Jump to content

Casualty question....


Recommended Posts

In the scenario I just finished in the German campaign (third scenario), I suffered nine dead, seven wounded. In past scenarios the numbers of dead have have always proportionately outnumbered the wounded, same for the AI or occasional human player. I've seen this in both WeGo and RT. I've also noticed this trend in CMBN. Here is an in-game example from another player:

italyv.png

Historical battle statistics show wounded outnumbering dead, in almost every case. Example: V Corps losses at Omaha Beach were reported as 694 dead, 331 missing and 1,349 wounded.

Are CM weapons too lethal, or does the die roll favor death over wounding? Why?:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen plenty of occasions where the number of wounded grossly outweights the number of dead. If you take your time to apply buddy aid, the number of dead will go down.

When analyzing statistics, keep in mind that CM represents the sharp end of the stick. Most battle reports I've read report the total number of casualties sustained in the operation outside the tip of the spear engagements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen plenty of occasions where the number of wounded grossly outweights the number of dead. If you take your time to apply buddy aid, the number of dead will go down.

Good point! If I'm stopped, I let buddy aid do it's thing. If I drop a man on the run out in the open, he's stuck there. :o

When analyzing statistics, keep in mind that CM represents the sharp end of the stick. Most battle reports I've read report the total number of casualties sustained in the operation outside the tip of the spear engagements.

Ehhh.... Most real world platoon/company level statistics that I've seen reflect higher wounded than dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehhh.... Most real world platoon/company level statistics that I've seen reflect higher wounded than dead.

But I'm sure most real world platoon/company level engagements aren't the kind of meat grinders that your typical CM scenario represents.

It has a lot to do with striking a gameplay balance to make an interesting scenario, where as a real commander is interested in achieving the greatest possible leverage in his favour to save the lives of his men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm sure most real world platoon/company level engagements aren't the kind of meat grinders that your typical CM scenario represents.

Aren't they supposed to represent real-world, World War II, battlefields?

It has a lot to do with striking a gameplay balance to make an interesting scenario, where as a real commander is interested in achieving the greatest possible leverage in his favour to save the lives of his men.

Who doesn't play a scenario where they try to gain leverage to save the lives of his men? Wow ... I really hope I'm not alone here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't they supposed to represent real-world, World War II, battlefields?

They do. The most intense, vicious knock-em-down-and-drag-em-out no holds barred no prisoners slugfests.

Most WW2 battlefields were a lot more sedate, apparently, with the defender ceding territory to preserve force-in-being and the attacker pressing with guns not bodies.

Also, when the casualty figures are that low, there's a much larger chance of statistical outliers. I have noticed that "Killed" figures more closely approach "Wounded" for forces with larger AFV numbers. 5 Sherman crewmen in a catastrophically exploding tank are all going to end up dead, whereas a 5 man fireteam "eliminated" will have a mix of dead and wounded, with more wounded if they've suffered bombardment and more killed if they've engaged in a firefight.

Whether that observation has any merit, I couldn't say. It's certainly not got any hard figures to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't they supposed to represent real-world, World War II, battlefields?

Who doesn't play a scenario where they try to gain leverage to save the lives of his men? Wow ... I really hope I'm not alone here....

I'm talking about scenario designers, since they take the role of your commanding officers. And they routinely send you to battle to fight an enemy on even terms. What kind of commander does that?

Breakthrough battles are the kind where you stack 6-to-1 odds against depleted, green troops on the verge of collapse. You see this kind of combat in campaigns mainly, since scenarios are usually more balanced. They work because in campaigns force conservation is everything, whereas a single scenario featuring such combat would likely make the player fall asleep.

I don't think it's correct to assume that combat in WW2 was fought in byte-size engagements where both sides have an equal "point value" worth of troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about scenario designers, since they take the role of your commanding officers. And they routinely send you to battle to fight an enemy on even terms. What kind of commander does that?

Breakthrough battles are the kind where you stack 6-to-1 odds against depleted, green troops on the verge of collapse.

Indeed. "Strategy is the art of never having to fight fair."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is the battles we fight at the CM level if applied to operational and strategic games would make for boring attritional games, whereas interesting games at the stategic and operational level make for boring overmatched tactical games. This is where the whole process of having a good op layer campaign runs into the meat grinder. Broadsword dealt with this by only applying the interesting battles for CM play. Makes for some fun scenarios that still have an influence on the op layer, but not having to fight a dozen battles that are either walkovers or getting pounded by artillery for 30 turns and then having to defend with what is left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is the battles we fight at the CM level if applied to operational and strategic games would make for boring attritional games, whereas interesting games at the stategic and operational level make for boring overmatched tactical games. This is where the whole process of having a good op layer campaign runs into the meat grinder. Broadsword dealt with this by only applying the interesting battles for CM play. Makes for some fun scenarios that still have an influence on the op layer, but not having to fight a dozen battles that are either walkovers or getting pounded by artillery for 30 turns and then having to defend with what is left.

Also, I think we've found there's a "consolation prize" when you have an operational layer -- a lopsided tactical battle doesn't hurt as much if you lose, because there's always tomorrow, or an opportunity to counterattack with that company over there, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the casualties again, my experience is that it all depends on what happens to your guys. Like if you kick but and dominate your firefights and you mostly only take damage from small mortar fire that you mostly dodge, you might get more yellow injured than any other casualties. on the other hand if most of you injuries are from heavy machine guns and large caliber accurate HE, and or you have your injured guys keep getting shot at, say by a long barrage of mortars, youll have mostly dead guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also under the impression that on average, we are seeing more firepower on the field than in reality, so we are seeing balanced forces shooting at each other with bigger guns. The Germans in particular seem to field quite a few more tanks than they had time to manufacture.

I would guess that when the firepower curve goes up, there's going to be dead pixeltruppen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the battles we fight at the CM level if applied to operational and strategic games would make for boring attritional games, whereas interesting games at the stategic and operational level make for boring overmatched tactical games.

That's an interesting insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing is the battles we fight at the CM level if applied to operational and strategic games would make for boring attritional games, whereas interesting games at the stategic and operational level make for boring overmatched tactical games. This is where the whole process of having a good op layer campaign runs into the meat grinder. Broadsword dealt with this by only applying the interesting battles for CM play. Makes for some fun scenarios that still have an influence on the op layer, but not having to fight a dozen battles that are either walkovers or getting pounded by artillery for 30 turns and then having to defend with what is left.

I think CM-Market Garden will offer more variety in battle types that will hit the "sweet spot" for many players. Instead of "take that hill/defend that hill" (Italy) or "grind through the bocage on a continuous front" (Normandy pre-Cobra), we'll be seeing a theatre with more meeting engagements, crazy flanks and fluid fronts, and smaller, more widely separated elements trying to cut or defend portions of the narrow Allied corridor. Urban combat enthusiasts will get Arnhem, and if you like big dense set-pieces, there's the XXX Corps breakout effort on Sept. 17. Can't wait....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think CM-Market Garden will offer more variety in battle types that will hit the "sweet spot" for many players. Instead of "take that hill/defend that hill" (Italy) or "grind through the bocage on a continuous front" (Normandy pre-Cobra), we'll be seeing a theatre with more meeting engagements, crazy flanks and fluid fronts, and smaller, more widely separated elements trying to cut or defend portions of the narrow Allied corridor. Urban combat enthusiasts will get Arnhem, and if you like big dense set-pieces, there's the XXX Corps breakout effort on Sept. 17. Can't wait....!

Kinda begs for flamethrowers to be modelled in that environment, doesn't it.

Regards

KR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the KIA:WIA stats in the AAR screen: the WIA does not count yellow bases. If it did, would your KIA:WIA stat seem more aligned with what you'd expect?

Ken

I think so, perhaps. I think the game should count those wounded. "Walking wounded" is still wounded and counted when commanders submit after action reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...