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

[noob]

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.

I'm going to find out exactly what the relationship between buddy aid and WIA and KIA is, then I can speak with more authority.

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.

Ok, same difference.

You dont need to know which men benifited from it.

I know. I said I would want to know "how many" men benefited from it, then you would know if it is worth the risk of hanging around giving buddy aid in regard to recovering men. However, if the amount of men you would recover is trivial, only use it for equipment. Creating artificial rules to try and make it more effective won't work unless you know how much buddy aid was given in a battle, then that adds another thing to track, and that just to reduce the headcount losses of a battle.

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.

If buddy aid stops some WIA becoming KIA, why not just use that, why artificially inflate the figure by a set figure. Just reducing KIA by 25% is pointless unless you can track how "often" buddy aid is used. For example, if using buddy aid once saves two men from being KIA every time it is used, and I only use it once in a CM game, I will save two men. If my opponent uses it 5 times, they will save 10 men. Therefore, allowing us both to save another 25% of the KIA after a game means my opponent still only gets an 8 man advantage over me. Therefore, unless you artificially reward a player based on how many times he uses buddy aid, there's really no point in using it other than to get equipment, unless of course using it gives a significant KIA reduction, and then you don't need to add a 25% bonus.

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.

Sorry, my mistake, what I meant to say was by reducing the casualties artificially, you make the battles less costly, which slows down the process of getting to a result before the turns run out. So one could say it does have a major effect on the operation, because it will take longer to inflict decisive damage to an enemy unit.

[noob]

The morale on the other hand can be edited.

In PzC, morale only changes when a units fatigue level gets to a certain point, or when a unit becomes disrupted or isolated. Therefore, because fatigue cannot be edited in the PzC OOB, it can only be affected by PzC combat alone. Therefore, IMO, so should morale, because in PzC, morale is a function of fatigue. Also, in PzC, fatigue can be increased, even if there are no kills inflicted. Therefore, in PzC, fatigue, and therefore morale, does not get affected by kills alone. Added to that is the "fuzzy" nature of the psychological state of because during, and after combat. All of which makes me happy to let PzC determine the "morale" level, and PzC "and" CM determine the headcount level.

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?

Headcount

I believe that a unit that takes massive casualties, 50% or more from a single engagement have to be affected in some way.

Yes, it will only have half its headcount, which will make it less combat worthy.

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.

But that example is situation specific, your morale rules kick in when 20% losses are incurred, irrespective of any other factors. So, a unit that wins a stunning victory, is not about to be entirely wiped out, and is being reinforced, will, according to your morale rule, also suffer the same morale drop as the unit in your example, if it has lost 20% casualties.

[noob]

To conclude this debate, I will clarify my views regarding buddy aid and morale.

If you want buddy aid to have more effect on a CM battle regarding KIA / WIA, then the amount of times buddy aid is applied has to be factored into any equation regarding how many men it has saved.

If you want to use a CM battle to determine a PzC units morale level, then factors such as the task the force had to complete, the resources they had to do it with, the quality of the force, and the size of the enemy force should be some of the main considerations. Then, once the new morale value, based on those factors, was determined, that value could then be modified by headcount losses. That way, if the CM unit fought off a larger enemy force, while defending a defensively difficult position, with good quality troops, the same headcount losses would, and should, have less effect on that unit than if their quality was less, and they had failed in their mission, while sustaining the same headcount losses.

[Fizou]

I'm going to find out exactly what the relationship between buddy aid and WIA and KIA is, then I can speak with more authority.

WIA/Incapacitated soldiers, red base, have a 25% chance/risk to turn into KIA if they don't receive buddy aid when the game ends. If they get buddy aid they wont turn into KIA. Check out the manual..

I know. I said I would want to know "how many" men benefited from it, then you would know if it is worth the risk of hanging around giving buddy aid in regard to recovering men. However, if the amount of men you would recover is trivial, only use it for equipment. Creating artificial rules to try and make it more effective won't work unless you know how much buddy aid was given in a battle, then that adds another thing to track, and that just to reduce the headcount losses of a battle.

All you need to know is that red based soldiers that receive buddy aid wont turn into KIA. In other cases they stand a 25% risk to turn into KIA instead. KIA will not give you any men back and you will lose more men than you have to. Then taking into account that your soldiers performing buddy aid might die doing so is a risk that the player has to take, if he feels its worth it. The same if one sends men off to try and recover a MG or ammo. All you need to track it is the end AAR screen and a fast calculation, its not much work at all.

If buddy aid stops some WIA becoming KIA, why not just use that, why artificially inflate the figure by a set figure. Just reducing KIA by 25% is pointless unless you can track how "often" buddy aid is used. For example, if using buddy aid once saves two men from being KIA every time it is used, and I only use it once in a CM game, I will save two men. If my opponent uses it 5 times, they will save 10 men. Therefore, allowing us both to save another 25% of the KIA after a game means my opponent still only gets an 8 man advantage over me. Therefore, unless you artificially reward a player based on how many times he uses buddy aid, there's really no point in using it other than to get equipment, unless of course using it gives a significant KIA reduction, and then you don't need to add a 25% bonus.

What I (we) reduce is WIA, not KIA. You get 25% of your WIA back, giving buddy aid will increase the amount of men you get back (KIA are KIA). Not giving buddy aid will get you some men back but they risk getting counted as KIA instead. You don't need to track when buddy aid is used, the game does that for you.

The one using buddy aid will make sure that his return of WIA is 25% higher than his opponent on average.

The 25% of WIA return has to do with that soldiers at the end screen that have been red based or deep red based will turn up as either WIA or KIA, they wont be counted towards OK men. So a artificial number has to be used to extract something from the whole equation.

Sorry, my mistake, what I meant to say was by reducing the casualties artificially, you make the battles less costly, which slows down the process of getting to a result before the turns run out. So one could say it does have a major effect on the operation, because it will take longer to inflict decisive damage to an enemy unit.

As I wrote, KIA are usually as many as WIA. Getting 25% of WIA back means you get 12,5% of your overall casualties back if you treated them all with buddy aid. Not very much, it doesn't have a major effect IMO. Not conducting any buddy aid will give the other side 25% in return on average.

[Fizou]

In PzC, morale only changes when a units fatigue level gets to a certain point, or when a unit becomes disrupted or isolated. Therefore, because fatigue cannot be edited in the PzC OOB, it can only be affected by PzC combat alone. Therefore, IMO, so should morale, because in PzC, morale is a function of fatigue. Also, in PzC, fatigue can be increased, even if there are no kills inflicted. Therefore, in PzC, fatigue, and therefore morale, does not get affected by kills alone. Added to that is the "fuzzy" nature of the psychological state of because during, and after combat. All of which makes me happy to let PzC determine the "morale" level, and PzC "and" CM determine the headcount level.

I have an other opinion. I think its critical that a unit that sees CM combat is effected by this. Not only because I find it more realistic but also because I find it more fun and interesting, giving more dynamics to the battles and the overall operation. As fatigue cant be edited as well as being disrupted etc Morale is the way to go IMO. You don't have to think of it as strict morale but as a combat effectiveness indication.

Assaults are a very important in PzC, having major effects on the PzC units. To drop this out is not good IMO.

Headcount

That is not enough IMHO.

es, it will only have half its headcount, which will make it less combat worthy.

But that's not the only thing that affects a unit after combat, so does morale, fatigue etc. If this can be tracked in some way by the morale function in PzC, that's good IMO.

But that example is situation specific, your morale rules kick in when 20% losses are incurred, irrespective of any other factors. So, a unit that wins a stunning victory, is not about to be entirely wiped out, and is being reinforced, will, according to your morale rule, also suffer the same morale drop as the unit in your example, if it has lost 20% casualties.

Yes, but 20% wont have a very big affect either as I explained in the thread in CMBN forum. A unit needs to take bigger numbers of casualties to be effected more rapidly. Otherwise they will deteriorate over time. Also.. it will make players fight in a more realistic manner IMO as they have to keep casualties down, not only to keep their unit headcount high, but to keep their morale high as well.

[Fizou]

To conclude this debate, I will clarify my views regarding buddy aid and morale.

And to clarify mine..

If you want buddy aid to have more effect on a CM battle regarding KIA / WIA, then the amount of times buddy aid is applied has to be factored into any equation regarding how many men it has saved.

I do not think so, as the game will keep track of this. The return rate will be 25% higher on average for the player that uses buddy aid.

If you want to use a CM battle to determine a PzC units morale level, then factors such as the task the force had to complete, the resources they had to do it with, the quality of the force, and the size of the enemy force should be some of the main considerations. Then, once the new morale value, based on those factors, was determined, that value could then be modified by headcount losses. That way, if the CM unit fought off a larger enemy force, while defending a defensively difficult position, with good quality troops, the same headcount losses would, and should, have less effect on that unit than if their quality was less, and they had failed in their mission, while sustaining the same headcount losses.

I agree that a lot of factors are in play here. But to keep the campaign and the system more easy with less administration and complicated rules it can be tracked with the morale function of PzC.

I'm sure that we, as we continue this campaign, will look at ways to increase a units morale as well, so that fending of a numerical superior enemy will factor in, for example. Another example could be taking a VL during an assault.

[noob]

@Fizou - Thanks for describing in detail how buddy aid works. Now I need to ask some questions to see if I have got your rules conceived correctly, as I think that the root of our disagreement lies in a misunderstanding of those rules, therefore I need you to confirm something.

When you get to the AAR screen, do you regard all the men that are Ok, "and" all the men that are WIA, as being available to be eligible to be in the PzC OOB ?

For example, if I fight a CM battle with one company of 150 men, and, at the end of the battle, the AAR screen shows 100 men OK, 25 men KIA, 20 men WIA, 5 men MIA, am I right in thinking that according to your rules, I would "add" the number of men that are OK, to the number of men that are WIA, to determine the new headcount to be applied to the PzC equivalent of the CM company ?

[noob]

I agree that a lot of factors are in play here.

That's my point

This is where our difference is, as without taking these factors into account, I personally think it is better to not use CM to affect PzC morale at all, whereas, you are saying that you will use casualties for now, and maybe incorporate other factors later. That's fine, and as I have always stated that tend to I err on the side of simplicity, and am always looking for ways of reducing admin, so, for now, I will be just using CM battles as the headcount modifier for PzC units. However, I do think that creating a more sophisticated way for CM to determine PzC morale than just casualties would be a worthy venture.

[Fizou]

When you get to the AAR screen, do you regard all the men that are Ok, "and" all the men that are WIA, as being available to be eligible to be in the PzC OOB ?

No. All the men that are OK, and 25% of the WIA are eligible for the PzC OOB.

For example, if I fight a CM battle with one company of 150 men, and, at the end of the battle, the AAR screen shows 100 men OK, 25 men KIA, 20 men WIA, 5 men MIA, am I right in thinking that according to your rules, I would "add" the number of men that are OK, to the number of men that are WIA, to determine the new headcount to be applied to the PzC equivalent of the CM company ?

100 men OK + (0.25*20 WIA) = 100 + 5 = 105 men eligible for the PzC OOB. Only every whole number is counted. 5.99 would still only count as 5.

If not performing buddy aid to those 20 WIA, they would turn on average, 25% into KIA instead. All tracked by the game.

KIA and MIA are removed outright.

[noob]

No. All the men that are OK, and 25% of the WIA are eligible for the PzC OOB.

So even if I decided not to use buddy aid at all in a CM battle, I would still be able to recover 25% of the WIA losses ?

[Fizou]

So even if I decided not to use buddy aid at all in a CM battle, I would still be able to recover 25% of the WIA losses ?

Yes, but your return would be 25% lower if you dont as on averarge, 25% of your red based WIA would turn into KIA as the battle ends.

[noob]

Yes, but your return would be 25% lower if you dont as on averarge, 25% of your red based WIA would turn into KIA as the battle ends.

Ok, but you do understand that buddy aid would still be as effective without the 25% WIA recovery you allow to be deducted manually.

[Fizou]

Ok, but you do understand that buddy aid would still be as effective without the 25% WIA recovery you allow to be deducted manually.

Buddy aid effectivenes is not in the equation. The deduction of the WIA pool has to be done manually or there is no incentive for the player to conduct it other than to collect weapons and ammo. Weather a man is a KIA or WIA without this rule has no impact on the game at all.

[noob]

Buddy aid effectivenes is not in the equation. The deduction of the WIA pool has to be done manually or there is no incentive for the player to conduct it other than to collect weapons and ammo. Weather a man is a KIA or WIA without this rule has no impact on the game at all.

Ok, so if I only use buddy aid once, on one man, in the whole of a CM battle, I would be eligible to manually get back 25% of my WIA ?

[Fizou]

Ok, so if I only use buddy aid once, on one man, in the whole of a CM battle, I would be eligible to manually get back 25% of my WIA ?

Yes thats right.

[noob]

Yes thats right.

If the 25% manual WIA recovery is available by just using buddy aid once, then that's hardly the best method for encouraging the use of buddy aid. Why not say you get 5% manually recovered WIA back every time you use buddy aid, up to a maximum of five times. That would encourage players to use buddy aid five more times than they would using your method.

[Fizou]

If the 25% manual WIA recovery is available by just using buddy aid once, then that's hardly the best method for encouraging the use of buddy aid. Why not say you get 5% manually recovered WIA back every time you use buddy aid, up to a maximum of five times. That would encourage players to use buddy aid five more times than they would using your method.

They don't have to do it any time. They still get 25% of WIA back.

We perceive 25% of WIA to be so lightly wounded that they are able to get back in the fight in the next battle.

If one player gives buddy aid and the other doesn't the first player will get a 25% better yield than the other player. There you have the incentive. Its all run by the game so no need to keep track of how many time you conducted buddy aid. Minimum administration is achieved. As you only do the one of calculation after the battle.

The goal is to get the player do conduct buddy aid in all cases when he can and there is an incentive for that. Your idea needs more administration as you need to keep actual track of the times you conduct buddy aid.

A player needs to conduct buddy aid when ever he can to keep his return as high as possible.

[noob]

They don't have to do it any time. They still get 25% of WIA back.

I thought that was what you meant, but I wasn't be sure until now. This explains why we have been at loggerheads, you confused the issue by saying that the manually applied 25% recovery of WIA made buddy aid more effective. However, that is not true, as the amount of troops that don't become KIA because of buddy aid is not effected at all by the manually applied 25% recovery rule. It is the total amount of WIA that is effected by the 25% rule.

[Fizou]

I thought that was what you meant, but I wasn't be sure until now. This explains why we have been at loggerheads, you confused the issue by saying that the manually applied 25% recovery of WIA made buddy aid more effective. However, that is not true, as the amount of troops that don't become KIA because of buddy aid is not effected at all by the manually applied 25% recovery rule. It is the total amount of WIA that is effected by the 25% rule.

Not sure I said that. Never meant it anyways. But english is not my first language so there is some room for confusion . Sorry about that.

[noob]

Not sure I said that.

Well, that was what I thought you were saying, however, if you didn't say that, and I cannot be bothered back tracking to find out, I apologise

Never meant it anyways. But english is not my first language so there is some room for confusion . Sorry about that.

These things can happen, I'm just glad we have sorted out the confusion

[Fizou]

The battle is over.. the campaign far from it.

I have suffered 20 casualties during this battle. The Germans on the other hand, have suffered 62 as well as losing a Grille and a 75 mm IG. This must be seen as a success for the Rangers. I'm happy with the result.

Next on hand is the transferal of information from the CM AAR to the PzC OOB as well as concluding the Allied PzC assault turn. After this its the Axis movement phase in PzC.

[noob]

I just thought I would share something that happened in the CMPzC Bulge operation I am playing with Kohlenklau. I sent five Greyhounds down a road to a crossroads to give me an early warning of any enemy units approaching from a certain direction. The enemy showed up in strength, namely, a lot of Panthers and PzIV's. My opponent declared an assault on the Greyhounds, but, according to the CMPzC rules, the Panthers would of had to change formation to be eligible to assault (they were in travel mode) and fight a CM battle. But, even if the enemy armour had routed the Greyhounds in a CM battle, as one would expect, they could still not use the road, and continue their movement that turn. So inadvertantly my five greyhounds were acting as an effective blocker, and this is exploitable.

Therefore, I suggested that my my opponent use the PzC assault function to force the Greyhounds off the road, or destroy them. He tried this, and the results were problematic. So I decided to edit the Greyhounds defence value in the PzC OOB. It was 12, and I made it 3. When we ran the turn again, the results felt right. The Greyhounds could not withstand the assaults, and were brushed aside, allowing my opponents units to pass.

This got me thinking. To allow the use of the PzC assault function would be a great asset, so I am going to recommend editing all recon units in a CMPzC scenario by quartering their PzC defence values. That way, recon units cannot act as blockers.

One way to use it beyond just recon units would be to allow anyone that uses it, and gets a result that both players think doesn't feel right, to edit the defence values of the units that should lose, so they do lose in a way that does feel right. This method could be used if non recon units get caught on their own, like artillery for example.

[Fizou]

From the AAR screen:

11 KIA

9 WIA

As we have a rule that states that after a battle, 25% of WIA are returned (only perceived as very light wounds, and to encourage buddy aid) I will get, 9*0.25= 2.25 = 2 men back. This figure is always rounded down to a whole number. The Germans in this example would get 9 men back from their WIA.

I will the have 18 casualties to remove from my PzC OOB.

Units that took part in the battle:

47 men G/3rd Rangers

58 men H/3rd Rangers

60 men I/3rd Rangers (Low ammo)

I/3rd Rangers have low ammo and a bit lower morale than the other two units. Hence I will track its casualties in the CM battle separate from the casualties sustained by the other two units. I decide to allocate the two wounded that are returned from the WIA directly to I/3rd Rangers. They suffered 5 casualties, and with the two returned that means I need to remove three from the OOB.

I consequently also remove 5 men from G/rd Rangers and 10 men from H/rd Rangers. Here I have to be careful as these units has already taken damage in PzC. I need to keep this in mind when I edit the OOB. I have mentioned this in earlier posts as well. If a unit of 60 men takes 2 casualties to artillery fire in a PzC scenario, I open the editor to check them out, they will still be listed as 60 men. The casualties taken in PzC therefore have to be taken into account when the OOB is edited. Otherwise, if said unit would enter a CM battle and take another 2 casualties there. The editor would say 60 men. If I edit it to 58 it would only let the casualties taken in PzC be calculated, the casualties taken in the CM action wouldn't show. I would therefore have to put in 56 to get the correct number.

I track down the units in PzC OOB

and edit them accordingly

The units now look like this, transformed from left to right after the battle:

Not that the headcount says 100% after I have edited them, this is caused by PzC when headcount is edited in the middle of a battle.

As my units didn't exit the battle prematurely or took 20% or more casualties, I wont edit their morale.

I send the OOB file over to my opponent so he can take part of my edited numbers, as well as put his own numbers in. When this is done I will conduct PzC assaults on the units that I declared assaults on but he didn't which to fight in CM. Thats coming up next..

@noob: thanks for posting that. I will reply in you rules thread.

[noob]

As we have a rule that states that after a battle, 25% of WIA are returned (only perceived as very light wounds, and to encourage buddy aid)

If you get the 25% WIA recovery, even if you don't use buddy aid, then it does not encourage buddy aid

[Fizou]

If you get the 25% WIA recovery, even if you don't use buddy aid, then it does not encourage buddy aid

Yes it does. I have been over this a few times now. The player that does conduct buddy aid will get a 25% higher yield on average compared to his opponent who doesn't conduct buddy aid - as the latter´s red based soldiers stand a chance to become KIA at end screen. How does that not encourage a player to conduct buddy aid if he wants to keep his casualties as low as possible?