Morale Ratings for Danube 85

[Tbird3]

Howdy folks, I am currently playing a team game of D85 and I am trying to come to terms on how the morale ratings were chosen for this game. There are signifcant WP forces that are B and C morale and yet when I look at several of the American Divisions they are C morale. I am not trying to be Nationalistic here but I can't help but wonder what the rationale was in selecting these morale ratings. I can understand if this was done for purely playability reasons or is there something I am missing? I was ,and still am, in the US Army during this timeframe and and have since had the opportunity to work with both Russian trained troops and Russian built equipment. The significance of the difference between long term serving volunteers versus short term conscripts cannot be underestimated. I cannot make this leap, help me understand. If this has been been fought out before, sorry. Thanks.

Tbird3

[Volcano Man]

That is a good question. I think the answer is in the designers notes document though, or at least I recall seeing it there but I don't recall what the reason was. I would say the main reason is play balance, but I think it said something to do with the lasting effects of the toll the Vietnam War took on the military which was probably not fully recovered until the late 80s, early 90s. Whether this is true or not is something else, but I think it just has to do with balance and then justifying the change.

[alaric99x]

In the early 1970's the Army was kind of a mess. Lots of drug use and poor discipline. The Army went fully professional in 1973, the draft was eliminated and recovery from the Vietnam syndrome began in earnest. By 1980, the Army had recovered its professionalism.

I experienced this transformation and I would say that morale, as of the late 1970's, was very high, up until I retired and on until the present time.

[Bigwig]

Whether this is true or not is something else, but I think it just has to do with balance and then justifying the change.

Yes, based on the historical performance of actual Warsaw Pact-trained and equipped armies, a realistic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact confrontation would have been a disaster for the Pact. If there's going to be a game, there have to be compromises, and I guess they thought it was better to yeild on "soft" factors like morale.

[Zemke]

I have some questions about the design thought process.
1. Is unit speed a reflection of acutal speed of the unit with in a given time frame, or a rather a reflection of planning processes and ability to make decisions in a timely manner?
2. Next why do Attack Helo units have a zone of control at all. They could never hold the ground, the effects of the fires from the unit would be enough.

Another question about artillery. I noticed the US MRLS has a one point adantage over an 8"in artillery unit in effects on soft targets. This seems very low compared to the real fire power differences in the two systems. MRLS can cover such a large area with just one rocket and everything in that area if hit. Depending on the number of rounds fired by an eight inch battery, it could easily cover the same area with fire, but I don't think the eight inch unit would be as efficent.

Infantry/Artillery/ question, infantry in trenchs seem to take a losses easily, which is reasonable on the first few rounds as no one would be under cover, but after everyone would be diving for their fighting positions with over head cover. Anyway it seems pretty easy to "break" infantry units with artillery. Now, if infantry are in the open or not dug in, then yes I could see the current loss rate and frankly feel it should be even higher. Artillery is the biggest killer of infantry who are not dug in.

[Glenn Saunders]

I have some questions about the design thought process.
1. Is unit speed a reflection of acutal speed of the unit with in a given time frame, or a rather a reflection of planning processes and ability to make decisions in a timely manner?

It is no different than any PzC\MC Game - it is not how fast a truck or a tank can move at max or even Average speed - it builds in a lot of "Hurry up and wait". So we recognize that 10km/hr for a truck on a modern West German highway may seem low - but it works.

2. Next why do Attack Helo units have a zone of control at all. They could never hold the ground, the effects of the fires from the unit would be enough.

Because without a ZOC a gamey player would dance to take the shots away and then move passed these units "thumbing their noses at them". Has nothing to do with holding ground - more how you would like to drive down a road where fire could be covered buy these units.

Another question about artillery. I noticed the US MRLS has a one point adantage over an 8"in artillery unit in effects on soft targets. This seems very low compared to the real fire power differences in the two systems. MRLS can cover such a large area with just one rocket and everything in that area if hit. Depending on the number of rounds fired by an eight inch battery, it could easily cover the same area with fire, but I don't think the eight inch unit would be as efficent.

Sorry - I don't see the question here but from your statement I think you are thinking in terms of tactical fire and not any sustained fire over a three hour period - which might not be constant over the entire period either.

Infantry/Artillery/ question, infantry in trenchs seem to take a losses easily, which is reasonable on the first few rounds as no one would be under cover, but after everyone would be diving for their fighting positions with over head cover. Anyway it seems pretty easy to "break" infantry units with artillery. Now, if infantry are in the open or not dug in, then yes I could see the current loss rate and frankly feel it should be even higher. Artillery is the biggest killer of infantry who are not dug in.

Again - I don't see the question but let me assure you that "infantry in trenchs" don't take any more or less losses than any other Unit. The docs say:

"Like IP’s they (TRENCH MARKERS) benefit all units (men, gun, and vehicles) and offer the best protection that units can create during play."

...so the only difference is - in math terms 10 men = 1 gun or vehicle and FRACTIONS ARE ROUNDED DOWN, so if anything MAN units might have a slight advantage over Guns and Vehicles. But there is nothing that code does to treat Inf or even MEN units differently.

The Disruption and break code is based on the Fatigue built up - nothing different for Inf or men. People have suggested that HQs were treated differently but it is not the case.

Glenn

[Glenn Saunders]

Whether this is true or not is something else, but I think it just has to do with balance and then justifying the change.

Ed - FWIW, I can't recall anything like this was done for play balance. That is to make NATO Weaker overall I mean. But we didn't think uniform quality for all units of a nation with as many units as the US in this game was correct either.

Now I didn''t set the values myself - nor do I recall the US all being all C quality - first unit I checked was 3rd Armored Div and 1st Bde is all B's - 2nd Bde is C's.

Half the Arty in the DIv are Bs and the ADA is B. The Cav is a B and there is even an A quality in the Choppers.

This isn't to say we had info that 2nd Bde was not as good - but we simply didn't think every US unit should be a B - nor should they all be C's either.

Glenn

[Tbird3]

[/quote]

Ed - FWIW, I can't recall anything like this was done for play balance. That is to make NATO Weaker overall I mean. But we didn't think uniform quality for all units of a nation with as many units as the US in this game was correct either.

Now I didn''t set the values myself - nor do I recall the US all being all C quality - first unit I checked was 3rd Armored Div and 1st Bde is all B's - 2nd Bde is C's.

Half the Arty in the DIv are Bs and the ADA is B. The Cav is a B and there is even an A quality in the Choppers.

This isn't to say we had info that 2nd Bde was not as good - but we simply didn't think every US unit should be a B - nor should they all be C's either.

Glenn
[/quote]

Glenn, absolutely agree that all units are not of a uniform quality. My issue is in comparison to the WP units. I can't see how the WP units which had limited training and a short serving conscript army could possibly ever be better than a generally well trained long serving all volunteer force. Especially at the start of the conflict. I think that over time the darwin effect will begin to balance out the differences between the armies. However, historically this tends to be shown over months and years versus weeks. My personal experience with most of the NATO forces were generally very good with very few exceptions. The West Germans, while a conscript force, had a strong professional NCO and Officer Corps. The Soviets never really were able to produce the western equivalent of the NCO corps. This reason alone makes me very leery of WP divisions of being such high quality. If the morale ratings were not a concious decision for playability then what was the rationale for WP units better than American/NATO forces? Thanks.

Tbird3

P.S. Someday I will figure out the quote thingy!

[Glenn Saunders]

If the morale ratings were not a concious decision for playability then what was the rationale for WP units better than American/NATO forces?

Marc Bellizzi who spent a lot of time on unit values with me adds these notes,

+++++

US morale is a reflection of the post Vietnam syndrome/low readiness of the late 70’s/early 80’s, mixed with the massive changes of the Reagan years that culminated in the “Army of Excellence (AOE)”.

What players will find is that US units that field the newer equipment have the better (B) morale; the M60/M113 units predominately retain a ‘C’. This method was meant to reflect that the newer equipped units began to receive the better, longer and more developed training that AOE was all about - AirLand Battle, etc. This is not to say the M60/M113 units didn’t start to get better training; however, elements of the Army were still suffering the post 70’s malaise and I had to draw a line somewhere, so new equipped units got a B, most others a C (there are some exceptions to ‘spice it up’ but that is the general rule).

As far as the WP, what you will find is again a varied mix. Soviet units are predominately C morale. The exceptions are again units with newer equipment, and units that were ‘touted’ (and probably brainwashed to a degree) by the Red Army as the vanguard. 8th Army & 3rd Shock come to mind. While we know the Reds did not get the level of training NATO units did, these units in particular got the cream of the crop of troops, weapons and training. You’ll notice however that the Soviets are NOT nearly as weighted to B as they were in other titles; evidence just does not support that. Also realize that there has to be some play balance involved; if we really gave the Reds all D’s, would we have a playable game – so I wrote the build up to war synopsis to give the aegis that the Red propaganda machine was lambasting the troops with the party line, and the rank and file were whipping them into a frenzy of training.

The non-Soviet WP units tended to be a mix of the two extremes. You have the Czechs who didn’t really ‘toe the line’ nor have the stomach to want war and are thus a lot of ‘D’s; the Poles fit this bill as well since they were going through the whole Solidarity issue; but you have the DDR Volksarmee that was probably as fanatical a force as the SS of World War Two. Those guys certainly deserved B’s, and I would argue some of the more specialized units could warrant an A.

Finally, I consulted Col. David Glantz (ret) who wrote the US bible on what the Army thought the Soviets’ composition, disposition, strength and potential courses of action would be. It is his plan that the Grand Campaign is based on (that the 3rd Shock is the main effort, not the forces going through the Fulda Gap). He actually felt that the WP units were better than where I ended up putting them, and recommended the Russians be predominately B’s, so that gives you an idea of how subjective this whole debate is.

Regarding unit speeds, I actually redid all the speeds; I went to a combination of Wikipedia and any official sources I could find and tried to simply use the cross country speed of each vehicle system as a basis for unit speeds. This is an arbitrary measure, but when used across the board, it keeps things equal. There are probably some errors, but I think it fits the bill of what we need at this scale.

MLRS vs 8 Inch: the issue with this is that the MLRS fired in what were called “SPLLs” (shots of 6 or 12 at a time) which is actually the M269 LLM rocket pod. A vehicle carried 1 SPLL. While there were additional SPLLs in the supply chain, the problem in this game becomes thus; a MLRS can in theory fire every turn, 3 shots per turn. In a 45 turn game that equates to 135 shots per MLRS unit. Granted, that is at the extreme end, but even half this number is over 70 shots. There weren’t that many SPLL’s in the entire US inventory let alone USAEUR. So to ‘level out’ the fact that one SPLL can demolish a grid square, we made a compromise; we toned down the individual strikes, but net-net at game end you will find the MLRS kills more than an 8”. You just don’t really see it per-se in the shot that you fire. There was no way to make the MLRS unit only fire X number of shots before removal from the game. The system either has fully capable fire, or single use, so this was the compromise.

Hope this helps a bit.

++++

.... so you see - not something we did for play balance and obviously not something that can be proven with absolutes. It what we thought was best with the info we had.

There were a lot of OOB adjustments during this game and ultimately we knew that at some point someone would ask why is thing you a 7 and not an 8, or why is one unit a C vs. a B.

And we knew we could never answer these definatively.

Glenn

[Zemke]

Thanks Glen for you last explaination, it answered the thought process you went through. I appreciate the response to my MRLS/8 inch question and it makes sense.

I have to strongly disagree with the moral ratings of the US Forces used in the game. I served during that time period and currently do, and think the US Army of 1985 was in many ways superior to the force prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Discliple was tight, moral was excellent, and there was far less BS then, than now. I also think there was record recruiting through out the 80s, but I have not researched this. Bottom line if anything, the professional US Army of the 80s was superior to it's NATO counterparts from personal observations. A lot of the NATO conscripts just didn't seem to really care like we did. I realize this is all subjective and my own opinion.

I understand the way the movement was calculated. I tend to think of movement at this level, as not representative of the speed of a particular vehicle, but rather the ability to make decisions in a timely manner and execute. If this system or thought process were used I think the German Army would have the higher movement ratings closely followed by the British and US. The Warsaw Pact Commanders would not have the same Operational flexibiltiy as NATO forces and certainly not the tactical flexibilty given their system of "Reaction by Battle Drill", which does give a level of tactical speed, but is pretty predictiable.

I have had many late night discussions about the former Soviet Army with other US Officers while pondering our own fate in Afghanistan or Iraq. To a man, all who served during that time feel, given what we know now about Soviet equipment and doctrine and performance, an invasion of West Germany during the 80's would have been a crushing defeat for the WP. Now the 1970s is a different story.

I guess with the editor we can do what we want anyway, which is a good thing, as we all see the world in a different light, depending on where we stand.