Jump to content

Ratio KIA/WIA still dubious


Mr.X
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes I know, it´s a very old topic - but I still can´t understand the ratio between the number of KIA and the number of WIA, Combat Mission is using :confused:

I have played a small battle for playtesting (mostly Infantry) and the following result was shown: KIA 22 --- WIA 12 --- MIA 3

Ok, may be the next field hospital was far away and may be my medics have worked incompetently - nevertheless this ratio is absolute unrealistic.

The normal ratio of KIA/WIA in WWII was approximately 1:3. IMO this should be improved in upcoming modules.

Regards

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, but were those KIA/WIA results from every injury/death or just the frontline ones?

Because I can imagine that shelling behind the front lines, mines and other non-frontline stuff would cause more wounds than deaths.

Direct fire on the other hand would cause alot more death than wounds because of the weaponry used (mainly high-powered rifles that cause massive trauma and not "just" a bullet wound).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Oddball: the 3:1 ratio refers to frontline casualties. Most combat reports (Allies and Germans) mention approximately those numbers. Only in few cases, the number of KIA is higher than the number of WIA (for example the casualties of some Siberian Units during the battle of Moscow 41, when the order was to fight to the last man).

Regards

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. X, the K/W ratio has been much discussed and debated. Especially by me. ;) Some possible factors:

1- The tally excludes minor wounds (yellow icon).

2- Troops are too brave and resilient. They need to keep their heads down longer.

3- Mini-battles are too often fought to the last man. Surrendering occurs in tiny packets.

Many disagree with points 2 and 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think on point two that the survival instincts of the p-truppen needs to be dialed up a bit. But with individual variations. Most conscript or green troops would be serious ground huggers, but once in a while would be rashly courageous. More experienced troops would have a higher distribution towards the middle of the curve, being canny enough to know when to be aggressive and when to take a powder.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Real world battles don't have you and me as generals. That may explain the differing ratio. We're the guys order our men into the teeth of HMG fire. Also, the Russians suffered something on the order of one hundred eighty thousand killed in the three months of Bagration. Some sources put German deaths as high as 380,000. That means every single man on the map in a typical CM battle could be wiped out and wouldn't be enough to budge the overall killed-to-wounded ratio for the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assertion can't be backed up but my impression from reading is that up to half the KIAs in a given CM battle should really be classified as POWs or routers. This applies to the ETO. The Russian front is another story, given the consequences.

The counter argument is that the end battle K/W results mean diddly squat except as chrome. It's the net subtraction of actively engaged troops from the field that really matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The counter argument is that the end battle K/W results mean diddly squat except as chrome. It's the net subtraction of actively engaged troops from the field that really matters.

Given that casualties usually effect the level of victory/defeat, they count a little more that. But yeah, the fewer healthy enemies on the field the better. It may say something about my personal morality, but I always experience a warm, glad feeling when an enemy gets nailed, and if I manage to nail a whole bunch at one go I am practically ecstatic.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America benefitted greatly from all those prestigious German doctors fleeing Hitler's Germany as refugees just before the war. German blood transfusion technology, for instance, was entirely inadequate. As was their infection treatments. The first life saved by penicillin was in 1942, I believe. 2.3 million doses of penicillin were manufactured in time for the D-Day landings. The German and Russian side were out of luck in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand the obsession of real world data in this case. One cant expect real world dead/cas ratios when one plays/fights in way that is much different to what happened in real life. Playing agressive and pushing harder than in RL will give different results (which is what most players do).

The solution is not to alter the statistics/mechanisms to 3:1 in favour of wounds, its to alter tactics and gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand the obsession of real world data in this case. One cant expect real world dead/cas ratios when one plays/fights in way that is much different to what happened in real life. Playing agressive and pushing harder than in RL will give different results (which is what most players do).

The solution is not to alter the statistics/mechanisms to 3:1 in favour of wounds, its to alter tactics and gameplay.

Yeah, looking at the average length of battles in real life compared to combat mission will tell you that the battles were nowhere near as aggressive and casualty heavy as the ones in combat mission is.

The offset to that is that if the battles in combat mission were as realistic as real life, we wouldn't have time to play much at all since what takes 30-60 minutes in CM would take hours if not days in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMBN NATO module campaigns used a strict allied casualty penalty under the assumption that its *politically unacceptable* to use modern western troops as cannon fodder. That forces the player to be considerably more aware of casualty rates or risk losing the battle (and the campaign) despite gaining the objective. I somehow doubt Russian generals had that consideration. I think Steve mentioned a Russian general's willingness to loose all of his men rather than risk the wrath of Stalin for 'displaying cowardice'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the thread starters assertion that the game should be "improved" to change the subjective "normal" KIA/WIA ratio. As others have suggested, this ratio

is greatly affected by the players style of play. I have played dozens of CM games and my losses run at about 2 wounded for every killed. I don't play like a butcher, I hate to see troops get killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question for me is: Does the CM-engine calculate each hit for every single soldier (for example headshot, leg cut off by shrapnels etc.) - in this case, I would agree, that the number of KIA in CM is higher than in reality because players usually are not carefully enough (like said above). Actually, I think, the engine is only able to register "hit" or "not hit" and then calculates a random ratio - in this case, I would like the sytem beeing improved ;)

Regards

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try a quick battle with green or conscript troops as the most common experience level. I've been messing around with that for a while and have found quite consistently that my loss rates are down over using regular troops and above.

True, green or conscript troops are more apt to chicken out or at least keep their heads down. But then, you may find that they are also more apt to panic and run away, getting shot while they flee.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try a quick battle with green or conscript troops

This reminds me a discussion some time ago on the CMBN board about how players in QB and H2H tended to prefer veteran-to-elite forces with high motivation. A fanatic elite unit is basically a kamikaze unit. They'll die to the last man fighting for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand the obsession of real world data in this case. One cant expect real world dead/cas ratios when one plays/fights in way that is much different to what happened in real life. Playing agressive and pushing harder than in RL will give different results (which is what most players do).

The solution is not to alter the statistics/mechanisms to 3:1 in favour of wounds, its to alter tactics and gameplay.

DING DING DING.

Winner.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...