Having to deal with the limitations of " 12 " probably had a lot to do with it. Interesting to drink and conjugate how the game would have been with 18 or 24.I am not sure if this question has been answered before:
Did they 'miss the boat' or was their selection of the given values intentional despite awareness with the aim of giving each nationality a different feel?
von Marwitz
That may be possible. Not having been at AH during the design process, I cannot answer whether the intention was to create an artificial 'national feel' for game purposes, or an accurate historical representation (which, of course, would lead to a genuine national feel). Methinks their intention was the latter. As John Hill stated in his original SL rules to justify the unique American ML:I am not sure if this question has been answered before:
Did they 'miss the boat' or was their selection of the given values intentional despite awareness with the aim of giving each nationality a different feel?
Nice.!That may be possible. Not having been at AH during the design process, I cannot answer whether the intention was to create an artificial 'national feel' for game purposes, or an accurate historical representation (which, of course, would lead to a genuine national feel). Methinks their intention was the latter. As John Hill stated in his original SL rules to justify the unique American ML:
"The American fighting man was both tactically and psychologically different from his German or Russian counterparts. He broke under fire quicker than either of the two, but he also rallied quicker." (Emphasis mine)
Add to that the comments Don Greenwood wrote in several editions of The General, in which he defended their design decision by saying (if I may paraphrase due to being too lazy to look up his exact words) that the American combat soldier was essentially not up to the same quality as his counterparts, and any success he achieved was mostly due to overwhelming firepower and the might of the American industrial capability. That the Allied army was only able to march across France into Germany by jumping bomb crater to bomb crater following a path carpet-bombed by American and British heavy bombers. (Ok, that last part I made up).
To be fair to Mr. Greenwood (and others involved in the original design), he was relying on the prevalent historical research of the 50s and 60s which promoted that view. However, there has been quite a number of modern historians in recent decades who make a convincing argument that those earlier historians simply got it wrong.
Although dealing mainly with the Normandy campaign, I think this John C. McManus quote from his book The Americans at Normandy is relevant, and one I have found echoed by other recent authors describing other theaters of operations:
(There is a) "...viewpoint, espoused by some historians, that the U.S. Army fought badly at Normandy. In their view, American soldiers were outmatched in valor and expertise by the Germans, and the Yanks only won because of the sheer weight of numbers or material. These assertions are incorrect. ..(T)he contention that American soldiers did not fight well is deeply flawed. The reality... was quite different. The United States Army came of age at Normandy. It became a tough, battle-hardened, thinking army whose soldiers fought with great bravery."
In his notes for the above quote, he adds: "I am, by no means, alone in making this case that, contrary to earlier assumptions, American soldiers fought with great resilience and distinction at Normandy." He then lists four modern authors who support that view. I could add a couple more.
So, did AH get the American ML right back in 1977? IMHO, no. But that does not stop me from enjoying an awesome game design with nearly unlimited playing potential, including virtually every nationality; from the desert to the jungle and everything in between; small scenarios, monster scenarios, urban, rural, amphibious, infantry, tanks, artillery- the game has it all. Add to that the suspense and tension of a well-played game versus a like-minded opponent, and what more could you want?
Ok, I'm stepping down from my soapbox. Perhaps the fact that two days ago we honored the men who bled and died on those D-Day beaches 78 years ago got me thinking along these lines. For many of us here in the states, we still consider them the greatest generation.
Game on, my friends.
In the case of ASL though, the use of morale is to take away control of the game pieces so that the player can't make them obey one hundred percent of the time. ELR degradation is pretty permanent, and number of available leaders is hard to manipulate in smaller scenarios. Morale variations in ASL are really just a way to manipulate the amount of control a players has over their forces.Yes
--Use the above mentioned OB levers - primarily more and better leadership-- to get the needed 'feel'.
I agree they got morale mostly right, if you have a particular action where American elite 7 morale units are involved that was extremely a valiant or heroic effort, make them fanatic. That is really my only bone to pick as they really did a great job modelling WWII infantry from all corners of the globe.In fact, I would just propose to accept the US units as they are.
IMHO the considerations of 'design for effect' with regard to providing the US with a special and different style of how to play them is of superior relevance rather than to make their Morale values (unbroken AND broken) more realistic.
Basically, I am convinced, that the morale of elite units of any nation would probably be best represented with 8 in game terms.
In the same line as one can (rightfully) argue that a Morale of 6 is too low for Americans, you may also question why they should have a Broken Morale of 8.
IMHO a bigger issue than the Morale values for the US are those of the Italians: The way these are represented in the system makes them hardly playable (and rather unpopular with many players). Maybe, "brittleness" of Italian formations would have been better reflected by low ELR values rather than exceedingly low Morale values.
Be it as it may, I believe making Morale values more realistic would lead to more or less equalizing the nationalities with regard to Morale for their respective types of formations from Elite to Conscripts. It would not make the game more interesting, rather more likely the opposite.
von Marwitz
If I designed the game today, there would be '1PTC' result in the IFT. Or--- any FP over the IFT column # that resulted in a PTC would be DRM to the check. So a '9' on the 8 column with 11FP would be 3 PTC.In the case of ASL though, the use of morale is to take away control of the game pieces so that the player can't make them obey one hundred percent of the time. ELR degradation is pretty permanent, and number of available leaders is hard to manipulate in smaller scenarios. Morale variations in ASL are really just a way to manipulate the amount of control a players has over their forces.
It's just my opinion but a variation on being pinned would be more in line with loss of control, and the morale break (in the esprit de corps sense) would be more permanent along with ELR. Many a time is a pin result more fatal than a break. But that would be a different game, and the three central or first nationalities base morale define ASL.
I agree with Mr. McManus. US infantry in the first week of Operation Overlord should mostly be 7 ML, then gradually degrading to Devil squads due to US replacement doctrine and system (which was different than most other nations). Going forward, I will try and reflect that design philosophy.Although dealing mainly with the Normandy campaign, I think this John C. McManus quote from his book The Americans at Normandy is relevant, and one I have found echoed by other recent authors describing other theaters of operations:
(There is a) "...viewpoint, espoused by some historians, that the U.S. Army fought badly at Normandy. In their view, American soldiers were outmatched in valor and expertise by the Germans, and the Yanks only won because of the sheer weight of numbers or material. These assertions are incorrect. ..(T)he contention that American soldiers did not fight well is deeply flawed. The reality... was quite different. The United States Army came of age at Normandy. It became a tough, battle-hardened, thinking army whose soldiers fought with great bravery."
In his notes for the above quote, he adds: "I am, by no means, alone in making this case that, contrary to earlier assumptions, American soldiers fought with great resilience and distinction at Normandy." He then lists four modern authors who support that view. I could add a couple more.
So, did AH get the American ML right back in 1977? IMHO, no. But that does not stop me from enjoying an awesome game design with nearly unlimited playing potential, including virtually every nationality; from the desert to the jungle and everything in between; small scenarios, monster scenarios, urban, rural, amphibious, infantry, tanks, artillery- the game has it all. Add to that the suspense and tension of a well-played game versus a like-minded opponent, and what more could you want?
Game on, my friends.
As a gaming mechanic, perhaps. But with respect, that kinda misses the origins and the point of the IFT -- that being, the Army lab-coat guys saw no substantial changes of combatant behaviors between 8, 9, 10, or 11 FP, say -- only at 12 did the data show, "now they are behaving differently," for example.If I designed the game today, there would be '1PTC' result in the IFT. Or--- any FP over the IFT column # that resulted in a PTC would be DRM to the check. So a '9' on the 8 column with 11FP would be 3 PTC.
Sounds plausible to me too.I agree with Mr. McManus. US infantry in the first week of Operation Overlord should mostly be 7 ML, then gradually degrading to Devil squads due to US replacement doctrine and system (which was different than most other nations). Going forward, I will try and reflect that design philosophy.
Very interesting info about the Army research.[IMO, the IFT fire table was never intended as a measure of kinetic hazards of flying lead and shrapnel (though that is an element at the higher columns).
It was instead engineered from US Army =psychological= behavioral-studies/measures of combatants under varying volumes of perceived fire/risk.
As a gaming mechanic, perhaps. But with respect, that kinda misses the origins and the point of the IFT -- that being, the Army lab-coat guys saw no substantial changes of combatant behaviors between 8, 9, 10, or 11 FP, say -- only at 12 did the data show, "now they are behaving differently," for example.
Ditto, re all the other "missing" FP factors in the IFT -- those factors simply didn't make a measurable behavioral difference, re the contemporaneous research findings.
They did find =during= the war that different nationalities/cultures did behave differently. That's one reason for the latter-war US PTO up-gunning vs the Japanese.
That theater is maybe also the best place/case for a higher-morale US MMC -- that is where the US sent most of their US "banana wars" cadres -- the true US pre-war "vets" of combat. Perhaps the US OB is global enough to benefit from theater-specific "national characteristics" (or maybe that's already suitably built in via the USMC OB plus US Army 667s).
Finally and preemptively, I'm not inviting an IIFT debate -- simply stating military history as I have learned it. As respected players, please all enjoy as per individual preferences. Thank you.]
Sounds plausible to me too.
Boooooo! We didn't have that for a while...Finally and preemptively, I'm not inviting an IIFT debate --
I would tend to agree, although that new historical research showing that the American army really matured at Normandy shows up the basic 6 morale somewhatI agree they got morale mostly right, if you have a particular action where American elite 7 morale units are involved that was extremely a valiant or heroic effort, make them fanatic. That is really my only bone to pick as they really did a great job modelling WWII infantry from all corners of the globe.
Yeah, if I could re-do my AP13 scenarios, those early June scenarios would have a lot more 6-6-7s.I agree with Mr. McManus. US infantry in the first week of Operation Overlord should mostly be 7 ML, then gradually degrading to Devil squads due to US replacement doctrine and system (which was different than most other nations). Going forward, I will try and reflect that design philosophy.
Brigadier Bacardi and I quite enjoyed this. Nicely written.I absolutely concur with the thinking that those U.S. squads fighting in the early days of the Normandy campaign deserve to be represented by a better initial morale level. After all, the 1st ID and 82nd AB were battle tested veteran divisions, and the 101st AB, 29th and 4th IDs had been undergoing intensive training for years in preparation. Not to mention all the highly trained Ranger and Engineer units.
However, where I would beg to differ is regarding the notion that American replacements, setting aside the ham-fisted and illogical method the army used early on to get them to the front line, somehow had a permanent watering-down effect on any unit they 'reinforced', which in turn led to an overall decline in that unit's combat efficiency. The reality is it only took a short time to turn the green guys into battle hardened veterans. Examples abound. Take the 28th (Bloody Bucket) ID for instance. It was one of several divisions needlessly butchered by Hodges in the Hurtgen forest fiasco where it suffered over 6,000 casualties in just two weeks. It was sent to the 'quiet' Ardennes to rest and absorb replacements. In less than a month it would end up in the path of basically a whole Panzer Army. Yet, its three rifle regiments fought magnificently against overwhelming odds and bought the crucial time needed for the reserves to move up.
Even the so-called 'green' divisions did not stay green very long. The untested 90th division arrived early in the Normandy campaign and performed so badly in its first few encounters from June 10-13 that Bradley considered disbanding the division to provide replacements. It turned out, however, that the problem with the 90th was not its green soldiers, who were just as well-trained and well-equipped as any other U.S division, but its near criminally atrocious leadership. VII Corps commander Joe Collins eventually replaced practically every senior commander from division CO to regiment to battalion. Things began to steadily turn around, and after Normandy the division went on to become one of the best divisions in the U. S. Army. As Omar Bradley himself would later write, "In the end the 90th became one of the most outstanding (divisions) in the European Theater."
The most egregious problems with the U.S. replacement system (and there were many) were twofold: the new guys got themselves killed too quickly, and they were often, in typical bureaucratic army genius, assigned jobs for which they had no previous training. So, a highly skilled mechanic ends up humping a base plate up and down hills for a mortar he had never even seen before. Although never arriving at a perfect solution, the Army made steady positive progress at reforming the system as the war went on.
Nevertheless, as inefficient as that system was, it allowed U.S. divisions to stay in the line for long periods. A fact which many German generals in post-war interviews reluctantly admitted gave the Americans a distinct advantage in periods of sustained combat.
I realize, that in game terms, scenario designers can only work with the counter mix they have been given. I am by no means suggesting developing a whole batch of new counters (regardless of the nationality) to make the few of us beating the historicity drum happy. That would be ludicrous for obvious reasons. I do like the idea, however, of designers perhaps not being so quick to buy into the narrative that the American Army started out green and got worse from there.
IMO, what the research clearly shows is that the U.S. Army, unlike its main opponents, got stronger, tougher, more innovative, and more tactically adept as the war progressed. By May 1945 in the ETO the U.S. Army stood at the zenith of its combat proficiency, not the nadir.
Game on, my friends.
Agreed 100%-- and this is where FP and range also come into play . If the doctrine were 'close with the eneny' over. 'Let the ammo do it'-- A unit's range should be less regardless of the capabilites of their weapons.I always felt like the assigned morale levels in the game were there to encourage players to use each nationality in a more "historically accurate" way. For example, the US 6 ML kind of forces you to sit back and use firepower instead of charging in and braving down 2 shots. To use the dictum of the time, "send a bullet, not a man". It was not meant to suggest that the American forces were not as brave as any other nationality. Just that their doctrine was different in many cases. On the other hand the Japanese higher morale (boosted again if with a leader) will encourage you to use those banzai charges to get across open ground against overwhelming firepower. Just my .02 cents worth. Great coversation guys.
I would agree completely with this, by war's end the U.S. Army was a match for the best the Germans could throw at them for sure[QUOTE="Jwil2020, post: 2096641, member: 54753
IMO, what the research clearly shows is that the U.S. Army, unlike its main opponents, got stronger, tougher, more innovative, and more tactically adept as the war progressed. By May 1945 in the ETO the U.S. Army stood at the zenith of its combat proficiency, not the nadir.
Game on, my friends.