Casualties Wounded to dead

[John Kettler]

BigDog944,

On behalf of the Virtuous Pie Association (VPA), I most strenuously protest the characterization of its members as "easy." The ladies of VPA, for what could be more feminine than the deliciousness, warmth and comfort pies provide, simply will not tolerate such insults.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fear the rest of the press release might be misunderstood by dirty minds, which is why the VPA keeps all chair legs covered!

On a more useful note, I can follow the argument, but have a game completion rate so low I doubt I'll ever need an operational layer, barring some sort of tournament play, which would be exceedingly cool with an op layer driving it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sublime]

I really had hoped someone would pick up on CMC or some group would. Surely even if they sold it as an add on for 10 dollars or something it would be worth looking at and selling? The developer stressed how close to completion it was, though I dont know how serious the problems were that compose the 3% to finish (or whatever it is)

[Amizaur]

The idea of creating a second, uncrypted, .xml type savegame format is brilliant ! As was said, this should be relatively simple for BFC to create and add it, it would not compromise integrity of the main savegame format or the game itself, and would allow the community to create various operational-level tools or even games. Sounds just great!

The CMBN would be still required as the engine of the tactical level. And even more fun to play .

And maybe some people could get interested in CMBN just to participate - on the tactical level - in those large, operational level battles - like in many other sims/wargames .

For some people (like me) it would be much more interesting to play a battle, that is not a quick battle, not standalone scenario (or even "campaign" scenario), but a part of a larger, operational plan . The goals, own and enemy forces are determined by skills in the operational phase, and the win or lose on the tactical level would actually mean something .

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Pareto's Law says the last 20% of a project takes 80% of the time and/or budget. Wonder how big a slice of that 80% is consumed by that last 3%?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Amizaur,

While I fully understand the operational level's driving the forces in the tactical battle, in CM, I've never done it. What I have done, though, is operate in something like that mode in ROW. By this, I mean husbanding my men and watching every point expended, to include evacuating crews and vehicles wherever possible to avoid capture.

Under the Nabla System, you could be playing the most uneven scenario, get your butt kicked, but still win. How? You were competing against everyone else in that ROW who'd played your side of that lopsided battle. If you lost, but had had the good sense to evacuate all you could, you did better than the person who performed the same in battle, but left his/her toys and people there for the taking when the end came. Since POWs counted twice what KIAs did, this could be, and was, sometimes very important in the outcome. In one case, it cost my foe an entire Victory Level because I got much of my troops and gear out in time. Ticklish, given you might trigger auto surrender in CMx1, yet a very rich and more immersive battle. Anything you can do to get people to behave with similar prudence would, I think, be a good thing.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Preserving my forces is something I have instinctively tried to do as long as I have been wargaming, and that is going on 50 years pretty soon. Even if the rules don't require it, and even if there is nothing I could do with them after the game ends, purely as a matter of principle I would play in such a way as to minimize my losses while maximizing my opponent's. And especially if it's a long game, your chances of being able to impose your will on your opponent, rather than the other way around, are much better if you have the preponderance of force on your side.

Michael

[agusto]

Preserving my forces is something I have instinctively tried to do as long as I have been wargaming, and that is going on 50 years pretty soon. Even if the rules don't require it, and even if there is nothing I could do with them after the game ends, purely as a matter of principle I would play in such a way as to minimize my losses while maximizing my opponent's. And especially if it's a long game, your chances of being able to impose your will on your opponent, rather than the other way around, are much better if you have the preponderance of force on your side.

Michael

In general i do it that way too. I even try to give buddy aid to every casualty and retrieve the gear if possible (especially automatic weapons and AT assets). Note the "if possible". Suceeding in acomplishing the mission is the most important thing, though.

However i must admit that i am much more willing to make a sacrifice in order to be able to advance in games where i know that the game will end afterwards than in games where i know i will have to use that same force in a number of battles in a row.

Since i ve started getting into CM games, i ve made the observation that the amount of casualties is largely determinded by the outcome of the battle.

If your wounded are located behind the enemy lines you, cant retrieve them and thus they have a 25% higher chance of beeing KIA at the end of the battle. In campaigns, i usually get a KIA:WIA ratio betwen 1:2 and the 1:3, depending on the campaign. However in single battles that can vary a lot, sometimes i end up with a 3:1 inverted KIA:WIA ratio. I also found (or at least i think it is that way in CMBN) that high velocity rounds like 7,92x57 IS are more likely to kill a guy than for example a 9mm or .45 round is.

[BigDog944]

... and would allow the community to create various operational-level tools or even games. Sounds just great!

The CMBN would be still required as the engine of the tactical level. And even more fun to play .

Unfortunately a potential problem with this idea is that it would also open the door for third parties to create commercial software that uses this feature. Not sure that BFC would like that.

[MikeyD]

Preserving my forces is something I have instinctively tried to do as long as I have been wargaming

CMSF NATO campaign was particularly strick in that regard. Play those campaigns as sloppily as one usually plays a CM battle and you're going to lose. They didn't do that in CMBN, though, because the commanders' tolerance for casualtes back then was... insane. A month an a half of fighting for Normandy - 120,000 allied casualties and 113,000 axis casualties, more or less. The mind boggles.

[Apocal]

CMSF NATO campaign was particularly strick in that regard. Play those campaigns as sloppily as one usually plays a CM battle and you're going to lose. They didn't do that in CMBN, though, because the commanders' tolerance for casualtes back then was... insane. A month an a half of fighting for Normandy - 120,000 allied casualties and 113,000 axis casualties, more or less. The mind boggles.

Note that was over a month and a half: individual rifle companies weren't routinely wiped out in a single go, the way they are in CMx2.

[Michael Emrys]

...113,000 axis casualties...

That's actually on the conservative side. IIRC and taking into account POWs and extending the timeline to mid-August and the closing of the Falaise pocket, total Axis losses were more on the order of 200,000.

Michael