Proficiency vs. Commitment

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

Suppose Unit Proficiency were split up into two parameters: Unit Skill (still named Proficiency but a measure of how well trained the unit was) and Unit Commitment (how ready to die for the cause the unit was).

Skill (aka Proficiency) would primarily determine combat strength as the old, combined, parameter did. It would be increased by experience (and perhaps training). Seeing the Elephant would still scramble it, though, for green units.

Commitment would determine morale for purposes of breaking off/retreating/reorganizing/routing from combat and recovery from reorganization/routing. It would not be increased by experience (or training). Seeing the Elephant would still scramble it.

My question is: Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure. If you have a unit with high Skill but low Commitment, should its combat strength be the same as a unit with high skill and high commitment? If it should have an impact, how much of one? 3xSkill + 1xCommitment, for example?

Think of forces that had very low commitment but moderate proficiency (Italians), very high commitment but high proficiency (Japanese), high commitment but low proficiency (Soviets), etc.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
cathar1244
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 am

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by cathar1244 »

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".

A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.

2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)

I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better, -but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).

Cheers
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".

A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.

2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)

I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better, -but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).


Cheers

Proficiency is the skill with which something is used. It's training. It has nothing to do with commitment. That is something entirely different. Leaders, morale, bravery, losses, poor supply, none of it has anything to do with how bad or good training is. I can become an expert rifleman and who my leader is, what country I was born in, what my supply level is will make zero difference in that. I will still be expert with a rifle until I'm unable to use it. ie, dead or incapacitated.

Instead of splitting something that does not need splitting just add in morale. 1x1 as suggested and scenario designer adjustable would be best.

How will this play out regarding the way morale is arrived at now? Personally I prefer the way it's handled in the Panzer Campaign series where morale is a known value and isn't some value hidden behind a vague definition. So I know what the morale is and then it's affected by all the magicary of the game. Currently:
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Proficiency,
Supply Level, and Readiness.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

Well, Napoleon wrote something like, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one".

Right. But was he right? And was he talking about every aspect of war or just the tactical resolution of an attack?
A couple of suggestions:

1. Any morale / commitment rating should be subject to influence by the introduction of leaders you intend to make to the game.

Right. Charisma will do just that.
2. Morale / commitment ratings should be subject to change by the use of events (Berlin has fallen. All German units take a 50% hit to commitment ratings.)

Agree, but that may have to wait down the road a bit.
I think a 1:1 ratio between proficiency and commitment would be better,

You mean for combat strength? That's a significant influence. More than I figured.
-but- the commitment rating would take hits because of lackluster leaders, poor supply, and the ratio of available equipment to assigned equipment (commitment hurt by heavy losses).

All of those do or will have impact.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Proficiency is the skill with which something is used. It's training. It has nothing to do with commitment. That is something entirely different. Leaders, morale, bravery, losses, poor supply, none of it has anything to do with how bad or good training is. I can become an expert rifleman and who my leader is, what country I was born in, what my supply level is will make zero difference in that. I will still be expert with a rifle until I'm unable to use it. ie, dead or incapacitated.

Right. As I said, experience and training will only impact proficiency, not commitment.
Instead of splitting something that does not need splitting just add in morale. 1x1 as suggested and scenario designer adjustable would be best.

We already have morale, but it depends upon proficiency. That will change to commitment. This is another vote for 1:1 ratio of the two for combat strength?
How will this play out regarding the way morale is arrived at now? Personally I prefer the way it's handled in the Panzer Campaign series where morale is a known value and isn't some value hidden behind a vague definition. So I know what the morale is and then it's affected by all the magicary of the game.

I thought the formula was out there. If not, it will be. Just with proficiency replaced by commitment.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure.
I definitely think that units with high "commitment" should be more deadly. In the attack, they will press the attack and be less likely to get pinned by the first sniper shot or mortar round. In defense, they will be less likely to cower in their foxholes, etc. If you're pinned or cowering, you're not going to kill anybody... I would think of "Proficiency" as a unit's ability to kill the enemy, and Morale as their willingness to risk their own lives to do so. IMHO, it seems clear that someone less willing to risk their own life to kill the enemy is less likely to kill the enemy.

I'm not sure about how much weight it should be given; I would guess less than Proficiency, but still something significant. 25%? Let me think about it...

Also, why not call a spade a spade and just call it "Morale" instead of commitment? Not a big deal, but I would suggest "Morale". You can keep Proficiency as Proficiency.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: 76mm
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Should Commitment still be a factor in determining combat strength? Does bravery make a unit more deadly?

My initial take was that it doesn't. But now I'm not so sure.
I definitely think that units with high "commitment" should be more deadly. In the attack, they will press the attack and be less likely to get pinned by the first sniper shot or mortar round. In defense, they will be less likely to cower in their foxholes, etc. If you're pinned or cowering, you're not going to kill anybody... I would think of "Proficiency" as a unit's ability to kill the enemy, and Morale as their willingness to risk their own lives to do so. IMHO, it seems clear that someone less willing to risk their own life to kill the enemy is less likely to kill the enemy.

I'm not sure about how much weight it should be given; I would guess less than Proficiency, but still something significant. 25%? Let me think about it...

So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.
Also, why not call a spade a spade and just call it "Morale" instead of commitment? Not a big deal, but I would suggest "Morale". You can keep Proficiency as Proficiency.

We already have morale, and it's more complex than commitment - influenced by losses and health, etc.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.
3:1 sounds best to me, but since it so subjective, I suppose that 4:1 would be OK as well. 2:1 would be too much IMHO.
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Right. As I said, experience and training will only impact proficiency, not commitment.


I thought the formula was out there. If not, it will be. Just with proficiency replaced by commitment.

Here you are obfuscating things. It can't be both.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Lobster »

Ah, so you mean something like this:

8.2.4. Unit Morale
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Commitment,
Supply Level, and Readiness. Regardless of actual
Commitment, Supply Level or Readiness, Morale can
be no lower than 10% and no higher than 100%. This
value is multiplied by the raw equipment Strengths
to calculate the actual effective Strengths of the unit.

Is there anyplace where someone can look at a unit and say, 'ah, that's what the moral is right now'? I don't recall.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: 76mm
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
So...4:1? That's really all this thread is about. Edit: Actually, that would be 3:1, just as I was pushing.
3:1 sounds best to me, but since it so subjective, I suppose that 4:1 would be OK as well. 2:1 would be too much IMHO.

Aye. Let the scenario designer decide where it should be.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Ah, so you mean something like this:

8.2.4. Unit Morale
This is a weighted average of a unit’s Commitment,
Supply Level, and Readiness. Regardless of actual
Commitment, Supply Level or Readiness, Morale can
be no lower than 10% and no higher than 100%. This
value is multiplied by the raw equipment Strengths
to calculate the actual effective Strengths of the unit.

That, I believe, is the formula for combat strength, regardless of calling it morate.

A "Morale Check" tests a slightly different formula. That's what will have proficiency replaced by commitment.

The above will become more complex as proficiency is merged with commitment in whatever ratio gets finalized.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
JTFox001
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:39 pm

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by JTFox001 »

Just my opinion.

Two unit's with the the same level of training and equipment are equally deadly at the initial point of attack regardless of commitment.

How the units reattract to taking casualties is where commitment can impact further attacks. Isn't this handled by a "Quality Check" and "Unit Loss Tolerance Orders"?

Commitment can be effected by a number of things:-

1. Professional full time army vs a conscript army.
2. Unit moral.
3. Leadership.
4. Fanaticism.

The list could go on.

Cheers

There is only one principle of war and that's this.

Hit the other fellow, as quickly as you can, as hard as you can, where it hurts him most, when he ain't lookin'.

William Slim
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: JTFox001

Just my opinion.

Two unit's with the the same level of training and equipment are equally deadly at the initial point of attack regardless of commitment.

So...a vote for 1:0.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4692
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: JTFox001
How the units reattract to taking casualties is where commitment can impact further attacks. Isn't this handled by a "Quality Check" and "Unit Loss Tolerance Orders"?
I don't really agree wit this...units begin taking casualties immediately, so I don't think you can separate the "initial point of attack" from the actual battle.

And "Quality Checks" and "Loss Tolerance" settings seem to cover different things, IMO. Quality Checks check, well, Unit Quality, which is based on Proficiency and Readiness...from the manual it looks like Quality Checks are generally used as an indicia of unit organization/disorganization more than commitment/motivation. And I have always thought that Loss Tolerance orders were what I ordered my troops to do, but their ability and willingness to obey those orders would in turn depend on their "commitment", etc.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7107
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Zovs »

Why use weird and non-sensical war gaming terms like "commitment" it means nothing to me. But morale, firepower, training, proficiency, and fatigue make much more sense.

If your going to change things then make it right.

Proficiency and Morale make more sense.

Commitment sounds like your trying to decide to get married or not to a female (or male).
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Why use weird and non-sensical war gaming terms like "commitment" it means nothing to me. But morale, firepower, training, proficiency, and fatigue make much more sense.

If your going to change things then make it right.

Proficiency and Morale make more sense.

Commitment sounds like your trying to decide to get married or not to a female (or male).
commitment
[kəˈmitmənt]
NOUN
the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause...
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Lobster »

Without pulling out a scientific calculator how will a player know the moral of a unit at any given moment?

commitment
[kəˈmitmənt]
NOUN
the state of insanity of being dedicated to a woman... [:D]
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn’t come back?
A: A stick.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 7107
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Zovs »

Morale

noun
the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
"their morale was high"
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13090
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Proficiency vs. Commitment

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Morale

noun
the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time.
"their morale was high"
Exactly: It depends upon circumstances: Food, rest, light losses, good leaders, etc.

Commitment is more fundamental.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”