War Crimes
One of the most despicable tactics I've ever seen is self-breaking an SS squad with a leader, routing back as far as you can and then rallying the squad in the next rally phase. It is a maneuver for which TEDMS will be judged by his maker very, very harshly.
I don't like SS counters and don't think the SS differed much from regular Wehrmacht troops. But, whatever. The justification for giving them a higher broken side morale was, as I understand it, because they feared being captured.
However, if this is the justification, why don't commissars have a higher broken side morale? Indeed, after 1941, any Red Army soldier that surrendered pretty much knew that he wasn't coming back (even if he had an idea that it wasn't a good idea for him to come back anyway.)
I think, however, there is some justification for this and in fact would be very open to rewriting the rules on War Crimes--No Quarter and Massacre.
The penalty for invoking No Quarter is, essentially, that you provide a little more leeway in routing options for your opponent. This, usually, is a small price to pay for not having to lug around a bunch of prisoners, who sap your strength in a number of ways.
Massacre, while an ELR increase for your opponent is less a laughing matter, is still not a very serious problem. This is because ELR failure is, generally, a pretty unlikely event anyway. I will admit, however, there is a bit of poetry to this system. The SS are less likely to massacre Americans, from whom they are likely to get lucrative contracts and cushy jobs. This is because with a lower morale, Americans are more subject to ELR failure. With the Red Army, they are unlikely to massacre because they are unlikely to get them as prisoners anyway. In Normandy, the base ELR for Americans is "3" (according to Chapter H.) That means that Americans would ELR on a 10 or more on a NMC. Therefore, invoking massacre against them is likely to keep them from sliming.
With regard to SS, their ELR is so high and the consequences are so lame that, as a Red Army player, it is fun and easy to take them prisoner via CC and then invoke massacre...or, better yet, take as many as you can and then invoke massacre all at once.
My point here is that war crimes rules are pretty worthless. The greatest consequence you hear is that it might keep you from mopping up. Big deal. Who mops up victory locations anyway?
Since the primary justification for the SS having a higher broken side morale is that they knew they were "fighting to the death," why not just invoke this as a consequence for declaring no quarter? Presumably, any troops that witness a massacre are going to be less likely to surrender, not just SS troops.
I've maintained for a long time that aside from preferential logistics and voluntary recruitment, there really is no measurable difference between the SS and, say, Wehrmacht troops in 1940. Even the "volunteer" SS is somewhat of a sham, as many "volunteers" saw the SS as there only hope of avoiding the Russian Front.
Early SS formations were made up of concentration camp guards and other low-life criminal scum. Later SS formations were made up of traitors and foreign Waffen SS seeking only to avoid starvation in a prison camp. What's more, voluntary recruitment probably sapped regular Wehrmacht formations as the war progressed. The Red Army did not take SS prisoners. Period. So, yes, they are probably entitled to some morale bonus in desperate situations.
However, units fighting the SS knew of their brutal reputation and, therefore should also be entitled to a morale bonus. The SS were war criminals. Troops facing them knew this. Why are they afforded a bonus just like the desperate troops they face?
I'd suggest a house rule that makes all units with a LOS to No Quarter and Massacre fanatic, in addition to other penalties. Both sides in an SS scenario should have their broken side morale raised by one. It's not just the Germanic Supermen who react to war crimes.
I don't like SS counters and don't think the SS differed much from regular Wehrmacht troops. But, whatever. The justification for giving them a higher broken side morale was, as I understand it, because they feared being captured.
However, if this is the justification, why don't commissars have a higher broken side morale? Indeed, after 1941, any Red Army soldier that surrendered pretty much knew that he wasn't coming back (even if he had an idea that it wasn't a good idea for him to come back anyway.)
I think, however, there is some justification for this and in fact would be very open to rewriting the rules on War Crimes--No Quarter and Massacre.
The penalty for invoking No Quarter is, essentially, that you provide a little more leeway in routing options for your opponent. This, usually, is a small price to pay for not having to lug around a bunch of prisoners, who sap your strength in a number of ways.
Massacre, while an ELR increase for your opponent is less a laughing matter, is still not a very serious problem. This is because ELR failure is, generally, a pretty unlikely event anyway. I will admit, however, there is a bit of poetry to this system. The SS are less likely to massacre Americans, from whom they are likely to get lucrative contracts and cushy jobs. This is because with a lower morale, Americans are more subject to ELR failure. With the Red Army, they are unlikely to massacre because they are unlikely to get them as prisoners anyway. In Normandy, the base ELR for Americans is "3" (according to Chapter H.) That means that Americans would ELR on a 10 or more on a NMC. Therefore, invoking massacre against them is likely to keep them from sliming.
With regard to SS, their ELR is so high and the consequences are so lame that, as a Red Army player, it is fun and easy to take them prisoner via CC and then invoke massacre...or, better yet, take as many as you can and then invoke massacre all at once.
My point here is that war crimes rules are pretty worthless. The greatest consequence you hear is that it might keep you from mopping up. Big deal. Who mops up victory locations anyway?
Since the primary justification for the SS having a higher broken side morale is that they knew they were "fighting to the death," why not just invoke this as a consequence for declaring no quarter? Presumably, any troops that witness a massacre are going to be less likely to surrender, not just SS troops.
I've maintained for a long time that aside from preferential logistics and voluntary recruitment, there really is no measurable difference between the SS and, say, Wehrmacht troops in 1940. Even the "volunteer" SS is somewhat of a sham, as many "volunteers" saw the SS as there only hope of avoiding the Russian Front.
Early SS formations were made up of concentration camp guards and other low-life criminal scum. Later SS formations were made up of traitors and foreign Waffen SS seeking only to avoid starvation in a prison camp. What's more, voluntary recruitment probably sapped regular Wehrmacht formations as the war progressed. The Red Army did not take SS prisoners. Period. So, yes, they are probably entitled to some morale bonus in desperate situations.
However, units fighting the SS knew of their brutal reputation and, therefore should also be entitled to a morale bonus. The SS were war criminals. Troops facing them knew this. Why are they afforded a bonus just like the desperate troops they face?
I'd suggest a house rule that makes all units with a LOS to No Quarter and Massacre fanatic, in addition to other penalties. Both sides in an SS scenario should have their broken side morale raised by one. It's not just the Germanic Supermen who react to war crimes.
Comments