WriterJWA Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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: 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: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WriterJWA Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WriterJWA Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 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.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 There is one more possibility. Official statistics probably list soldiers with even minor wounds that don't get counted as such in CM. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Besides, broken morale soldiers can't exit the scenario and can be picked up easily sitting out there in the open. That ought to be changed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I doubt that any of the yellow level wounded are counted as 'wounded' in the after battle stats. The wounded in the post battle stats are probably all 'red' wounded while the killed would be the brown 'KIA' plus a percentage of the red wounded who didn't receive buddy aide. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 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....! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 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 It can certainly only move it closer to "expected" values (probably 3:2 or 2:1, overall, I'd venture). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WriterJWA Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 You beat me to it. Yes, don't forget to add in the walking wounded who are simply yellowed out but still capable of fighting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.