[Mass Combat] Discipline, Law, Order and Preventing Atrocities

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

I've heard previous arguments wherein modern moralists have more or less lambasted the long dead for the way things were back then. We've learned a better way - or believe we have - and those people then did not, or could not, given the conditions they were living amidst then. I never once questioned my grandfather about how he treated Jews prior to WWII. It was enough for me, I suppose, that he did serve, and that for all the time I knew him, he never once spoke ill of anyone. And I know from my father that my grandfather did have a few biases, though in my opinion his reasons were more personal than anything else. My point is that it is very difficult to judge the past, since we were not a part of it. All the more so when the past is removed by centuries.

I was recently surprised to learn that it took mathematicians some thirty years to fully flesh out the proof that 1+1=2. I would imagine that coming up with some sort of mathematical model to generate a statistical model of typical post-battle atrocities in a historical setting would take just as long. It happens for so many stupid reasons, and psychologically it just seemed to come down to greed, wrath, and power, much as it still does. The difference then was that it was expected to happen. It was almost a perk of a conquering force - to do with the conquered as they wished. Some conquerors let their men run rampant, some reigned them in, and some made mountains out of the skulls of their victims.

Take your commander's wishes and translate that into what will, for the most part, happen. I wouldn't dwell on the numbers - there will always be those who refuse to toe the line. You can make it a quest of sorts for the PC's to investigate an incident, or a series of them, and to bring those they believe to be involved before justice. Your characters will not catch them all, so I wouldn't fret over such fine details. Either such incidents are critical to the overall story you are weaving, or they are just so much noise in the background. Those who suffered such deprivations were not likely to come forward, as in those days no one spoke of such things. Before people like Oprah stepped up and came out about the sort of things they had suffered through, most victims of such violence did not really speak of it. They held it in, and tried to cope. Some managed, some did not. Some imploded, and some exploded.

Figure out what you need - story-wise - of such events, and either work it in, or just have it as a casual mention. Such-and-such occurred - make up a number - and so-and-so have been put in chains, and await judgement. If it isn't driving your story, I'd keep it at arms length. Have your commander do what he must, mourn if he must, but move on.

I'm not so sure we've learned a better way so much as having more margin for error or thinking we have such. The temptation to use terror bombing to shut down Hitler or Tojo is greater then that to use it for Jihadists who may be as bad in intent but not in ability. Even then there have been short-cuts to say the least but not to the degree there might have been. I think Chesterton once said something about the difference between a suburbanite who is kind to animals and a shepherd.

The use of the enemy's territory as a perk is a reflection of lack of wealth. Modern armies can afford to give regular pay and feed them reasonably well. In Third World armies the old style still reigns. Even so one could get advantage by keeping one's men in hand while marching through the countryside. A good reputation, or at least a better one then one's enemy can get local cooperation.

One point that should be made is that predictability is as important as decency. If the locals know that you are ruthless but know that you have rules that can be understood then they are less likely to turn against you. For instance if it is known that you assassinate informants but only forage at a regular rate and don't do any other atrocities beyond taking their grain, then they might be inclined to accept you especially if your enemy is unpredictable and doesn't control his men.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

I was recently surprised to learn that it took mathematicians some thirty years to fully flesh out the proof that 1+1=2. I would imagine that coming up with some sort of mathematical model to generate a statistical model of typical post-battle atrocities in a historical setting would take just as long.

I don't need a robust statistical model that can predict individual behaviour. I need a rough benchmark of frequency, to be able to adjust based on situation and skill rolls, for macro-scale numbers.

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

It happens for so many stupid reasons, and psychologically it just seemed to come down to greed, wrath, and power, much as it still does.

I would be more inclined to consider fear, confusion and alienation as primary causes. Very few people truly enjoy war. Most men are cut off from their ordinary lives, family and all the things that, to them, represent the physical embodiment of a value system and right and wrong. Most of their cultural norms enable them to act within a small society linked by kin bonds and strongly tied to a certain locality. In an alien situation, they lack a frame of reference for appropriate standards of behaviour toward those who lack any link to them and whom it is easy to lump into an undifferentiated mass of frigthening and hateful 'enemies'.

Abstract moral reasoning has little true impact on most people, certainly not when faced with strong emotion. And in war, most people are afraid and confused all the time. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. And so on.

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

The difference then was that it was expected to happen. It was almost a perk of a conquering force - to do with the conquered as they wished. Some conquerors let their men run rampant, some reigned them in, and some made mountains out of the skulls of their victims.

For most of human history, the right to advance economically and satiate their base desires at the expense of the conquered was pretty much the sole perk of common soldiers.

Any commander who wants to have willing soldiers, but doesn't want to accord them this right is going to have to control a very advanced system of infrastructure, law and organisation that can make a career where people try to kill you competative with one where they were rarely do, without providing that extraordinary chance of social mobility which most other careers did not.

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

Take your commander's wishes and translate that into what will, for the most part, happen. I wouldn't dwell on the numbers - there will always be those who refuse to toe the line. You can make it a quest of sorts for the PC's to investigate an incident, or a series of them, and to bring those they believe to be involved before justice. Your characters will not catch them all, so I wouldn't fret over such fine details. Either such incidents are critical to the overall story you are weaving, or they are just so much noise in the background.

Being able to translate wishes into reality in RPGs usually requires supernatural powers and/or skill checks modified for the difficulty of the task.

In this case, it is implausible that any success on a non-magical skill check could enable one person to control the behaviour of thousands in a chaotic situation. Good planning and organisation can minimise and mitigate harm, but not eliminate it.

But I need to know whether the PC is dealing with a few isolated incidents, a couple of dozen, hundreds or thousands. I don't really have a good feeling for the percentage of people in a typical TL2-4 military force who will rape and murder civilians. As I noted earlier, I can find stats for modern militaries, but in all cases, the situation is so fundamentally different that these stats are useless.

Intuitively, I suspect anything from 5% to 80% may be possible as a baseline, assuming no influence one way or another from the high command. But I don't have enough data to come up with a narrower range.

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

Those who suffered such deprivations were not likely to come forward, as in those days no one spoke of such things. Before people like Oprah stepped up and came out about the sort of things they had suffered through, most victims of such violence did not really speak of it. They held it in, and tried to cope. Some managed, some did not. Some imploded, and some exploded.

While many civilians may not bring their grievances to the officers of the new occupying army, rumours of any atrocities committed will spread and will have an impact on the relations between the PCs' Free Unther army and the people intended to be the new citizens of Shussel under Free Unther.

It's vital for the plans of the PCs that the majority of the civilian populace does not hate and fear their men and that community leaders feel that it is safe and useful to bring complaints to their officers.

Originally Posted by dukofdeth

Figure out what you need - story-wise - of such events, and either work it in, or just have it as a casual mention. Such-and-such occurred - make up a number - and so-and-so have been put in chains, and await judgement. If it isn't driving your story, I'd keep it at arms length. Have your commander do what he must, mourn if he must, but move on.

What I need?

It's not about my needs or my story. The players have goals for their characters. I model the world.

My job is to make the number of accused violators of the general orders plausible. I also have to be able to answer what faction each of them comes from, because there will major political consequences if the PC executes volunteers from allied factions that he technically has no lawful authority to punish, beyond refusing their services.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by legine

Uhh you want to make a role how many War Crimes it will be conducted?

I am personly more fan of makeing a scene up for the players. So what is the Playstyle like?

The scene is that the supreme commander of this particular military campaign, who is a PC, has enacted certain precautionary measures meant to minimise atrocities against the civil populace as his men seize an important port city. He has now taken the city and asks his aide-de-camp to ascertain how many men he will have to hang for murders and rape.

Of course, hanging his own men might play havoc with morale and certainly costs him experienced soldiers. Hanging allied soldiers might not even be legal, in strict terms, and might end up losing the allegiance of certain factions. Not hanging anyone will almost certainly have dire consequences for the civilian populace, but most of the effects in that case would be delayed and hard to detect directly.

Originally Posted by legine

Good vs. Evil?

In the sense that each PC must come to term with Good and Evil within himself, sure. In the sense that there are people who can usefully be described as either, not as much. I mean, it's conveninent shorthand for a tiny number of extreme outliers, as well as certain toxic memes, but in general, it obscures more than it illuminates.

Originally Posted by legine

I would pick a clear scene, and let the people act. If they act brutal, they get a fear reaction modifier next time they talk to their troops.
If they act soft, they will get more scenes.
If they act disciplary and just they get respect modifier next time they try to talk to the troups.

I doubt there will be many instances where even the most ignorant, callous and sadistic knucklehead in the army attempts to murder or rape civilians while being directly observed by the Commander-in-Chief, a coterie of officers and clerks, some dozen personal bodyguards and maybe a company escort.

The incidents will happen lower down in the command chain. The task of the PCs is to judge in any capital cases, as he has delegated decisions in cases where there is no question of the death penalty to his subordinates. So any scene will feature the total number of accused murderers and rapists among the army, at least those who have been accused after some 12 hours in the city, i.e. mostly those caught in the act.*

*Or who some officer said had been caught in the act.

Originally Posted by legine

For Gritty, or Hard played scenarios i would choose a dodgy scene, where it is not clear what has been happening. Where the first action is the wrong one, or where you have to choose between loose and losse. (But would not do that to often. This usually demotivates players)

There will always be uncertainty in war. And if ruling a wartorn city and commanding an army in a terrible war simply came down to choosing between clear-cut Good and Evil, any five-year-old could do it.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Icelander

How many in an Average Troop Quality unit of TL 2-4 soldiers will seize upon a chance to rob, rape or murder one or more civilians during an assault on a city that was held by the enemy?

During the assault, in the calm after its success, or once command has been re-established? Those are likely to be different, I suspect.

Let's consider looting first, because troops who don't loot are unlikely to commit any other crimes.

During the assault, only the undisciplined will be diverted by the prospect of loot, because leaving loot around as a distraction is the kind of thing desperate defenders are reputed to do as a means of staging ambushes. However, if the loot is good, and also easy to carry - hard cash, hard liquor, and the like - it will be very tempting.

Once the battle is won, almost any troops will take loot that is lying around, and doesn't have to be actively taken from its owners. Units that had a hard fight and significant casualties are more likely to actively rob, because they feel they deserve recompense. At a rough guess, 20% of troops will actively rob.

Once command has been re-established, and the lying-around loot is all gone, robbery will be confined to the actual criminally minded soldiers, who I'd reckon would be about 5%.

Rapists will be a fraction of the robbers; murderers might well be more common than rapists, simply because confrontations over robbery can turn violent fairly easily.

[phayman53]

I think a key point in this situation is that the city surrendered with relatively little fighting. From what you said, it seems like the port was taken and a counter attack was repulsed, but the PC army marched into the city proper only after it surrendered. If your setting has the same "rules of war" as most of the historical ancient and medieval world, then that would mean there would have been very little in the form of atrocities like rampent murder, looting, and rape. An army marching into a city in good order and occupying it can be controlled (even in the ancient world) as long as the command structure is maintained and soldiers are not simply turned loose.

I would say in this situation you can expect rates of murder, rape, and looting from the PC army commensurate with the normal rates of those crimes committed by the various troop types of the PC army when they are in friendly or neutral territory. As the GM, those rates are up to you because they depend on the specific societies in your game world (there is no one, correct historical rate of such things). Because the PCs in charge of the army are actively trying to reduce these crimes, I would make Influence rolls for the various groups within the army (probably against leadership for the PC commander, with complimentary skill rolls against administration, psychology (applied), etc). And then reduce the rates of these crimes by 5% on a success, ruduced by a further 5% per MOS (and vice versa on a failed roll).

As for what the baseline rates shoud be, as a rule of thumb I would say that for irregular and levy troop types, use twice the rates for that troop type's civlian population of origin (this is not scientific, I don't think any scientific statistics exist for this sort of thing, it simply represents that local populations didn't like having their own armies of this type around so there probably was a significant increase in bad behavior due to their presence). For professional, disciplined troops, I would be the base rate as the same as their civilian population of origin. For pirates I would say at least triple the rates, maybe more. I would say the same for Fanatics and the intolerant, but only against the groups that they oppose.