A Word on the Will to Fight [Archive]

Khan7

08-18-2001, 01:48

This is to answer some of the naive perceptions some people have been throwing around this forum on the topic of the new morale rules:

When a man prepares for and enters battle, even if he is a tested and fearless warrior, his only thoughts will not be the destruction of the enemy and addition to his prestige and honor. There will be a wide range of conflicting emotions within him, though if his morale is high and his experience great his courage may serve to steel him to near all of these inner conflicts.

Many have lauded the new morale rules because they seem to attribute more logic to the way the men fight-- they don't run from a cavalry charge, they don't get scared by a sudden setback but just push through it. But these people are ignorant of the major fact of all warfare-- the decision to fight is not a rational one, it is an emotional one, and subject to all the intricacies and swings that you expect from emotion.

If a man loses heart, he will fight with less vigor, and if he sees others running he probably will too. Even a steeled and experienced samurai is subject to the physical and emotional strains and stresses of combat, the moral and physical effort of struggling with your enemies, the sight of your comrades falling beside you. The decision to run is not so much a decision as such-- it's not like "oh, I have no chance, I believe I shall now run", it is more of a breakdown of a man's physical and moral energy, that causes him to lose his will to go on fighting.

Khan7

08-18-2001, 01:54

So, in short, fighting to the death against all odds, and standing ground against a cavalry charge, is not entirely realistic at all. Perhaps these are things that a completely rational CYBORG would do, but all we need to do is take a look at the COUNTLESS and COUNTLESS battles in history in which dumb, demoralized foot ran from cavalry for no "good reason", and was thereby cut down like butter before a katana.

My only comment is that in situations where a unit is completely surrounded and it is clear that there is no route of escape, they probably won't rout, and will fight to the death. Sun Tzu had a great deal to say on this, advising generals to always have at least an apparent way for a surrounded enemy to escape so that he won't fight with such vigor (this was a common precept in Chinese warfare).

Anyway, I hope my comments have been of some use.

------------------
Khan7

Koga No Goshi

08-18-2001, 03:51

Khan,

Perhaps a realistic change in STW2 would be that units not trained to fight cavalry (missle units, non-spear foot soldiers, etc) would automatically go into a "skirmish" type mode and keep backing away when a cavalry unit was running after it? I think that would be neat. Mind you, it would only apply to units not geared towards fighting cavalry. Disciplined thick rank lance units would hold their ground.

------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

Yoshistune

08-18-2001, 03:57

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:
So, in short, fighting to the death against all odds, and standing ground against a cavalry charge, is not entirely realistic at all. Perhaps these are things that a completely rational CYBORG would do, but all we need to do is take a look at the COUNTLESS and COUNTLESS battles in history in which dumb, demoralized foot ran from cavalry for no "good reason", and was thereby cut down like butter before a katana.

My only comment is that in situations where a unit is completely surrounded and it is clear that there is no route of escape, they probably won't rout, and will fight to the death. Sun Tzu had a great deal to say on this, advising generals to always have at least an apparent way for a surrounded enemy to escape so that he won't fight with such vigor (this was a common precept in Chinese warfare).

Anyway, I hope my comments have been of some use.

[/QUOTE]"A true samurai would rather die honourably than live shamefully."

------------------
"Nothing is impossible for those who have a strong will."

"Wanting a fish to eat when standing on a lakeshore is not as useful as leaving the lake to make a net." §

Alastair

08-18-2001, 03:58

No. If large amounts of cav are charging at a non-cav, non-lance armed unit, skirmishing doesn't help. The cav are faster than the non-cav, and so run them down like cattle.

Edit: That was in response to Koga's post.

[This message has been edited by Alastair (edited 08-17-2001).]

Lord Aeon

08-18-2001, 04:03

I don't know how many wars you all have been in, but the primary motivating factor for being in a battle seems to me to be the preservation and propagation of one's ideals. People usually don't go kill other people only because someone told them to. It is a more recent phenomenon that people joined the army just for money (i know that some people did so in the past, but being a farmer was just as lucrative a business back then, and most people joined the army to bring their countries and their leaders honor).

And i think you have overstated your case. Troops still rout when things get bad... They just don't don't do it as often. Many times a battle can be won only because troops believe that they can win it. Not to mention that troops have been TRAINED for battle. Charging cavalry doesn't necessarily have to scare you out of your wits, especially if you have a good general...

And i realize that it's only a movie, but:
The scene in Gladiator where the Battle of Carthage is reenacted seems to be a good example of this. Those gladiators should have lost that battle, but didn't because of belief in their general's abilities and because they worked together (which is what any military training will teach you).

Having said all that, my final point will be that this IS just a game... to speculate about the psychological tendencies of 2D sprites seems a bit over the top. Like i said, i think too much is being made of some of these "issues" with the expansion. not that you all aren't entitled to your opinions.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Khan7

08-18-2001, 05:29

Yoshitsune: yes, we know the quote, but just because you are a samurai and have studied such principles doesn't mean you totally deep down BELIEVE them, and just because you truly deep down would rather die than run doesn't mean you will be able to control your own emotional tendencies.

Granted, being a samurai and having a good ethic will make you a better and fearless warrior, but NO ONE is invulnerable to moral effects of ruthless combat.

Alastair: Yes, if the people run then they WOULD get slaughtered by the cavalry. THAT IS THE POINT. THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY ADVANTAGES OF CAVALRY, i.e. provoking a rout and running down the poor bastards. Remember, not all soldiers are necessarily going to always be aware that running from cavalry is a dumb idea, and even if they are veterans and are quite aware of the fact that doesn't safeguard against them getting caught up in the emotion of the moment and turning tail (though a bit of training and experience will usually be enough to keep most units, especially spearmen, in their spots.. but you can't underestimate the moral effect of hundreds of thundering hooves, gleaming weapons and armor, battle cries, etc.).

Lord Aeon: No, I haven't been in any battles, but I HAVE done and am continuing a VERY extensive education in all matters military, political, sociological, and history in general. Your naive and unworthy opinions ignore the vast number of possible reasons for fighting, any or all of which may motivate men to fight. You also totally ignore the fact that no matter how patriotic you are battle tends to be a wear and tear on anyone's body and psychi.

It is also a load of shisa to say that people fight for money in modern times, whereas they fought for "their country's and their leader's honor" back in "the good 'ol days". If you want to actually do a damned bit of research or give it a tiny bit of thought, you would realize that in general we can say that in times past men were more motivated by other factors, such as a desire for loot (one of the biggest ones mentioned by Sun Tzu), or perhaps personal honor (in the case of career warriors, also in warrior societies such as the Germanic tribes or the American Indians), and less motivated by loyalties and patriotism, than in modern times (which is referred to by historians as the age of Nationalism, i.e. we identify with and love our nation).

Of course these are generalizations, and reality is made up of shades of gray, but Aeon had it totally backwards.

And I would like to point out that I didn't start this post necessarily to advocate the position of those who think morale is fvcked up, just to provide some info. But I must say that from some further experience I've had in the game the morale is quite ridiculous. Honor 2 units will keep on charging, even if they get all but 5 of their guys blown to bits by fearsome thunderbombs. They fight to the death consistently. The only unit so far I've seen rout due to a bad position, since I've gotten the expansion, has been an honor 0 YA, which was horribly outnumbered and surrounded and pounded with arrows from Mongol CA.

And I'm sorry, but analogies from movies are usually unacceptable in general, but ESPECIALLY with Gladiator, which was one of the biggest piles of historical bullshiznik to hit the screens in a while.

------------------
Khan7

Khan7

08-18-2001, 05:32

Also, advice to anyone: read Sun Tzu. It's short enough, it's fun, it's easy, there is no reason why anyone on Earth, even if they weren't into military stuff or the Japs, should NOT read this book. Be sure to get Samuel B. Griffith's translation, it is far superior to all others.

Anyone should read this book, but I was reminded to recommend it based on the fact that it would give a great deal of help to some of the people in this forum.

And if you're a hardcore military theorist, some Clausewitz is always good.

------------------
Khan7

BSM_Skkzarg

08-18-2001, 06:32

Khan7

Being a former military man who HAS seen combat - let me first say that - boy, you sure do have the THEORY down. While your in the air you wonder - what if - how will I - etc. etc.... but once your feet hit the ground training takes over. Your actions are automatic, you know where the rest of your team is, what they are doing and how they will react if something happens. Does this mean a unit cannot rout? Absolutely not - but it DOES mean that well trained combat units will function for a MUCH longer time while sustaining even heavy casualties. As for Shogun WE - this is modeled in a way that I am sure you can understand with a bit of thought. The Golden Horde BELIEVED in its own invulnerability - it had NEVER been stopped and it did not appear it ever would be. The germans made the same mistake in WW2 - even after "setbacks" their units continued to fight with high morale because they were confident that the end result - a victory - was inevitable. This is why the Mongol units stay in battle. On the flip side - the Samurai of Japan where used to fighting other samurai - they would have viewed these invading horsemen as barbaric. As "barbarians", the civilized and highly skilled samurai was just as confident in his ability to prevail - even after battle conditions were against him. Today, the true skilled warriors are the ones who are taught to respect their foe, regardless of the nature, to think ahead and adapt as required. This is why a covered advance or retreat is used - to insure that casualties are minimized on attack, and also to keep a withdrawal from being a massacre. Should a unit fight to the last man - sometimes. And sometimes in Shogun WE it does. At some point a man will look around and see he has no possibility of escape - and as sun tzu says - he shaves his head, slaughters his horses, and prepares to die in battle.

Also, sir, I would point out that your posts are highly derogitory to anyone who disagrees with you. You insult and demean those people with opinions other than yours. You dismiss their views out of hand, quoting (or - more often - misquoting) battlefield theory. Until such time as you can be more respectful of your fellow community members - you will surely find that less and less members care to discuss your rants.

BSM_Skkzarg

Lord Aeon

08-18-2001, 06:36

Look, dude. No need to get nasty. Self-importance is not an attractive trait.

You're not the only person on the planet that has studied military, political, sociological, or historical issues. I suppose that the difference between you and we others that have done so is that none of us need to brag about it, or to use profanity.

Another difference between us is that i am able to have a discussion without labelling another's opinions as "naive and unworthy".

Finally, whether you realize it or not, this is still JUST a video game. It doesn't require your condescending opinionating.

You, sir, suck. Goodday.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Irving

08-18-2001, 06:52

Calm down Aeon. your the one getting nasty..
my own opinion about it is that samurai were trained from birth to accept death in battle as the honourable way of going.. some sects of militant monks though death in battle was a way of salvation... when the mongols invaded Kyushu in samurai knew that larger support armies were coming but nonetheless threw themselves at the 'dreaded' mongols

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

Alastair

08-18-2001, 07:19

BSM Skkzarg, I would make one point: modern military training is far superior to what yari troops would have gotten in the periods in question. Particularly in the case of YA, they have no training that takes over when they hit the ground.

TakeshidaSo

08-18-2001, 07:24

Well, its true that Khan said your opinion was naive and unworthy, and that he kept referring to his pedigree so that maybe he is self-important. I dont know if that qualifies as being nasty, or highly derogatory, but maybe thats all it takes. I think theres a big difference from having been in combat recently and; having been in a large formation of closely formed men standing in the open, fighting with short ranged, or hand to hand weaponry. Except of course that all soldiers get paid. There's also a big difference if you havent survived combat in a unit that suffered heavy casualties, or very many at one time, or while seeing friendly units panicking, or when seeing commanding officers killed, or when finding enemy on your flank and rear, or when receiving heavy fire as well as a close-in assault. There is something to be said for these effects on your decisions to run or stand. When that close formation your in begins to waver noticeably, and you begin to "feel" defeat is inevitable, its only a matter of fact; that as soon as some of the men begin to run that there is an unimaginable pull on the remaining men to get away too. History suggests that even very well trained units, fighting in this time period, would rout under the right accumulation of negative morale modifiers. They did so repeatedly. There is no mention of whether, or not, they all got paid for that days work.

Khan7

08-18-2001, 07:25

Okay, it looks like it's time to whip out the old Clausewitz. The following is a rather long DIRECT quote from his classic work (edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret). I believe that this work is public domain at this point, so there should be no copyright problems. Any typos are my own.

No more accusations of misquoting.

Book 1, Chapter 4

"On Danger in War

To someone who has never experienced danger, the idea is attractive rather than alarming. You charge the enemy, ignoring bullets and casualties, in a surge of excitement. Blindly you hurl yourself toward icy death, not knowing whether you or anyone else will escape him. Before you lies that golden prize, victory, the fruit that quenches the thirst of ambition. Can that be so difficult? No, and it will seem even less difficult than it is. But such moments are rare; and even they are not, as is commonly thought, brief like a heartbeat, but come rather like a medicine, in recurring doses, the taste diluted by time.

"Let us accompany a novice to the battlefield. As we approach the rumble of guns grows louder and alternates with the whir of connonballs, which begin to attract his attention. Shots begin to strike close around us. We hurry up the slope where the commanding general is stationed with his large staff. here cannonbalss and bursting shells are frequent, and life begins to seem more serious than the young man had imagined. Suddenly someone you know is wounded; then a shell falls among the staff. You notice that some of the officers act a little oddly; you yourself are not as steady and collected as you were: even the bravest can become slightly distracted. Now we enter the battle raging before us, still almost like a spectacle, and join the nearest divisional commander. Shot is falling like hail, and the thunder of our own guns adds to the din. Forward to the brigadier, a soldier of acknowledged bravery, but he is carful to take cover behind a rise, a house or a clump of trees. A noise is heard that is a certain indication of incerasing danger-- the rattling of grapeshot on roofs and on the ground. Cannonballs tear past, whizzing in all directions, and musketballs begin to whistle around us. A little further we reach the firing line, where the infantry endures the hammering for hours with incredible steadfastness. The air is filled with hissing bullets that sound like a sharp crack if they pass close to one's head. For a final shock, the sight of men being killed and mutilated moves our pounding hearts to awe and pity."

Book 2, Chapter 2

"Courage

Combat gives rise to the element of danger in which all military activity must move and be maintained like birds in air and fish in water. The effects of danger, however, produce an emotional reaction, wither as a matter of immediate instinct, or consciously. The former results in an effort to avoid the danger, or where that is not possible, in fear and anxiety. Where these effects do not arise, it is because instinct has been outweighed by courage. But courage is by no means a conscious act; like fear, it is an emotion. Fear is concerned with physical and courage with moral survival. Courage is the nobler instinct, and as such cannot be treated as an inanimate instrument that functions simply as prescribed. So courage is not simply a counterweight to danger, to be used for neutralizing its effects: it is a quality on its own."

MagyarKhans Cham

08-18-2001, 07:29

my Khan specialized himself in medieval combat, and just visited Muhi in hungaria where the mongols killed 40-70000 hungarians in one major rout (even where the hungarians had a perhaps stronger army and doing well in earlier skirmishes) to take a l;ook at the battlefield and surroundings, trying to figure out how it could have happen.

medieval armies werent as trained as u might believe and fleeing due to panick is something of all times, it is just human nature.

Khan7

08-18-2001, 07:53

So, all that said, back to the immediate topic: with the new system, you can have an honor 2 YS unit, ALONE, charge thunderbombers.. all but 7 guys get blown to bits.. those remaining seven are countercharged by a unit of ordinary Korean Spearmen.. the YS fights like mad to the very last man.. then the next YS comes up.. gets knocked down to 36 due to thunderbombs.. and fights like mad to the very last man..

Analysis: aside from the fact that thunderbombs are going to be wet-your-pants-all-through freeky for medieval Japanese troops who haven't been trained to go up against such things, and aside from the fact that just about anyone (even a well trained modern soldier) is going to utterly lose their will to fight if their unit takes 90% casualties in the first few moments of combat-- the plain fact is that IF a close-order melee unit were all alone and got THAT badly torn up by explosives so quickly, the survivors would be too disoriented and disorganized to go on fighting even if they really truly wanted to.

First of all now: I would in no way want to dishonor BSM or his brave service to our country. There are a couple things that I think one should consider once hearing his words. For instance, his direct experience and his expertise comes from the modern era of combat, which though governed by the same principles as any warfare is somewhat tricky to parallel to the type of combat covered in STW.

But, for a second, let us make some parallels here. BSM states that a well-trained high-morale unit will keep fighting for a long time, even with heavy casualties. But the question is, how high? We can say with some certainty that if even a modern unit were to take 90% casualties either all of the survivors would run or simply be so disorganized or disoriented that they would wander off or cease to offer organized or even slightly effective resistance, no matter how elite they all were. The only situation in which this would not necesarily be so is if, say, you are dealing with a unit that is going into combat in waves (lets say 10 waves), so the 10th wave gets there and they are organized and if they are brave enough they can keep up the fight and perhaps win. But this is a highly unlikely situation, and really you would not expect to see a unit going into a pitched battle with more than a third of its force in reserve.

Of course now, there are also all of the things that Takeshida mentioned. People would do well to listen to him here-- he knows what he's talking about, and he says it well.

And I'm sorry if some people feel that I have been boorish, self-important, mean or whatever; but I simply don't have much patience for ignorants who come in talking like they know everything (which is something I myself am prone to), and people who feel that whatever they say deserves to be heard even if they haven't given a minute's thought to it. I probably go a little overboard sometimes.. but oh well, I feel that even if I'm not politic, I have not wronged or falsely defamed anyone, so I will make no apologies this time.

------------------
Khan7

Lord Aeon

08-18-2001, 08:13

Not that i would accept it, even if it had been offered.

Nevertheless, i think it's dismissive to say that people who disagree with you "talk like they know everything" or that they "haven't given a minute's thought" to what they have to say.

You misunderstood my argument, then went on to dismiss that misinterpretation wholesale. My points were simple:

1. People fight mostly for what they believe in,

2. It would seem that sometimes soldiers are more than willing to sacrifice their lives for those beliefs, or for the lives of people around them (e.g. there are medals awarded for something we humans call "bravery"),

3. Troops STILL ROUT WHEN THINGS GET BAD, they just don't do it as often as before, and

4. Speculating about the psychological tendencies of 2D sprites leads me to believe that you may be taking this game a little too seriously.

Furthermore, i think that although you ARE entitled to your opinions (while, for some reason, you feel that i am NOT), that doesn't give you the right to condescend, or to insult anyone else. Being civil to another person on a video game message board shouldn't be a chore; to ask that you speak to or about me in a respectful manner isn't an unreasonable request.

I simply don't see what's so difficult about it; the profanity was uncalled for, no matter how impolitic you feel like being. So, recognizing the irony in my saying this: you still suck. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Khan7

08-18-2001, 08:22

Good lord, you really ARE just looking for something to grab onto, going on and on and on about that little "..people who think the morale is fvcked up.." quote, in which the so-called profanity was not directed at anyone, was simply used as a casual adjective, and therefore deserved no real notice.

Well, as long as I have now earned a "reputation" for cursing like a sailor, I might as well fit my role..

fvck fvck fvck fvck fvck f'ck f*ck f*** f___ f-c-....

Khan7

08-18-2001, 08:24

Also, no matter how mean and "derrogatory" I am to you, it will not change the fact that your knowledge of military theory and history in general is insufficient, and that therefore many of your so-called "points" have no real backing. You may very deservedly blame me for telling it to you in an overstraight manner, but that doesn't fix your problem.

Namely-- saying that people generally fight for their beliefs and that when they fight for their beliefs they tend to fight harder means nothing.. it makes a nice statement which is generally true, but it gives us no usable quantities on which to base any conclusions. Essentially it is a canteen without any water-- a POTENTIALLY useful instrument, but with nothing in it you can't drink from it.

------------------
Khan7

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 08-18-2001).]

Lord Aeon

08-18-2001, 08:34

Quote Originally posted by Khan7:

Well, as long as I have now earned a "reputation" for cursing like a sailor, I might as well fit my role..

fvck fvck fvck fvck fvck f'ck f*ck f*** f___ f-c-....[/QUOTE]

Nice.

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

BSM_Skkzarg

08-18-2001, 09:41

Well... this discussion - if one may call it that - has definitely divided into two distinct ones. One concerning the general lack of respect shown by Kahn7 to others, and one dealing with the question of morale in battle.

First - Kahn, I felt it necessary to suggest that more tact be used in dealing with other people and their personal opinons. I still think that everyone here can respect each other's view without subscribing to it. While you can disagree with the view, the way you convey your point(s) is critical to ensuring your views are taken at fair weight.

Second - on the question of morale - dealing with the Shogun game, historical warfare and modern day warfare. The idea of today's military being "better trained" than a unit of samurai is one of view. Samurai trained as a unit secondarily, their main focus was on individual ability. Most Samurai trained their entire life - while the US military can take a young adult and train him to a level "proficient for combat" within weeks. The difference is in weaponry and tactics. I think it fair to say that today's military forces (almost) worldwide are trained in a manner highly different than units during the Warring States period. Side note - ashigaru were true conscripts with MINIMAL training of any kind - in this case I am discussing professional soldiers. I would not say that one training was "better" than another - since samurai training would not be equal on a modern battlefield, while a freshly trained recruit of today would be no better than an ashigaru on a historical japanese battlefield. The training of a professional soldier - even the vaunted Sun Tzu himself - was that a soldier (not a leader) was to act without hesitation in accordance to his training. (Consider the emporer and the executed concubines as an example.) Today - training offers more tactical flexibility is all. Now - the issue of a unit taking 90% casualties in the initial moments of combat. One would think that the gut instinct is to flee.... and I would not dispute you. However, a soldier must at all times THINK while he acts. You lose that many comrades, and you are caught in range of your foe - you have two choices - close in and attack - and likely die - or retreat over the same field where 9 out of 10 of your brothers have just died. Your chances are better if you attack. And so you would do so, with all the ferocity and tenacity possible. Again - it hearkens back to the issue of having a way out - versus having no viable exit from the field of battle. Now, if in modern combat - a unit is worn down over time, then it is just as likely to break and run - since the time involved works on the mental state of the remaining living - particularly the cries of the wounded. To take losses slowly is to see each friend die - where to lose 9 out of 10 men in one instant is so "shocking" as to overwhelm the mind's ability to truly give each death its proper weight. So just as a unit that is decimated quickly may fight on - a unit taking slow, steady losses may very well run before its time. To demonstrate what I mean, and to honor those who have fallen in the past, I will quote Lord Tennyson at the close of this post.

With all that said - let me make one singular personal opinion clear. The morale in the game is a bit off. Is it close - perhaps. Is it perfect - no. But neither is the game. I will bet that the developers at CA did not delve this deep into battlefield psycology during the morale design phase. Let us just say that regardless of "reality", the morale may need to be considered as one of the issues to be addressed in a future patch. It is my fervent wish that they will also address the reinforcements, and the mongol armor/weapon upgrade in multiplayer. We shall see.

Qapla!
BSM_Skkzarg

The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

[This message has been edited by BSM_Skkzarg (edited 08-18-2001).]

Zen Blade

08-18-2001, 10:38

KHAN,

watch the language.

you have been warned in front of everyone.

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
SHS Core Member

qwertyuiop

08-18-2001, 11:10

I don't know about the honour deal right now but I will state the simple point.

Now its a group of blood thrirsty barbarians that are going to kill your kids and rape your wife. I am not saying that the same thought was over the feudal warriors, however now it is more threatining. Were by originally some of the starving pesinents would be forcefully conscipted into their conquers armies. Now they are fighting for a cause they should rightfully believe in.

I can see the Japanese going all out. You are bettween the barbarians and your family. And this time they are not just barbarians because your commander told you so.

I know this has been bouncing around for a bit but it hasn't been thrown in the open yet as I can see.

I would think someone that knows more about the period would want to take over or make corrections as neccesary. However, I believe that is the basic reasoning for the Japaniese resiliance.

-T-

Sempai_Kensai

08-18-2001, 15:48

I've sat here and read all of this and on a intellectual level, I'd have to say I have been educated and turned off at the same time. But my place isn't to judge anyone but to make my own opinion known.

I understand that the game is a "simulation" and thus is not going to be a 100% accurate depiction of what real combat was like back 200, 300 or even 1000 years ago. We rely on certain pieces of evidence and go from there. But the pattern of human behavior and the "concept" of war itself has not changed, just the methods.

Morale itself is a variable in that there is a collection of factors that play into this term. It includes the amount of training, weaponry, armor, adrenaline, courage and a bit of balls. That doesn't sound very scientific. It is true a lot of people fight for many things. But I do have to say that fighting for a certain ideal is nice but doesn't hold the line in real combat. An ideal is a idea of perfection of a principle of nature. It's not tangible except through the actionn which can be perceived as such. So, most people lose the idea of fighting for any higher ideal in any long, protracted war.

Most people fight for revenge (They guy killed whomever was close to you), loot (Hey, look at all the goodies that they HAD!), money (Oh, what the general is paying us?) against punishment (If we don't fight, we face imprisonment or death at home) and the list goes on.

Clausewitz is good for reading on the subject as well at Sun Tzu and others of that genre. I also recommend James Dunnigan who wrote "How to Make War" which I think it is in it's third edition now. Very comprehensive and detailed about lot of different factors in combat and warfare.

But what it comes down to is that often in conbat, war is organized chaos. When the battle lines collide, you don't think when you are taking on the enemy esp. in hand to hand combat. It's either you kill him or he kills you. Then you dig whatever justifications or reasons up for WHY you must kill the enemy. Add that all together and you have a morale for that person or group. In conbat, one often does not have the time to think. If you think, you're dead. You use all that training which has become subconcious and with all your effort, you kill/maim/attack and otherwise rip apart the enemy. Then, if you have spare moments to rest or think, if you feel that you're losing, then you run.

I don't know if this was real helpful but I thought I'd put in my own 200Y worth in.

Anssi Hakkinen

08-18-2001, 17:01

Just a reminder: civility. This discussion is very interesting, and I'd hate to see it go down the drain because the people involved can't get along. Please respect each other's person and opinion, and if and when you disagree, explain your reasons for doing so in a civil fashion. Thank you.

MagyarKhans Cham

08-18-2001, 18:06

yeah a Khan can be rude. Maybe there is just room for 1 Khan in here...

Slyspy

08-18-2001, 18:49

Remember that actions like the charge of the Light Brigade are unusual. This is why they are so famous. If low honour units in WE are frequently fighting to the last man, especially ashigaru, then perhaps they have become too steady. That said, even in the original h2 samurai were good steady units which is why h2 is the multiplayer/custom default. I shall just have to see how the expansion plays when it comes out here.

Catiline

08-18-2001, 20:07

Frstly as Anssi and Zen Blade have already pointed out uncivility and uneccesary profanity do not have a place here. Before people go looking for them no doubt i've used some phrases that are less than delicate, but if we're having a proper discussion which I'm going to assume is everyone's intention here then that is out of place. IPeople should also remember that everyones opinion is valid, and whilst evidenceand learning are useful tools they do not ruleout other interpretations. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu are all very well, but they are not undisputed, asnd they are not the only possible way of looking at things.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

KumaRatta Yamamoto

08-19-2001, 03:31

Here, Here Catiline!!! I fully agree

Algesan

08-19-2001, 04:57

One thing I've noticed in passing is that there appears to be a large morale difference between the custom battles and SP campaign battles. Perhaps the difference is that early on my campaign battles consist of honor 0 troops while the custom ones are honor 2. I've also had units stand hard when I was positive they would break and others break quickly when I just knew they would stand a bit longer. I won't know until I get online, but I'm thinking that like some of the unit balancing, we are facing a balanced SP version and skewed MP version. Of course, as I'm fighting more battles in SP, I'm seeing taishos get to +3 honor which makes a difference for the entire army's performance, but it did that in the original.

Khan7, I would suggest you look up some of Keegan's works. They are a closer look at why men fight in different eras and battles. The Face Of Battle is excellent and a classic. Clausewitz and Sun-Tzu are good, but not always accurate. Sun-Tzu deals in general situations and while very relevant, can be quite wrong on interpretation and application by the reader. Clausewitz tries to be too rational about his subject and has a definite bias.

Last but not least, a simulation designer must have a vision of how he wants to apply the "rules of war" for the period and build that into the rules of the simulation.

One result should be acts of incredible herosim and utter craveness. So we should see units stand for that last volley as the cav thunders down on them and units break and run as soon as the cav looks harshly at them.

One problem I have is a unit charging the flank of an enemy unit with nobody attacking or around it and then suddenly routing off. It is far more likely that it will continue its charge since it is focused on the target. The time for a morale check is when the charge is initiated, if it fails, it won't charge, if it succeeds, then it is off to the races, at least until impact. The ability to rout in the middle of a "clean" charge can be worked around, but invalidates a tactic used in many battles to cover retreating units and allowing them to recover.

celtiberoijontychi

08-20-2001, 01:15

When an army or unit is surrounded, it should fight to the last man (morale status "desperado")

I understand that in Jap vs Mong battles both sides have increased morale, the japanese because they are defendeing their country and the mongols because they believed to be invincible.

But I don't understand that in sengoku battles jap vs jap there's a generally increased morale level too.

BTW the germans fought with high morale not only because they thought to be superior, but also, especially in the later stages of war, because they believed the nazi propaganda that the "worldwide jewisch-communist conpiracy" would genocide all germans. That's what made them so tough to beat, even though they knew they would loose.

Khan7

08-20-2001, 10:03

On previous posts-- I in all honesty was tired, and I have now discovered that when I'm tired my judgement breaks down and I can also get into nasty moods. I hereby apologize insomuch as I can, and hereonout I really don't want to talk about it.

On Germans-- their fierce fighting to the end was largely based on very accurate knowledge of what the Russians were going to do to them (especially SS units, who could expect nothing but gruesome death from the Russians and long concentration camp imprisonment from the Western Allies). Also based on a general feeling that they had pretty much burned their bridges with other nations so that it was victory or devastation. I'm not sure about this Jewish-Communist conspiracy thing, I wouldn't be surprised if that was used as propaganda, but one should be aware that ordinary Germans really did have very good reasons for fighting to the last, they weren't just "tricked" by propaganda.

And my argument wasn't necessarily that a unit that has 90% of its strength blown to bits in seconds isn't going to WANT to go on fighting (even though this is the likely outcome), but that they would be too dazed, disoriented, and disorganized to do so even if they were cyborgs with the fire of Satan within them. The remaining 10% could be considered totally combat ineffective for the rest of the engagment.

Sempai also took the words right out of my mouth in saying that there is not really much difference at all between genaral patterns in modern and medieval/ancient combat (though specifics do differ quite a bit and can give the illusion that things are drastically different).

To those of you who have recommended military theory books: thanks, I'll have to check those out. To those of you who have chided me for swearing by military theory like the bible-- you're preaching to the choir, I know as well as anyone that such things must be critically analyzed and adapted for the individual if they are to be of any use. For that matter, that is one of Clausewitz's main points (I personally believe Clausewitz's theories to be rather immune to criticism on their specifics simply because he does such a good job of analyzing the concept of theory and the limitations involved that I doubt anyone could both be paying attention and fall into any pitfalls that his specific personal opinions may offer). And yes, Sun Tzu is very general, I consider it a warfare primer.

Anyway, over the past couple days I think I may have some more useful info on the nature of the morale changes, which I will dispense in short order.

------------------
Khan7

RageFury

08-20-2001, 15:40

To be honest i think its better just to accept it as it is...u know a GAME...if u dont like an aspect by all means say so. I enough people say so then Target and ther others will do something about it.

Quoting textbooks on history.trying to assume that you know wot men on a battlefield were thinking 400 years ago is stupid.

Khan despite all your studying mate u quite frankly dont KNOW anything. It is all corrupted, secondary sources and speculation. We also tend to remember legendary traits more than we do routs and cowardice. Fact of the matter is that they were human.humans are highly unpredictable and u dont know wot any one person would have been thinking.

So give the high and mighty tone a rest until u find a way to read minds and travel through time.
People that assume they KNOW things because they have read a textbook really annoy me and a lot of others here it seems.

I would say that no-one alive today is actually qualified to comment on mediaval Japanese peoples psychi..cos we just dont know. plain and simple.

-Fury

KukriKhan

08-20-2001, 20:37

Thought I'd add another *Khan* to the discussion. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

My opinion is based somewhat on research, but mostly on personal experience and observation, having served in the US military.

In my day, guys joined the military
1) because they were forced to
2) to escape hometowns/inner cities
3) adventure
4) "higher" ideals
pretty much in that order.

But they FOUGHT (i.e. attempted to kill the enemy) because of whatever happened to their m8s. The longer you, the leader, could keep the same group of fellas together facing different (and successive) levels of danger, the more likely they were to continue fighting, AS A GROUP. But trying to predict INDIVIDUAL willingness to fight was pretty much a crap-shoot: yesterday's hero would easily become today's coward, and vice versa.

The group dynamics of a 50-man infantry platoon allowed for that individual wavering between heroism and cowardice. Would a 5-man fire team continue to fight, after the rest of it's platoon was vaporized? (getting hypothetical here; I never saw it happen). I have to give it a resounding: MAYBE.

If they had no time to think, I believe they would still fight, especially if apparently surrounded. If they had, say, 5 minutes to assess their situation, they might book.

This is a fascinating discussion, despite the bruised feelings expressed. Even more fascinating to me is that the Shogun game makers have built algorithms to factor this into gameplay. The seeming randomness of whether a particular unit fights or routs adds more realism to the game, IMHO, because it squares with my own experience.

------------------
KukriKhan

Khan7

08-21-2001, 01:20

Well, my attempts at ending the ugliness in this thread were evidently lost on Ragefury, and I may have to blow away some of his opinions in a bit; but I shall refrain from responding in kind.

Kukri- I'm not talking about all but a 5-man fireteam getting wiped out. I'm talking about 90% of the platoon getting wiped out, meaning that there is no 5-man fireteam left, just 5 guys who randomly happened to survive the sudden onslaught. i.e. the entire organizational and cohesion structure of the unit has been wiped out. i.e. if we're talking about a sixty-man section of yari samurai (as we are in my example), we're talking about 5 guys, dazed from the blast, covered in soot and smoke, most likely unable to see a single one of their comrades alive through the smoking carnage all around them. They might run, they might just lay down among the bodies and wait for the battle to be over, but you can be darned sure that they aren't going to continue the charge-- the charge is over.

An anlagous situation in modern combat would be a fifty-man platoon, gearing up to take part in an assault, and WHAM! BAM! a salvo of 16-in naval shells lands among them. Or you could even compare to assaulting a machine gun emplacement in WW1-- people kept going on even with very heavy casualties, but I can guarantee you that 90% would leave the survivors isolated, dazed, and unable if not unwilling to go on fighting.

The situation that Kukri was talking about implies that perhaps a five-man fireteam was kept behind in reserve and the rest of their unit gets wiped out ahead of them. This is quite different from what I'm talking about.

------------------
Khan7

Khan7

08-21-2001, 01:28

Now to deal with Ragefury-- if we can't see any patterns or gain any knowledge about war by studying how it happened in the past, then why do we study history, and why are there countless very respected books analyzing history and putting forth theories on war. If what you are saying is true, then that would mean that the entire basis of our educational system is bunk. If you want to stand up to every single successful person that has ever existed in the world and lived to write about it, every single life-long scholar and every single dedicated educational professional trying to provide people with knowledge that will help them in the future and say "No, that knowledge is worthless, you can't formulate theories or see patterns in what happened in the past!", then you are entitled to do that, but you would be standing alone.

In my opinion, your words are simply a cheap and brainless cop-out to try and avoid the real discussion. But you of course are entitled to your ideas and to speak those words wherever and whenever you feel comfortable doing so, though I doubt they'll ever be appreciated.

------------------
Khan7

P.S.: Okay, so I did sort of respond in kind, but you've gotta admit I had every right to.

Yoko Kono

08-21-2001, 01:46

but the mongols didnt fire naval guns
they had very primitive grenades

Khan7

08-21-2001, 01:53

RRRRRRrrrg, I don't think I really have to say this, but the comparison between naval guns and medieval chinese grenades, given the effectivenesses of the weapons relative to warfare in their respective eras and the respective roles they played, is out of line at all, at least for our purposes here.

For REAL Yoko..

------------------
Khan7

[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 08-20-2001).]

Vanya

08-21-2001, 03:36

I am amazed at the emotional disrobement put on display in this most enlightened of threads! The raw feelings expressed here almost make my most lowly peasant slave-soldiers want to cry! Sure, my men fight because they know if they don't I will simply behead their families and shrink their heads so that I can build a nice shrunken-head quilt to warm my undead body a tad at night while I rest from the slaughters of the day. And sure, my men fight for the privilege of living, and thus do so for no monetary reward; senselessly killing innocents at the whim of their master and overlord is enough reward for them, for adorning my quilts with their heads is usually not something men of typical frames of mind pursue as their life goals (well, most at least).

Life -- and death -- is quite simple for those who lead a totalitarian and oppressive regime bent on the total annihilation of any and all opposition... In this black-and-white world, there are only 2 kinds of people: those that will die for you, and those that must be killed in your name.

And after a hard-fought battle -- win or lose -- give your men an extra helping of Ramen Noodles, so that they can replenish their vigor swiftly and die for you in the next silly charge into the grasps of death.

Mercifully, I have no head, so the worst that can happen is I drop it in a grassy knowle somewhere and cause my own men to laugh hysterically while I fumble around the shrubbery looking for an old veggie or fruit! My undead status means Death cannot get his grubby little bony fingers on this headless horseman!

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Lord Aeon

08-21-2001, 04:35

LMAO @ Ramen Noodles...

I wonder if that qualifies as food anymore...
(college students' diets excepted)

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

RageFury

08-21-2001, 04:35

ok i was in a hurry for work this morning,so let me see if i can explain myself somewhat better.
Number One: Khan we have gotta wonder why you even bother to grace these forums...they are discussion forums and yet you only appear to come here to voice your opinion and have everyone agree with you. Those that dont u seem to basically dismiss in an obnoxious arrogant and condescending tone.

Number 2: Let me see if i can explain my comments. Every statement you make u put across as fact. You state u have studied intensively and therefore this is what has happened. This first off leads me to believe that you are not a true student of history. You will rarely ever see a true historian state that this is what happened, fullstop. Every time we witnees or indeed read about an event, we form our own subjective view on that event. Now when somebody, i.e a primary source, logs down what has transpired in that event he forms a subjective view no matter how hard he tries not too. Now these primary sources are read by men writing a relevant textbook who also form a subjective view on the primary sources work. To get around this they read many such accounts then they form another subjective view...opinions and specualtion...discard certain bits of information and keep others. Thereby forming their own opinion on events.

Now u get the idea but by the time u get this information it is corrupted beyond belief. What you choose to believe is up to you. my argument was not against the pursuit of knowledge, but against ur arrogant and superior "know-it-all" attitude. Quite frankly the fact of the matter is you dont know anything. You merely have formed your own opinion based on other peoples opinions, speculations, theories and facts. Other people also have opinions, possibly based on the same sources as you, that differ greatly from your opinions.

Then after all this, you want the developers of this Video Game to take into account various facts, and your opinion, and the opinions of hundreds of other people, and incorporate them into, what was it someone said, 2D sprites. You see my point. The fact that i happen to agree with your opinions does not negate the facts that they are just opinions and that they have no place on this forum. there must be a balnce betwen realism, historical accuracy (if there is such a thing) and most of all gameplay. if the game has a historical base but is fun, then why does it need to incoporate horrific amounts of historical accuracy, then also you go into the human psychi, which is ridiculous, because no-one especially not you, can possibly begin to imagine wot was going through each individuals mind at any point during the course of a battle 400 years ago. Not only is all that you ask for impossible in a game with current technology, but even if they did incorporate your opinion of events, they would most likely upset someone just as knowledgable, but with different opinions to yourself.

So lighten up on the condescending tones, if u wish to discuss on these forums then do so, if u wish to dismiss everyone of a different opinion to yourself then do not bother posting at all.

-Fury

Khan7

08-21-2001, 05:25

Quote Originally posted by RageFury:
To be honest i think its better just to accept it as it is...u know a GAME...if u dont like an aspect by all means say so. I enough people say so then Target and ther others will do something about it.

Quoting textbooks on history.trying to assume that you know wot men on a battlefield were thinking 400 years ago is stupid.

Khan despite all your studying mate u quite frankly dont KNOW anything. It is all corrupted, secondary sources and speculation. We also tend to remember legendary traits more than we do routs and cowardice. Fact of the matter is that they were human.humans are highly unpredictable and u dont know wot any one person would have been thinking.

So give the high and mighty tone a rest until u find a way to read minds and travel through time.
People that assume they KNOW things because they have read a textbook really annoy me and a lot of others here it seems.

I would say that no-one alive today is actually qualified to comment on mediaval Japanese peoples psychi..cos we just dont know. plain and simple.

-Fury[/QUOTE]

Gooooood LORD. I try and back away from some of my previous attitudes, and you people keep pressing me into shit like this. Well how am I supposed to respond to a post like Ragefury's? Turn the other cheek and keep on groveling based on a few unwise comments I made a week ago on 5 hours of sleep? When someone takes a *yes* condescending and superior attitude to *me*, which, if you pay attention, Ragefury did, I am fully empowered to respond in kind. Plus the fact that none of my comments since my day of rants have come anywhere near even needing a warning. If I respond sharply to someone who has insulted me, that's my right. If I respond bluntly to someone who comes in here and pulls a half-penny comment out of their butthole and expects it to debunk my well thought-through and somewhat lenghthy analysis of something, that is only deserved!

The only possibility I can think of that would make people think they have the right to defame me in this way is that they feel I should still be hanging my head for past bad behavior. Well, that's a judgement call, but frankly I barely ever grovel and if so not for long, so get used to it.

------------------
Khan7

Lord Aeon

08-21-2001, 05:42

Y'know, Khan, you don't HAVE to respond to everything people say about you. It might do more to end this whole thing if you left it all alone. You haven't exactly made the best of impressions on most of the folks here.

And yes, i appreciate the irony of my saying this as well. Just trying to help end this. So please, all of you, let's drop it, eh?

------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

Anssi Hakkinen

08-21-2001, 05:53

I would indeed strongly suggest you drop it.

Because this discussion is no longer interesting or fascinating, nor is it really even a discussion anymore. This thread does not need a single post more about "condescending attitudes" or "groveling", and should such a post appear, I will be forced to resolve that the thread has exhausted its usefulness and close it without further ado. If you have something to apologize for, you know it, I'm not here to judge people. All I'm saying is that if all those people who should apologize don't start getting around to it, I see no reason for this thread's existence.

This is your absolutely final warning, gentlemen. If you intend to fit in in the Sword Dojo, try to be samurai about it.

And yes, I deleted a post by Yoko Kono - it contained two f-words, the words "obnoxious, insensitive and unsociable", the phrase "get a life", and was otherwise as if custom-engineered to draw my wrath. Please don't post such posts again. Anywhere.

Yoko Kono

08-21-2001, 06:06

Quote Originally posted by Anssi Hakkinen:
...And yes, I deleted a post by Yoko Kono - it contained two f-words, the words "obnoxious, insensitive and unsociable", the phrase "get a life", and was otherwise as if custom-engineered to draw my wrath. Please don't post such posts again. Anywhere.[/QUOTE]

It was intended to draw your wrath
this thread needs closing
And such language shall not be heard from me again

*hangs head in shame*

Yoko

Lord Aeon

08-21-2001, 06:07

Well, let me be the first to apologize for any un-samurai-like attitudes i may have shown. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Sorry, folks, no harm intended.

LOL, make that the SECOND to apologize.
------------------
"You have offended my family, and you have offended a Shaolin temple."

[This message has been edited by Lord Aeon (edited 08-21-2001).]

Khan7

08-21-2001, 06:32

As long as we're all apologizing, do I need to apologize again? What the hell, why not. I'M SORRY PEOPLE! I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHY OR HOW, BUT I AM!

LOL, glad to be done with this thread :-P

------------------
Khan7

Zen Blade

08-21-2001, 13:13

Frankly Khan7,

You are a disturbance. You are blatantly crude and rude. You abuse other patrons and never seem to think through other people's arguments and rarily, if ever, respect someone who has an opinion that differs from you.

Now, I'm not saying, "Khan7, don't ever post again". BUT I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU TONE DOWN YOUR POSTS AND start to act in a respectable manner. This is a forum for mature individuals. This is a forum where those with honor and opinions meet to discuss things of interest and importance.

SWEAR WORDS ARE EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. THIS INCLUDES "shit" or "Fuck"... ocassional use of these words may not be commented upon, but continued and blatant use of them is frowned down upon by all people here at the dojo.

I ask you to please restrain from using such language so consistantly.

If someone insults you (RageFury was cutting it close), please just try to ignore them or reply back in such a manner that shows you have been insulted BUT do not try to insult them back.

If you feel my requests are inappropriate, please explain to me why you should not have to follow the rules that everyone else does... I am willing to listen, but may not agree with you. (btw, just so you know, I am not the moderator here in this forum and am attempting to talk to you in a patron-to-patron fashion).

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG
Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
SHS Core Member

[This message has been edited by Zen_Blade (edited 08-21-2001).]