"Acceptable" number of cassualties

[Plaza_Olmedo]

Hi everybody, I’m a new CM player and I would like to ask something that have been bugging me. I don’t have much war gaming experience or WWII tactics knowledge. However I did play a lot of Close Combat Invasion of Normandy, where the feature of naming your squads had the effect to really attach me to my virtual troops, and gave me a frustrating feeling whenever I lose too many of them, especially since that almost always happens because of my bad decisions. So I guess I like not only to complete objectives, but doing so with the less casualties possible.

I just finished my first “real” battle (the first ones where “save/reload” training) with a 23% of casualties in veteran level. I guess it’s OK, considering the Germans lost 90% of their troops, but it felt like I took a lot of punishment during some phases.

Of course the “acceptable” number of casualties depends of the scenario, the number and type of opposing forces and, in RL, the importance of the objectives. But I would like to ask the most experienced players the range of casualties they would consider acceptable in a mission.

P.S: I'm sorry, my english it's kind of rusty...

[Sublime]

Well its a matter of opinion. I guess also it depends on how important the objective is.

in a campaign is much more important to be careful with tanks, artillery assets, ammo, and of course, your manpower.

in a one off battle, one could make the argument all that matters is winning. Thus you see higher casualty rates than you'd probably ever see in real life. Its just one of those things - the only truly real way to play the game would be to have some of your friends there and possibly shoot a random one each time one of your officers gets hit, and if your battalion cmdr gets killed put the bullet in your own head. =D

[nik mond]

I hope this is on topic, in terms of feeling the effect of high casualties.

Attrition campaigns are possible in this game where a player only gets a core formation to carry from battle to battle. This gives an extreme sense of preservation for your units knowing you might have to fight the next battle depleted another panther, and there are no more coming. The down side to this is what happens if the less frugal player gets half way through the campaign without enough units to proceed. He may think what poorly designed camp or worse, so we don't see alot of true attrition campaigns. I think devil's descent is one of the few.

I would like to see a true german attrition campaign where armour is not replaced, or very seldom, just to see if I could make it to the end of the campaign. And maybe there is one out there I haven't downloaded yet. Ofcourse some easy scenarios would have to be thrown in and non core support infantry to carry things along..

[Erwin]

Hoffnung is an attrition campaign - esp when it comes to the tanks. I'd be interested to see if you can lose less armor to bogging/immobilization than to enemy fire.

[A Canadian Cat]

The issue of pushing and pushing our men is one of the things that bug my sometimes when I play. There have been many instances where I have said to myself "ok at this point a real company co would pack up and withdraw to a safe position and try again with some more help. Don't get me wrong I am having lots of fun. I just wish I could play a campagin PBEM. It would add another dimension of immersion and realism to the current fun.

[Erwin]

I agree. Having played 5 or 6+ campaigns now vs the AI where force and ammo preservation was important I found my first H2H PBEM to be a shock as suddenly one has to change tactics to the "fight to the last man" concept. I found this new style of play to be unsettling to say the least, as there really isn't opportunity to even give buddy aid etc.

Will stick to campaigns vs the AI I think...

[nik mond]

Hoffnung is an attrition campaign - esp when it comes to the tanks. I'd be interested to see if you can lose less armor to bogging/immobilization than to enemy fire.

Jeez how did I miss that. Yes great campaign. Started it tonight. Yes even the wounded show up for the next battle. great stuff.

The issue of pushing and pushing our men is one of the things that bug my sometimes when I play. There have been many instances where I have said to myself "ok at this point a real company co would pack up and withdraw to a safe position and try again with some more help.

may have happened too often in WW2 I think, not far from the truth really. Commanders become

desensitized, seeing the big picture as objective oriented.

[Erwin]

And designers can create that (esp in a campaign) by costing you a lot of points for friendly losses. I wish they did more of that, so that one doesn't necessarily have to lose big cos one wants to save one's troops from slaughter. (You'll need em for the next battle.)

I heard that 5% casualties was considered very high. But, am unclear if that would be a figure for the parent formation/corps or just for the combat formation.

Since there were about 10 support guys for every combat soldier, 5% casualties of a parent formation of (say) 5,000 would be a huge % for the approx 500 combat troops who would suffer nearly all the casualties.

Anyone know how the casualty % is/was calculated?

[Sublime]

I kept my armor casualties to bogging in Hoffnung pretty low by ordering slow moves almost everywhere. IIRC the ground conditions were usually damp. Its the only way to go about it when you're using panthers or tigers. I even use it for PZ IV's and Shermans on anything except roads and plain looking grass (if the conditions are dry). Not worth losing the tank to me, and usually the slowness with the tank just adds a little factor of patience to my armor use, which usually isnt a bad thing.

[noxnoctum]

You guys are gonna have a heart attack when we get to the East front .

[LongLeftFlank]

And designers can create that (esp in a campaign) by costing you a lot of points for friendly losses. I wish they did more of that, so that one doesn't necessarily have to lose big cos one wants to save one's troops from slaughter. (You'll need em for the next battle.)

I heard that 5% casualties was considered very high. But, am unclear if that would be a figure for the parent formation/corps or just for the combat formation.

Since there were about 10 support guys for every combat soldier, 5% casualties of a parent formation of (say) 5,000 would be a huge % for the approx 500 combat troops who would suffer nearly all the casualties.

Agreed. In the platoon scale recon scenario I'm testing right now, the player must weigh his objectives against force preservation -- in practical terms, even if you've occupied your objectives you aren't likely to hold them long if you've also lost ~15% of your lightly armed force. This also promotes a lot more realistically cautious behaviour by the attacker. Killing enemy is of relatively minor value (albeit not zero value) -- Recon forces simply weren't equipped and manned to hold ground or to do much more fighting than kill snipers or drive off rival patrols.

The teeth to tail ratio varied a lot, and the Germans were especially (though not uniquely) prone to put their cooks and clerks into the line as riflemen in extremis.

My guess is that once an attacking infantry force hits about 8-10% casualties in a planned attack (i.e. every squad has a man down on average, although more likely a few unlucky squads have sustained 30-50% casualties and are essentially broken), forward movement has ground to a halt, especially since the causative agent is most likely copious enemy artillery. I don't think there's a fixed threshold of cumulative unreplaced casualties (i.e. across multiple days of fighting) at which a force becomes totally unable to attack though -- in fact, history suggest there isn't.

Small groups of elite forces engaged in commando raids or coups de main might be more resilient, so long as they've seized their objectives early on and are awaiting relief or reinforcement (at that point, they've become defenders).

For defenders, the "breaking point" is a lot harder to quantify. Defenders typically don't know what's going on beyond the next hole, so casualties alone aren't necessarily going to cause them to flee (leaving your hole could be worse). However, if enemy shooting or shooters are detected on the flank(s) or worse, behind them, I suspect most defenders would take that as a cue to fall back or at minimum, ask command what's happening.

[YankeeDog]

There is extreme variation here, whether you're taking about casualties within a single engagement (i.e. "CM scale"), or casualties over weeks and weeks.

Just looking at Normandy, you can find examples of Companies and Battalions in units like the 82nd and 101st airborne that took extremely heavy casualties, and yet continued to attack and take ground. And there are other units, even within the airborne divisions, that folded and failed to take objectives after relatively light casualties. Similar examples are available on the German side.

[Plaza_Olmedo]

I guess my main concern was with battles and not campaigns, since, as many pointed out, in a single battle there is no aftermath penalty for casualties, and I’m kind of training for campaigns. I guess an “objective” way is to consider “acceptable” the other side parameter objective (if applies).

I also agree with Erwin. On second thought, my 23% casualties is much higher: almost a whole platoon or roughly a third of the troops actually engaged in combat. Much more appropriate with what I felt during the battle.

If I’m not wrong, the Road to Montebourg briefing stated that a 10% of casualties was considered low (from the Allied perspective), so I guess a 15% -20% could be considered standard for a single battle, no matter what the German parameters are, and then adjust the rate to mission difficulty.

[TrailApe]

This also promotes a lot more realistically cautious behaviour by the attacker. Killing enemy is of relatively minor value (albeit not zero value)

I'll agree with this in relation to the US sector, however when the Commonwealth module comes on line, the main aim was to attrit (is this a word?) the Panzer Divs. "Write Up" is a phrase that Monty and his pals use a lot at this time - we would probably use 'write off' nowadays, so I wonder if enemy casualties become a bigger factor than objectives or conservation of force in a scenario/campaign.

Objectives

1) Kill the Kitties

2) If you can't kill them - keep them 'interested' for the duration of the battle.:confused:

3) Try not to get killed:p

4) If you do get killed - try and clog up their tracks or bleed into their fuel tanks.

[Erwin]

Sublime: I also kept all armor to SLOW and what I thought were very careful moves, but I still bogged/immobilized an average of approx 20% each battle, so that by the 4th or 5th battle I was down to 4 out of 10 and only one had been KO'd by fire.

The issue that was discussed elsewhere seems to be the area between the road and offroad where most boggings seem to occur. Hopefully BF will address that Inshallah.

Re casualties, so does anyone know if the % refers only to the combat troops or does it take into account the much larger parent formation, most of whom are unlikely to be casualties? Am trying to figure out what is a "reasonable" histical level of casualties our guys in these CMBN battles could take before an attack is called off or it would grind to a halt. My gut is that we are allowed to take too many friendly casualties (re low points penalties).

[Sublime]

well often people dont realize also that the casualty threshold in real life operations is also lower because the units hopefully should be able to continue on from the one battle. real life is never just a one off battle - everyone wants to go home. I think if people played trying to keep in mind that their force should be able to

A. hold on to what ever they take, and

B. (if attacking) be able to continue if need be.

The acceptable casualty threshold is obviously lower. People would also play much more realistically. And make sure they used buddy aid...

Erwin: Im surprised. It must just be bad luck. I avoided anything that looked muddy like a plague in that campaign.. I had relatively few bogging problems however. Speaking of immobilization, the AI in that campaign targeted a panther of mine with a 60mm mortar. stupid right? not so much - caused enough track damage to immobilize the tank...

[Broadsword56]

Re casualties, so does anyone know if the % refers only to the combat troops or does it take into account the much larger parent formation, most of whom are unlikely to be casualties? Am trying to figure out what is a "reasonable" histical level of casualties our guys in these CMBN battles could take before an attack is called off or it would grind to a halt. My gut is that we are allowed to take too many friendly casualties (re low points penalties).

Erwin, if you really want to geek out on this question, the Pentagon did a detailed study of battalion-level units in WWII and how/whether/under what circumstances those losses may have affected their performace in combat:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD0059384&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Also, here's something that Joe Balkoski (the author of Beyond the Beachhead) e-mailed me recently when I asked him about a related issue:

"...One thing I learned from the veterans was that even a full-strength unit with poor cohesion could do almost nothing, whereas a highly depleted unit with good cohesion could accomplish a lot. My only guideline for your question is that a unit losing one step in the game [the board game "Saint-Lo, which Balkoski designed] certainly would not have lost 33% of its men. It could have lost only one -- say, its CO -- and it would probably have lost a third of its effectiveness.

"I have found as I continue to write about WWII that a loss of 30 men (wounded and killed) in a rifle company of 193 men typically was devastating and required the unit to sit tight the following day, absorbing replacements (if any) and generally not taking any offensive action. Even a loss of 5 men could be tough if the combat endured by the unit had been unremitting, day after day."

[i even e-mailed the legendary Jim Dunnigan to coax him to weigh in on the issue, but he didn't take the bait and simply replied: "I agree with Balkoski."]

Bottom line: The more I look into this question, the more I realize it's a judgment call and highly dependent on many factors. But, since we're gaming and a game has to abstract reality, we have to make some decisions, even though they can seem arbitrary.

For example, if I make a CMBN scenario that forces an attacker loss after 35% casualties, someone will surely say it's "binary" and unfair when they can win with 34% and lose with 35%. That's a valid point. But IMHO, it's still better to have that condition because of the larger way it shapes the gameplay and makes the attacker behave more realistically.

In my operational-tactical campaign, I set up the scenario victory conditions with attackers having to win territory, and the defender having to cause enemy casualties past a certain threshold (35% is what I use). However, there's also a 70%-80% "ground rule" casualty limit for the defender that's not enforced in-game but represents a "technical knockout" of the defender after the battle is over -- i.e., even if the defender won the battle tactically, with losses that great he would not be considered an effective enough fighting force to hold the territory.

The great thing about CMBN is, it models the "soft" factors so well (motivation, fitness, experience, leadership, etc.) that we often find a battalion loses cohesion and has to break off an attack anyway, after a certain number of game events, just because the troops won't or can't press on.

I suspect that players might not be using these variations in soft factors to their full potential. Play with too many units all "crack" and well-led, and you're guaranteed to get unrealistic bloodbaths.

I like a scenario to reflect some larger -- even if imaginary -- military situation. A small force is cut off and low on ammo. Or: A well-fortified defender has -2 leadership and Unfit fitness to reflect the fact that it's been under a 2-hour preliminary bombardment before the scenario begins. The attacker might get a +2 leadership rating and 40% prebattle intelligence ecause it's a set-piece attack that's had the involvement of extensive divisional staff planning and preparation.

These things might sound unfair and unbalanced to some, but I find they make for some really interesting and fun games for both sides, as long as each side gets a way to achieve a win in game terms.

[LongLeftFlank]

Quite the rolodex there, Broadsword!

@TrailApe, I was referring strictly to recon ops in talking about casualty avoidance. The little recce battle I'm playtesting now really brings home how the Cavalry units were very well-equipped to cover mileage and kill enemy snipers or OPs but totally unequipped to hold ground or do more than withdraw in the face of a dug-in enemy once located. I also need to pick up Balkoski's book on the Cav units.

[Broadsword56]

Quite the rolodex there, Broadsword!

Thank LLF, but as an old newspaper reporter I guess I'm in the habit of "going to the source." The e-mail addresses are easy to find with a bit of Googling -- and it's amazing how forthcoming even some of these esteemed authors and historians can if the request is specific, respectful, and courteous.

A propos of that -- a few weeks back I saw a "Battlefield Detectives" episode on the Military History Channel about the Bulge. In it I saw a British specialist in military geography explaining something about the topography of the Ardennes -- he was pointing to a large scale color topo map that any of us CMBN mappers would have killed for. I looked him up from the show credits, sent him and e-mail, and to my surprise he answered me within 12 hours, saying he can't promise anything but would look through his materials to see if he has any digitized WWII source material he'd be able to share.

[Wodin]

The Internet certainly has made communication with people so much easier and I've also spoken to Authors after emailing them about a particular book of theirs. They are usually very forthcoming as they know your a customer plus you usually share the same interest.

Speaking of which time to email Jack Sheldon.

[Wodin]

Well I emailed Jack Sheldon and four hours later received a reply. He gave me a run down of his future book projects.

Amazing who you can contact, and not only that receive a friendly reply.

[DaveDash]

The biggest cause of casualties for me is the time limits. Now I just try to ignore them and go at my own pace.

In real life commanders quite often when over their time limits. 4 weekly operations turned into months. Especially in the Bocage of Normandy and some Islands in the Pacific.

[pazuzusmiles]

can't wait noxnoctum!!!