Bulletpoint Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Just noticed this yesterday: Anti-personel minefields in the game tend to kill the troops who trigger the mines, but in real life, these mines are intended to injure rather than kill. Logic being that an injured soldier becomes a logistical liability to his side, and will play no further part in the war anyway without a leg. Also, it's very hard on morale to hear a fellow trooper calling for help from a minefield, without being able to help him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I can't say if it is a general rule, but I have been noticing that at the end of my games both sides generally have quite a bit more dead than wounded soldiers. If that is normally the case in all games, then it flies in the face of historical dead:wounded statistics. What you are seeing re minefields may be one more instance of that. BTW, I almost always provide buddy aid to my wounded soldiers, which should additionally ensure a higher proportion of survivors, I should think. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I also always provide buddy aid if possible. Picking up equipment and ammo from the dead and wounded is an important aspect of the game that can even be decisive in some situations. To have or not have, that is the question about those Panzerfausts! J Also, it's very hard on morale to hear a fellow trooper calling for help from a minefield, without being able to help him. AFAIK seeing friendlys die does affect morale in CMx2. Always make sure that those units that you assign to mine-clearance-by-stomping missions do it separated from the rest of your force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The KIA/WIA figures at the end of the battle don't tell anything like the whole story, since they don't count the yellow "injured" who would be counted in official statistics. The other reasons for KIA/WIA ratios not "representing historical reality" (roughly 2 or 3 wounded to 1 killed) have been hashed out over and over again and relate as much to the way we, the players, treat our troops with cavalier disregard as they do to the intensity of the scenarios we play which are in no wise typical or representative of the average historical engagement. Bulletpoint, are you sure that was the design philosophy in the mid-C20th? Was land mine design actually sophisticated enough to be intentionally sublethal on a consistent basis? Are you sure your sample in game is large enough and well enough recorded to actually draw the conclusion that deaths are too frequent? Got any figures on the death/wounded ratio from dedicated AP mines in WW2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The KIA/WIA figures at the end of the battle don't tell anything like the whole story, since they don't count the yellow "injured" who would be counted in official statistics. True. Also true is that some of the historical counted wounded were not on the front lines where CM takes place. Behind the lines might also suffer fatal wounds but I'd guess not as often. Wounded behind the front would also receive serious medical care more promptly. But what I have been seeing is about 2-3:1 fatal:non-fatal casualties, which makes me suspicious. Might just be a temporary statistical oddity, but it does make me wonder. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 Bulletpoint, are you sure that was the design philosophy in the mid-C20th? Was land mine design actually sophisticated enough to be intentionally sublethal on a consistent basis? Are you sure your sample in game is large enough and well enough recorded to actually draw the conclusion that deaths are too frequent? Got any figures on the death/wounded ratio from dedicated AP mines in WW2? My post was based on my own meandering experience, no thorough test. I posted it as an invitation to debate, not to prove anything As for historical facts - I just assumed that military designers in WW2 were as shrewd as their modern colleagues. It's not very sophisticated, and doesn't take any special technological fuses to make mines sub-lethal. It's just a matter of putting less explosives in them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 True. Also true is that some of the historical counted wounded were not on the front lines where CM takes place. Behind the lines might also suffer fatal wounds but I'd guess not as often. Wounded behind the front would also receive serious medical care more promptly. But what I have been seeing is about 2-3:1 fatal:non-fatal casualties, which makes me suspicious. Might just be a temporary statistical oddity, but it does make me wonder. MichaelWhat version are you up to? Could it be that MGs are too lethal? :-> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 As for historical facts - I just assumed that military designers in WW2 were as shrewd as their modern colleagues. It's not very sophisticated, and doesn't take any special technological fuses to make mines sub-lethal. It's just a matter of putting less explosives in them. If you just put less explosives in, wouldn't you just reduce the effective blast radius, so that instead of, say, killing the guy who set it off and injuring one of his mates, you'd only injure the guy who set it off... I'm not sure that calculus of agression was part of WW2 weapons designers' thinking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 If you just put less explosives in, wouldn't you just reduce the effective blast radius, so that instead of, say, killing the guy who set it off and injuring one of his mates, you'd only injure the guy who set it off... I'm not sure that calculus of agression was part of WW2 weapons designers' thinking. Soldiers usually don't walk close together for many reasons, this being one of them. So I think the designers preferred to save on costs - explosives were in high demand. Also, less weight per mine equals more mines, which means a larger area covered or higher saturation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 A slight hijack of this thread... I still have the CM:BN Demo ( v1.10 ), and have been playing it for past several months. The MG effectiveness works fairly well as intended, but it seems there was an out cry from the Battlefront Community to increase its effectiveness even more so...All that was needed was allitle more detrimental Moral effects against troops shot from MG's. I think the SMG's are alittle to effective, and should be tuned-down abit...Not sure if that has been changed in later versions ( didn't notice in any of the verision descriptions ). The above two alone would reduce the Casualty ratios to more realistic levels. Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 What version are you up to? Could it be that MGs are too lethal? :-> Hmmm, I don't know - even after 2.01, I generally don't see more than 1-5 casualties caused by my HMG's ( and 5 would be the very top end ) - although that may be because generally I'm area firing with them ( my opponents being too canny to rush men into my line of fire, curses ! ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 I'm slogging through Road to Montebourg at the moment, feeling very conscious of the extra VP from keeping my casualties down, and very aware of the length of the campaign, so I'm proceeding, by and large, very cautiously. With assiduous Buddy Aid and the firepower domination largely possible so far, I'm finding my KIA/WIA stats, even disregarding the "yellow" minor injuries have been much closer to 1:3 than on occasions when I've been a bit more "gung ho". The battles are fairly armour light (and I'm being extra careful with them, cos I don't know how long they're meant to last), which I feel makes a difference; you're as likely to lose 5 men in a Sherman that gets nailed, as you are to lose 1, and if it "Ronsons", those men are all deaders. I don't personally feel there's too much wrong with the ratios in BN to 1.11. Possibly something in casualty resolution changed in 2.0, but I'm not feeling hard done by in my FI 1.01 games, either. I suspect defenders have worse ratios, since they're more likely to be facing heavier calibre, just because of the usual force disparity, and they, if the attackers are successful, will have less chance for Buddy Aid; even a stalled attack can often Buddy Aid their wounded fallen. I've been playing mostly attack lately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Minefields:I see a lot of WIA. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of WIA to KIA. One thing NOT modelled is dying. Death is; dying from wounds is not. If my man gets "red based", he stays a red base WIA all game. 4 hours if that's how long it takes. If he gets KIA'd, well, that's that. Now, if a mine blows a lower leg off, and the poor bastard bleeds out in 20 minutes, how should the game simulate that? Would it be a minefield WIA or KIA? So, perhaps the KIA represent those who have wounds which will lead to death. The sub-topic which has splintered off from the OP, namely wounded to death ratios, is something discussed ad nauseum. You're playing a game (life isn't in the balance); you're pushing harder (and faster) than any real life commander would; you're simulating the pointy edge of the spear, not rear area attrition; sickness, accidents, etc., are not simulated; I'm sure there's more I've forgotten. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 What version are you up to? BN 2.01 FI 1.10. Could it be that MGs are too lethal? I don't think so. I don't seem to be losing many men to MGs at all even though I have been giving the defenders extra MGs. I tend to agree with JoMc67 that SMGs are a tad too lethal and way too lethal beyond 50 meters. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Minefields:I see a lot of WIA. Perhaps a 1:1 ratio of WIA to KIA. One thing NOT modelled is dying. Death is; dying from wounds is not. If my man gets "red based", he stays a red base WIA all game. IIRC WIAs can and do become KIAs after a while. At least it was reported as such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 IIRC WIAs can and do become KIAs after a while. At least it was reported as such. IIRC it says in the manual that WIAs have a 20% chance of ending up as KIA on the final results screen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Yes, I know that but I meant that WIAs can become KIAs during the cause of a battle. There was a discussion quite a while ago and someone mentioned seeing that happen (IIRC). Ok, ran a test: a company of fanatic grenadiers versus a minefield. After 5 minutes of running them around I have 104 casualties - 95 KIA and 9 WIA. 40 minutes later: all 9 WIA are still WIA although 3 of them die after the battle. Test result: 1) looks like I was wrong and WIAs don't die on the battlefield 2) mines create lots more KIAs than WIAs (~10:1) Btw: most awful test I've ever ran... :-/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Minefield:1 Grenadiers:0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If you have the Commonwealth Module you have to play this game one time for each of your British WIA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWaXnUvQftE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch8sec5sub5.html "The S-Mine 44 is an antipersonnel mine of the bounding type similar to the S-mine 35. ... The lethal range is 22 yards, and the casualty range 110 yards." It doesn't really sound like they were going for WIA rather than KIA, just maximum xIA. Also, 22 yards is a radius of 2.5 Combat Mission tiles. Basically; if a squad hits a mined tile arguably they should all be KIA. I think CM is probably being quite generous to the targets of minefields. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch8sec5sub5.html "The S-Mine 44 is an antipersonnel mine of the bounding type similar to the S-mine 35. ... The lethal range is 22 yards, and the casualty range 110 yards." It doesn't really sound like they were going for WIA rather than KIA, just maximum xIA. Also, 22 yards is a radius of 2.5 Combat Mission tiles. Basically; if a squad hits a mined tile arguably they should all be KIA. I think CM is probably being quite generous to the targets of minefields. I'll argue. A single s-mine NEVER killed an entire squad. You're (surprisingly) conflating a possible casualty radius with an ensured casualty radius. A single grenade has a quite large casualty radius. That does not mean that everyone within that radius should (or would) be hit. It does mean that you are not safe within that radius. (Various percentages and target sizes and definitions used by different nationalities at different times to define these radii.) s-mines were, essentially, equivalent to a hand grenade. Being detonated at waist height, after being triggered by contact, means that it's almost guaranteed that at least one man would be heavily wounded (or killed). Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I've been thinking this over, and suddenly I realise why mines in this game are showed as devices that kill so much. The reason is that they blow off a part of the leg. Therefore it would be unrealistic if the casualties of mines were counted among the wounded, as that would mean a lot of them would be able to return to battle in the next mission. Even if it's "just" a foot that is lost, the soldier would not be able to return to active duty, and therefore we must count them with the dead in the context of this game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I think the manual says that the game KIA icon represents seriously WIA as well as KIA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I think the manual says that the game KIA icon represents seriously WIA as well as KIA. Must have missed that part when I read the manual Well, that sums it up then, I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 looks like I was wrong and WIAs don't die on the battlefield Actually they can if they receive additional wounds, such as an artillery round landing next to them. I've seen that kind of thing more than once. Michael 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.