Psychology of Combat, a little off topic

[hkdharmon]

This is a pseudo-reply to a very old article, who's author suggested that no games take into account he psychology of combat.
Not true I say, there is :
The Riddle of Steel (a fine game that you should all buy many copies of, give one to your mom): where you do not know if the other guy is going to kill you or hesitate, ala red and white die.
Godlike: Super-powers in WWII, they have the "only 10% of soldiers fire in real combat" rule in a supplement. Blow the roll, and spend the combat shooting into the air.
Unknown Armies: The skills are ridiculously hard to succeed at, specifically to model how hard it is to do anything right while someone is trying to kill you.

Now does anyone have any suggstions to add to TROS combat psychology issues, or will it be in TFOB?
Another cool thing about TROS, is the fact that the player's (not the character's) psychology is taken into account with the red/white die initiative and choice of maneuvers and dice etc.

Aaron

[Sir Mathodius Black]

I think you hit the mark there regarding the psychological effect being on the player and not the character.  Because ROS is a game where your characters will die if you dont play your cards right, the psychological "fear" is with the player deciding whether the risks the character is taking are worth it.
I dont think any dice or mechanics can accurately simulate fear like that, so just leave it to the player.

[Salamander]

This is a pseudo-reply to a very old article, who's author suggested that no games take into account he psychology of combat.
Not true I say, there is :
The Riddle of Steel (a fine game that you should all buy many copies of, give one to your mom): where you do not know if the other guy is going to kill you or hesitate, ala red and white die.
Godlike: Super-powers in WWII, they have the "only 10% of soldiers fire in real combat" rule in a supplement. Blow the roll, and spend the combat shooting into the air.
Unknown Armies: The skills are ridiculously hard to succeed at, specifically to model how hard it is to do anything right while someone is trying to kill you.

Now does anyone have any suggstions to add to TROS combat psychology issues, or will it be in TFOB?
Another cool thing about TROS, is the fact that the player's (not the character's) psychology is taken into account with the red/white die initiative and choice of maneuvers and dice etc.

Aaron

Hrm...

I have a confession to make.

1). I was in the service of EIIR in the Army.

2). I have been involved in situations where there were bullets in the air.

3). I study German Swordsmanship covering Lichtenauer and Talhoffer with some Mayer and Doebringer thrown in for good measure.

When I was in the Army I never noticed any of my men shooting off into the air, they were intent upon shooting those shooting at them.

In regards to a white die indicating hesitation, I have to disagree. It merely indicates that your opponent is waiting for you to make the first move. Since I became a scholar of the longsword I have never hesitated. I may have floundered, but not hesitated.

[Tom]

When I was in the Army I never noticed any of my men shooting off into the air, they were intent upon shooting those shooting at them.

The ratio has been raised a lot since WW2, mostly due to changes in combat training. Godlike makes a point about telling you just how unlike real combat the training that especially US soldiers went through was.

In fact, many of them may have survived better without any training at all. US army training during WW2 was idiotic, stupid, pointless and so removed from actual combat that those fresh to the front had casualty rates far, far exceeding those of those who had been there even two weeks.

If I recall correctly. The Germans had a more staggered problem. The Volkssturm (citizen drafted during the late stages, often old people or children) was a huge waste of life. The normal army was fairly good, definitely better than the US army. The Waffen SS was on par with any marines or special forces unit today.


For TRoS, I believe the focus should be slightly different. When you are in close combat, adrenaline and survival instinct kick in, and only very few people will hesitate to kill. However, once the rush is over, then you get your psychology problems: "I killed someone."

[Richard_Strey]

I'm fully with Salamander on point 3). If you know where the business-end of your sword is (that is, every end), you won't hesitate in a fight. Deliberately hold back, yes, but not hesitate. Being jumped by a few guys -even in a controlled training environment- can be a different story. You'll have to learn to decide *fast* for this, and that's covered by the surprise tables.

[toli]

I've read of a US Army research done during WWII that suggested that some thing along the following (I don't remember the exact numbers but):

only about 5% of soldiers actively tried to win a fight
15% reacted when attacked or responded to orders
the rest just hoped they didn't die.  

However, the pattern changes a lot with training and experience.  Long service and more 'professional units like the Rangers suffered 3% psychological casualties on the beaches at Normany, while drafted units were more like 40%.  Those numbers were cited by a US Army general as to why there should not be a draft.  

So, Salamanders point...in a modern professional army the training is such that the number are much better...is a good one.


NT

[hkdharmon]

True, the statistics during WWII across all countries was about 15% of soldiers actually fighting.
Advances in combat training has brought that up significantly and it is a different world now. Apparantly, training during and before WWII was not at all like combat, but more like target shooting. Now I understand that live fire exercises, training that involves the sounds and fear of actual explosion, and even the fact that now (I think) practice targets look like people, instead of just being big bulls-eyes, makes a difference. I understand that the british commando schools were instrumental in implementing realistic training.
I guess that if training looks and feels something like combat, the chances that a soldier would just cower or shoot into the air go down considerably.
Now, considering that most hand to hand training involves actually sparring with another, which is somewhat like what the real fight would be like, I wonder whether the same thing holds true in a fantasy setting.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

True, the statistics during WWII across all countries was about 15% of soldiers actually fighting. (SNIP)

Now, considering that most hand to hand training involves actually sparring with another, which is somewhat like what the real fight would be like, I wonder whether the same thing holds true in a fantasy setting.

Hmmm. This is very interesting. I can see now the point you're skillfully working us towards. Were the buts that medieval archers fired at during training "big bulls-eyes" or were they life-like human targets?

By inference they must have been of the big bulls-eye variety. Anyone who has studied the battles of Poitiers and Agincourt knows that 85% of the English archers, like their WWII counterparts, simply fired into the air. Of course they were incredibly lucky when all those arrows just happened to land amongst our cavalry forces.

Vive la France!

[Stephen]

What exactly do we mean by "psychology of combat"?

If it's the idea that the mental trauma of suffering injury can interfere with performance far beyond what the actual physical pain and impairment would account for, you could create a Minor Flaw called "Battleshock".  PCs with Battleshock do not subtract their WP from the Pain of any wounds suffered; if reduced to 0 CP by Pain, they collapse not in agony, but in tears and babbling hysteria.

Battleshock can be bought off for 10 SA points, but only after the subject has fought in at least three "for real" fights -- training and sparring matches don't count.

[hkdharmon]

What exactly do we mean by "psychology of combat"?

What I mean when I say "psychology of combat" is the psychological realities that effect your effectiveness in combat, and your willingness to fight back.
Basically, humans have strong inhibitions against killing each other that have to be overcome before you can kill with great efficiency. We also seem to be really good at overcoming these inhibitions.

There are many strategies for overcoming these inhibitions:
1. Training in a situation that is very combat-like.
2. Dehumanizing the enemy. They are "heathen scum" and not people like you and I. This is one of the purposes of proaganda, and probably the most common and instinctive. One might start thinking of someone as "that bastard" instead of as "Bob" as one works oneself up to hurting someone.
3. Familiarity with combat makes it easier (probably related to #1).
4. The distance to the enemy. It has been shown to be easier to kill someone who is far away, than to kill someone face to face. This may be related to #2 as a person who is at a long distance is somehow less human than someone whose face you can see clearly.
5. Group acceptance and peer pressure. It is easier to kill if everyone else is killing too. The amount of respect you have for the person giving the order to kill has an effect also.
6. Deniability. I suppose that it is easier to attack a person, say as part of a volley of arrows, when you could later deny that you actually killed anyone. If hundreds of arrows were fired simultaneously, and not all of them killed someone, then you can suppose that one of the misses was your arrow. Supposedly, when someone recieves the death penalty, there is always a methos of deniability built into the method, such as, in a firing squad, one of the soldiers being randomly given a gun that has been loaded with blanks and then the whole squad being told that one rifle has blanks, but nobody knows which one. Then you can always think, "maybe I had the blank rounds".
7, I am sure there are lots of others...

I would simply assume that this is part of your CP in any case. You could have two very similar characters who had identical training, but one has a lower CP (through the allocation of proficiencies at character creation) which in part simulates his reduced effectiveness in combat due to one or more of the above factors. As he trains more and gets in more real fights, he could increase his CP to simulate not only increased skill, but increased psychological comfort in a combat situation. Hence there is no real need for a new rule, although I like the "Battleshock" flaw.

If you know where the business-end of your sword is (that is, every end), you won't hesitate in a fight

I am not talking about hesitation here, I am talking about actually trying to hurt or kill those who are attacking you. This is hard to simulate in training as you have an expectation that you are not going to hurt anyone due to safety measures. But I have watched real fights where one person spends all their time simply trying to hold off the other person and never actually fights back, even though they had had some training, and were good and angry, and fully planned to beat the other guy up. There is psychology working there.
In TROS it might look like a guy throwing white at each opportunity, and probably using defensive maneuvers every exchange, even when he had the initiative. He might do a Bind, and then not follow up with a strike. Perhaps a flaw where you have to roll WP to declare a potentially injurious attack would be appropriate, but probably simply fewer total proficiencies would be easier.

I edited this to add a source:
http://www.killology.com/art_psych_resistance.htm

[Tom]

By inference they must have been of the big bulls-eye variety. Anyone who has studied the battles of Poitiers and Agincourt knows that 85% of the English archers, like their WWII counterparts, simply fired into the air. Of course they were incredibly lucky when all those arrows just happened to land amongst our cavalry forces.

I'd say firing into the air (even if you know that it'll come down on someone) is a lot easier than firing directly at someone.

If I recall correctly, machine gunners had less difficulty in the psycho department, and one reason may have been that they spread fire, and very rarely fired at someone directly.


It's a psychology, split-second decision. Fully unconscious. If you have to apply conscious thought to arrive at the "I am killing someone" realization, the inhibition doesn't kick in.

[Salamander]

If I recall correctly, machine gunners had less difficulty in the psycho department, and one reason may have been that they spread fire, and very rarely fired at someone directly.

Actually, I cannot really speak for the machine gunners of WWI, but from WWII on the standard was a well aimed burst of fire rapidly executed and as rapidly moved to the next man in line. This led to a controlled expenditure of ammunition and devastating effects in the enemy ranks. I had one gunner who could take the gimpy and on the bipod hit man sized targets at 700-800m with incredible skill. We got it to the point where he could actually have two bursts of fire headed for two targets in the air before the first burst of fire hit. This way he could actually have engaged four or five targets and put a platoon in a panic in just three seconds.

It's a psychology, split-second decision. Fully unconscious. If you have to apply conscious thought to arrive at the "I am killing someone" realization, the inhibition doesn't kick in.

Fairly close. We used to use man shaped targets either the upper half, the whole body or the top quarter to represent the various positions. If trained well enough, you only see the opponent as a target. A target pops up, you put a round into centre of mass and move under friendly cover fire before the enemy gets you. This makes it easier to shoot them. It seems so surgical and sterile until the shooting actually starts.

[Muggins]

Hi,

True, the statistics during WWII across all countries was about 15% of soldiers actually fighting. (SNIP)

Now, considering that most hand to hand training involves actually sparring with another, which is somewhat like what the real fight would be like, I wonder whether the same thing holds true in a fantasy setting.

Hmmm. This is very interesting. I can see now the point you're skillfully working us towards. Were the buts that medieval archers fired at during training "big bulls-eyes" or were they life-like human targets?

By inference they must have been of the big bulls-eye variety. Anyone who has studied the battles of Poitiers and Agincourt knows that 85% of the English archers, like their WWII counterparts, simply fired into the air. Of course they were incredibly lucky when all those arrows just happened to land amongst our cavalry forces.

Vive la France!

You should remember that besides the archery practice, most medieval archers probably used their bows to hunt with, and so expected to hit what they aimed at. At the same time, the system of sharing the military load meant that a lot of the archers were professional soldiers, as much as anybody was in those days. One man out of four (or one in 6 or 10, depending on district) was an archer, the other three taking care of his lands (and possibly his wife!) while he was on duty.

And the reason for firing up into the air is ballistics- you can send the arrow further. Same principle holds for any artillery... (but of course you could be joking!)

James

[Vagabond Elf]

And at the ranges they started shooting at, trying to hit an individual target was a waste of effort.  Lob the arrow at the formation; if you miss one guy you'll probably hit the one next to you.  Rather like muskets.

As far as WWII goes, the 80-90% of troops who weren't really fighting weren;t shooting into the air, from what I've read.  They weren't shooting at all, just keeping their head down.  Though i've often wondered how much of that was because as .303/.30/7.92mm rifle wasn't very useful at the ranges most fights were at...

Anyway,to the topic - I'd be inclined to not worry too much about it statistically, and make it an RP issue.  Though I would encourage players with Conscience SAs to really think about whether or not they could kill a man.

[Emiricol]

Are those WWII numbers of troops in combat, or of total troops?  Huge difference, if it is a percentage of all troops rather than just a percentage of troops in combat.

As to the longbowmen firing into the air - please provide the source for the claim that most merely fired into the air.  Also, was that the normal firing into the air that packs of archers used to lob a rain of arrows over their own screening forces and onto an enemy formation?