Allied AAR: A Route to Ribera or "A Bridge Too Far" (CMPzC)

[Fizou]

Overview after 38 minutes of combat:

Orange circle: 75 mm axis artillery mission

White text indicated the direction/location of the Grille and where its two shells impacted.

Overview from the Grilles location:

The Grille cause the 9th casualty to the Rangers.

--

[noob]

Thanks for the input noob. The reason for the morale drop to units taking to many casualties are in effect because that's how units are affected in PzC when they take casualties.

In PzC, morale is not linked to casualties, it's linked to fatigue. Once the units fatigue level goes beyond a certain level, morale drops by one level. Units displayed as losing men during PzC fire rounds, also have their fatigue increased, although that information does not appear in the hit text. So fatigue determines morale, not casualties.

If the entire fore lose 20% of its starting strength it will lose one level of morale.

Then we get back to my original point, if the mission was successful, the 20% losses sustained should have no effect on morale. It's the success of the mission that should determine morale, if used as a soft factor.

I'm following the Caen operation closely. Looking forward to the first battle!

Thanks, I'm actually more looking forward to the end of the battle, that's where the admin fun starts, but i doubt if the map will be contested, so it shouldn't be too complex

I don't want to hijack this thread, so if you wish further discussions about rules in public, we could start a new thread, or could just do it privately by email, it's your call.

[Fizou]

In PzC, morale is not linked to casualties, it's linked to fatigue. Once the units fatigue level goes beyond a certain level, morale drops by one level. Units displayed as losing men during PzC fire rounds, also have their fatigue increased, although that information does not appear in the hit text. So fatigue determines morale, not casualties.

Then we get back to my original point, if the mission was successful, the 20% losses sustained should have no effect on morale. It's the success of the mission that should determine morale, if used as a soft factor.

Thanks, I'm actually more looking forward to the end of the battle, that's where the admin fun starts, but i doubt if the map will be contested, so it shouldn't be too complex

I don't want to hijack this thread, so if you wish further discussions about rules in public, we could start a new thread, or could just do it privately by email, it's your call.

Its OK noob. Happy to discuss here.

The main point is that combat will affect units and their morale. As they become more fatigued and sustain casualties. Casualties will increase fatigue that lowers morale in the long run. PzC combat and fire will affect units, so should be the case with CM combat.

Weather a unit is successful in its task should also be covered, as you say. I believe we have that down, with the fact that a unit, attacking or defending cant leave the map within a certain time limit to determine whether it has been successful or not with its mission. Was it a orderly fighting withdrawal or a uncontrolled route as an example.

At the moment the whole force needs to contest the map/fight for at least 30 minutes to be counted as successful conducting its mission. Otherwise it will suffer a morale penalty.

It the whole force suffer high casualties units will also lose morale.. (starting at 20%) which I feel is very natural for the fighting man. Securing hill A wont mater as much as losing the friends in your platoon.

If the numbers and mix is perfect? Probably not, so we will keep testing and changing as we go along during this test campaign.

[Fizou]

The 39 and 40 minutes..

In the CENTER..

As the 39 minute is kicking off I spot Grenadiers moving up over the left side of NAI (the enemy right). They are closing in on my escaping force.

My withdrawal in the center is going slow and the enemy has soon trained 81 mm, 75 mm, 150 mm and MG fire on the brush covered area giving best concealment. I will try to reroute my men as they head towards safety.

The Germans will make us pay for attacking so boldly..

Another Ranger is KIA after a 150 mm Grille shell hits home. Again, Im lucky that it only causes one casualty.

On the other side of the hill I sustain another KIA as the Grille fires again.

The 11th casualty inflicted, again by a Grille.

The central escape route is turning into an inferno as a variety of enemy ordinance is dropping from the sky.

Another 150 mm shell explodes in close proximity to my Rangers.

As the barrage continues the PzGrenadiers send more men to reinforce the Winery.

[Fizou]

During the 40th minute another explosion brings down a Ranger and my casualties are now numbering 12 men. This is escalating fast!

Some of the mortar teams are moved off map. Without any 60 mm ammo they might as well get out.

Overview after 40 minutes of combat:

Blue arrows: Allied movement - we are now in full withdrawal in all areas.

Orange arrows: Axis movement

Orange boxes: Areas pounded by enemy artillery and MG fire.

A: 2 casualties of 6. The four reminding men find safety at last as they reach the wooded area out of reach of the enemy direct fire assets.

B: 2 casualties are inflicted here by the heavy enemy artillery barrage.

C: The Grille that was knocked out earlier during the engagement.

[noob]

@Fizou - When deciding how to transfer data from the CM battlefield to the PzC OOB, I opted for simplicity. So the role of the CM battle in CMPzC, is to either force the defender to exit the CM map, and thus have to exit the PzC hex, which is then regarded as being occupied by the attacker during next PzC turn, or reduce the PzC units headcount, making it more vulnerable in the PzC phases. Therefore, players only have to count bodies at the end of a CM battle, and then apply the modified head counts of the CM squads / sections / crews to the relevant PzC units. Also, as I am using CM motivation as a hard factor, PzC morale is irrelevant, other than to affect the combat of the PzC unit during the PzC turn.

To use CM as a way of modifying PzC morale, as you are doing, you can use the method of penalising premature exiting with a PzC morale drop, and a proportional PzC morale increase for the attacker, and have casualty penalties as well. However, if I was going to use CM as a PzC unit modifier, I would use the squads / sections / crews CM morale levels at the end of their participation in the CM battle, either as a result of a ceasefire, an exit, or the turns run out. However, as CM foot units are in squads and sections, and PzC units are in companies and platoons, the new PzC morale levels of the CM companies would have to be determined by averaging out the morale conditions of individual squads / sections. That way you wouldn't have to use casualties to determine morale, which I think is problematic for reasons I have stated before, and the morale of the PzC units will more accurately reflect the morale of their CM unit equivalents after the previous CM battle.

I intend to add the second method to the guide, as an alternative to the first, if complexity isn't an issue with users.

[Fizou]

@Fizou - When deciding how to transfer data from the CM battlefield to the PzC OOB, I opted for simplicity. So the role of the CM battle in CMPzC, is to either force the defender to exit the CM map, and thus have to exit the PzC hex, which is then regarded as being occupied by the attacker during next PzC turn, or reduce the PzC units headcount, making it more vulnerable in the PzC phases. Therefore, players only have to count bodies at the end of a CM battle, and then apply the modified head counts of the CM squads / sections / crews to the relevant PzC units. Also, as I am using CM motivation as a hard factor, PzC morale is irrelevant, other than to affect the combat of the PzC unit during the PzC turn.

To use CM as a way of modifying PzC morale, as you are doing, you can use the method of penalising premature exiting with a PzC morale drop, and a proportional PzC morale increase for the attacker, and have casualty penalties as well. However, if I was going to use CM as a PzC unit modifier, I would use the squads / sections / crews CM morale levels at the end of their participation in the CM battle, either as a result of a ceasefire, an exit, or the turns run out. However, as CM foot units are in squads and sections, and PzC units are in companies and platoons, the new PzC morale levels of the CM companies would have to be determined by averaging out the morale conditions of individual squads / sections. That way you wouldn't have to use casualties to determine morale, which I think is problematic for reasons I have stated before, and the morale of the PzC units will more accurately reflect the morale of their CM unit equivalents after the previous CM battle.

I intend to add the second method to the guide, as an alternative to the first, if complexity isn't an issue with users.

Simplicity is definately a key. We have tried to keep it simple, basically all information needed can be derived from the AAR screen once a battle is over. The following steeps are taken:

1. Did any formation exit any of its units before the 20 minute mark? If so they are treated as casualties.

2. Any units that are exited between the 20-29 minute suffer a morale drop of 2 levels. This punishes units that are forced to exit early. If coy A exit one platoon in this manner all three platoons would get the morale penalty. Both step 1 and 2 are in effect to try and make sure that only relevant battles are resolved with CM.

3. Check casualties on the AAR screen. Apply this to the PzC OOB. If several units take part the casualties between units that differ needs to be tracked. For example, German high quality troops taking casualties cant be counted as Italian low quality casualties (if there was also a Italian unit taking part of the action). But if there where two coys of PzGren of the same quality, casualties can be spread between the units.

4. 25% of the casualties (WIA) taken are removed. Treated as if not suffered and returned to duty. This makes units just a little more resiliant and mainly important to give a real incentive to carry out buddy aid (WIA not recieving buddy aid have a chance of becoming KIA instead, once the action is over).

5. If the total force suffers to many cassualties their morale will suffer. From the AAR screen add KIA, WIA, MIA and men OK and divide with casualties taken (not sure if men exited show up on the AAR screen). For every 20% casualties taken, morale drops one level.

This whole process is fairly quick.

[noob]

3. Check casualties on the AAR screen. Apply this to the PzC OOB. If several units take part the casualties between units that differ needs to be tracked. For example, German high quality troops taking casualties cant be counted as Italian low quality casualties (if there was also a Italian unit taking part of the action). But if there where two coys of PzGren of the same quality, casualties can be spread between the units.

The problem with using the AAR screen casualty read out is that it lumps all foot unit casualties into one number. Therefore, to find the amount of losses tha just the infantry companies have sustained, you have to subtract any casualties from units other than the infantry companies. Therefore, you are then forced to use the review screen to find this number, which defeats the point of just using the AAR screen numbers. Also, what happens if you have three companies of 100 men each, all from the same battalion, and all starting the CM battle with three different fitness levels i.e. Fit, Weakened and Unfit. If the Unfit company sustains 50 casualties, the Weakened one 40, and the Fit one sustains no casualties. By your method, the 90 casualties would be shared between the three companies, thus taking 30 men from the Fit company that sustained no casualties, thus reducing the most effective company by 30%. This discourages players from keeping units back in reserve, as they if they are going to take losses, they might as well get into the fighting.

IMO, to just use the AAR screen read out on its own to apply casualties without using the review game screen is impossible. So, if one has to use the review screen, why not use it count the combat worthy men (green or yellow) left in a company, and then subtract that number from the PzC company. That way, PzC company losses reflect the action its CM company was involved in. Then, once a company loses over 50% of its men, it can either be removed from the operation, or disbanded, and added to depleted companies.

4. 25% of the casualties (WIA) taken are removed. Treated as if not suffered and returned to duty. This makes units just a little more resiliant and mainly important to give a real incentive to carry out buddy aid (WIA not recieving buddy aid have a chance of becoming KIA instead, once the action is over).

I'm not sure how many men could be saved using buddy aid, but would it be enough to warrant the added calculations one has to do. The way I do it, after the CM battle, you just access the review screen, and then just count the men that are green or yellow. These will be the ones that can fight next time. Having to work out the percentage of returning WIA, and then having to decide who gets them, is just added work for no real reward, if all it does is give your company 2 to 5 more men. In fact, one could argue that buddy aid is more dangerous, as it forces a unit to hang around in an area that is in the firing line. If it loses more men trying to save men, then it's just not worth it. Personally, I would only use it to retrieve weapons or ammo, and only if I could be confident I wasn't going to lose more men in the process.

5. If the total force suffers to many cassualties their morale will suffer. From the AAR screen add KIA, WIA, MIA and men OK and divide with casualties taken (not sure if men exited show up on the AAR screen). For every 20% casualties taken, morale drops one level.

As I said before, I don't think casualties should be linked to morale.

[Fizou]

The problem with using the AAR screen casualty read out is that it lumps all foot unit casualties into one number. Therefore, to find the amount of losses tha just the infantry companies have sustained, you have to subtract any casualties from units other than the infantry companies. Therefore, you are then forced to use the review screen to find this number, which defeats the point of just using the AAR screen numbers. Also, what happens if you have three companies of 100 men each, all from the same battalion, and all starting the CM battle with three different fitness levels i.e. Fit, Weakened and Unfit. If the Unfit company sustains 50 casualties, the Weakened one 40, and the Fit one sustains no casualties. By your method, the 90 casualties would be shared between the three companies, thus taking 30 men from the Fit company that sustained no casualties, thus reducing the most effective company by 30%. This discourages players from keeping units back in reserve, as they if they are going to take losses, they might as well get into the fighting.

IMO, to just use the AAR screen read out on its own to apply casualties without using the review game screen is impossible. So, if one has to use the review screen, why not use it count the combat worthy men (green or yellow) left in a company, and then subtract that number from the PzC company. That way, PzC company losses reflect the action its CM company was involved in. Then, once a company loses over 50% of its men, it can either be removed from the operation, or disbanded, and added to depleted companies.

Crews from Tanks/AC always have to be removed as they are never tracked individually, only their vehicles matter.

You are wrong stating that the method we use in this campaign would give those results when treating units with different stats. Different stats needs to be tracked by them selves. With units that have the same stats I see no need for keeping individual tracking, but as soon as they differ it should be done. This can of course be handled different and is up to the participants in the campaign. Some people feel its a chore keeping track, others like my self have no problem with it at all.

In our current battle I have three Ranger Coys (severely depleted), one of which have low ammo, in all other cases they are identical. Hence, I track casualties for the coy with low ammo, the other casualties doesn't matter as much and can be distributed over the other two coys.

I'm not sure how many men could be saved using buddy aid, but would it be enough to warrant the added calculations one has to do. The way I do it, after the CM battle, you just access the review screen, and then just count the men that are green or yellow. These will be the ones that can fight next time. Having to work out the percentage of returning WIA, and then having to decide who gets them, is just added work for no real reward, if all it does is give your company 2 to 5 more men. In fact, one could argue that buddy aid is more dangerous, as it forces a unit to hang around in an area that is in the firing line. If it loses more men trying to save men, then it's just not worth it. Personally, I would only use it to retrieve weapons or ammo, and only if I could be confident I wasn't going to lose more men in the process.

Its down to personal taste. The way we who play this campaign, choose to perceive the WIA results from a CM action, is that 25% are fit to fight and return to action. I love to have a actual reason to do buddy aid and get a reward from it. And on occasions have to take the tough decision if to do it or not, it might result in more casualties if I stay etc. A really cool addition to the battle IMO. The added calculation is not complex and takes no more than a minute or two to do.

As I said before, I don't think casualties should be linked to morale.

We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I think its important.

[noob]

You are wrong stating that the method we use in this campaign would give those results when treating units with different stats. Different stats needs to be tracked by them selves.

Ok, but that just underlines my point. As soon as companies differ from each other in some way, which will be more likely as the operation progresses, they have to be tracked individually, which means using the "review map" function. As soon as you start using the review map function to calculate the losses for some companies, you might as well use it for all companies, then, at least you get the exact new head counts for all the fought companies, and you don't have to distribute the losses across similar units.

The way we who play this campaign, choose to perceive the WIA results from a CM action, is that 25% are fit to fight and return to action.

I see, so you class 25% of the WIA in any CM battle as combat ready, why do you do that ?

We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I think its important.

Ok, so if a 150 man company successfully fought off four or five times their number, and were still occupying the CM map at the end of the battle, but suffered 50% casualties in the process, would they take a morale drop ?

[Fizou]

Ok, but that just underlines my point. As soon as companies differ from each other in some way, which will be more likely as the operation progresses, they have to be tracked individually, which means using the "review map" function. As soon as you start using the review map function to calculate the losses for some companies, you might as well use it for all companies, then, at least you get the exact new head counts for all the fought companies, and you don't have to distribute the losses across similar units.

As the operation progresses, yes. So far in this campaign, we have had most battles not need it. As said before, if I have a BN with the same stats I don't track casualties between individual companies. This is up to the players to decide, what detail they think should be used. Overall we are in agreement.

I see, so you class 25% of the WIA in any CM battle as combat ready, why do you do that ?

To give buddy aid more purpose.

Ok, so if a 150 man company successfully fought off four or five times their number, and were still occupying the CM map at the end of the battle, but suffered 50% casualties in the process, would they take a morale drop ?

Of course. A unit that takes 50% casualties is gonna take a morale hit whatever mission they pulled off. Just imagine seeing haft the friends in your coy get killed/wounded, that would take its toll. With the rules we are using that unit would drop two levels of morale (one level for every 20%). If it was A it would go down to C. From high to normal in CM terms. Units that take a lot of casualties will over time lose their motivation.

----

The 41 and 42 minutes..

On the LEFT:

During the 41st minute we spot three Kubelwagens moving forward at high speed towards my withdrawing men on the left.

The Germans being a motorized force, have ample of transportation. They will be upon me in a minute or two.

To greet their pursuers, the Rangers position two teams (8 men) in the wood line with orders of short covered arcs. They will open up under 50 meters as these Germans move up to catch/block our escape.

A bit further back two MGs are also set up to take care of the Kubelwagen force. The MGs have up til this point been putting fire on the Winery.

Up in the CENTER. On NAI 2. We spot a mortar lobbing bombs on my units trying to pull back to the wooded area covering our exit.

In the background, my escaping force is engulfed in fire and explosions.

Also on NAI 2, a HMG 42 is moving up to take position an put fire on my withdrawing men.

The MG42 takes cover in a crater, created earlier by USS Buck.

The mortar and MG will both be targeted (area target) by MGs. I hope this will help my escaping force to some extent.

--

[Fizou]

The enemy bombardment keeps taking its toll on my escaping force. Three more casualties are sustained as my Rangers cross open ground to reach the woods. More disturbing news as the enemy seems to be able to see some distance into the woods. Shells are landing well into the woods. This is sure to cause more trouble for my withdrawing force.

Casualty 13.

Casualties 14 and 15.

Overview after 42 minutes of combat:

Blue arrows: Allied movement

Orange arrows: Axis movement

I have marked, white text, the units spotted in the images above as well as the new ambush position the Rangers are readying for the pursuers.

--

View further back.. a spotting round from USS Buck strikes home. Fire for effect is called immediately, in some 30 seconds this entire area will be cratered moonscape.

I no longer have anyone spotting in this area. The FO team cant see any actual units here but I'm pretty sure the IG 75 mm are there and I also hear a lot of activity from mortars and MG close by.

--

[Fizou]

The 43 minute..

On the LEFT:

The Kubewagens following my withdrawal, suddenly make a 90 degree turn and head off towards the Winery. As they do so.. my MGs on the left start putting holes in them. No confirmed casualties so far.

USS Buck unleashes another heavy barrage on the Germans. I hope it causes some damage. I cant see much there so its down to blind luck at this point.

When I did see the IG 75 set up, I ordered the center of the barrage to be on top of them. Most shells seem to go long. Wont know for sure til after the battle what kind of results this yields.

As my Rangers reach the woods in the CENTER. I was hoping this would mean they'd be safe. Instead they are greeted with more death. Here another two men goes down to a medium caliber shell.

And number 18 goes down..

On my RIGHT, two Grille are advancing forward. Bad news.. the only good thing is that the further forward they move the less they will see of the wooded area. I will have to push my men further into the woods and to safety.

--

[Fizou]

Overview after 43 minutes of combat:

Blue arrows: Allied movement

Orange arrows: Axis movement

I have marked, white text, the movement of Grille to the right and left. As well as the Kubelwagen force (KW force).

Most of my men have reached safety. At 18 casualties the mission must be deemed a success (enemy casualties are just as high, if not higher and they have lost a valuable Grille). We are not there yet though so no time for any celebrations yet.

--

[noob]

To give buddy aid more purpose.

Are you saying that if you do not use buddy aid in a CM battle, you are not allowed to deduct 25% from the WIA value at the end of the CM battle ?

Of course. A unit that takes 50% casualties is gonna take a morale hit whatever mission they pulled off.

Yes, but how significant and long lasting is it ?. In documentaries, you always hear about how soldiers accepted losses after a battle, and got on with it, especially the Russians. If a soldiers morale dropped for a significant amount of time simply because they saw their comrades die, then any sustained operation would be impossible, unless they could recover in a short period of time, i.e, hours, not days. The factors that were more likely to effect morale were bad leadership, bad conditions, or bad battle plans, however, they take effect over time periods much longer than the time period of most PzC scenarios.

Just imagine seeing haft the friends in your coy get killed/wounded, that would take its toll.

It might make you more determined to fight, or it might make you curl up into a ball and cry, it's all down to the individual, that's why you cannot track it, because there is no set way a human reacts to seeing comrades die, or if there is, it will be more likely to stiffen their resolve than weaken it.

Units that take a lot of casualties will over time lose their motivation.

Losses get replaced, and the morale of the survivors from previous battles will more likely be determined by the quality of their leaders, their conditions, and the tasks they are asked to perform. In fact, if the unit has sustained losses over time winning glorious victories, the original members morale could be really high, despite the negative morale factors I have just mentioned.

In conclusion, given that casualties alone are not enough, IMO, to effect morale in any significant way, I think that the CM combat should only be used to effect the headcount levels of PzC units, and PzC combat should be used to effect the headcount, fatigue and cohesion (disruption) of the PzC units. Morale, or motivation should be a fixed value for the duration of the operation.

In fact, I now think that Tiller made an error having a morale indicator, as all it really does is indicate the modifier level that will be applied to any combat calculations. Having it linked to fatigue and headcount levels confuses things, as those values can be observed in the unit info box already. So a player doesn't need to look at the morale level to see how combat worthy the unit is. If I could redesign PzC, I would remove the word morale from the units info box, and replace it with Motivation, or Quality. The motivation, or quality value would then be useful only as an instant indicator of the motivation or quality of the unit, which would consequently be a fixed value.

[Fizou]

Are you saying that if you do not use buddy aid in a CM battle, you are not allowed to deduct 25% from the WIA value at the end of the CM battle ?

No, the deduction is always done. But WIA not treated with buddy aid runs a chance turning into KIA at the end AAR screen. Treating WIA will give you a higher return. Thus an incentive to do buddy aid for other reasons than collecting ammo and weapons.

Yes, but how significant and long lasting is it ?. In documentaries, you always hear about how soldiers just accepted losses after a battle, and just got on with it, especially the Russians. If a soldiers morale dropped for a significant amount of time simply because they saw their comrades die, then any sustained operation would be impossible, unless they could recover in a short period of time, i.e, hours, not days. The factors that were more likely to effect morale were bad leadership, bad conditions, or bad battle plans, however they take effect over periods of time much longer than the time frame of most PzC scenarios.

Sure they will keep fighting, but their morale will slowly drain (from high down to low - where it will stop to decrease). Someone (JonS?) posted a chart showing the time of combat effectiveness before units/soldiers would need longer rest to recuperate. I tried to search for it but can find it. It will only come in affect when units sustain large amount of casualties. When a unit starts to reduce to a non effective force they will also be reduced to low morale and be less combat effective. In my view this is what is realistic.

It might make you more determined to fight, or it might make you curl up into a ball and cry, it's all down to the individual, that's why you cannot track it, because there is no set way a human reacts to seeing comrades die, or if there is, it will be more likely to stiffen their resolve than weaken it.

Yes on the individual level.. but as your units starts to disappear as it is being destroyed, not being reinforced, the overall effectiveness of that force will dwindle.

Losses get replaced, and the morale of the survivors from previous battles will more likely be determined by the quality of their leaders, their conditions, and the tasks they are asked to perform. In fact, if the unit has sustained losses over time winning glorious victories, the original members morale could be really high, despite the negative morale factors I have just mentioned.

Yes, but in this case we don´t have those reinforcements covered. Sure PzC has some reinforcements but not any big numbers for front line units. So a unit that is not reinforced with big numbers, that takes large amount of casualties, even if it is winning, will lose its morale and turn into a less effective force. Thats my firm believe anyway.

In conclusion, given that casualties alone are not enough, IMO, to effect morale in any significant way, I think that the CM combat should only be used to effect the headcount levels of PzC units, and PzC combat should be used to effect the headcount, fatigue and cohesion (disruption) of the PzC units. Morale, or motivation should be a fixed value for the duration of the operation.

A unit can still keep its high morale as long as its not taking heavy losses at any given battle. Only tracking headcount, is IMO to simple, you lose an aspect of combat that is important IMO. As we cant disrupt a unit, increase its fatigue between battles, in the PzC editor, this is the way I think works best.

Btw.. all of the above, and this discussion regarding how a units "morale" or combat effectiveness would change over time or not, as it takes heavy casualties, it would be very interesting to get some grogs opinions on this.

------

The 44 to 46 minutes..

On the LEFT:

My MG keeping firing at the Kubelwagens as they cross the ground over towards the Winery. This time a casualty is definitely inflicted.

Another one crosses, seemingly without any loss of life.

As the Kubel force has veered off, I'm ordering the small ambush detachment to start to withdraw once again.

On the RIGHT:

The Grille starts to put down fire on my withdrawing men. Most are out of harms way. The Germans also seem to be moving up infantry on this flank. I'm not afraid they will catch me, the question is if I should hold some men back and try to catch him running into another ambush.

The Grille start to advance forward.. one of them fires while on the move..

[Fizou]

The intended Grille target is running towards safety.. as it fired on the move, the shot wasent very accurate.

Grille shell is highlighted with a white circle, its long. In the overview blow, this team can be seen reaching the relative safety of the treeline.

Overview after 46 minutes of combat:

Orange circle and rectangle: Areas under fire by Axis artillery (75 mm, 81 mm and 150 mm)

[Fizou]

Minutes 47-50.

On the LEFT:

My withdrawal is going according to plans. The enemy is putting fire on this area, but they are hitting the other side of the wooded area. My men should be safe.

Or so I thought.. another casualty. I'm fairly certain that the Germans doesn't have eyes on this position. Its probably only one stray round. Should I halt my men or keep going? I decide to move them forward to the buildings. If no more rounds drop during the next minute they will get going again.

Another overview of the exit on my LEFT:

Up on the wooded hill in the CENTER:

My FO team moves up to direct one last fire mission for USS Buck. Its the Winery that is the target, for the third time in this battle. The team conduct buddy aid on a wounded Ranger as they start to call in the artillery mission.

And another casualty is sustained on the center as more artillery fall. One man remains trapped here.

20 casualties sustained during this battle so far.

[Fizou]

On the LEFT

The Germans are on the move again. They are starting to move in on my left again. They are however to late. I dont think they will be able to catch me at this stage.

A Grille on the LEFT keeps firing down on my escape. It fires on the other side of the wooded area so it has so far not been able to inflict any damage.

Overview after 50 minutes of combat:

Red circle: USS Buck artillery mission.

Orange boxes indicates areas under artillery fire from the Axis.

White text, indicates the locations of the two last WIA.

[noob]

. Someone (JonS?) posted a chart showing the time of combat effectiveness before units/soldiers would need longer rest to recuperate. I tried to search for it but can find it. It will only come in affect when units sustain large amount of casualties.

I looked at it briefly myself, and from what I can remember is that the time frame the study covers is a lot longer than a 48 hour period.

When a unit starts to reduce to a non effective force they will also be reduced to low morale and be less combat effective. In my view this is what is realistic.

I don't see how a reduction in combat effectiveness has to "always" equate to low morale. A unit could have its effectiveness reduced due to fatigue, but it's morale could still be high.

It seems that your whole argument is based on your belief that there is "always" a link between casualties and morale, and I contend there isn't.

It would be very interesting to get some grogs opinions on this.

I was thinking the same thing

[Fizou]

I looked at it briefly myself, and from what I can remember is that the time frame the study covers is a lot longer than a 48 hour period.

Yes the time frame is longer but it doesn't have to do with the unit being destroyed in the time frame but combat fatigue that grows over time, this will come quicker if your unit is beat up badly. As I understand it.

I don't see how a reduction in combat effectiveness has to "always" equate to low morale. A unit could have its effectiveness reduced due to fatigue, but it's morale could still be high.

It seems that your whole argument is based on your belief that there is "always" a link between casualties and morale, and I contend there isn't.

You cant edit the fatigue of a PzC unit. The morale on the other hand can be edited. A unit that sees heavy combat and that is beat up needs to be losing its effectiveness in some way IMO. How will you else track it? I believe that a unit that takes massive casualties, 50% or more from a single engagement have to be affected in some way. Knowing that your unit is about to be entirely wiped out, you are not being reinforced, you are kept being sent forward to engage the enemy, your morale will drop. Thats my take on it anyways.

I was thinking the same thing

Lets see if we attract any attention

[noob]

To give buddy aid more purpose.

How do you know it has no purpose to begin with ? If buddy aid, as I have been led to believe, changes some men from KIA to WIA, you would need to know exactly how many men benefited from it, to determine how effective it is. Artificially increasing the number of men going from KIA to WIA by 25% just prolongs operations, which take long enough without reducing the amount of losses units sustain.

[Fizou]

How do you know it has no purpose to begin with ? If buddy aid, as I have been led to believe, changes some men from KIA to WIA, you would need to know exactly how many men benefited from it, to determine how effective it is. Artificially increasing the number of men going from KIA to WIA by 25% just prolongs operations, which take long enough without reducing the amount of losses units sustain.

The only purpose at the moment is to gain weapons and ammo. With our house rule it also gives wounded a chance to fight another day, giving a greater incentive to performe buddy aid in a more realistic manner. You care for your men and fellow soldiers and treat them no matter if they carry important weapons or not (the situation permitting etc).

The mechanics of the game dosent change KIA to WIA. It prevents WIA from becoming KIA as the game ends if you give them buddy aid. You dont need to know which men benifited from it. Only that 25% of the WIA are treated as so lightly wounded so that they are returned to active duty after the battle. By giving buddy aid you can increase this number and give your side a little better outcome in the end.

25% of WIA is not that much as KIA generaly are as many if not more. The operation can not be prolonged, its a set number of turns, fixed by the PzC scenario. It has no major effect on the operation but adds a little extra flavour that makes battles more interesting. And thats what it all comes down to. To enjoy the operation and have fun. The journey is the most importand part not the end/conclusion of the operation. We added this rule because we think its fun. If you think its a bad idea, dont adopt it.

[Fizou]

During the 51 minute..

My FO team that is directing the last mission from USS Buck runs into trouble as the enemy artillery fire is kicking up so much smoke and dust that their view over the Winery is blocked.

Spotter direction indicated by a white arrow. USS Buck artillery mission indicated by red circle.

The first spotting round is long, even without the smoke in the way it could not be seen..

The 52nd minute.

I'm very worried that this will give the Germans all the time they need to vacate the Winery. I catch a break when the second spotting round is right on target. 30 seconds later the barrage will hit with its full effect. If the Germans vacated once the first spotting round was seen, they might still be caught in the open. At this point I have no team with eyes on target so I'm not even sure there are any Germans there. I do believe MG fire is coming from the Winery though..

Fire for effect!

The 53:rd minute.

USS Buck lets lose its guns for a final time. This time a heavy mission that expends the Destroyers last 68 rounds. The fireworks are just awesome to watch!

[Fizou]

As USS Bucks shells lands all over the Winery, over on my LEFT, the last members still on map, conduct buddy aid to a wounded platoon member before they pull out. The Germans not pursuing fast enough lose the Rangers as they move off map.

Between the trees, smoke from the USS Buck mission can be seen.

The 54th minute..

As the smoke lifts, the damage dealt to the Winery is exposed. Any Germans that did stay put is sure to have taken casualties.

After the last USS Buck mission finished the following minutes are uneventful as my Rangers make their way off map without any sign of the Germans.

During the 58 minute the PzGren agrees to a ceasefire.

Next up, the end screen AAR.