C''mon guys, keep it on topic or take this to the Lounge, please.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Thoughts on Morale
I am not totally sure if I am on topic anymore, but I just HAD to say it :
everybody here seems to totally forget that the Russians (or rather, the USSR) during WWII had the greatest number of casualties overall... IIRC my History classes, it was mainly because of their willingness to send thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder to the front.
Or are russians not europeans ?
Also on a more gamedesign aspect, what about the importance of politics realted to conflict ?
Russians in Afghanistan ? Americans in Vietnam ? and more recent examples...
any thoughts ?
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
everybody here seems to totally forget that the Russians (or rather, the USSR) during WWII had the greatest number of casualties overall... IIRC my History classes, it was mainly because of their willingness to send thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder to the front.
Or are russians not europeans ?
Also on a more gamedesign aspect, what about the importance of politics realted to conflict ?
Russians in Afghanistan ? Americans in Vietnam ? and more recent examples...
any thoughts ?
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
20,000,000 Russian casualties in WWII.
6,000,000 killed; 14,000,000 wounded.
Just FYI: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html
[edited by - Tacit on March 21, 2002 5:29:37 PM]
6,000,000 killed; 14,000,000 wounded.
Just FYI: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html
[edited by - Tacit on March 21, 2002 5:29:37 PM]
Russians are Asian and European(Eurasian). They used cannon fodder not from cultural reasons but from the synergy between their economic/political status(poor and communist) and population concerns(heavily populated). Also communism tends to glorify the society over the individual just like Eastern cultures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think political concerns should enter into the destructiveness of cannon fodder. I think the population would be much more willing to accept the use of cannon fodder to defend the country(like the Soviets in WW2) than in an invasion (Afghanistan, Vietnam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think political concerns should enter into the destructiveness of cannon fodder. I think the population would be much more willing to accept the use of cannon fodder to defend the country(like the Soviets in WW2) than in an invasion (Afghanistan, Vietnam)
In any conflict the status of the ruling political elite will effect the decisions of the military. In the case of democracies the military is very much subservient to the political classes. For example isn’t the President of the United States also called The Commander In Chief. I seem to remember that David Lloyd George (Prime Minister of The UK) in the First World War had great concerns for the tremendous losses being racked up by Field Marsh Hague.
What I’m getting at is that it is the very freedom that Democracies enjoy limit their effectiveness in war. A game example is Civilization where waging war as a Democracy is extremely prohibitive in term of city moral. Where as Feudal and Fundamentalist governments enjoyed more militaristic freedom.
It is also a fact that now we live in a 24hr media society, where war is actively televised, the effect on population moral of mounting losses will be devastating. A country with state control media is more readily able to keep the moral of the populace high, “We are winning the war”, and to hide the losses they incur.
On the part of the Soviet Unions willingness to send thousands of troops to their death in World War Two, let us not forget that under Stalin the Union was more of a Dictatorship than a communist state. Communism isn’t really a bad idea, it’s just that people with power tend to get carried away with the power.
On a game design (as this is the game design area), developers should take into account the effect of moral, not just of the troops, but also the people back at home who are the next generation of soldiers.
I like the idea of people as a resource. Everything else costs something to build, developers often overlook the fact people are not in an infinite supply. It might not work quite so well on an RTS, al la Starcraft, but on a more strategically bent game it would make sense.
"Making it up! Why should I be making it up. Lifes bad enough as it is without wanting to invent more of it."
[edited by - zarquon on March 23, 2002 5:54:16 AM]
What I’m getting at is that it is the very freedom that Democracies enjoy limit their effectiveness in war. A game example is Civilization where waging war as a Democracy is extremely prohibitive in term of city moral. Where as Feudal and Fundamentalist governments enjoyed more militaristic freedom.
It is also a fact that now we live in a 24hr media society, where war is actively televised, the effect on population moral of mounting losses will be devastating. A country with state control media is more readily able to keep the moral of the populace high, “We are winning the war”, and to hide the losses they incur.
quote:Original post by ahw
everybody here seems to totally forget that the Russians (or rather, the USSR) during WWII had the greatest number of casualties overall... IIRC my History classes, it was mainly because of their willingness to send thousands of soldiers as cannon fodder to the front.
Or are russians not europeans ?
On the part of the Soviet Unions willingness to send thousands of troops to their death in World War Two, let us not forget that under Stalin the Union was more of a Dictatorship than a communist state. Communism isn’t really a bad idea, it’s just that people with power tend to get carried away with the power.
On a game design (as this is the game design area), developers should take into account the effect of moral, not just of the troops, but also the people back at home who are the next generation of soldiers.
quote:Original post by DarkIce
How about having men as a resource? A resource you don't have to mine for or grow in any traditional sense. Instead the pool of raw recruits could be increased at the end of every mission or after certain intervals if its a more C&C style play. New units would be trained from these recruits, so instead of 50 food and 60 gold per unit it would be 1 recruit + training costs etc. per foot unit you train or perhaps 2(3? 4?) recruits for a tank (plus the other resources needed for building a tank -parts etc.)
- DarkIce
I like the idea of people as a resource. Everything else costs something to build, developers often overlook the fact people are not in an infinite supply. It might not work quite so well on an RTS, al la Starcraft, but on a more strategically bent game it would make sense.
"Making it up! Why should I be making it up. Lifes bad enough as it is without wanting to invent more of it."
[edited by - zarquon on March 23, 2002 5:54:16 AM]
In the same vein as Zarquon''s comments, RTS games seem to ignore this fact.
There are a couple of points I''d like to make here:
- Medieval RTS games never seem to take into account how the feudal system works. The number of troops a king can call upon in time of war is a direct function of how much land he controls. His land is subdivided into fiefs which are controlled by his feudal lords. At the bottom of the noble class is the knight who is lord over a tiny fief. In war time, when his lord calls him, he is expected to mount up and perhaps gather the few able-bodied men (who are not soldiers but perhaps farmers or hunters) and march off to gather with his lords'' forces. This works it''s way up the chain of command until the king''s forces are collected. The cost of a suit of armour and a warhorse in medieval times was so prohibitive, that nobody but the nobility could afford them. So, if you want to include some element of ''human resources'' in medieval RTS games, tie the number of soldiers and mounted knights you can call up to the amount of territory you control.
- It would be very interesting to also tie the number of troops you can call upon to your popular support, in the same sense as in XCom your funding was tied to how effectively you had defended your funding governments from the alien threat. If you had a bad year, your funding went down and you had less money to recruit new people, to equip them, etc. So, if you''re waging a way and things are going badly for you on the home front, you might have to take desperate measures. It introduces the concept of propaganda and media involvement in the war, to help buttress support on the home front. Then you can see how things like conscription could come into play, and the whole political side which few games explore but which plays such a huge role in wartime.
Just some ideas, actually on topic this time!!
R.
There are a couple of points I''d like to make here:
- Medieval RTS games never seem to take into account how the feudal system works. The number of troops a king can call upon in time of war is a direct function of how much land he controls. His land is subdivided into fiefs which are controlled by his feudal lords. At the bottom of the noble class is the knight who is lord over a tiny fief. In war time, when his lord calls him, he is expected to mount up and perhaps gather the few able-bodied men (who are not soldiers but perhaps farmers or hunters) and march off to gather with his lords'' forces. This works it''s way up the chain of command until the king''s forces are collected. The cost of a suit of armour and a warhorse in medieval times was so prohibitive, that nobody but the nobility could afford them. So, if you want to include some element of ''human resources'' in medieval RTS games, tie the number of soldiers and mounted knights you can call up to the amount of territory you control.
- It would be very interesting to also tie the number of troops you can call upon to your popular support, in the same sense as in XCom your funding was tied to how effectively you had defended your funding governments from the alien threat. If you had a bad year, your funding went down and you had less money to recruit new people, to equip them, etc. So, if you''re waging a way and things are going badly for you on the home front, you might have to take desperate measures. It introduces the concept of propaganda and media involvement in the war, to help buttress support on the home front. Then you can see how things like conscription could come into play, and the whole political side which few games explore but which plays such a huge role in wartime.
Just some ideas, actually on topic this time!!
R.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
