Morale

[Matrix33]

Hi,
I've downloaded both ATF and AATF demos and have to say those games are seducing me to buy them.
But there's one issue which keeps me away from making final move - lack of morale effects. As for game with such deep level of realism and details I consider it as serious flaw. Playing with enemy's morale, breaking units will to fight is very important part of warfare even in modern, hi-tech battlefield (maybe even more than ever..? I don't know)
And there's the question - are there any plans of inclusion wider than suppression effects of morale? If the answer is yes I'll but both for sure (as their scope is the most interesting to me).

Regards
Matrix33

 

[Pat Proctor]

Hi. Thanks for the question.

The ATF and AATF demos are based off of the "Krasnovians" (National Training Center OPFOR) and the Cortinians (Joint Readiness Training Center OPFOR). These enemy do not break and run because, well, the bullets aren't real. They are, however, still vulnerable to suppressive effects.

In many of the real-world scenarios, in-game AI simulates the "breaking" of units under excessive losses. Some of out other games also simulate the more human factors of war, like variable training level and response times.

That having been said, the morale factors in our sims are not nearly as pronounced as in games such as older games such as Close Combat. Really this is mostly a function of the time periods simulated. ATF and AATF simulate modern combat. What modern experience has shown is that attrition happens very fast. Because of the greater dispersion of units, you don't get the massed, painicked retreat of earlier eras; breaking units can't see eachother run. Either the whole unit breaks when the first shot is fired (ala Desert Storm) or stands and fights because, once in contact, flight = death (ala Operation Iraqi Freedom). Simulating the former isn't much fun for the gamer, so we focus on situations which reflect the later.

 

[Matrix33]

Thank you for your quick and deep answer. It gives me interesting subject to think about.
I would agree with you. I'm not a soldier just civilian without RL experience but with strong interest in military matters. It's always good to hear from the experienced source like you. Thank you.
However, I think there's still significant morale factor in modern time warfare. For example I suppose this could be seen in following situations:
- single squad - I think it's normal than when one see your buddies dead it can affect one's will to fight in various way.
- command on low average level - where commanders still have touch with their soldiers and each casualty has own face, name and history. Under big stress weak commander could make mistakes, even order unit to do "hasty withdrawal".
Well, in fact for sure there could be even more instances of morale effects. Just those two came to my mind thinking about AATF.
I wonder if there is any game currently on the market simulating commanders breaking down by combat stress, excessive lossess etc. And how simulate this? Just a question thrown high in the air.

Thank you again
My best regards
Matrix33

 

[TDR]

A couple of little points, though I suspect Pat can explain it much better.

The game does permit the “training” levels of the cyber troops. So there is a form of moral control here.

With any action there are going to me morale issues. But how far do you try to simulate this? The only way is to individually give as a minimum each cyber commander, down to fire team level some form of profile that controls that entities behaviour. Unfortunately this suddenly stops being a simulation in tactics but will add to your load as an overall commander.
Weak commanders make mistakes ?? Commanders make mistakes. It is the one who makes the fewer critical mistakes that wins or survives.
Currently we as nations and in modern warfare are not putting ‘off the street’ people straight into command without serious training. WWII was an example of rushing commanders into the field with little training.
You don’t in any ‘public’ game I know of have the ability to sack a poor commander and replace him/her with a better one. You do in real life. Also in real life at platoon/section level you have at least your 2IC to provide some level of command input. Higher up there is more staff to provide information command support.
In all games you are both overall commander and also the commander of the small fire teams/gun/tank etc.
In some games where the player can give individual cyber commanders actual names the player is trying to identify with the units directly. This does give a level of command concern, but its still not real.

The only real solution is to embed a physiological simulation model into a game. When that is operating you will spend too much time sorting out cyber soldier’s problems and not what the over all issues are, which is fundamentally tactics.

This may not solve you concerns but I don’t suspect morale in modern combat is as a big concern as you are looking at.

 

[Matrix33]

Thank you for your words TDR.
You know, maybe because I'm civilian with desire to feel like real armchair general sometimes I'm looking for perfect simulation. And judging from my real life experience (professional and private) human characters and so called morale have big impact on almost every aspect of any task. I suspect this same goes in military however extensive training aims to minimize this "human factor" (beside of course to give appropriate theoretical and practical knowledge and to teach battle routines). But in real life, military too, you get various results of such training. You can't just erase human character. It still remains this same in its core. You just put kind of "mask" or "interface" on it. And it is only question of time and force used to dismount this (especially if it isn't maintained properly).
In real military (I suspect) commander on regiment level doesn't issue orders to every tank, IFV or rifle squad. I is just impossible. He issues orders to his subordinates and they obey them (or not) as good as possible for them according to their training and personality.
And don't forget please, that the simulation covers encounters versus various troops. Not every of them have highest level of professional training. Some of them are just bunch of armed militias with little to no training. Some of others have old fasioned WW II based tactics and training. All of them are still susceptible to morale issues in greater degree than western troops (I suppose it is like this) so in my opinion it should be considered in any highly detailed simulation.
Regards
Matrix33

 

[TDR]

Firstly any simulation is just that a simulation.
You need to look at what that simulation was designed to do. In many cases it not a straight issue of comparing one simulation against another unless they have the same fundamental intent in design.

Even so called tactical simulations, such as AATF, TacOps & POA2 all have fundamentally different design intents. In a superficial way Ok compare them but they are not the same. Each has been designed to model specific aspects of the tactical picture in warfare.
Add to that each simulation will abstract certain aspects as it is a minimal issue with the designer’s intent.

Again I suggest that no commercial game will model the issue of morale. They will provide varying abstract models as needed by the intent of the simulation. I use the word abstract deliberately as they do not provide a full model of this aspect of warfare.
Even with the abstract modelling of morale in some sims you have no control on what is happening or the behaviour. That is actually something you in reality do have a level of control on.

One other point is the style of warfare. The so called modern war is minimal conventional mainly insurgent/counterinsurgent. This reflects most wars/conflicts since Korea.
Unfortunately the full counterinsurgent style of game is not as flashy to play as a nice conventional war. (Big tank battles always look good on the old PC screen and sell better.)
Morale in this type of warfare is a minimal issue. You don’t destroy the morale of your insurgent and drive him off because he is a broken force. His intent is to cause you maximum damage and escape, i.e. just vanishes and comes back another day. This is the shoot and scoot war style. If on the other hand the enemy do stay they will stay because that is their intent.
Simple example: The ‘failure’ of the Tet offensive did not break the morale of the VC & NVA at Hue, nor did the failure to destroy the US forces at Khe Sanh. These things did hurt the morale of the US population at home more. Something not modelled in any game, (yet).

To model this type of personality fully is not simple and you do not find it on your commercial PC sim.

Simply don’t condemn a simulation because it does not model morale, but look at what it models and does it do that modelling or not.

I mentioned AATF, TacOps and POA2; yes each does its job and I like them and I have them. Also they do not individually model exactly what I want but I do respect the intent of each game and use it accordingly.
Yes I also play the simple ones like win SPWW2/MBT, SPWAW, CM:AK/BB and the more complex as Uncommon Valor.

They all have aspect I don’t like; aspect I do like and aspect I fell are missing.

Unfortunately the only way to “play” with morale ON is put the uniform on, but that is not always an option.

 

[Matrix33]

Maybe I just want too much?
Maybe, but I was taught to pursue my dreams, so I do
Well, just don't think I've come here to complain. As I said I'm looking for sim as close to reality as possible. I'm fully aware that every game on the market has its own flaws here or there. But it doesn't mean I couldn't advice game could be improved in certain way. But I unerstand the game must follow the vision of its own creator and I take Pat Proctors' explanations. My further question and discussion aimed to just clarify my doubts. Well, so far they haven't been fully cleared, but some of them yes.
There's something I like in ATF series very much - missions. This feature especially appeals to me as this is how I imagine modern commander really commands their troops. Commanders issue complex orders to his subordinates and they try to fullfill their missions as good as possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'll buy one of Prosim games I'll play using mainly missions (just say as my home rule) with assumption that no rifle squad shout be commanded directly by company commander (or higher). This is really great. I was thinking about that and after this I found topic with Pat Proctor explanations regarding morale. This was the moment when my doubts have been born.
To speak the truth - I'm still thinking Prosim games are great simulations (after playing ATF and AATF demos altought AATF demo freezes when I try to set missions) but I miss morale factor. But maybe it isn't really such important nowadays? I don't know. I'm not fully convinced yet.
Well putting on uniform and pick up a rifle isn't an option for me for certain reasons I don't like to kill in reality - this is the main one.
Regards
Matrix33