Re: In A Perfect Game: SG/DS/RPG's - Experience Vs. Training

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 13:00:58 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Notice that unit quality seems to be more a 
>reflection of experience than training.

Depending on the war, that -- historically -- has been the case. We have
the
infamous cases in World War II of Russian tankers thrown into tanks
after 72
hours of training, we have World War I British pilots taking to the air
with
as little as 2 hours flying time (and less!), and these are in eras
where they
bothered to train the soldiers in the first place!

>Now, I will admit that experience is more important - at least, that's
what 
>I've been told by everyone who's "Seen the Elephant", and I trust their

>judgement.  But the underlying training is also important.  The
question is 
>HOW important?  Is a veteran unit with no training better than a green
unit 
>with Elite training?  Who is better in battle - a green graduate of
BUDS or 
>Hereford, or a 3rd world milita vet who's managed to stay alive against

>other rabble for months or years? and how is this reflected? 

Oh, this gets to be a VERY complex issue. One thing few game systems
ever
model is that veteran troops have a tendency to not want to fight. They
have
learned how to survive. A recent issue of North and South magazine
termed the
situation during the American Civil War in 1864 as "quiet mutiny", where
everything from companies to whole regiments would spontaneously go to
ground
when ordered into the attack. Veterans of many a fruitless and bloody
charge,
they simply refused to go forward. Green troops just don't do this...

Modelling it in a game is difficult. For my ACW version of Stargrunt, I
did an
equivalent of a Panic test, but with the numbers sort of inverted so
that
Veterans are more likely to fail than regulars.

To get back to the question of training versus experience, nothing
compares to
the experience of combat. No matter how well trained, you will never
know how
you'll feel when a shell takes off the top of your best friend's head
until it
happens. However, where training comes in are in those moments when you
act by
instinct. When fear grips and your mind goes numb (due to, for instance,
your
best friend losing most of his head), your mind blindly follows its
neural
pathways. Intense training means that you'll end up following how you
were
trained. You'll discover later that you DID go to ground the way you
were
taught, you DID lay down suppressing fire, and you DID move as you were
taught, even though you weren't conscious of it.

Training, intense training, is one of the things that came out of
studies into
the Second World War. Modern weaponry has gotten pretty complex, too,
which
requires more training just to operate it effectively. There's also more
of a
need to be "combat ready" at a drop of a hat today, and training methods
are
the only way to get close to that.

>Let's imagine a conflict involving the US Army.  Let's further imagine
2 US 
>units entering a battle in this conflict.  One unit is Elite - Say
Rangers - 
>but green.  They've never seen battle, but they have exquisite
training.  
>Let's say the other unit is a regular light infantry unit.  They have
less 
>elite training, but they've been in combat for a while, and so when
their 
>experience is factored in, they're comparable in fighting ability to
the 
>Ranger Unit (for arguement).  

Well, that's the problem, they won't be. Depending on what you mean by
"fighting ability", you'll find that the Rangers still have an edge.
They are
more proficient at more weapons, in different terrain, in different
tactics.
They have had intensive training in things the other unit will never
have,
even with all their experience.

The other fallacy is that all combat at the squad level is the same. It
isn't.
Some troops are intended to take positions, some for holding positions,
and
some are intended to work in reconnaissance. Each type of troop will
fight,
even at the squad level, in a different way. There are common tactics
employed, but they will be done differently. This is one reason you
can't
equate different types of troops. This is also one reason you can't just
fill
depleted Ranger units with men from experienced combat units.

But I see what you're saying. You're suggesting, for instance, that both
units
are put into a similar tactical situation with similar tactical
requirements.
I'll take that as a given...

>Thanks to a good R&R, strong leadership, etc., 
>their morale is also just as high as the Ranger unit's.  The question
is, 
>when these two units come into contact with enemy fire, despite having
the 
>same "Quality" and morale, will their reactions be the same?

There are a lot of factors to say which would be more effective. Yes,
they
would be probably equally effective, though with different deviations
from the
norm. The Rangers may freeze, particularly if they lose a leader. On the
other
hand, their training may kick in and they may not be as scared as they
really
"should" be, and they could be far more effective. During D-Day, for
instance,
many of the units were deliberately chosen for not being experienced as
they
were less likely to go to ground when the fighting started. They were
excellently trained.

The problem seemed to be one of leadership. Inexperienced troops, when
they
lost a leader, had a hard time recovering from that. They would hang
around
not knowing what to do. If someone grabbed them and moved them, then
they
would move heaven and earth, but they needed someone to tell them. This
is
seen in the ACW right on up, but it's particularly noticable during
D-Day. 

This leadership question is sort of used in the games, but not as
"accurately"
as it could be.

>I know the panic rule deals with part of this, but IIRC, it applies to 
>"Green" units only.  However, since any unit above "Green" are
considered to 
>be experienced, this does not allow for better trained but
inexperienced 
>units to experience the same effects.	If I'm remembering incorrectly, 
>please remind me.

That's correct, though it's unlikely that a well trained unit would
"panic"
regardless of its state of experience. It would most likely go through a
"suppression" result. To model this for specific scenarios, I'd let the
quality indicate training and maybe have a "panic" test resulting in
extra
suppression counters when a unit is first fired upon, if they are
inexperienced by greater than Green.

>Either way, I'm wondering if maybe the dual designation of both
experience 
>AND quality might not be a plausible house rule.  Thoughts?

I think that might be a good idea, if you want to model that. My
suggestion is
above!

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@att.net
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan,