which could or could not coincide with "nations". Agreed – and I believe the author himself is using the word in that sense; not that 'France' or 'Spain' have enduring particular qualities, but rather that in certain conflicts the soldiers of particular political entities demonstrate a certain effectiveness or lack of it: it isn't clear what the causal reason for it is AFAIK. |
Ottoathome | 04 Jan 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
National Characteristics serve only one purpose. To make up for the fact that wargamers are not the military genius' they think they are. Therefore the stars of the period (French in the Napoleonic Wars, Prussians in the 7 years war)get the "Walk on water modifiers" until their buddies scream at which time national modifiers are cooked out of thin air to even things up, which means new modifiers have to be found for the "stars" and the whole thing collapses in a welter of +^- |
Whirlwind | 04 Jan 2015 9:54 a.m. PST |
National Characteristics serve only one purpose. To make up for the fact that wargamers are not the military genius' they think they are. Well okay, but the OP did refer to "National Characteristics" specifically in a real military context. He wasn't writing for wargamers (although I think many games designers and warganers would find the book fascinating). |
Maggot | 04 Jan 2015 10:08 a.m. PST |
National characteristics should be used in war gaming as long as they are historically viable; you have to do your homework. The best tools to construct said variables should include: 1. Historical combat doctrine at the level your gaming; what did FM 7-8 say about how an infantryman should act? What is stressed in that doctrine (technology, speed, firepower, aggression, adherence to orders or initiative at all levels)? 2. War plans: did war plans match doctrine? How was Plan XVII supposed to work for Joffre in 1914? 3. Training: did training match doctrine? How good was that training-what does that training stress ( back to 7-8!)? Did soldiers get enough training? 4. Historical results: do the results of battles reflect 1-3? Or did something else happen that creates mythological characteristics? If game designers can capture the above you are likely to get a good game that delivers reasonable accurate results without the "gamey" aftertaste. |
ochoin | 04 Jan 2015 5:16 p.m. PST |
@ Maggot All good, sensible points. Ultimately, it will come down to interpretation so, even with the best intent, you won't satisfy all. |
Mark Plant | 04 Jan 2015 6:48 p.m. PST |
National Characteristics serve only one purpose. To make up for the fact that wargamers are not the military genius' they think they are. Except what about the fabulous generals from countries with poor "national characteristics"? We don't know about them, because they never got to shine, thanks to limitations in their troops/army. In fact all you've done is change the fact that Napoleonic French troops get +1 to Napoleonic French generals were all better than their neighbors. Not an advance, I'd say. By your analysis every Napoleonic era Spanish and Portuguese general such a retard that they couldn't ever win a fight even with equal sized and equal ability forces, even allowing for a lucky day when things went right. I tend to think, conversely, that they were laboring under the issue of substandard troops and doctrines. And every Soviet general in WWII was a limpet compared to any German one, because it was the commanders' lack of ability, not a lack of flexibility in doctrine and small unit training that meant they lost almost all even-man fights? Really, you believe that? |
McLaddie | 06 Jan 2015 4:26 p.m. PST |
These questions were raised on the Wargaming Website too, so I'll just repeat what I see as the issues. National characteristics come down to one nation's military making different decisions on the battlefield than others. National Characteristics/or unique organizational and tactical decisions among armies can mean or be influenced by several things, depending on what folks are looking for: 1. Technological differences [better, worse or different equipment, Union artillery vs Confederate artillery, Panther vs Sherman tanks] 2. Standard Operating Procedures [Even with the same equipment and military foundations, different armies chose to use them in different ways. British, American, Soviet and German infantry tactics for instnace.] 3. The Political Environment [e.g. The demands on Revolutionary French generals and soldiers were very different than the Monarchies; the Demands by U.S vs Soviet governements on generals during WWII.] 4. Cultural Dynamics and expectations [This may or may not be self-fulfilling prophecy, but if it formed both tactics and military thinking at any level, then it can apply.] 5. The Strategic Situation [Troops defending the homeland will in all likelihood, behave differently in some ways than the invading troops.] 6. Economics [Asymmetrical warefare is often based on this, so different nations with different resource bases will chose different methods in war.] Personally, I find #4 the most interesting, probably because it is the least quantifiable or overt. For instance, here is something written in 1809 by a British general in his book The Military Mentor. In it he writes a letter to his son, a new officer, entitled "On the Present State of Tactics in the Principle Continental Armies". You'd think he'd be writing about combat tactics, but he spends the entire letter writing about "National Characteristics", what he apparently believes are the basis for tactics. Here is a sample from his discussion of the Austrian Armies: The Austrians possess that system of tactics which had hitherto been so much dreaded by the French, and which rests wholly upon discipline, science, and order. It has been seen by the examination I have made, that the properties of the French armies are different. The French soldiers are impetuous; their courage requires somthing to excite it, and movement to keep up itardour. Their attack is more violent: but they are not, like Austrians, able to sustain a regular and open fire from the line; … One of the things I find interesting about this is the author's assessment of the French and Austrians is nearly identical to French author Guibert's thirty years before, which is identical to both de Saxe and Voltiare's assessments eighty years before that. The French military published a work that was translated into English in 1804 entitled Military Character of the Different European Armies Engaged in The Late War. They too accepted the Mentor's view of the French and Austrians. Through it all, the French author gives examples from the French Revolution and Napoleon's campaigns to prove how French generals used the French soldier's ‘impetuosity', preference for the attack and their ability to rebound from setback, the traits that the Military Mentor also attributed to the French. A Medical man and Peninsular veteran Dr. Jackson later in 1814 published a book on training based on these National Characteristics: View of the Formation, Discipline and Economy of Armies. So what is interesting is that these beliefs were very consistent over more than 100 years, where used to justify any number of tactics used by the various nations, and from the looks of it could be said to have influences battlefield tactics…even strategy. In defending his decision to strategically go on the attack in 1814, Napoleon stated that the French soldier was never suited to the defense. Their strength is in the attack. Now whether this was believed by Napoleon, it is obvious that he knew others would accept it as a sound reason. If there was evidence that French soldiers acted this way on the battlefield, it certainly would be a reason to include it in a wargame. It certainly would be interesting to create a wargame that incorporated the period's beliefs concerning the different armies' behavior in battle. |
thehawk | 07 Jan 2015 8:36 p.m. PST |
Jim Storr refers to a 'residual variation in combat effectiveness which cannot be ascribed to any cause other than nationality I would just like to point out that this concept is not the same as wargame's national characteristics. It is about the way a nation does things, not plus and minus modifiers on the battlefield. Plus and minus modifiers can exist e.g. Reg A HC w/lance gets +1 over Reg A HC with sword. Different tactical doctrines do exist. National (battlefield) characteristics are easily identifiable. But the problem has been that these do not explain or predict the result, so the gap is put down to national differences – a loose concept which is theoretical. The concept dates from WW2. The US army wanted to know why the average German soldier was better than the Allied soldiers. Van Creveld's 1982 book on fighting performance goes into WW2 national differences in detail. The question was not WHAT the Germans were good at (national characteristics) but WHY were they good (national differences). Why did they score 40% more kills than anyone else? As examples of national differences, from Amazon: van Crevald proceeds in a more sober and systematic way to look into a wide range of categories: social status, structure and mobility, army organization and administration, rewards and punishments, and the role of noncommissioned officers and of the officer corps. … Coverage includes organizational elements such as principles of command, assignment of manpower, and indoctrination of troops. A 2010 book applies a similar theory to real war and battle situations. "Winning at War: Seven Keys to Military Victory Throughout History," Christian P. Potholm. The author's concept is known as "the template of Mars". link Review link His seven differences are: Superior weapons and technology entrepreneurship Superior discipline Receptivity to military and integrative innovation The ability and willingness to protect capital from people and rulers The centrality of superior will The belief that there will always be another war I have only glanced through the googlebook preview but he gives some case studies including battles. I have heard of the God Of Football as well. It is more or less, don't do the right thing and you'll get punished further down the line. As an example, in a recent European soccer game, a top team played a markedly inferior team. The coach of the top team left out his 2 best players to save them for crunch games. However although the bottom team had lost of most of its matches, the only matches it had won were against the top teams. The top team lost. |
McLaddie | 07 Jan 2015 9:45 p.m. PST |
The question was not WHAT the Germans were good at (national characteristics) but WHY were they good (national differences). Why did they score 40% more kills than anyone else? I'm at a loss to know how the author separated those two things, characteristics and differences. Knowing the WHY predisposes knowing the WHAT to explain. Common differences in a large-enough group can be said to be national characteristics, whether dress or combat performance. How successful were/are van Crevald and the author of "Winning at War: Seven Keys to Military Victory Throughout History" in predicting winners? |
Visceral Impact Studios | 09 Jan 2015 7:17 a.m. PST |
I believe that some cultural/national characteristics are appropriate. Here's an extreme example: compare your average western rifle company in 2015 to a Chinese rifle company fighting in Korea in the 50s. If you inflict just a casualty or two on a western rifle platoon operating in the hinterlands you can bring the entire formation to a halt as it goes into a defensive position to treat and evac the casualties. During a charge by that Chinese rifle company in the Korean war the formation will keep moving despite horrendous casualties. Both of those situations are directly linked to how the respective nations train their soldiers and expect them to fight. I would also note that both forces produce troops that can only be described as "brave". Modern western troops will go to extreme lengths to protect their own AND to limit civilian casualties even when it puts their own lives in danger. And other cultures will produce troops who will face certain death (to the point of deploying suicide bombers) in order to inflict casualties on an opponent. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 09 Jan 2015 7:23 a.m. PST |
Knowing the WHY predisposes knowing the WHAT to explain. Common differences in a large-enough group can be said to be national characteristics, whether dress or combat performance. Well said! There are differences in gear, training/doctrine, and culture that can all result variations in battlefield performance. You can't hand 30 automatic weapons to a group of 30 average middle aged American dads and expect them to perform the same way as 30 battle hardened combat veterans armed with WWI rifles. The vets will win every time due to experience. By the same token the most technologically advanced rifle company in the world can't defeat a barefoot but determined insurgent force armed only with rifles if the advanced tech force doesn't believe in its mission and the low tech force feels like it's fighting for its family and cultural survival. The low tech force might get its butt kick in open battle but it generally wins over the long run. |
|