"Will to fight" of units

[seeds24]

I think the game could use a "will to fight" or "fighting spirit" capacity for each unit, to model the fact that historically some armies collapsed because the soldiers didn't want to fight. It is not the same as strength nor doctrine. Like the italian army : the italian soldiers simply didn't want to die to restore the roman empire for Mussolini or to conquer land for Germany in Russia. This could be tied to internal factors (revanchism, desire for peace) the political situation (unpopular leader/govt) the diplomac situation (the country is attacked, or is the agressor)...

A low "fighting spirit" capacity could lead to a rapid decrease of organisation after some time fighting so the player should act accordingly, rotating its division more than with another country, using mainly elite units with bonus of fighting spirit...

Some countries should start with a high fighting spirit because of deep internal factors (USSR, Germany, Japan...) and some with a much lower one (Italy, the axis minors, USA..).

Some mechanics should also represent the fact that the US public opinion can accept only much lower human losses than countries that were fighting more or less for their survival (USSR...). So a US player that sends a big infantry army overseas should have big problems at home if military defeats happens, while for USSR or Germany a defeat could even provide a morale boost to the army if correcty used by the propaganda (see Stalin'speech in fall of '41 or Goebbels "total war" speech after Stalingrad...)

 

[Nicolas I]

The "will to fight" already exists in the game, that's the morale of units. Units with high morale regain organization faster. Some doctrines give higher morale. Some unique units have higher morale.

But you may have a point that the morale of units and nations could play a bigger role in the game.

 

[seeds24]

yes but the current system doesn't really represent "morale", it is basically just a tech that you research to boost organisation. Morale played a much bigger part in the conflict than that.

 

[Charles Reeps]

yes but the current system doesn't really represent "morale", it is basically just a tech that you research to boost organisation. Morale played a much bigger part in the conflict than that.

Morale does not boost organisation. It represents a units rate of organisation regain. You can really see the difference when it comes to an infantry division with artillery in it. Infantry brigades of the same doctrinal year as artillery have a higher morale and after only a few combats the division will be out of action waiting for the artillery to catch up. Many times a division will be forced out of combat early because of this situation.

 

[PEP]

No. That's simply wrong. A German soldier isn't better than an Italian or a French soldier. What you're describing is and should be represented through doctrines and equipment, not some random "lol your Italian/French so you can't fight" penalty.

 

[seeds24]

No. That's simply wrong. A German soldier isn't better than an Italian or a French soldier. What you're describing is and should be represented through doctrines and equipment, not some random "lol your Italian/French so you can't fight" penalty.

I'm not talking about "better" soldier. Im talking about morale tied to the general state of affairs. Doctrine and equipment weren't the big factor of the italian rout againt smaller british forces in North Africa in 1940, so how do you model that in game ?

 

[seeds24]

Morale does not boost organisation. It represents a units rate of organisation regain. You can really see the difference when it comes to an infantry division with artillery in it. Infantry brigades of the same doctrinal year as artillery have a higher morale and after only a few combats the division will be out of action waiting for the artillery to catch up. Many times a division will be forced out of combat early because of this situation.

yes but at the end of the day it's just a tech slot that you research. Morale didn't worked this way IRL. Im trying to think of ways to better represent it.

 

[Charles Reeps]

I'm not talking about "better" soldier. Im talking about morale tied to the general state of affairs. Doctrine and equipment weren't the big factor of the italian rout againt smaller british forces in North Africa in 1940, so how do you model that in game ?

It's already very well modeled in the game with Italy having worse Doctrines, officer ratio and equipment. The only way to prevent the rout as Italy is to spend the leadership to overcome these problems. Doing so leaves you lacking in other critical areas, thus you are left with an almost impossible balancing act.

 

[Angel Walker]

No. That's simply wrong. A German soldier isn't better than an Italian or a French soldier. What you're describing is and should be represented through doctrines and equipment, not some random "lol your Italian/French so you can't fight" penalty.

TBH the original poster doesn't imply that it should be tied to the nationality. To paraphrase, "this could be tied to internal factors (revanchism, desire for peace) the political situation (unpopular leader/govt) the diplomac situation (the country is attacked, or is the agressor)..."

Paradox has already hinted at that the military part of the game directly affects the political situation (as in accomplishing military objectives increase your party's popularity, or something along these lines). Maybe the reverse, as the OP proposes, will be true.

National Unity already modeled the will to fight of a country to some extent (though IIRC it had no effect in individual battles, only in the surrender point). In any case it was a mediocre game mechanic, as you could max it simply by investing some leadership in spies and then selecting the raise NU mission.

 

[Charles Reeps]

yes but at the end of the day it's just a tech slot that you research. Morale didn't worked this way IRL. Im trying to think of ways to better represent it.

You're viewing these doctrines (it is more than just one) as just research into some kind of new fangled widgets; they are not. They represent an extensive leadership expenditure in the improvement of your troops. This is one of the reasons they are so expensive. Officer ratio represents the same thing. The morale of the troops can be directly founded in the level and quality of the officer/nco corps, and this again requires a large leadership investment. You need to quit equating leadership and widgets; they are not the same.

 

[seeds24]

You're viewing these doctrines (it is more than just one) as just research into some kind of new fangled widgets; they are not. They represent an extensive leadership expenditure in the improvement of your troops. This is one of the reasons they are so expensive. Officer ratio represents the same thing. The morale of the troops can be directly founded in the level and quality of the officer/nco corps, and this again requires a large leadership investment. You need to quit equating leadership and widgets; they are not the same.

I understand that investing in training and officers should improve morale, but from my point of view, morale should be something more difficult to control and linked to a variety of factors, including diplomacy, internal politics, type of regime...

 

[Charles Reeps]

I understand that investing in training and officers should improve morale, but from my point of view, morale should be something more difficult to control and linked to a variety of factors, including diplomacy, internal politics, type of regime...

I understand what your asking for, but then you begin delving into things that become intangible and subjective. In order to fit things into the game they have to be as measurable as possible. Let me give you an example: one would think that a country winning victory after victory, utterly smashing an enemy, would have a populace completely behind the war effort. This would be especially true if that nation had been subjected to a brutal, sneek attack at the onset of hostilities. I of course am refering to the USA. In game terms the nation should have high morale and national support for the war, thus giving its troops a bonus while fighting.

Does this sound reasonable? I would think it does, but by mid-1944 this was not the case. Americans were already growing tired of a war that they had only just entered two and a half years earlier; support on the home front was actually flagging! How do you model this? Better still, how do you explain it? You cannot. It also doesn't square with the fact that other nations that were suffering defeat after defeat, subject to brutal bombings and loses at sea had stiffening resolve. Thus we are left with bonuses for defeats and maluses for victories? This is why intangibles (the immeasurable) should be avoided.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, HOI3 has mechanics that tie dissent to morale. And NU can make an entire country surrender quickly.

I actually see no reason that new or improved mechanics can't model what the OP asks for. The catch is that, in some cases, the will to fight of combatants depended, in part, on the policies of other nations. The Morgenthau Plan stiffened German resistance when it was announced according to General Marshall, and Goebbels certainly made good use of the plan in his propaganda. There are even more complicated consequences to various Axis policies. Then there's the whole "Lie to our own people about what the enemy will do" problem, such as Japanese propaganda that convinced portions of the population that Marines would rape or kill or torture everyone.

However it was done, it would have to be flexible with conditions on the ground. While the population of the US might not be super excited about sending men to die to restore the British Empire, an Axis invasion of CONUS would provoke a much stronger reaction and a strong desire to fight to the last.

 

[Charles Reeps]

If the OPs idea were taken to the other extreme, i.e., instead of the military losing its "will to fight" it might gain a "will to impose its will" against the government via a coup, I might get behind this idea. However, HOI has already proven incapable of mastering dynamic and somewhat intangible political and diplomatic forces; I doubt this will change because it is very difficult to model immeasurable conditions.

However it was done, it would have to be flexible with conditions on the ground. While the population of the US might not be super excited about sending men to die to restore the British Empire, an Axis invasion of CONUS would provoke a much stronger reaction and a strong desire to fight to the last.

I thought this mechanism already existed as a modifier if a country is defending its core territory. Can't remember the name of the modifier, but I'm certain Germany and Russia get it.

 

[Nicolas I]

I thought this mechanism already existed as a modifier if a country is defending its core territory. Can't remember the name of the modifier, but I'm certain Germany and Russia get it.

That is territorial pride, but not every country get it in HOI3.

As some others explained, the will to fight is influenced by many factors, some going in different directions, which make it difficult to model accurately. This cannot be a fixed number for each nation as it is situational.

Some factors could be related to the "national character" (if that exists), to the historical background (previous wars), to the military tradition, to the current military political, economic, social situation, to international politics and alliances, just to name a few. Also, on the ground (air and sea), there is also local factors that explains why some units are more willing to fight.

In the end, I still find there is something interesting behind this idea, but it seems very easy to screw. I always prefer not getting a new feature unless it's working...

 

[Charles Reeps]

That is territorial pride, but not every country get it in HOI3.

As some others explained, the will to fight is influenced by many factors, some going in different directions, which make it difficult to model accurately. This cannot be a fixed number for each nation as it is situational.

Some factors could be related to the "national character" (if that exists), to the historical background (previous wars), to the military tradition, to the current military political, economic, social situation, to international politics and alliances, just to name a few. Also, on the ground (air and sea), there is also local factors that explains why some units are more willing to fight.

In the end, I still find there is something interesting behind this idea, but it seems very easy to screw. I always prefer not getting a new feature unless it's working...

Ah, yes, territorial pride! Thank you - my brain functions poorly before I've finished my first pot of coffee. No matter how much we discuss the merits and/or demerits of this idea your final conclusion is of utmost importance.

In the end, I still find there is something interesting behind this idea, but it seems very easy to screw. I always prefer not getting a new feature unless it's working...

 

[seeds24]

Does this sound reasonable? I would think it does, but by mid-1944 this was not the case. Americans were already growing tired of a war that they had only just entered two and a half years earlier; support on the home front was actually flagging! How do you model this? Better still, how do you explain it? You cannot.

I think I can explain it, the american public was not willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers in a distant war against a enemy that wasn't really threatening its mainland. I think it could be modelled like this : a democracy should have high war weariness and low tolerance of human losses when fighting a war overseas. An authoritarian regime should have lower war weariness especially when fighting a war on its mainland.

This way the USA would not be OP, because IRL their big weakness was the will of its population to continue the fight (they were isolationnist and had a bitter remembrance of their involvement during WW1). What would have happen if Overlord had failed with heavy losses ? the support for war would have declined and maybe some politicians in the US would have asked for a separate peace with Germany.

 

[Art1985]

I think it should depend on the level of fanatical soldiers. For Germany, the level of fanaticism should be higher than the rest. But in general fanaticism should depend on political events and military successes.

 

[Råttan]

I like the idea that if the war goes good, you get a morale bonus of some kind (battle modifier, ORG-bonus, ORG regain bonus, IC-bonus or something...) and the opposite if the war goes badly...

 

[EmperorTojo]

This is a very cool idea, and I hope that Paradox can implement it somehow. Advance the morale system and tie it to national unity perhaps? The unity of your nation should probably increase and decrease depending how the war is going, and should affect the morale of your armies. The italians were as good as any german soldier, but they had no motivation to fight, especially in the end. Although this wouldn't really represent Japan very well; since the Japanese became more fanatic during the end than they were at the beginning of the war. Or USSR for that part, who fought harder for every land taken. But yeah, the "Elite" (SS and the sort) should probably always have high morale. If we brain stormed this a little it could be pretty amazing feature.