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

Allan Goodall 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!

True.... but it still doesn't deal with the fact that the two are
separate 
issues.  A unit with poor training but experience MAY be better than a 
trained unit with no experience, but there has to be a point where a 
lopsided difference in training and discipline will outweigh a less
lopsided 
difference in experience, and vice versa.  Plus, two units with equal 
training will be weighed based on differences in experience, and again
vice 
versa.

> >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.

I was thinking that would be the case.	Veterans would be less likely to

panic when things weren't as bad as they seem, but more likely to
recognize 
it's time to get while the getting's good.

>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.

All the more reason BOTH training and experience should be factored 
individually
> >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.

I know they won't be, IRL, that's why I added the Caveat "FOR
ARGUEMENT".  I 
probably shouldn't have used RL units as the example.

>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.

Yes, with similar skills and tactical knowledge.

>I'll take that as a given...

Thank you.

> >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.

Maybe we can fix that...

> >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.

Unless, as you mentioned, it lost it's leader.

>It would most likely go through a
>"suppression" result.

That sounds like an issue of SG terms vs DS terms.  There is no 
"Suppression" result in DS.

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!

Thanks, I'll consider them when I do the homework.

Brian B2

_________________________________________________________________