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

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.

hkdharmon wrote: 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

Salamander wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

Hi,

hkdharmon wrote: 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.

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.

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

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

Ian.Plumb wrote:
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.

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.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Hi,

hkdharmon wrote: 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!

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.

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?

Those world war II numbers are contraversial, though I think they were probably pretty close to the truth. There have since been some articles 'debunking' the book that much of this idea is based on.

You can get an idea of the contraversy here:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/chapter2.aspx

However, having looked into this, I think there is truth to the original claims. I believe this is due to two factors, and possibly a third.

#1 the training, which incidentally I think still could use a lot of improvement, even in the Marines. (I do love WMA but don't get the point of all that pike drill / parade marching which I spent something like half my time in bootcamp doing... meanwhile we never did learn to dig foxholes while under artillery fire as I read that the germans taught their troops in WW II)

It's also been speculated that the improvements in training since Korea and Vietnam era (human shaped pop up target silhouetes etc.) have led to a massive increase in the numbers of psychotic

#2 is the nature of combat in WW II. Think about the role of infantry. This isn't like some tom clancy video game. These guys were mainly meant to huddle in a building or some patch of woods somewhere and sit there. Firing at the the enemy would often be scuicidal. Their job was to stay where they were and not run away when the artillery started falling. If enemy forces got near enough to shoot at , it was likely ether an outnumbered enemy force that they could easily slaughter with only 25% of the guys firing, or it was an overwhelming enemy force which was going to wipe them out as soon as they were detected anyway.

There is no point in firing your rifle at a tank, or in the general direction of an unseen artillery spotter.

Generally, U.S. Infantry in World War II had good reasons to cower and hide in their fox holes. Most US combat divisions had around 250% casualty rates from D-Day to VE day, and that would be the units which weren't wiped out (reduced) in combat.

I think machine gunners fired more because they could do more damage, (especially with those ubiquitous .50 cals) and also, heck, it's just fun to shoot a machine gun!

The possible third factor is booze. Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops. Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Booze has been an important part of warfare going way, way back. Like the youthfull madness of being 18 years old, it helps 'motivate'

DB

from the point of view of implementing something about this in a game, I actually think it's an intriguing idea. I've been tinkering with the idea of some morale rules loosely based on the concept of morale as in the old Squad Leader / Advaned Squad leader game.

I thought the players wouldn't like it, but I had a good reactoin in the first few tests. It's another way to make your character feel heroic, if he can stand up to the threat of a fight.

I thought I'd spice it up a bit with some personality archetypes, but thats where I got bogged down.

DB

The possible third factor is booze. Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops. Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Gideon13 wrote:

The possible third factor is booze. Russian and German armies issued booze to their troops. Maybe thats why they convinced them to die in so much greater numbers than us, or the brits, or the canadians.

Actually, a major Soviet motivator was shooting anyone who retreated or who didn't advance quickly enough. The film "Enemy at the Gates" captured this quite well.

Yeah, the stuff the troops went through in WWII on all sides was pretty difficult to fathom. As I just said in another thread my wife's uncle was in the Signal Corps and served with the Marines in the Pacific. He's told me some stuff that I wouldn't belive if it weren't for the fact that I doubt anyone could make it. Stuff like how he got into the wrong landing craft and got seperated from his assigned squand...only to see every one of them ripped apart by a direct hit from a Japanese shell...

Or how he spent most of the war armed only with a camera and a 1911 and wasn't even issued extra clips for the pistol because the SC guys only intended to use one round...they knew how the Japanese treated POWs and had no intention of becoming one!

Crazy stuff that I can't imagine ever doing myself, I have no end of respect for these guys.

Gideon13 wrote:

There were many other armies that didn't go quite as far, but which did keep NCOs to the rear to kill with anyone trying to run away. For example, the British dressed their troops in red coats during the Revolution to make defectors easy to spot by their own officers! Definitely a motivator.

Actually the red coat being the traditional uniform of the British army goes back way before the American revolution. Its origins go back to the English Civil War in 1640s between Parliament and King Charles I when in 1644 the parliamentary side decided to reform and retrain their various militias into a professional force known as the New Model Army. This was the first modern state army of paid soldiers since the Romans and the red coat was adopted as its uniform. The New Model Army under Sir Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell went on to decisively defeat the King's forces at Naseby in 1645 and established the only republic in British history from 1649 to 1660 following the execution of King Charles. This is a prime example of a better motivated force winning!

Though the monarchy would be restored, the New Model Army was kept up and is the precursor of every modern armed force today. Incidently British soldiers wore red into battle up until 1898 it was replaced in favour of khaki which is the current battledress, red remains the ceremonial uniform as anyone who's tried to make a Coldstream guard blink at Buckingham Palace will know!

As for the claim that red coats meant that defectors could be spotted, one must also remember that Washington and his cronies dressed their troops in royal blue with red insets while his french allies wore white. Neither of which is any less apparent on a battlefield than red! May I suggest the main reason for colourful uniforms on battlefields was so troops could distinquise their comrades from the enemy, perhaps?

Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals. In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

Andrew Mure wrote:
Incidently British soldiers wore red into battle up until 1898 it was replaced in favour of khaki which is the current battledress, red remains the ceremonial uniform as anyone who's tried to make a Coldstream guard blink at Buckingham Palace will know!

Vagabond Elf wrote: Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals. In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

Drifter Bob wrote:

Vagabond Elf wrote: Not so much the troops telling who was who, but the generals. In these pre-radio days, the only way to tell units apart was by the colour of their coats, and the flags they were carrying.

I think the bright colors were to help troops and officers alike to distinguish friend and foe on the battlefield which was often covered in the thick smoke of black powder. These uniforms became more of a hazard than an advantage when smokeless powder became extant.

DB

Brigadier General SLA Marshall is the gentalman who did the study in question.

http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm

toli wrote: Bright colors like the English red coats were preferred because they were easily recognizable from a long distance.

In high school I had a friend who worked as a tour guide at Ft William Henry in NY. He had to dress up in a late 18th century British uniform and fire muskets and cannon and such, great fun all told.

One day at work he slipped on a staircase, fell and managed to impale himself on his bayonet (which he kept sharp in brilliant defiance of OSHA regs). I saw his uniform when I was driving him home from the ER, no trouble spotting the bloodstains at all.

I do recall reading somewhere that during the French and Indian (Seven Years War to non-americans) War the red coat became a huge liability because, for the first time, the British army was facing and enemy willing to use concealment, ambush and other "dishonorable" tactics against them. However commanders still insisted they were necessary to maintain coordination and discipline. That doesn't strike me as an acceptable trade off since the terrain (dense forrest for the most part) made any kind of large formation fighting impossible.
No surprise that irregular units, such as Roger's Rangers (often called the first "Special Forces" unit in history), adopted different colors that made them less visible.

The coat was a bit of a problem fighting irregulars, but not a huge one. Afterall, if the foliage is thick it doesn't matter how bright coloured your coat is.

The biggest challenge was that a smoothbore musket is not accurate, and the only way to get reliable hits was to use volley fire to saturate the target, which meant keeping your troops in large, very visible formations. The natives & canadiens hiding in the trees were using rifles, much more accurate but much slower to reload. The rifles were capable of doing useful damage with single shots.

Of course, at the end of the day the British won...

Actually the British made extensive use of both native and irregular troops, the unit I mentioned being the most famous.

In the end the British won largely due to political unrest in France and the superiority of the British navy.

As to the accuracy of the firearms, niether side posses a clear advantage in this regard really. Rifles were more common on the British side, but real marksmen were extremely scarce in either force.

Let's ignore the people who died with their fingers on the triggers but were to scared to fire. It happens, but it wouldn't really be fun gaming.

A major problem for me is how quickly everyone makes decisions in a very fast and chaotic situation. If you, as a player, are sitting there taking a minute to decide wether to attack the orc on the right or go over and aid the cleric, how long is it taking your character to make that decision? Granted there's translation time from the GM's description and your statement of action, but TRoS is second by second. That's great when the person is in front of me; humans can and will make sub-second decisions (and if you don't believe that, watch olympic fencing).

But now complicate things with uneven terrain (say a room with a table and chairs), multiple combatants, and a lot of noise. How quickly can you decide where to go and what to do? What if you want to retreat, but your friends have decided to fight? How long does it take you to mentally process all of this?

It's not just a matter of fear, it's again a highly-charged situation with many variables that can make things difficult.

-Jeff

P.S. ...and I think what I ended up with in my games is that switching to a new target took a tactics roll or something like that (been awhile since I played). If not, you hesitated a second.

As a player I like to take my time and decide what is the best course of action often taking minutes to decide my characters next second's fate. It is completley different to be given a short time to act.

Training makes actions into reflex. Reflex can become almost involuntary.

I remember situations where I acted in reflex and got to the end and thought wow I can't believe I did that. I think that that is the most vauable part of training.

As a Seneschal I like to pressure my players. He who hestiates is lost. I especially like the surprise rules in TROS.

Valthalion

P.S. Re red coats, apparantely the Swiss (on Napoleons side) wore red coats and were frequently shot at by their own side. (Actually that could be a wargamers myth but its a good story)

Thinking about it, applying some of the psychology of combat to npc's in TROS can gice PC's a bit more survival skill against larger groups of NPC's. The mechanics would have to be worked out, but firing into the air in modern combat might be the equivalent of backing off, fighting almost purely defensively, and not seeking to be an agressor unless an "open shot" occurs. 90% of opponents doing this would be too high IMO, and the better quality troops would obviously do better at this than your militia type.

But a good may to allow a PC to extricate themself from what looked like almost a sure death, and somewhat realistic to boot.

I don't know how this could be integrated into TROS but my experiences have led me to believe that people react very differently to emergencies and life and death situations. When there is a car wreck, or a fire, or if someone is crticially ill or seriously injured, especially when it happens suddenly or unexpectedly, you see a variety of reactions. A small numebr of people will act very effectively and efficiently. A few more people will act rationally, but in slow motion or in sort of a dream - like state, with a lot of hesitation. They can take orders, usually. Many people will not be able to do anything, and will sit there or sort of waver around as if helpless. In cases of serious injuries, many people get nauseous and throw up just from the sight of it, and a few will actually go into life threatening shock just from seeing another person seriously injured.

When you add direct threat into the mix, i.e. when you are walking down the street and someone suddenly comes at you with a knife or a gun, whether in a robbery or just some brawl, or even if you are just suddenly facing having to get into a fight against serious people who pose a genuine threat, the percentage of those who behave rationally goes down, the percentage of people who don't know what to do goes up.

I was a medic in the army for 3 years and an EMT for 5 years, not to mention a lot of time getting in a lot of scrapes as a young punk in New Orleans. I've seen a lot of these situations, over and over again. I think that the factor of "morale" of some sort is a key part of how people react to calamaty or horror, or to a fight. It is what separates a real fighter or warrior from an ordinary person.

Of course, in a period like the renaissance, many more people might be more inured to violence, catastrophy and death since there was so much more if it going around.

DB

I think rather than any hard and fast rules for group psychology some guidelines for seneschals on how to quickly model how individual grunts in any group might react is what is desired. Naturally I feel the psychology of major npcs is better reflected by SAs.

I personally do this by quickly prioritising what are the prime motivations for each minor npc from the three below.

themselves
the group
the cause - anything else such as furthering a cause or strong emotions.

I would then rate them in order of importance to the npc as I saw the character type 1 being most important and 3 being the least. For example I would rate your average trained soldier as

The Group 1
Themselves 2
The cause 3

This is because the soldiers tend to be trained as team players, take risks with themselves but usually calculated ones and are discliplined against letting their emotion get in the way of their judgement under fire. It would sensible to assume that the majority of a reasonably well trained squad are the above of course it is more realistic and fun to include a few wildcards. So lets say the pcs get into a fight with 6 geluroise men-at-arms 4 of which are the above profile. The group however also includes.

'Private Yellow' - the rational coward.

Themselves 1
The group 2
The cause 3

This guy is mostly interested in his own self-preservation, but not to the point of losing control. He shirks from combat rather than fleeing straight away from it, sensibly hanging back while other 'hot-headed fools' charge in. Will full evade if attacked by odds of 1 to 1 or better. He may eventually engage himself if he believes his involvement could tip the balance, but don't count on it...

'Private Red' - the physcopath

Cause 1
Group 2
Themselves 3

Always throws red and devotes more dice to attack than defense. Acts mostly on gut instinct and is overly aggressive. Likely to sacrifice themselves for their mates should the fight go badly.

I don't quite see someone putting top priority on the cause as a pychopathic killer. It depends what the cause is. I think it is quite a common problem that the group is put above the cause in some modern conflicts. Given Clausewitz's "War is the continuation of politics with other means", the primacy in war is on the political cause, the political ends one wants to achieve. Group spirit tends to get into the way of that when the group is put above that political ends. Example: A liberator is only seen as such when indeed he is perceived as acting on behalf of the local population. That would require cherishing their lives as much as one's own, which would recquire subordinating the group's survival to the cause as soldiers go out of their way to preserve the lives of the locals. Likewise, someone with a strong group identification might deem it a question of honor to eradicate a previously attacking enemy to the last man, independently of surrenders or disablements. Thus the cause, and the rules of engagement it presents, are subordinated to restoring the "tarnished honor of the group".

Interesting.

What I was trying to use 'cause' to represent was how much the individual would react to stimulants outside of those affecting personal or group survival. In short it's anything that might how someone acts in field regardless of the rational factors of personal or group risk. I meant an individual with 'cause' as best priority to be emotionally volitile, this best represents someone who basically lets their base instincts take over in a combat situation and could equally cover both people who flee in blind panic and those who attack in a berserk rage. To a lesser extent it might briefly reflect individuals motivated by hatred and propaganda. In retrospect I agree that in some cases it could need a exact definition.

Anyway I admit I wasn't entirely happy with the name and description when I wrote it first and I am sure there is another name that would better cover this very broad catergory. Just someone else will probably come up with it.

Thanks for the feedback.

I think this is an intresting approach. Not perfect, but very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

DB