Casualties always leader/gunner.

[semmes]

Yes, not "always",  only 70%... and 30% for the AI. When I finish the battle I check the other side, unless the squad has 2 or 3 guys left they still have their leader and original gunner.

One squad had 3 casualties: one, one, one; every single time the gunner, 2 of them by mortar fire. One platoon had 4 casualties: 3 gunners, 1 leader. To be completely honest, on the German side, the StG 44 dies too. Examples like these are happening all the time, I am actually surprise when a rifleman is hit. No snipers and it doesn't matter if it's rifle, MG or artillery fire, at the end of the battle the result is always the same.

So...

When are we getting the patch to make non-AI casualties actually random ?

Regards.

 

…

 

 

[Ts4EVER]

I think that is just your impression.

[Freyberg]

I play mostly Commonwealth forces, and I've noticed something similar. In the case where a section or team is hit by something random, like a shell or long-range fire, the spread of casualties is usually completely random. When the troops are advancing, the gunner seems slightly more likely to be hit, which is probably because the gunner is the one looking for a firing position; when the section is attacking or at close quarters, the submachinegunner is at most danger.

It kind of makes sense, and I have read that junior officers and NCOs historically took more casualties in battle - I usually split of an assault team from the section and hold it back to stop the section leader 'leading from the front'.

[zmoney]

Leaders in every war if leading from the front always have higher casualty rates. Not sure it is modeled in game though.

 

For me I have not noticed this. Maybe it seems like they are dying more because you tend to notice those casualties more.

[DerKommissar]

1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

I play mostly Commonwealth forces, and I've noticed something similar. In the case where a section or team is hit by something random, like a shell or long-range fire, the spread of casualties is usually completely random. When the troops are advancing, the gunner seems slightly more likely to be hit, which is probably because the gunner is the one looking for a firing position; when the section is attacking or at close quarters, the submachinegunner is at most danger.

I remember reading that the Bren was often used in an assault role. The gunner was usually a big, burly, and tough guy that was invaluable at the tip of the storm. Naturally, any sort of automatics (even MGs) would be the first "over-the-top", as they are the most motivated.

I am reading Island of Fire, which focuses on the German accounts of Stalingrad. German officers, and NCOs, took significantly more casualties than the rank-and-file, as did the Soviets. Officers/NCOs prioritized good observation positions, and observation works both ways. The best artillery would be used against these positions, not against riflemen.

The second point is that the enemy prioritizes leaders and guys with big guns. It only makes sense to focus most valuable targets, especially for snipers/marksmen (who rarely shoot at riflemen in-game, I find). RNG casualties would be an unrealistic abstraction -- life isn't fair, let alone war.

[Freyberg]

13 minutes ago, zmoney said:

For me I have not noticed this. Maybe it seems like they are dying more because you tend to notice those casualties more.

I don't consider it a bug - I see it as a result of my aggressive, impatient playing style.

It's only a game after all...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

What's that you say?  The bad guys shoot at unit leaders and chaps who are lugging really big guns around.....That's just not cricket at all! 

[zmoney]

1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

I don't consider it a bug - I see it as a result of my aggressive, impatient playing style.

Definitely could be play style dependent. When I’m being good with good support fire my casualties are low. But.... when I get impatient I always get nailed with heavy casualties.

[Ithikial_AU]

I'm not 100% so please take it with a grain of salt.

My understanding was that the pixeltrüppen will try to take out specific high value targets in squads if they are able to. For example, if you were ambushing a German rifle squad in the open would you chose to target the guy carrying the MG42 or the guy next to him carrying a K98? It's also usually the LMG's that shoot more and therefore reveal themselves quicker than guys carrying rifles which leads to them being shot at first by the enemy. Then as has already been said, squad/fireteam leads with their Thompsons and MP40's tend to be leading from the front meaning they the first in the door.

What could be a good test is set up a situation of a duel between an LMG team vs a scout team with rifles only. Set it up to ensure the rifle carrying team gets the drop on the LMG team. Run it a few times and see which of the two LMG team members drops first.

 

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

Despite the already stated reasons that put gunners and leaders into greater danger of getting harmed first/with priority from my experience I can´t agree  with the %, "all the time", and "AI vs non-AI" claims. In the moment this looks more like a case of strong selective perception to me.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Aquila-SmartWargames

[BornGinger]

9 hours ago, zmoney said:

For me I have not noticed this. Maybe it seems like they are dying more because you tend to notice those casualties more.

You mean that the AI can read his mind? That must be the most advanced AI ever made.

[IICptMillerII]

This is just your perception. You notice it when a squad leader/platoon leader goes down more because it is more damaging to your immediate combat effectiveness. Same goes for the automatic gunner in a squad/platoon. These things provide you with a distinct advantage that you rely upon (either leadership from the leaders or firepower from the machine guns) and when you lose them, you lose that advantage. Thus, you notice it a lot more. 

You aren't alone in this perception either. Its very common in many war memoirs and anecdotal stories for it to be constantly pointed out that the leaders  are always the first to die. Especially the good ones. Vietnam was infamous for having a high platoon leader fatality rate, and bocage fighting during the Normandy campaign seemed to claim all the good squad leaders at alarmingly high rates. Again, this is mostly because these assets really hurt when you lost them, in Vietnam because the platoon leader with his radio was the link to the outside world and greater support, and the squad leader in the bocage because due to the nature of the fighting, small unit leadership was extremely important. 

Again, its all just a perception. In reality, you aren't losing a high number of leaders. You're losing a proportional number of leaders along with the rest of the casualties you take. If you can show me a battle where you only lose leaders and machine gunners, and then can reproduce it 100 times consistently, then I'll start to think something is wrong. 

[Muzzleflash1990]

Since LMGs are also picked up when buddy aiding, a squad can lose "its gunner" multiple times.

[AlexUK]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is just your perception. You notice it when a squad leader/platoon leader goes down more because it is more damaging to your immediate combat effectiveness. Same goes for the automatic gunner in a squad/platoon. These things provide you with a distinct advantage that you rely upon (either leadership from the leaders or firepower from the machine guns) and when you lose them, you lose that advantage. Thus, you notice it a lot more. 

You aren't alone in this perception either. Its very common in many war memoirs and anecdotal stories for it to be constantly pointed out that the leaders  are always the first to die. Especially the good ones. Vietnam was infamous for having a high platoon leader fatality rate, and bocage fighting during the Normandy campaign seemed to claim all the good squad leaders at alarmingly high rates. Again, this is mostly because these assets really hurt when you lost them, in Vietnam because the platoon leader with his radio was the link to the outside world and greater support, and the squad leader in the bocage because due to the nature of the fighting, small unit leadership was extremely important. 

Again, its all just a perception. In reality, you aren't losing a high number of leaders. You're losing a proportional number of leaders along with the rest of the casualties you take. If you can show me a battle where you only lose leaders and machine gunners, and then can reproduce it 100 times consistently, then I'll start to think something is wrong. 

Muy experience when I have been watching snipers is that they seem to select high value targets. Only a perception though. Should be an easy test to do.

[MikeyD]

Its not your imagination that the AI prioritized who to shoot. In the real world the US stopped dressing their officers distinctively because snipers tended to pick them off (the exception being showboating egoist Patten, of course). I think they also advised against using hand gestures. If you're watching the opposing side and see one of the group is going from unit to unit pointing and acting authoritative you shoot him. The term '90 day wonder' was coined for the constant stream of green junior officers that were arriving in-theater due to high attrition rate.

[semmes]

Thank you for all the replies, but...

No snipers, for example, is one the things I said.

I do understand the corporal leading, I do not understand being the only one hit by a mortar round. I do not understand the gunner being the only one hit when a machine-gun is firing at a few guys moving from one cover to another 380m. away, and again, and again and  by a mortar round. I am not quite sure what concept of aiming anybody is using around, maybe pot-shot ? A guy popping his head from a window while the house is under fire... how many seconds is he going to take to aim at people 180m. away. No, not every example is like this one.

Yes, the first thing I thought was that it was my impression, for that reason I was checking squads after the battle; well: it's not. Have you been looking at  saved games and checking squads?

Somebody said something very interesting... and it's true that how I am playing now I suffer less casualties. Still, the same selection of casualties.

Yes maybe it is my impression, 20 times.

Thanks.

 

How many times have you been wounded? -Today?  Nam.

 

[semmes]

This proves nothing. This is what I am playing now. I cannot load the wider view because I cannot -limit- load anything else. Down left there was an explosion, 4 wounded, 1 dead                  -squad leader- and this is what happened 88m. away. No sniper, no shooting... nothing else.

Just wondering how many anecdotes like these do I need, even if  I really hope somebody is checking squads; even if only to shut my mouth.

 

His Majesty... chance. F. the Great.

Once is chance, twice is a coincidence, three... enemy action. Nam.

[IICptMillerII]

19 hours ago, semmes said:

Just wondering how many anecdotes like these do I need, even if  I really hope somebody is checking squads; even if only to shut my mouth.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. 

If you want to demonstrate an issue, you need to create a test and run it many times, upwards of 100, to get a sample size. For example, if you created a test where you had a squad get hit by one mortar round and 75% of the time the only casualty suffered was the squad leader, then you would have real evidence to make an argument with. Thats just an example though. 

[General Jack Ripper]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:39 PM, semmes said:

When are we getting the patch to make non-AI casualties actually random ?

Casualties are not random. Soldiers armed with automatic weapons are a higher priority for the TACAI to shoot. Leaders armed with SMG's and Gunners armed with LMG's stick out like a big neon sign saying 'Kill This Man First'.

The only way to mitigate leader casualties is to not expose them to so much fire. I usually split off an Assault Team from each squad as a way to protect the squad leader until use of their SMG and grenades becomes necessary. Otherwise they sit out of SMG range and use their binos while the team's rifles do the shooting.

[weapon2010]

i think we tend to remember and notice, and get frustrated about a leader WIA , and forget about the times it never happens.

[AlexUK]

4 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Casualties are not random. Soldiers armed with automatic weapons are a higher priority for the TACAI to shoot. Leaders armed with SMG's and Gunners armed with LMG's stick out like a big neon sign saying 'Kill This Man First'.

The only way to mitigate leader casualties is to not expose them to so much fire. I usually split off an Assault Team from each squad as a way to protect the squad leader until use of their SMG and grenades becomes necessary. Otherwise they sit out of SMG range and use their binos while the team's rifles do the shooting.

I find rifles are so ineffective I almost discount them. I'm probably wrong in that.... 

 

I'm guessing I'm talking about bolt actions here. 

[Erwin]

33 minutes ago, AlexUK said:

I find rifles are so ineffective I almost discount them. I'm probably wrong in that.... 

SMG's tend to dominate the smaller maps of CM2 but that makes one wonder why all armies didn't use SMG's primarily with only a few bolt-action sniper rifles.  In RL, engagements were of longer range where the SMG's were less useful and longer range rifles were more useful.

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, AlexUK said:

I find rifles are so ineffective I almost discount them. I'm probably wrong in that.... 

 

I'm guessing I'm talking about bolt actions here. 

Rifles are way better in reality than in this game. Range, accuracy, and firing speed has been dialled down. Probably for gameplay balance considerations.

[General Jack Ripper]

On 4/16/2020 at 1:45 PM, AlexUK said:

I find rifles are so ineffective I almost discount them. I'm probably wrong in that....

One's preferred weapon system or method of engagement is largely a matter of personal opinion.

I tend to be a bit of an oddball in both Combat Mission as well as other war sim games.

[LukeFF]

On 4/16/2020 at 3:39 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Probably for gameplay balance considerations.

Nope - rather because it is hard to hit a man-sized target at anything beyond 200 meters.