Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Author Topic: Combat Psychology  (Read 6877 times)

Deathworks

  • Bay Watcher
  • There be no fortress without its feline rulers!
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #60 on: May 18, 2010, 02:04:37 pm »

Hi!

I think we are getting close to a point where we will not get any further progress simply because our thoughts on some things differ:

Evil does not require evil intentions in my book. You can be determined to do what you perceive to be the best thing for everyone and still be horribly evil. And in my book, excessive force is always evil - for instance, torturing people is no less evil only because your culture says it is fun to do that.

If you separate customs and stereotyping and do not care for the latter, then your argument becomes kind of meaningless. Cowardice is not a trait described by culture but by stereotyping.

5% of 200 is 10 and not 20. So, we are talking about whether there are 100 (average) or 110 (5% above average) affected. And it is not as if Dwarf Fortress was really full of uniformity. Taking breaks, sleeping, drinking, eating, already force you to be ready to cope with a reduction of your work force, so of those 10, maybe 6 really behave differently as the other 4 would probably be blocked by these other problems anyway.

Deathworks
Logged

Collic

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #61 on: May 18, 2010, 03:48:41 pm »

I should think at least something like this will implemented in the near future, even if it's just a basic morale system for a fight or flight responce. Of course, getting something like that working in an enjoyable and balanced way wouldn't be easy, even without some of the more complex considerations people have proposed.

Morale systems are something many rts games have struggled to get right (a valid comparison I think given the aspect of the game under discussion) since it potentially makes things woefully exploitable for the player, or incredibly frustrating when your units die or retreat in unexpected ways.
Logged

father_alexander

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #62 on: May 18, 2010, 07:26:06 pm »

Hi!

I think we are getting close to a point where we will not get any further progress simply because our thoughts on some things differ:

Evil does not require evil intentions in my book. You can be determined to do what you perceive to be the best thing for everyone and still be horribly evil. And in my book, excessive force is always evil - for instance, torturing people is no less evil only because your culture says it is fun to do that.

If you separate customs and stereotyping and do not care for the latter, then your argument becomes kind of meaningless. Cowardice is not a trait described by culture but by stereotyping.

5% of 200 is 10 and not 20. So, we are talking about whether there are 100 (average) or 110 (5% above average) affected. And it is not as if Dwarf Fortress was really full of uniformity. Taking breaks, sleeping, drinking, eating, already force you to be ready to cope with a reduction of your work force, so of those 10, maybe 6 really behave differently as the other 4 would probably be blocked by these other problems anyway.

Deathworks

Yes but torture goes by the idea that you are actually making the other being suffer, and sure the act may be evil i was just questioning wether the creature itself was evil or not, as you said you can make the worst actions with the best intention, im not talking about someone that wants to make someone else suffer because he believes its ok im talking about someone that makes something thinking that it wont do anything to the other one and in the end may or not cause suffering, wich explains why i dont think dwarves would like killing, but could enjoy fighting.

so to talk about the properties of cultures i need to stereotype? either im not understanding you or what you said makes no sense, probably the first one. And i actually think cowardice can be a product of culture, culture makes a good part of us, im pretty certain that as some cultures should be able to produce bravery some others should be able to make people more cowards depending of the situation. Actually here my culture may be a good example actually, many of us live in constant fear of a dictatorship that happened some 30 years ago wich murdered about 30.000 people and made them dissappear, since that a good part of the population has fear of the military and showing their political views (mostly older generations).

That can be true, but if that happens then its exactly what im proposing, that the system works in such a way that you can have 1 or 2 people deserting, maybe even 5 as an extreme in a 30 man army, but even then i think its quite a number, specially if you take in count that should be against a normal enemy so what should happen wen you fight something more scary.

And i dont think its that much about diferent opinions but about diference in the way we explain it, i dont handle english too well and my language is pretty... specific in the way the tones and the meanings are interpreted
Logged

Kogan Loloklam

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm suffering from an acute case of Hominini Terravitae Biologis. Keep your distance!
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #63 on: May 19, 2010, 11:02:57 am »

Father Alexander, please use the quote blocks, it is difficult to understand your position without them. Thanks!

As for "Easier than armies than Squads", this is 100% false. There is less desertion and cowardace when you have a large army than when you have a small one. There is a certain momentum built up when you have a lot of people on the move. When 17 people you never met die but you are surrounded by 6000 more, you don't generally run. "They must know something I don't!"

It's when it's you, Joe, and 8 other people around you and Joe is shot that you start to wonder if advancing towards the enemy is a smart idea.

Here's a story from training for you, to explain the concept. This is a true story, to the best of my recollection, of the events that occurred in my training company in the USMC SOI of the west coast, on camp Pendleton. The events occurred on September 10th, 2001.

It was about 8 PM Pacific time. We had gotten back from a range, can't remember what, I think it was the Practice Grenade Range. We were sitting around, awaiting our debriefing, and one of the trainers comes in, all upset. He says we are going to war in East Timor, and our training schedule would be accelerated. He walks out, and the other one comes in with something in his hand. He talks for a bit, sounding pretty odd, then the first guy comes in and begins to struggle with him. Something hits the ground, and everyone around me takes off for the windows. One guy jumps out. We are on the 3rd story, by the way. It turned out what he dropped was a empty practice grenade shell.

Now tell me, if this can occur in a training environment and be believed to this extent, with these reactions, do you honestly believe that cowardace in combat isn't that possible? We had about 40 guys there, one jumped out the window. That's a real 5% sampling.

Same base, a few months previously, I was doing guard duty (a percentage of the trainees are required to guard the camp before getting training. There was a guy who refused to stand post at one of the many armories around the area because he was certain it was haunted. He would do any other thing than that, and would wig out anytime he was stationed there. Our "Squad" had 4 shifts of I believe 12 people, although it's been so long I can't really remember. I wasn't familiar with the behaviors of the other shifts enough to know if he was the only one who had a "quark" like this, but he's an example of at least one issue in 48 people.

Two real world examples of behaviors in the US Marine Corps, a organization seen as so tough that the entire thing counts as special forces. There are reasons that this doesn't always translate to cowardace in the face of the enemy, and a big part of it is leadership and tradition. These are aspects that are ingrained in with training, which means training could make it less likely to happen, but something to keep in mind is that the School of Infantry (SOI) only occurs after 3 months of Boot Camp, so they have already at this time recieved the same amount of training a standard Army soldier gets. (not to be putting down the army, they have training geared towards different missions than marines, so aren't expected to meet the same standards.) This means that for all intents and purposes, this is already a group that has been well weeded of the "dross" that can't cut the mustard. Without this process, you'd see much higher rates of desertion, dereliction of duty, cowardice in the face of the enemy, and stuff like that (there is already PLENTY. Google Court Martials of the US armed forces in Iraq. You'll find examples of it all, and keep in mind most good leaders try to protect even the worst of their members, so what you see is the tip of a large iceburg.)

This is my proofs, from an all-volunteer force. You get into drafted armies, and you have much larger rates of problems. Different CULTURES are different in their ability to deal, but they all have to do so.

Now you keep saying Dwarves have to be such and such way, because that is how you see them. Well I don't think so.

I could agree with you if you were arguing that the Cerol Uzol dwarves don't run, that they come back with their shield... or on it.

My problem is you are thinking "Them humans are so tough" and saying it based on the culture of Argentina.
Sure, you didn't say that, but it's what you've been thinking. Except Dwarves and Tolkineese.

And by the way, my stereotypes of Argentinians do not match what you view as your "cultural identity".
Logged
... if someone dies TOUGH LUCK. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED ATTENTION DURING ALL THE DAMNED DODGING DEMONSTRATIONS!

father_alexander

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2010, 03:45:43 pm »

Ok lets see...

First of all sorry for the quote blocks thingie, i will use them now:

Quote
As for "Easier than armies than Squads", this is 100% false. There is less desertion and cowardace when you have a large army than when you have a small one. There is a certain momentum built up when you have a lot of people on the move. When 17 people you never met die but you are surrounded by 6000 more, you don't generally run. "They must know something I don't!"

It's when it's you, Joe, and 8 other people around you and Joe is shot that you start to wonder if advancing towards the enemy is a smart idea.

Here's a story from training for you, to explain the concept. This is a true story, to the best of my recollection, of the events that occurred in my training company in the USMC SOI of the west coast, on camp Pendleton. The events occurred on September 10th, 2001.

It was about 8 PM Pacific time. We had gotten back from a range, can't remember what, I think it was the Practice Grenade Range. We were sitting around, awaiting our debriefing, and one of the trainers comes in, all upset. He says we are going to war in East Timor, and our training schedule would be accelerated. He walks out, and the other one comes in with something in his hand. He talks for a bit, sounding pretty odd, then the first guy comes in and begins to struggle with him. Something hits the ground, and everyone around me takes off for the windows. One guy jumps out. We are on the 3rd story, by the way. It turned out what he dropped was a empty practice grenade shell.

Now tell me, if this can occur in a training environment and be believed to this extent, with these reactions, do you honestly believe that cowardace in combat isn't that possible? We had about 40 guys there, one jumped out the window. That's a real 5% sampling.

Same base, a few months previously, I was doing guard duty (a percentage of the trainees are required to guard the camp before getting training. There was a guy who refused to stand post at one of the many armories around the area because he was certain it was haunted. He would do any other thing than that, and would wig out anytime he was stationed there. Our "Squad" had 4 shifts of I believe 12 people, although it's been so long I can't really remember. I wasn't familiar with the behaviors of the other shifts enough to know if he was the only one who had a "quark" like this, but he's an example of at least one issue in 48 people.

Two real world examples of behaviors in the US Marine Corps, a organization seen as so tough that the entire thing counts as special forces. There are reasons that this doesn't always translate to cowardace in the face of the enemy, and a big part of it is leadership and tradition. These are aspects that are ingrained in with training, which means training could make it less likely to happen, but something to keep in mind is that the School of Infantry (SOI) only occurs after 3 months of Boot Camp, so they have already at this time recieved the same amount of training a standard Army soldier gets. (not to be putting down the army, they have training geared towards different missions than marines, so aren't expected to meet the same standards.) This means that for all intents and purposes, this is already a group that has been well weeded of the "dross" that can't cut the mustard. Without this process, you'd see much higher rates of desertion, dereliction of duty, cowardice in the face of the enemy, and stuff like that (there is already PLENTY. Google Court Martials of the US armed forces in Iraq. You'll find examples of it all, and keep in mind most good leaders try to protect even the worst of their members, so what you see is the tip of a large iceburg.)

This is my proofs, from an all-volunteer force. You get into drafted armies, and you have much larger rates of problems. Different CULTURES are different in their ability to deal, but they all have to do so.

See, with that i can agree, you are showing me actual data from actual experience wich i can believe, wen i said they where talking about gigantic armies was because deathworks said "still some soldiers run" wen i hear "some" i think a few, wen you are talking about a gigantic army, a "some" for me, counts like 5% aproximately, 5% of a 20 people squad is 1 dwarf, i dont think a squad makes you more brave, what i do think is that in a squad you have less people that may or may not escape, everyone watching eachother, and less chance of actually "escaping", the window example , they didnt escape, they just had panic, there is some diference, a dwarf that gets panic in the middle of the battlefield would probably get murdered, a desertor would escape, i think there is a diference.

That said, the example you are giving is of modern day armies, in wich you need to take in count 3 details, first of all we have better weapons, i would think that its a lot harder to survive now that you have fire weapons and explosives, you should depend more on luck, second, honor, this has been said before, nowdays other people would understand much better if you would escape or have fear, i reallly doubt it would be the same way at the age the df world is, and finally, life expectansy and quality, the expectansy bit may be ignored taking in count there are dwarves that get to their top age and die of old, but the quality of life should change much, nowdays people lead a longer and more peacefull life, to make it simple, we re spoiled by life (this could be used the other way around saying that since someone that time would be more used to fight for his life they would escape the battle wen they would get a chance)

Quote
Now you keep saying Dwarves have to be such and such way, because that is how you see them. Well I don't think so.

I could agree with you if you were arguing that the Cerol Uzol dwarves don't run, that they come back with their shield... or on it.

As i said before i was talking about the way i see the dwarves being, some may disagree, i think everyone has their own view of the dwarves as a civilization, some see them as psychotic murderers, other as rather calm creatures, and so on, there is no point in discussing this, since its up to each player, and in the end you can mod them into any culture you want them to be.

Quote
My problem is you are thinking "Them humans are so tough" and saying it based on the culture of Argentina.
Sure, you didn't say that, but it's what you've been thinking. Except Dwarves and Tolkineese.

And by the way, my stereotypes of Argentinians do not match what you view as your "cultural identity".

Actually, i would think of us as rather coward, and mean, so in the end we would rather send someone else to get himself killed than to risk our own lives for someone else, my whole point of the Argentinean and other cultural examples, was to define how much can culture change the way you take diferent subjects of life, in this particular case, war and death, and im not surprised about that bit, the whole dictatorship deal is rarely even known, wich also explains how many think most of us where ok with the falklands war. I did not care if the examples where actually 100% truth or not, i was just giving examples of how culture can change people, each one can understand it by taking in count their own culture and compare it to someone else´s, hell sometimes you have pretty diferent cultures in the same country.

I would like to propose something, how about instead of talking about diferent therms, like "some", and "unusual" we give actual numbers?

I think that in a culture that has all the personality stats at [0:50:100], after having military training to the best possible, with decent armor and weapons, against an equal number of soldiers, only 5% of a population would run away (if you have a fortress with 100 people, of all those people only 5 would run away)


« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 03:48:07 pm by father_alexander »
Logged

Deathworks

  • Bay Watcher
  • There be no fortress without its feline rulers!
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #65 on: May 20, 2010, 01:55:20 am »

Hi!

Father_Alexander: I avoided numbers because they are a balancing issue. You may find that 5% are too many already and want to rebalance to get just 4%, or you may find that 15% still pose no problem but are actually better at enhancing the experience than 5%. Thus, I rather prefer to talk about the hoped-for influence.

Your argument about the better weaponry is not very convincing. In the times we are talking about, dying of infections was very common, so while the weapons may not be comparable to our modern weaponry, the consequences were similar. There were a lot of wounds that couldn't be treated and would result in a slow, and agonizing death at times.

In addition, modern warfare does not require you to see the enemy. Look at those nice little videos of how helicopter pilots in Iraque slaughter civilians. With ranged weaponry, there is a sense that you can fire first and care about it later. With a sword or the like, you have to walk up at the enemy. You rarely got the chance to take them out without them getting a chance to get back at you, so you are taking a much greater risk. Sniping at the head of a person who hasn't seen you yet is something completely different than running up against someone raising his axe at you.

Squad size does not affect escape chances that much in melee - as long as you run into the direction you came from (i.e. where the enemy is not yet), you have a good chance of getting away as anyone pursuing you would either need to run around the melee situation in a wide arc or risk getting stabbed in the back as they try to get through the melee to give pursuit. And then there is also the question whether giving pursuit would be in their best interest - after all, with you running away, this means your side has fewer fighters, making it easier to defeat them. So, it is much more sensible to first kill those still fighting with fewer loses and then give pursuit and clean out all the cowards. Especially because of the weaponry, you want to have big numbers and not disperse your effort.

With equal weaponry, 5% would be an estimate for knights, I suppose. But for commoners who got drafted, you would expect much higher numbers of deserters. Getting maimed or killed at a 50% chance is not really odds you want to have, you know.

As I pointed out before, while not being a historical record but rather an interpretation of historic events, the Heike Monogatari points out an entire army getting routed by a few ducks. While there may be some flavoring, I think that the description probably does not completely lack a core of truthfulness.

Deathworks
Logged

father_alexander

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #66 on: May 20, 2010, 08:57:15 am »

The tecnology issue is true, there is much more chance of surviving, and of killing without having to defend yourself, but the opposite is truth, my point was that i would think that someone who is great at sword fighting, would me much sure of himself in a fight than someone who is equally great with guns, mostly due to the nature of said weapons.

It does affect i think, keep in mind we are defending here, you need to get past the enemy lines to escape, or escape to your home where you will be punished, also taking in count the squad knows him, they would probably send word of him escaping, what should make him a wanted man i guess, but yeah, i get your point.

Yeah, people who just got drafted should be more scared, my issue here, a dilema if you want to call it that, is that on one hand it feels more natural that way, but wen you have last stands (like your whole military got killed and you draft everyone to defend and do what they can) this would mean that a large part of your fortress would either try run away or get panic and be useless, wich i dont think fits someone who knows they are going to die anyways.
Logged

Kogan Loloklam

  • Bay Watcher
  • I'm suffering from an acute case of Hominini Terravitae Biologis. Keep your distance!
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Psychology
« Reply #67 on: May 20, 2010, 09:59:28 am »

See, with that i can agree, you are showing me actual data from actual experience wich i can believe,
All anyone can ever say is stuff that they have experienced. If I retell common sense that any famous general from the past can say, why is that any less than when I speak of my personal experiences.

Here are two selected quotes from an individual who conquered a significant portion of Europe.
"The moral is to the physical as three to one"
"A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him"

Any general will tell you, ancient AND modern, that keeping your troops morale high is critical to the success of your nation's military force.
Something to understand is Armies are made of individual squads organized and organized again until they are all acting as a large unit.

Quote
That said, the example you are giving is of modern day armies, in wich you need to take in count 3 details, first of all we have better weapons, i would think that its a lot harder to survive now that you have fire weapons and explosives, you should depend more on luck, second, honor, this has been said before, nowdays other people would understand much better if you would escape or have fear, i reallly doubt it would be the same way at the age the df world is, and finally, life expectansy and quality, the expectansy bit may be ignored taking in count there are dwarves that get to their top age and die of old, but the quality of life should change much, nowdays people lead a longer and more peacefull life, to make it simple, we re spoiled by life (this could be used the other way around saying that since someone that time would be more used to fight for his life they would escape the battle wen they would get a chance)
If modern warfare were different than ancient warfare in the behavior of people, then knowledge of ancient warfare would be worthless. It isn't. Another quote from the same guy as above...

"Read over and over again the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, Eugene and Frederic. ... This is the only way to become a great general and master the secrets of the art of war. ..."

Sun Tzu's Art of War is on the Marine Corps Commandant's Reading list. Also included are bunches of other military books, and other books that either increase the knowledge of war for the individual marine, or help indoctrinate the marine into the mindset that they want. It is EASIER to be promoted if you read this stuff. Why would the lead of the Marine Corps, the top guy short of political leaders, think that this stuff is important if modern warfare was so different. Man has always been inventive about killing himself, and it's always scary for the guy on the ground. Combat is less about trying to kill all your enemy and more about encouraging him to surrender or run.

Quote
As i said before i was talking about the way i see the dwarves being, some may disagree, i think everyone has their own view of the dwarves as a civilization, some see them as psychotic murderers, other as rather calm creatures, and so on, there is no point in discussing this, since its up to each player, and in the end you can mod them into any culture you want them to be.
The point is, arguing that dwarves don't run is like arguing humans don't run. They need to have their own culture. In my most current Dwarf Game, I have two civilizations side by side. Their histories play out quite a bit differently even though they faced most of the same threats. I don't know why, but randomness has developed two different ways I see the dwarves in this area. One is cowardly, the other is stalwart. There is no need to force dwarves as a whole into one set, just allow cultures to be random. This helps develop a better bond with individual civilization entities and players. Hard to have a hated enemy who is the same as you.

Quote
I would like to propose something, how about instead of talking about diferent therms, like "some", and "unusual" we give actual numbers?

I think that in a culture that has all the personality stats at [0:50:100], after having military training to the best possible, with decent armor and weapons, against an equal number of soldiers, only 5% of a population would run away (if you have a fortress with 100 people, of all those people only 5 would run away)
I think the numbers that are already there are adequate. Dwarves should run based on their personality and what occurs to them, kind of like how happiness works.

Yeah, people who just got drafted should be more scared, my issue here, a dilema if you want to call it that, is that on one hand it feels more natural that way, but wen you have last stands (like your whole military got killed and you draft everyone to defend and do what they can) this would mean that a large part of your fortress would either try run away or get panic and be useless, wich i dont think fits someone who knows they are going to die anyways.
Running away is not the only way to go. There is also surrender. Also, people often panic during last stands. People sometimes kill themselves rather than fighting to the end, which is another form of panic. If you drafted a city who was surrounded by enemies on all sides and sent them in to fight and die, the results would be panic and running away. Maybe some might get together and fight a breakout action, but probably not. You are looking for epic stories of the 300, but those are highly trained spartans. The Swiss might pull it off, as maybe some other nations could. Research them and find out why.
Logged
... if someone dies TOUGH LUCK. YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED ATTENTION DURING ALL THE DAMNED DODGING DEMONSTRATIONS!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]