Jump to content

AXIS : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant


Recommended Posts

Good point. It's like we need a "realistic play" mode which would warn the player as to his % casualties and a warning if he started to take excessive casualties, and actually ended the game automatically (with a withdrawal for example) if a (known) % casualty limit is reached. It changes the game completely when a major objective is avoid excessive casualties (which was done well in CMSF). For some reason, CMBN and CMFI games seem to tolerate much higher casualties in the victory calculations. Presumably the designers made that choice(?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already the facility for Designers to add a parameter objective which grants points to your opponent if your casualties exceed a certain %age threshold. The problem I have with these parameters, though, is that they're a hard limit, which means that at the limit the difference between conceeding the points or not always comes down to a single casualty. This is why I prefer to use 'Destroy' unit objectives - the player accumulates points for each casualty inflicted, and it's up to the opposing player to determine how many such points he's prepared to concede.

Exit objectives have their place in CMx2, although the way they are implemented is a little counter intuitive. Including them in a scenario takes a bit more thought that just slapping an exit zone down along one edge of the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'evenly matched' combats that we all relish in CM were in fact somewhat rare.

You're right, no battle was ever intended to be 'interesting'. A good CM-type contest results when the planners- the higher ups- rely on sloppy recon or make errors in judgment. Additionally, 'Meeting Engagements', in the sense of two forces with precisely the same combat values colliding on the battlefield don't exist- and never have. They exist like unicorns cavorting in some magical forest in the minds of certain ladder players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already the facility for Designers to add a parameter objective which grants points to your opponent if your casualties exceed a certain %age threshold. The problem I have with these parameters, though, is that they're a hard limit, which means that at the limit the difference between conceeding the points or not always comes down to a single casualty. This is why I prefer to use 'Destroy' unit objectives - the player accumulates points for each casualty inflicted, and it's up to the opposing player to determine how many such points he's prepared to concede.

Exit objectives have their place in CMx2, although the way they are implemented is a little counter intuitive. Including them in a scenario takes a bit more thought that just slapping an exit zone down along one edge of the map.

Well, if one binds units to a 'Destroy' unit objective and has exit objectives, then the controlling player is forced to get those units out of the map via the exit objective, otherwise the opposing player gets the points awarded. It's indeed unfortunate that the Destroy Unit and Exit objectives are related in that way. And that does indeed defeat the purpose of what pnzrldr was proposing.

I don't like much %age thresholds either, but to be honest, if all comes down to a single trooper fate maybe one has been driving too close to the edge of the road, to say so. But as far as I understand, any friendly unit can get through an Exit objective. Such exiting units don't award any points to the controlling player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like much %age thresholds either, but to be honest, if all comes down to a single trooper fate maybe one has been driving too close to the edge of the road, to say so.

Yeah, that's a fair point, although it does assume that the threshold has been set correctly, and the points awarded are reasonable in the context of the battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sixty Third Minute

Approach to S. Maria Infante

This is a typical view from GaJ's side.. on the back approach to S. Maria Infante lies one dead HMG team and another HMG team with one member remaining.

9148332162_0cfed49d02_b.jpg

2nd Platoon's lead team watches the systematic destruction of the back row of buildings in S. Maria Infante.

9148332168_5dee7c29fa_b.jpg

Hill 172

GaJ moved his M10 towards the Elefant this turn.. he stayed behind the ridge, but only just. So he isn't backing down, that's to be respected.

9146106955_4087a322ca_b.jpg

From the Elefant point of view.. the M10 is just ahead.. but so is some infantry, I saw one this turn and my sweepers forced it to ground.

9148332184_8ba24af959_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. It's like we need a "realistic play" mode which would warn the player as to his % casualties and a warning if he started to take excessive casualties, and actually ended the game automatically (with a withdrawal for example) if a (known) % casualty limit is reached. It changes the game completely when a major objective is avoid excessive casualties (which was done well in CMSF). For some reason, CMBN and CMFI games seem to tolerate much higher casualties in the victory calculations. Presumably the designers made that choice(?).

This cuts pretty close to something I posted a week or two ago. If, as an attacker, my casualties exceed 5-10%, I call off the attack and accept whatever level of victory or defeat the game awards. I think this is a reasonable reflection of what would have happened most of the time in a real engagement. An attacker who has suffered that many casualties in less than an hour would be in a pretty serious predicament with not only a significant portion of his fighting power gone, but would also likely be suffering serious problems with troop morale. When your buddies are getting shot all around you, you are increasingly apt to be thinking about surviving rather than on pressing the attack. There have been exceptions of course, and eventually we should undertake to address those. But over the course of the war and for all armies, I think the generalization stands.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If, as an attacker, my casualties exceed 5-10%, I call off the attack and accept whatever level of victory or defeat the game awards."

Agreed re your calculation. That's a good way to calculate personal victory/defeat levels regardless of what the game tells you is the result. I reckon if I have suffered more that 15%, I have definitely "lost" as that unit will be ineffective in RL.

It's fine for scenarios. However, the problem with some campaigns is in doing that you may get thrown out of the game, and then you have to replay to get to the next level/battle.

In addition, maybe some folks like replaying. But, to me 90% of the fun of a scenario is the "surprises". So, the replay is very rarely satisfying and becomes just a slow grind to get through it, so one can move on to the next battle. And of course in RL, there are no "do-overs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This cuts pretty close to something I posted a week or two ago. If, as an attacker, my casualties exceed 5-10%, I call off the attack and accept whatever level of victory or defeat the game awards.

Well I admire the idea - I too have fretted with "winning" a game after pressing the attack with bits and pieces and just barely made it to the objective. It some how seemed a bit hollow. But 5-10% as a cut off? Wow you are hard core. Is it even possible to play a game and only take those levels of casualties? For a platoon that's only 2-3 guys. You can loose that with one burst from an MG.

One of the reasons I hope that BFC adds support for PBEM campaigns is to create an environment where you need to take responsibility for your casualty levels - for the natural reason: you will need to hold those objectives after you take them. Which is something that would be difficult after taking 50% casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sixty Fourth Minute

GaJ's infantry on Hill 172 engages my Elefant.. they didn't get close enough to close assault it but they did succeed in taking out the commander with a burst of automatic gun fire...

...the Elefant fired back while it was reversing and caused at least one casualty in return. I now have a fearsome threesome waiting for GaJ to bring his M10 over the top.. will he dare?

In the top image you can see how close these two vehicles actually are.

9151922926_0b37a092b6_b.jpg

S. Maria Infante

On the outskirts of S. Maria Infante I just noticed that somehow I knocked out a bunker... the only thing I am firing at these things now is MGs... which appear to be the most effective weapon against them (other than smoke) when advancing in front of them.

9149696165_47de4823d8_b.jpg

On the backside of S. Maria Infante in 1st and 2nd Platoon's area GaJ is putting up a good fight with a couple of units, especially an HQ unit holed up in a destroyed building. One of the teams, a bazooka team, breaks this turn and leaves the HQ team on its own.

9151922958_3dfd0f8f60_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I admire the idea - I too have fretted with "winning" a game after pressing the attack with bits and pieces and just barely made it to the objective. It some how seemed a bit hollow. But 5-10% as a cut off? Wow you are hard core. Is it even possible to play a game and only take those levels of casualties?

Keep in mind those casualties are taken in the space of less than an hour, usually much less. Ten per cent casualties in a ten minute engagement would be considered a massacre in real life and a shock to the troops.

For a platoon that's only 2-3 guys. You can loose that with one burst from an MG.

And that would probably stop them dead in their tracks until they could evacuate their wounded and reorganize, which could easily take the rest of the hour or more.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read accounts of platoons/companies taking far more than 10% casualties and pressing on, I've talked to veterans who had a handful of men, when they secured the objective. I think we have to be careful we do not transpose the risk-averse modern era with WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bil, Michael Emrys, etc.,

That row of AFVs waiting in ambush looks less like war than a firing line at the gunnery range. A 155mm Target Linear mission about now could prove most embarrassing! Wouldn't that be an exciting late game development?

On the subject of casualties and attack derailment, I posted some time back on CMBN an account of a British infantry battalion, the Hallamshires, in combat there. This will be a most rewarding read, since it shows what happens when the higher command's intent, expressed as the spearhead small units, runs smack into determined opposition. See the Battle of Vendes. Note particularly just how bad the casualties are in those spearhead units, even prior to another attack. In one company, of 100 men committed, 17 came back!

http://www.irdp.co.uk/JohnCrook/normandy.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read accounts of platoons/companies taking far more than 10% casualties and pressing on, I've talked to veterans who had a handful of men, when they secured the objective. I think we have to be careful we do not transpose the risk-averse modern era with WWII.

It was a big war and it is possible to find examples of anything you want. But as a general rule, I've found it to hold up more often than not. I think the problem here is that we are confusing time spans. CM compresses time a LOT. We expect to accomplish goals in an hour or less that may have taken most or all of a day in the real war. I suspect that applies to the bulk of the incidents you may have in mind. Yeah, they carried on, but not in the next minute.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a direct result of the player as god. Things that would take several minutes at minimum to communicate and coordinate among a squad much less a company are accomplished instantly. You want realism, then enforce your own C2 delays. Use runners to make sure physically information is passed, make your platoon commander visit all his squads prior to launching an attack. You'll find you need to edit the scenario to extend the time and you'll spend a lot of time running guys around to talk to other guys. It might be interesting a few times, but I doubt anyone will want that all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We expect to accomplish goals in an hour or less that may have taken most or all of a day in the real war. I suspect that applies to the bulk of the incidents you may have in mind. Yeah, they carried on, but not in the next minute.

That's true, but you need to keep the internal logic of the game in mind. It seems you might risk mixing timescales (real vs game) if you stop the game after taking modest (5-10% is modest) casualties in a one hour game of a real battle that could easily take all day and ~50% casualties (that's all types of cas - KIA, WIA, MIA, and 'voluntarily absenting themselves temporarily from the battlefield').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bil, Vark, Michael Emrys, JonS,

What are your thoughts, please, on the CW LOB practice, as opposed to Napoleon''s Maxim XXIX?

Maxim XXIX. When you have resolved to fight a battle, collect your whole force. Dispense with nothing. A single battalion sometimes decides the day.

I think I understand the reasoning behind LOB and suspect LOB was born of the Great War, but was it really a good idea, or did it exacerbate already serious officer and NCO shortages and deprive the PBI of essential bodies? In the Hallamshires piece, you can read of a company in which the company commander and all the platoon commanders were killed or badly wounded by German fire before the attack commenced. Also, the casualty rolls for the unit shows officers being eaten alive on the sharp end continually, simply as part of the ongoing attrition of a unit in contact.

Shall be most interested in your thoughts on this.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JK,

As I suspect you already know, the whole LOB concept was to retain a cadre of experienced leaders on whom the unit can be rebuilt as needed. I think this is part and parcel of the whole British regimental system. What I wonder is how many other armies did the same thing. As recently came up in discussion on this board, the US naval airforce did essentially the same thing in a different way, as did the USAAF to a certain extent as well as the RAF.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards Napoleon's Maxim, I am reminded of how board wargames of the past completely ignored the exhaustion of formations and the value of having a reserve of fresh units to throw into a fight. They seldom it ever rewarded the practice. You were always better off to throw everything into the fight from the outset.

Michael

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...