Forum > Theater of Operations: World at War
Cohesion and Morale
choppinlt:
--- Quote from: Sailor Malan on October 25, 2017, 06:00:58 PM ---We seem to be thinking in the same way... :)
--- End quote ---
It definitely appears that way! People that know me well may agree that thinking like me is dangerous though! ;)
Agreed, HQ's are primarily administrative in function. While they will have some combat value (depending on what they are assigned), that is not where their value lies. They help coordinate the mission at each level, and shepherd the forces under their control with supplies and information. HQ units will appear starting at the Regt/Brgd level and higher. So the question becomes, how does Cohesion and Morale impact how they function? With HQ's, Cohesion will be applied like any other unit, so I think that is pretty straight forward. How will morale be applied? What about Leadership factors being applied to subordinate units? And at what levels? For instance, if you have a division commander with poor Leadership, how does this impact the individual battalion? If a regiment HQ has all 3 infantry battalions disrupted, what does that do to the RHQ? I focused on connecting these dots for the last few weeks, though the whole morale impact is still in development.
And yes HQ's will impact subordinate units in a variety of ways. Exactly how is still under development. But tactical units are most affected by their immediate higher HQ. Higher echelons matter, but the effects will be different. One way is communication flow. For instance, you are a corp commander and a DHQ got Disrupted (let's say by airstrike). The RHQ is still Good, so those battalions have no extra delay when issued orders, and still get any other benefits from the RHQ. However, getting divisional assets will be more complicated. Additionally since there is a break in the comm flow, information to you (the corp commander) has additional delay. The greater lag will force you to guess for longer on what is happening. National characteristics will play in to this as well. For instance Soviet forces will be most impacted when an HQ has comm issues.
As for morale, there are 2 different directions I could go. The morale of an HQ could be A) strictly a weighted reflection of it's subordinate units, OR B) the HQ could have it's own morale tracked like any tactical unit with taking morale checks, etc. For A, say an RHQ has 2 battalions Demoralized and 1 battalion has Good morale which would give a weighted morale level of Poor for the RHQ. Thus it directly represents the morale of its subordinate units. I see some distinct benefits both ways, though I am leaning towards the weighted representation for HQ morale.
Your response reminded me of something else. Some of your descriptions reminded me that TO gives the bottomline results, but players are left to weave their own story about things unfolded during different game events such as an engagement (unless of course they actually played it out, which gives the story), or why orders were not followed, etc. Players can have fun with this, or pay it no mind, based on preference.
As for the combat system, agreed, you have to make best guesses and assumptions while I have it in front of me. It still needs thorough playtesting, but it has been producing solid results. I will try to shed more light on it in future posts. I can say this: it is complicated and based on lots of variables and data. I plan to develop guidelines to help players with planning and context, but I am wanting to prevent TO from being a simple math problem. This may make some players uncomfortable, but even in modern times commanders don't have charts to figure out their odds before going on the assault. They make decisions and plans based on their understanding of their forces, enemy forces, and the situation.
You also got me thinking about your point with 2 equal units, so I did a test! I took 2 US infantry battalions against each other. The attacking battalion was in perfect condition and the defending battalion in a Hasty defensive posture, but it was disrupted. The battle took place in rolling terrain with a mixture of open and woods. The results surprised me a little because the attacker bounced with no advance after fighting for almost 2 hours.** HOWEVER, change the terrain to flat and open, and the attacking battalion advances 400m in about 90 minutes before the attack loses momentum. Is this an issue? I don't think so... at least right now. It must be considered that this test is done in a vacuum. There are likely to be other factors at play, and the biggest one in my mind is the lack of artillery. The attacker is most likely going to have it and since the defender is Disrupted, they likely will NOT have it. This will only increase the disparity. Caveat... everything will continually be under evaluation, so this is all subject to changes and tweaks.
**I alluded to earlier, this is the final result. The story may be that the attacking battalion advanced a few hundred meters, but pockets of resistance prevented the attackers from consolidating their gains with the end result being a fall back to original positions.
Sailor Malan:
I like everything you are saying.
On the 1:1 disrupted test, full disclosure here: I have no supporting evidence that a disrupted unit should act as if an equal attacker had 3:1 odds - just a gut feel. However, to flesh out my gut feel, I guess I mean 3:1 odds table in a classic game CRT, so wins 5/6 of the time. Maybe it should 4/6. On the other hand, classic CRTs had the issue of 1:1 attacks winning 1/2 the time, so maybe that is a bad place to be.
Lets look at it a different way: what is the difference between a disorganised defending Btn and an organised (good cohesion) one.
* companies might be in poor positions- not properly mutually supporting
* support company wont get requests for (e.g. mortar) fire support as quickly (or at all)
* support company wont have allocated HMGs (depending on TOE/nationality) to front line effectively
* attacked support units will not be used effectively
* units will be more likely to run out of ammo (resupply requests getting lost)
* reserves and reaction moves of subunits wont happen on time or at all
* higher level fire support wont happen properly(late or not at all]
To my mind this means there are 2 ways an attack on such a unit can go: if the attacker is so weak or poorly put together that the front line can beat it back on its own, it will almost be like the defender isn't disordered at all. The only effect would be the lack of support/resupply mentioned above but little else. However, any slight advantage (penetrating the front line companies) that the attacker gains will result in a big win... the whole Btn could be pushed back with losses based on the 'defeat' of a single company maybe.
I would do a plot, but what i am saying is the chance of no gain or a small attacker gain (a hundred meters then bog down) is only slightly reduced (relative to the same attack on a good order defender, but once gains are made (up to complete push back of a Btn), the ground made and the losses taken by the attacker bias a lot.
I guess the above all apply to hasty defence. For a more established on, disruption would only have a subset of the issues (support weapons are already allocated so there wouldn't be issues of lack or allocation.
choppinlt:
Ha yes, that was my assumption of what you are talking about with referencing CRT's and the classic 3:1 standard in board games.FYI,if you do an internet search you will find some interesting discussions around the 3:1 argument...but I digress... :)
Agreed, all of those items are potential factors with a disrupted unit. But first let us define Hasty! The terms means different things depending on context, but in an operational context I have defined it as troops that have established basic fighting positions to include foxholes. This implies that they have had some time to establish themselves and dig in some. Prepared positions would include some fall back positions, some trenching, with access to some barbed wire, mines, and a few wooden bunkers. Fortified being more extensive earthwords and perhaps some concrete structures.Troops with the greatest exposure are troops that get counterattacked when moving (whether they are attacking, or otherwise on the move). Troops that are in a stationary position, but that have not had ample time to dig in are considered Exposed. Ah wait...I discussed this already some time ago and you can reference this link: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,3655.0.html
Some more iterations:
Rolling terriain with mixture of trees-
Same scenario as before EXCEPT the attacker has 1 battery of 105's in support, and the defender has Good cohesion in an Exposed posture. Rolling mixed terrain is pretty good defensive terrain, and the attacker bounces with no advance about 60% of the time.
This time the defender is Disrupted and Exposed, resulting in an advance of 300m.
Change terrain to flat and open...no where to hide!
Same scenario except defender is Good and Exposed. In this case the attacker advances 400m!
Same scenario except defender is Disrupted and Exposed. This time the attackers push 700m! In flat and open terrain a unit pushes an equal sized and equipped unit that is Disrupted unit back 700m with the addition of 1 battery of 105's.
One last trial...
Attacker has no 105's, Defender is fully vulnerable and is disrupted in rolling mixed terrain. The attacker advances 300m! So this is a literal 1:1 case, except the defender has decent terrain.
Keep in mind that this is the core result with no variables thrown in.
As you can see, all the variables play a role. Terrain is key, but unit being disrupted makes a significant difference.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page