Chits

Soldiers  are _trained_ NOT to think and only obey orders . Initiative
is a dangerous beast in the hand of the common grunt (No offence.mil boys!)
Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
                                           made in
				      [prototype  times]
'The future is now'

> On 19 June Sprayform wrote:

> Soldiers are _trained_ NOT to think and only obey orders .
Initiative is a
> dangerous beast in the hand of the common grunt (No offence

Well I don't know which army this applies to. Certainly NOT the UK, US,
Canadian, Australian or NewZealand armed forces. Display and development of
initiative is a requirement for promotion particularly in Arms
Corps/Services. There is a profound difference between being trained to
obey orders and instinctively react to situations by use of drills as opposed
to a lack of initiative. HOW YOU OBEY THOSE ORDERS WILL OFTEN RELY ON YOUR USE
OF INITIATIVE! Battle Drills are often the only way to
ensure a units (AFV/Platoon/Squad) in the confusion and fear in the Fog
of War.

Being a veteran rifleman of the USMC I have to tell you the difference between
Marines and other soldiers is that they are trained to take

initiative, "common" grunt or not. This is also the case with Royal

Marines. Any professional soldier will tell you they are trained to

think AND obey lawful orders.

You have described poorly trained soldiers which only obey orders and do not
think. These are the type of soldiers which are poorly disciplined and lose
battles because of their very lack of initiative. Even worse these poorly
disciplined robots are notorious for perpetuating massacres, ala Malmadey (sp)
My Lai etc.

                                                Semper Fi
                                                  Jon  (E-5 USMC)

______________________________ Reply Separator

> At 05:34 19/06/97 cst, you wrote:

Yes as are special forces.

> You have described poorly trained soldiers which only obey orders
Or as has even more often been the case, poorly lead good soildiers!!

                                                Semper Fi
> Jon (E-5 USMC)
Please remember this was intended in the discussion of SG II where you can
define the quality of troops (for balanced/biased/v.p.con's etc
senarios)
and not a broad brush anti mil. lefty/righty/uppy/downy political
swipe!!!!

After all Jon (E-5 {is that enlisted, five year service}?)
do you know how many points you cost (of feel you should cost)?? You,ve proved
your initiative by joining the list!!

Hoooooo Raaaaarrr etal

Jon (top cat) Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
                                           made in
				      [prototype  times]
'The future is now'

> Soldiers are _trained_ NOT to think and only obey orders . Initiative

Well that was quite a statement. I don't know what country you live in, but in
the U.S. soldiers are trained a little better than that. Playing in such a
small scale action, we have to assume that the soldiers have been given
general orders before hand, "hold this ridge", "advance to sector B4", "delay
enemy forces for 20 minutes", etc. Forgetting to move a unit does NOT simulate
the confusion of battle, just the forgetfulness of a player. If you want
confusion, perhaps the player should make a communications check, (just draw a
command chit for the PLAYER before the game starts) and he has to make a
sucessful check be fore he can MOVE any troops. They would still fire and
defend themselves of course. Now that
would simulate circumstances beyond the commanders control!   Armies
that have troops with initiative are excellent fighters ( Finnish soldiers
WWII) whereas armies with low troop initiative (Soviet soldiers WWII) must
rely on brute force of numbers to get the job done. I think this accurately
portrayed in SG II with the quality level assigned to each unit. I haven't
played Dirtside yet, but it looks very similar. The point is that every army
today and in the future will have different training levels and to say
that "GRUNTS ARE TRAINED NOT TO THINK" is not accurate.    The chits are
a quick, informative and convientit way to play these games without
cumbersome unit sheets and recording of status on paper.   I really
don't see anyother way to do it. I also don't subscribe to the idea that using
chits to remind you which units have not moved is "unrealistic".   It's
bad enough when you try to combat move a unit and roll a 1 or when you try to
go "in position" and fail, leaving your butts hanging in the wind. The Lt. or
the Gen. didn't have to tell them boys to "get their heads down" they already
know how to do that.

> From the messages written from:

> Jon (top cat)
and
> Jerry McVicker

I believe that there are two ways to look at this. In a friendly game or
scenario it would be best to assume That unless other wise stated comunication
and orders would be avalible to all units. meaning that if a player for gets
to give orders then the other player couls remind him.

After all it is a game and usually for fun..

The second way is in tournament, when the point is compitition. At this
point if a player forgets to give orders then that was his / her
inablity to play the game. "oh well, sorry" at this point it is the point to
be clear minded and tacticful... more so than your opponent, if they screw up
it should be to your advantage (it's a measure of who is better at the game
and the stress related to playing it.

my $0.02 for now

CMC

> At 19:59 20/06/97 -0700, you wrote:

> Soldiers are _trained_ NOT to think and only obey orders .

O.k. so they think its a daft idea to assault the hill with the art. spotter
on cos he's got support and they know many of them will die. They think its a
much better idea to wait for air support before they move.
 You tell me which they are _trained_ to do!!

> Initiative is a

Please remember the context of chits. (I _disliked_the idea of their use
as a reminder to the player (aka general!!) as to which units have moved and
that they were justified as 'soldiers taking the initiative'.

IMHO I think the wording "Initiative" is the problem. Its inteligence (as in
whats beyond the hill not sqr root of 45678!) that soldiers would react to,
over and above their orders; rather than I,ve got a better plan than my
superiors. The player has total inteligence of the battlefield something
generals don,t (and are always striving for. {gulf war spy sats best current
example of
near total overview}) so that should be off-set by  'forgot to move =
tough luck ' Not "but my squaddies would see that the arty is just setting up
beyond the wood and attack rather than stay put cos I fogot to move them
!!"

Jon (top cat) who appears to have opened the can of.mil worms (or should that
be iron rations!! Sprayforming Developments Ltd. [production tools]
                                           made in
				      [prototype  times]
'The future is now'

> At 15:14 19/06/97 +0100,Jerry McV wrote:

> Well that was quite a statement. I don't know what country you live
Yer yer yer (as is always the case!! ww2- late, K-draw narm-lost,
grenada &
somalia- send in the crack news reporters first! & gulf war-uk losses
more due to u.s 'friendly' fire!!!) I think its like driving (95% of people
think they are above average) every body thinks their average will be better
than the next guys! In SG II average is just that!

 Playing in

> such a small scale action, we have to assume that the soldiers have
"hold this ridge", "advance to sector
> B4", "delay enemy forces for 20 minutes", etc. Forgetting to move a

disagree

If you want confusion, perhaps the player should make a
> communications check, (just draw a command chit for the PLAYER before

> played Dirtside yet, but it looks very similar. The point is that
they
> already know how to do that.
See answer on reasoning already posted! Jon (tc) Sprayforming Developments
Ltd. [production tools]
                                           made in
				      [prototype  times]
'The future is now'

> At 15:14 19/06/97 +0100,Jerry McV wrote:
Initiative is a
> dangerous beast in the hand of the common grunt (No offence .mil

Now let's not get all patriotic here. We are talking about modern forces, if I
want to get historic I can think up a few British screw ups as well. actually
quite a few, you Brits have had your noses in every piece of
territory in the world :-) . Let's see Anglo-Dutch Wars, American
Revolution, Boer War, War of 1812, WWII anytime before the US was involved and
you lost more troops against Argentina then we did the entire Gulf War.
Besides all that trash, I believe that troop quality level it modeled very
well in the game. Have you ever noticed that even with the chits there to
remind people, they forget anyway? I really don't think it's a problem.
Anyway, I drive offensively. I figure with all those defensive drivers out
there, someone has to do it. I guess that would make me better than 95% of
other drivers! ;-)

> On 19 June Sprayform wrote:

Disagree.

> Initiative is a

Agree, especially to the enemy. Alas, it's rare, you have to teach people to
think for themselves. Which we do.

Oh, By the way, I can also be reached at abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au. That's
the Australian Defence Force Academy, where I teach part-time.

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:

> Marines. Any professional soldier will tell you they are trained

So, what do you do when those two conflict?

That's right, obey the orders. No reasoning, no backtalk, just obey or face
court martial.

Obedience is of primary importance. Initiative is a nice plus for situations
when there's no one around to order you (which gets more common in the higher
ranks, true).

Part of military training is designed to break down initiative, e.g. parade
drills, systematic humialiation, senseless tasks.

It may get better as time goes by, but basic training is very much centered on
showing the recruit his place in the system and killing any
initiative or free thought -- and with that in conscript armies like
ours, dies the professional expertise the recruit had in civilian life.

And please don't tell me you've never had an idiot for a superior officer.

Anyone who has been in the military can admit to having had at least one idiot
superior but, they are rarer than the number of idiot bosses you find in
civilian life Also the porpose in prade drills, the so called systematic
humiliation, and senseless tasks is not to breack down individual initiative
but to break down the normal me first behavior of most civilians. The military
requires a level of team spirit beyond anything most sports require Prade
drills are about thinking as part of a unit... how does what you do affect
those around you. The systematic humiliation isn't... humiliation, at least
when I went through boot it wasn't; and that was 10 years ago before the
newwer (not a real word but it is 2 am here) more sensative army came into
being you do get yelled at you do get very audibly corrected... and when you
show initiative that helps the team meet an objective you are praised (though
in boot it is hardto recognize it as praise:)). Most of the senseless work is
not sensless.. it fosters team cohesiion by encouraging a limited us against
the brass attitude.. ask any officer what woories them more having the men
bitch about this or that thing or not bitching at all... and see what response
you get.... As a grunt you are the expert on the ground... you are expected to
use you training and personal initiative to acheive the objectives set by your
superiors who are coordinating the big picture... they don't need the little
picture... that is what you take care of... they train you to deal with the
details of the little picture so they can count on the big picture coming out
for your side. That is why you don't question LEGAL orders even when they seem
stupid; not doing them can screw the big picture which can kill an lot more
people than if you had just used your initiative to acheive the objective.
Thats why when the too conflict you go with orders. 9 times out of 10.
> At 08:45 AM 6/23/97 +0300, you wrote:

> initiative or free thought -- and with that in conscript armies like

You obey lawful orders. You are trained to do your best to know what a lawful
order is. Blindly following orders is not USMC doctrine, sorry we are not SS
troopers or NKVD. "I was just following orders" will not work in the USMC,
doesn't matter if your officer is "challenged" or not. Any good NCO has to
train his officers anyway.

Poor officers can and do get their men killed, and assault troops are trained
to follow orders "normal" troop may balk at. But never think that just because
an officer (especially in a small unit setting) issues a off the wall order.
It will be followed. There are several legitimate ways to NOT follow unlawful,
or foolish orders, or go around them. In the end it comes down to the trust
and respect the men have for one another and their leaders (Espirt de Corps).

I understand we are talking in gaming terms for the most part here. But as I
am sure we all know. Games are not even really simulations of real life. And
the
best simulations/models I have ever seen fell short in  the small unit
(infantry) area. And I never played a FUN game that was a simulation (in any
kind of a serious way).

                                                   Semper Fi
Jon H.

_____________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Re : Chits
Author:  FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk at MEMCPSMTP
Date:    6/23/97 12:47 AM

> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Jon Holloway wrote:

> Marines. Any professional soldier will tell you they are trained

So, what do you do when those two conflict?

That's right, obey the orders. No reasoning, no backtalk, just obey or face
court martial.

Obedience is of primary importance. Initiative is a nice plus for situations
when there's no one around to order you (which gets more common in the higher
ranks, true).

Part of military training is designed to break down initiative, e.g. parade
drills, systematic humialiation, senseless tasks.

It may get better as time goes by, but basic training is very much centered on
showing the recruit his place in the system and killing any
initiative or free thought -- and with that in conscript armies like
ours, dies the professional expertise the recruit had in civilian life.

And please don't tell me you've never had an idiot for a superior officer.

> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, John Owen wrote:

Well, I don't want to argue military training. I've no first-hand
experience in your system and you have none in ours, though I'd assume they're
somewhat similar.

Good thing you made the distinction between unlawful orders and simply stupid
ones.

I can't agree with a number of your points, but I'll leave it at that.

As for gaming: The primary basic instinct in anyone's head is survival. I know
the first thing I'd consider about any course of action is how likely it will
get my head blown off. I'll take the liberal assumption that most mankind is
alike. Usually this means sitting still when you're

not quite sure what's going on -- and that's a fairly common occurrance.

Games generally have this "eye of god" problem. The player instantly sees the
entire battlefield and "communicates" this state to all troops. Forgetting to
move your figures goes just a little way towards evening this omniscience.

IMHO, it would be reasonable to let "idle" troops respond to immediate threats
they can observe, but no more.

> As a grunt you are the expert on the ground... you are expected to use

That's the ideal. In my experience the brass can't resist meddling with the
details though... This is especially bad when the grunts have far superior
skill with the matter learned *outside* the military (I assume you don't get
much of that in a professional army).

Mind you, the argument about initiative of the Private Soldier is not relevant
to the game of SGII as such since we look at the Leadership values of the
LEADER. All discussions about various armies, parade ground drill, battle
drills etc are nice to follow but that's about all.

How much iinitiative an individual soldier may display/lack is not
addressed in SGII; the lowest level manouvre unit is the squad (Okay
exceptions for snipers, etc). Writing in rules to reflect personal initiative
is more in the realm of the Skirmish game, Quineg?

Owen Glover

> ----------

> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Glover, Owen wrote:

> How much iinitiative an individual soldier may display/lack is not

I don't think anyone suggested actual rules. I think the original question was
along these lines:

Is it realistic/believable to assume that a player forgetting to move
some of his troops "simulates" loss of communication, uncertainty about the
situation and general "fog of war"?

IMO, yes. SGII and DSII are rather small scale actions. A squad securely

in position and without orders to the contrary will most likely assume they
were supposed to stay put and watch for enemy activity.

Yes, the squad may have more long-term goals, but do you really want to
record those?

As for forgetting to fire... Here I think the player should be reminded as
troops are most likely to engage enemy in sight if not specifically told not
to. Or they should be given a chance to at least return fire if

later fired upon during the enemy turn.