KIA / WIA result screen error ?

[noob]

I've noticed in every result of CMBN i have seen there are more KIA than WIA, which is contrary to the ratio of those categories in every real life battle i have read about.......is it an error ?

[phil stanbridge]

Are you using buddy-aid on your wounded men? If you don't sometimes they will appear as KIA as a result - I've had mixed results too. I think part of the problem is the fact that every battle in the game is somewhat abstracted within its size and time constraints.

[Childress]

I've noticed in every result of CMBN i have seen there are more KIA than WIA, which is contrary to the ratio of those categories in every real life battle i have read about.......is it an error ?

I thought about that, too. The ratio seems reversed.

Point of the Spear phenomenon?.

[Sergei]

You also shouldn't treat rules of thumb such as that as divine truths. Eg. if a battle had one casualty, would he be 1/3 dead and 2/3 wounded? In the scope of CM it depends on various factors. What catches you has an effect on what the result is, so a gun wound might not even decapacitate you or it might just make you wounded, while a 155mm shell landing on your helmet would kill you immediately. A catastrophically exploding Sherman is not going to have many wounded survivors either. Also the wounded men are still vulnerable to HE fire, so men caught in the middle of a long artillery mission might first become wounded, then dead. And finally, unassisted casualties are more likely to die.

[Mord]

Well, one thing I noticed that I thought was interesting is that a guy can go from severely wounded (light red) to KIA (dark red)...I didn't know the game would track that during the battle. I figured once light red they were stuck in that state until the end game where it calculates who survived the light red wounds and who didn't.

Anyway, I figure that a lot of the KIA results come from the fact we probably abuse these guys a lot worse than their real life commanders did....not to mention, make more mistakes.

Mord.

[Sublime]

Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?

[RockinHarry]

Think there´s bit of a middle ground missing. We have those very lightly wounded (yellow) who keep with the fighting troops and those incapacitated who can´t care for themselves anymore. What´s missing is those who aren´t healthy enough to stay at the frontline, yet are capable to walk alone (or in groups) back to the first aid stations.

So far, the lightly wounded are equally death candidates as are the incapacitated who need buddy aid. The "middle" ground could see the walking capable wounded disappear from the squad info panel with giving notice (after short delay maybe).

[Erwin]

I enjoy always taking care of my WIA (that really should count for scoring purposes although I know it doesn't currently). But, it's sometimes hard to spot them. You know the squad shows a WIA/KIA but try as I might to examine the ground, there's always at least one poor blighter in every game who cannot be located.

Wish there was a marker one could activate - like the one that shows you where your mouse cursor is when you press Cntrl - which would easily show you where the WIA/KIA are lying.

[Rambler]

Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?

Yeah, for sure. Saw it happen the other night. One of my guys got tagged by small arms fire and was in the bright red state. Enemy mortars started coming in and one hit right on top of him. He screamed and turned to the KIA dark red.

IIRC it doesn't really matter if there are more KIA than WIA since they are all counted as casualties for scoring purposes.

[Holman]

If the WIA/KIA ratio bothers you, you could always decide that WIA means "wounded but still in the army" and KIA means "unrecoverable casualty" (which could be dead or merely maimed).

[Mord]

Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?

Yep. That's exactly what happened I was testing some sounds and had some mortars striking a German position...guy took some shrapnel early and fell light red...near the end of the turn a round landed right on him and killed him (turned dark red).

I replayed it a few times and was like, "Wow...I didn't know that!"

Mord.

[Michael Emrys]

Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

Michael

[Erwin]

Same thing if you use the "French Pig Farmer with Pitchfork" mod - he will stab them to death.

[noob]

If the WIA/KIA ratio bothers you, you could always decide that WIA means "wounded but still in the army" and KIA means "unrecoverable casualty" (which could be dead or merely maimed).

It doesn't really bother me, that's why it took so long to post my query, i'm just curious to know if it's an error, because if not, what is the explanation for it ?

[vincere]

Really? So severely wounded troops lying incapacitated in a row will all be killed if say artillery continues to pound their position and lands on their bodies?

Carefull of ordering area fire to kill wounded or surrendered pivel troops, the Geneva convention may have something to say:

http://kotaku.com/5863817/war-crimes-in-video-games-draw-red-cross-scrutiny?tag=callofduty&autoplay

[Childress]

Think there´s bit of a middle ground missing. We have those very lightly wounded (yellow) who keep with the fighting troops and those incapacitated who can´t care for themselves anymore. What´s missing is those who aren´t healthy enough to stay at the frontline, yet are capable to walk alone (or in groups) back to the first aid stations.

Maybe, if this is really an issue, it can be resolved by a simple redistribution of stats on the end game screen.

[c3k]

Interesting. I've paid attention to the end of game stats and have not noticed this. It may exist: I have never seen it.

[Sublime]

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

Michael

Well you never know what just wont work with the engine, or what couldnt be modeled. It seems a small detail.. Im glad its there, but the why wouldnt they argument could be turned to why isnt there hand to hand combat in some form or the other? Troops do look sorta silly standing together in the same action spot... looking at eachother.

[sburke]

Well you never know what just wont work with the engine, or what couldnt be modeled. It seems a small detail.. Im glad its there, but the why wouldnt they argument could be turned to why isnt there hand to hand combat in some form or the other? Troops do look sorta silly standing together in the same action spot... looking at eachother.

That doesn't quite work. Continuing to get hit may work simply because the model is already built. We don't know for example that soldiers already wounded can be getting wounded again, i.e. it may not be cumulative and we only notice when one gets killed as that is a different state. BFC would have to chime in here about the whole issue of wounds and cumulative effect etc. Hand to hand however isn't modelled and that would actually require programming.

Now hand to hand versus fire, there is a competetive question for ya. Which would you prefer assuming we had a choice? Personally I'd go with fire as we will need it for those bunkers in the westwall, but Hand to hand would be nice "eye candy".

[PLM2]

Well.... You also have to consider the high intensity of Combat Mission combat missions.

[JonS]

And also that Combat Mission represents the very small proportion of time that units spent in force-on-force combat. It explicitly does not represent all the in-between times when units suffered a steady drain of casualties from various causes.

The 3:1 WIA:KIA ratio (or 4:1, or 2:1 or whatever version you happened to read) relates all casualties from all causes at all times over the course of the entire war or whole campaigns.

Coincidentally, I was just reading about 1/6 Duke of Wellingtons Regiment. This was the battalion broken up in late June 1944, and of which Max Hastings made such a big deal in his book. From Wikipedia:

On 9 June 1944 the 1/6th Battalion [DWR] embarked on HMS Cheshire arriving off the Normandy coast on 11 June. By late evening of that day it was five miles inland. On 16 June the battalion was ordered to attack Parc de Boislonde, a thickly wooded ridge overlooking Fontenay le Pesnil. The attack was supported by a squadron of tanks and artillery from four field regiments. The attack was successful, but resulted in heavy losses to the battalion. The following day the German forces counter attacked, forcing the 6th Battalion back, the bitter fighting saw the battalion lose 16 Officers and 220 other ranks in the first two days.

The battalion was then withdrawn to a nearby Chateau to rest, but was spotted by a reconnaissance aircraft and was heavily shelled by German artillery, resulting in another 20 casualties. That same afternoon, 20 June, the battalion paraded for the Brigade Commander and was promptly shelled again, with even more casualties. At that point Lt Col Exham was switched to command another battalion. On 25 June, under the command of Lt Col AJD Turner MC Suffolk Regiment, the 1/6th battalion was moved up to support the flank of 147 Brigades attack on Fontenay le Pesnil and then the village of Rauray.

Heavy fighting ensued, with a number of German units, from the elite 12th SS Panzer Division, putting up stiff resistance. The objectives were taken but the 1/6th had come under withering Mortar fire, suffering further heavy losses.

That isn't especially detailed, but it is clear that a substantial fraction of the casualties suffered by 1/6 DWR were caused by hostile artillery in situations which would never be covered by a CM scenario.