Military training and the will to kill

[malika]

Right now Im taking a course at my university called Conflict, Violence, Trauma and Reconciliation, today we dealt with a research on how to make soldiers better killers. To some this might be a taboo or something they would rather not know about their great soldiers. We dealt with studies that showed that during WWII only 20% or less of the American and British forces actually fired their rifles, even more surprising was that only 2% were actually shooting to kill their enemies. Apparently it isnt in a human's nature to simply kill other humans, yes humans kill but it does not remain an easy task to do for one.

After WWII the Americans and British tried to find a way to make soldiers better killers, as in that instead of only 20% shooting to have 100% shooting to kill. A method used to do this is called Experimental analysis of behavior which was developped by BF Skinner (more on that here) which eventually used conditioning to solve the problem of not enough soldiers using their weapons, keep repeating the act of simulated killing and the killing will be easier. Military trainings changed in which target practise was now done with more humanoid shapes and even pictures instead of mere larger dartboard like object. Trainings with live ammo (not actual ammo but it almost did the same..some stronger variant on the paintball ammo) in simulation areas were also used. (Robert, I dont know if you were trained in one of those areas, but the case we studied involved young soldiers who went to Iraq who trained there). This way of training was also one of the reason why the British lost way less men than the Argentine soldiers who still relied on WWII styled military trainings.

Perhaps this could be something that could be incoorporated into the background or perhaps even the gameplay. This would be something started off by probably Nazi Germany for the sake of pulp but would be taken over by the Americans and British.

Another aspect is post traumatic stress which war brings, we viewed soldiers who had recently killed enemy troops being unable to function fully efficient due to the trauma caused by actually killing another human being. This related to a research an American neurologist recently did by experiments on drugs which can remove certain traumatic memories. The trauma causes a certain neurological activity which the drug removes, hence removing the memory of the trauma. The ethical question of course remains with this, and with the drug not perfected these would be the two reason not to have such a thing released. However I could see a faction such as the chemically upgraded Germans or the SS use such drugs to truly turn their soldiers into killing machines.

[xeoran]

Well, a few things...

One of the reason the Western Allies men attacked so slowly and never fought with the same fanatical courage as the Japs, Germans and Russians was the knowledge that the war was won. By '42 it was pretty obvious which way the war would swing eventually. Therefore many British/American troops decided not to take too many risks. Unlike the other armies (Germans defending homeland, Russians at threat of NKVD and general bloodthirstiness from steppe warrior traditions and some Japs infused with Bushido) they knew they'd win so why go all out. There are several cases where interestingly in decorations for Allied servicemen (I'm thinking Audie Murphy and a British Para I cant remember the name of) it stated that they had seen the war as "their personal fight" while other men saw it as someone elses war. Neither Britain nor America was invaded or really under serious threat (Sealion being a joke) so they had no resentment, no revenge, no real motive. That is also the reason why elite units often were so elite, units like the 82nd Airborne or Army Commandos wanted to fight. Look up General Patton and General Gavins comments on the lackluster performence of US general infantry serving with them compared to their own elite units. (Cant think of a British counterpart but it was again the same case). [note I was thinking of a skill called "It's my war" for heros, I'm also thinking Russians should be the most determined troops in the game with the best morale while Allied units are generally fragile but with loads of firepower and the Germans are nearly as fanatical as the Russkies, Japs would have certain fanatical units- perhaps a Bushido upgrade].

I like the idea of better trainign though I wouldnt bother- Germany had all troops fighting all the time by '44 really. I cant see it affecting them much. I think giving them cheaper veteran upgrades might be better to reflect their immense experience. I can imagine it as an upgrade for basic Allied troops though and a very cool one too.

The drugs sound great for the SS, perhaps give them fearless ones too. Where units would panic at grusome deaths (something I think should be in there, you will want to run away more if your friend is eviscerated or blown up than if he is 'just' shot). It would also allow them to ignore pinning from the likes of artillery/mortars.

[Oh and on the Falklands there are other reasons. The British army were volunteers, fighting for a cause they believed in as opposed to their conscript opponents. They were had higher morale, more training (which links to your stuff) and more espirit de corps.]

[skorzeny]

I was hoping there would be two different 'psychological' statistics, one implementing general morale and fighting spirit while the other would reflect discipline. While the Soviets were a monstrously motivated army, they had abyssmal discipline, while I'd argue that Americans in WWII had good discipline but poor morale until after D-Day. The Germans, after almost a decade of Nazi propaganda would have large quantities of both.

Interestingly, despite popular views, one of the most undisciplined armies in the war was the Japanese. While they would fight to the death without question, there was an overwhelming frequency of junior officers disregarding orders they felt were 'timid' or 'cowardly' - insubordination was more common in the Japanese military than any other force during the war and only very rarely punished in any way!

[xeoran]

That would be great if we had discipline and morale (of course this would make officers very important which is great- should a unit perhaps fail its morale officers/NCO's within say 6" can make them take a discipline test causing them not to rout/to continue their orders) That would work really well. So Soviets once broken would have trouble getting back into the fight but it takes a lot to break them. I think a Japanese "Too Cowardly!" skill would be cool where units/soldiers just charge or advance rather then following normal commands. That works great for them too- great morale but low discipline makes a great combo. We might want a Banzai rule- broken soldiers may just Banzai forwards rather than run.

The other thing to use discipline for is compicated orders, so Russians just have to be unlleashed and can onyl be minimally controlled. That also makes officers far more useful.

Excuse me I'm babbling but I hope you get the idea.

[tordenskjold]

Well the Japanese socity had experienced a great leap forward from almost medevil socity in the 1800s, and having changed into an industrial socity by the start of the war. Though the weapons and organization of the army had changed the tactics and the mentallity hadn't, resulting in the massacres in China, and the belief that houner and courage was still more important than tactics. Also the officers might have had a problem seeing his men as a part of the army, traditionally the army had been compromised by samurais, who often had a band of soldiers they considered their own, and woulden't let the warlords order around.

As for having the soldiers use different stats for moral and disciplin, it rocks!