Bullet accuracy

[RedMenace]

I have a couple of questions to throw out there!

 

Saw this on another discussion forum and wondered:

 

The general accuracy of the troops is completely bonkers, which really restricts your ability to perform maneuvers. In todays warzones, UK soldiers expend an estimated 8000 rounds per kill, that’s 7999 rounds that fail to neutralize your target. You can compare that to the mechanics of Shock Force, where the rounds are very much on target as soon as you show your face.

 

Possibly not a new subject for discussion, I know. Does anyone have a perspective on this assertion based upon the changes to the latest CM engine? I'm wondering about how accuracy is modelled and if, as they claim, digital soldiers take too many casualties per rounds fired? I guess he's suggesting that suppression should be increased/hits reduced?

 

I'm also planning my first AAR. Greatly looking forward to getting the ball rolling as it'll be The Road to Montbourg which I've only previously played the first three mission of. Making a detailed AAR is something of an undertaking - what with work/family/life commitments - and I want to have fun doing it. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing hearing of other forum member's self-imposed rules, restrictions, must-dos, etc which either enhance the realism or enjoyment of their gameplay. I'm fully aware that certain personality types slap themselves for each lost soldier   , whilst others never reload a save, never raise the camera higher than eye-level, and other things. Personally I'm simply not reloading but the camera height idea is interesting/hardcore.

Edited January 6, 2015 by RedMenace

[stealthsilent1]

I have a couple of questions to throw out there!

 

Saw this on another discussion forum and wondered:

 

The general accuracy of the troops is completely bonkers, which really restricts your ability to perform maneuvers. In todays warzones, UK soldiers expend an estimated 8000 rounds per kill, that’s 7999 rounds that fail to neutralize your target. You can compare that to the mechanics of Shock Force, where the rounds are very much on target as soon as you show your face.

 

Possibly not a new subject for discussion, I know. Does anyone have a perspective on this assertion based upon the changes to the latest CM engine? I'm wondering about how accuracy is modelled and if, as they claim, digital soldiers take too many casualties per rounds fired? I guess he's suggesting that suppression should be increased/hits reduced?

 

I'm also planning my first AAR. Greatly looking forward to getting the ball rolling as it'll be The Road to Montbourg which I've only previously played the first three mission of. Making a detailed AAR is something of an undertaking - what with work/family/life commitments - and I want to have fun doing it. Therefore I'd be interested in hearing hearing of other forum member's self-imposed rules, restrictions, must-dos, etc which either enhance the realism or enjoyment of their gameplay. I'm fully aware that certain personality types slap themselves for each lost soldier   , whilst others never reload a save, never raise the camera higher than eye-level, and other things. Personally I'm simply not reloading but the camera height idea is interesting/hardcore.

Forget "realism," it's stupid, the world would play out in a billion different ways, and it would still be realistic, what does it matter what specific weapon is used, what does it matter how people do things outside the game, they could be doing it differently if they had different weapons or different situation. Do anything it takes to win with the resources you have on hand. That's as real as you can get. Who the hell puts restrictions on how you should play? I use the camera to my advantage, I bring it down to know where to put my troops, I trick my opponent, I do anything it takes to win. You got to detach yourself from everything that's not unconditional, this game is basically chess, once you learn how not to get shot, it's turns into, all about, what your opponent is thinking, and if you could predict that, just outthink him, and you've won.

[stealthsilent1]

Also, 8000 rounds is probably suppression, and not knowing where the opponent is, and not seeing the opponent, if you can see the guy's whole body in front of you. That's like 15 shots. I'm guessing.

[JoMac]

This has been dicussed in the past, notably myself, and will sway back and forth on this one.

 

I also agree with RedManace, and think Accuracy of Small Arms is alittle to lethal in CM, and 10,000 Bullets per Casualty should the norm from accounts that I have read in the past...if CM just tones down the Automatic lethality abit, and add more savings rolls to better simulate posture and micro-managing of cover, then I would be more then happy.

 

However, as StealSilent and others have mentioned in the past, it has alot to do with overall Suppression ( where most of where you non-Combat Action takes place ) that takes place before the main SpearHead that Combat Mission is suppose to simulate. also, keep in mind alot of those High Casualties you see in a Typical CM Scenario is from Player input rather then Bullet Accuracy in itself. If you want to keep your casualties down, then sit behind a wall for an hour until Scenario has ended.

 

In saying the above, I still think the Casualty per Bullet Ratio fired in CM is still far to high IMHO. In RL, a platoon might loose upwards 10-25% casualties on a bad day...You get more then that in one Hour of CM. 

I chalk-it-up and justify it by saying, for every 5 minutes of Heavy Combat in CM there is one hour of little or nothing happening ( that's where the Suppression part comes in ). 

 

Joe

Edited January 6, 2015 by JoMc67

[womble]

My infantry pTruppen generally do have a bullets-per-kill ratio of less than 8000, but that quoted number is probably derived from the number of rounds manufactured divided by the number of deaths attributed to small arms fire or some such other nonsense. What it's ignoring is that (apart from the fact that not all bullets were used; the stockpiles in '45 were much bigger than in '39), many of those bullets were fired off in situations far less intense than the engagements depicted by the common CM scenario. It's also neglecting the fact that many bullets are fired by systems other than those carried by infantry. In CM games, I do my very best to run vehicular small arms ammo stocks down to zero, unless there's some consideration (ongoing campaign, briefing/VC) encouraging me not to. I would guesstimate that in a combined arms setup, the tanks might actually fire more than half the bullets sometimes, and I'd guess those bullets probably net less than half the reported ratio, since they're speculative area fire or suppressing already-Cowering troops. One kill per 4000 bullets probably isn't far outside the usual average. A purely rifle-armed element is lucky to get more than one combat victory (the modal outcome being zero), a team with a couple of MG42s might get 4; most infantry teams that rack up high body counts do it with SMGs and grenades.

But the originally quoted post is largely agenda-laden bobbins, especially when you're talking about BN.

As far as your AAR goes, I'd say play it as you normally would, and get the enjoyment you normally would out of playing the game (rather than crimping your enjoyment by trying a style you're unfamiliar with and might not get on with). Getting enjoyment out of writing it up is going to be a very personal journey. The two contrasting AAR styles being used by Bil and pnzrldr over in the BS forum show a couple of ways of approaching it. If you like "roleplaying" the troops, imagining their reactions and thoughts, pnzrldr's style might suit you, whereas if you're more about the analysis and tecnincality of playing the game, Bil's approach might work better.

Edited January 6, 2015 by womble

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah, everything @womble said. I look forward to your AAR.

Another factor to consider is our games move quite a bit faster than RL. If a platoon is moving up and comes under MG fire it might take a couple of minutes for the lead elements to figure out where the fire is coming from and communicate it with the Platoon Lt. Who then might decide to pull the wounded back and get to a safe place to come up with a plan to deal with the MGs. Ten minutes later they might have a plan and start executing it. During all that time both sides might be firing some too.

In our games we come up with the plan instantly including possible coordination with other company level assets etc. We cut out a lot of time that could have been spent shooting at log ranges.

My point is just that our engagements are over quicker which means less ammo gets used up.

[Pak40]

Ian makes a good point. Our games speed is definitely quicker than the real life battles. We have such and advantage at looking at the whole battlefield at once and knowing what all of our sub-units can see at any moment.

 

Other things to consider:

 

1. Modern firefights of today are very different than WWII. I think every effort is made to saturate a threat with firepower before any major risks are taken, trading time for lives. I think in many WWII battles that they didn't have that luxury. Objectives had to be taken with the understanding that there were definitely going to be casualties.
2. CM battles, in many cases tend to be very close engagement battles leading to higher WIA and KIA.
3. CM players, whether dictated by the scenario objectives (with tight time limits) or because they are "armchair generals", will risk more to complete the objectives. Our real world counter parts in WWII, unless under strict time constraints, would probably take more time to ascertain the situation, call in support or reinforcements, or use a large volume of firepower because he knows can always be resupplied.
4. Scenarios are often designed to be competitive instead of realistic. Not all WWII firefights were close where both sides took many casualties. Many times battles were lopsided in force size and casualty rates. Attack ratios are ideal at 3:1 to minimize the attacker's casualties, but in the typical CM battle the ratio is reduced to 1.5:1 or maybe 2:1 to make competitive battles.

[Childress]

1. Scenarios are often designed to be competitive instead of realistic. Not all WWII firefights were close where both sides took many casualties. Many times battles were lopsided in force size and casualty rates. Attack ratios are ideal at 3:1 to minimize the attacker's casualties, but in the typical CM battle the ratio is reduced to 1.5:1 or maybe 2:1 to make competitive battles.

 

That's right. Paraphrasing Steve (I think) : Realistic, well conceived battles are one-sided, boring affairs. An 'interesting' battle results from errors in planning or reconnaissance. Or sheer desperation. No commander ever sought an interesting battle. The list of scenarios in every CM game constitutes more or less a compendium of mistakes.

 

Discuss.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Childress

[womble]

That's right. Paraphrasing Steve (I think) : Realistic, well conceived battles are one-sided, boring affairs. An 'interesting' battle results from errors in planning or reconnaissance. Or sheer desperation. No commander ever sought an interesting battle. The list of scenarios in every CM game constitutes more or less a compendium of mistakes.

 

Discuss.

True if the VCs are even. If the VCs are set asymmetrically, a "properly constituted assault" that has no chance of actually failing to take the objective could be made interesting by assigning high values for the defender achieving subgoals like casualty infliction or exiting units (has to be done carefully), or assigning high values to the attacker's casualty threshold and making that low. Some of the flexibility needed to make this really effective is, to date, lacking. Progressive thresholds for casualties and ammo, for example; time-sensitive VCs (progressive and cut-off, both). A large pinch of creativity, though, and an unavoidable "defeat" can be turned into a potential-victory-in-context. Need a lot of playtesting though to make sure the balance was right, and that's hard to muster, too. Edited January 7, 2015 by womble

[A Canadian Cat]

I think what @womble said is very true. I also think that even if a "properly constituted assault" was scored so that the defender could "win" even if they get stomped on would not appeal to a portion of players even then. I know I would be fine with that but some people want a fair fight to be in the fight not in the objectives.

Anyway the main point I want to make is using front wide statistics of casualties or KIA to WIA or rounds expended are just don't make any sense. Add to that our faster pace and we get where we are.

Anyway for @RedMenace’s original question. Just play. Perhaps one thing you can do is decide not to leave wounded behind. That means that squads stay in place if they take casualties or plan for a following unit to buddy aid fallen soldiers. I often play like that to force myself to slow down a bit. There are other schemes people have developed but adding more restrictions quickly starts to get onerous.

[Childress]

True if the VCs are even. If the VCs are set asymmetrically, a "properly constituted assault" that has no chance of actually failing to take the objective could be made interesting by assigning high values for the defender achieving subgoals like casualty infliction or exiting units (has to be done carefully), or assigning high values to the attacker's casualty threshold and making that low. 

 

That works, But those parameters are properly the domain of campaigns in which maintaining force preservation as one moves up the scenario tree can prove an absorbing challenge. I excluded campaigns,

.

[womble]

That works, But those parameters are properly the domain of campaigns in which maintaining force preservation as one moves up the scenario tree can prove an absorbing challenge. I excluded campaigns,

.

I disagree. The context of a campaign imposes its own implicit force perservation goals, unless you've been told you're in line for a full repple depple after every fight. Part of the point of VCs in standalone battles is to define that context so that the "higher level reality" of a notional operation or campaign can be reflected in the battle's result. Otherwise it just comes down to a fight to the death every time, with the dyingest side losing. Equivalent to a QB. A scenario, to a greater or lesser extent, can tell a story much more interesting than "A reinforced Battalion rolled over a reinforced Company; both sides took heavy casualties but the attackers took the ground so they won". Note that, without some disincentive, "both sides took heavy casualties" will be a standard part of all notional AARs.

[Warts 'n' all]

Just bear in mind the fact that the German campaign in Market Garden is different to all the other campaigns, both Axis and Allied, that come with CMx2 in that the "missions" are pretty much taking place at the same time, and therefore, the player doesn't have any "core units" that go on to fight other missions. So in that regard casualties are treated more like a standalone battle than they are in most campaigns. 

[Melchior]

Forget "realism," it's stupid, the world would play out in a billion different ways, and it would still be realistic, what does it matter what specific weapon is used, what does it matter how people do things outside the game, they could be doing it differently if they had different weapons or different situation. Do anything it takes to win with the resources you have on hand. That's as real as you can get. Who the hell puts restrictions on how you should play? I use the camera to my advantage, I bring it down to know where to put my troops, I trick my opponent, I do anything it takes to win. You got to detach yourself from everything that's not unconditional, this game is basically chess, once you learn how not to get shot, it's turns into, all about, what your opponent is thinking, and if you could predict that, just outthink him, and you've won.

 

Combat Mission in one paragraph. 

[JonS]

... that quoted number is probably derived from the number of rounds manufactured divided by the number of deaths attributed to small arms fire or some such other nonsense. What it's ignoring is that (apart from the fact that not all bullets were used; the stockpiles in '45 were much bigger than in '39), many of those bullets were fired off in situations far less intense than the engagements depicted by the common CM scenario. ...

 

It's also ignoring all the rounds consumed in training. Pre-deployment training for a battalion-group rotating into Afghanistan or Iraq could consume around a million rounds of 5.56mm (with hopefully no casualties) and continuation training plus weapons checks while deployed could consume another quarter- to a half-million. The number of rounds used in actual contacts is probably dwarfed by the number consumed in training.

 

I've fired many thousands of rounds, but never killed anyone. Actually, I've never even fired at anyone. Basically I've been doing my level-best to drag that stat down, and I bet that most members of most militaries are too.

Edited January 8, 2015 by JonS

[ASL Veteran]

I would say that, probably in terms of bullet for bullet results on the CM battlefield vs the real battlefield there probably are more casualties generated in the game than would otherwise be the case.  Having said that though, what would actually playing the game be like if things were different?  Everyone would blow through all their ammunition and the enemy would be sitting in position unmoved and unaffected.  Most players want to have a result of some sort when they fire at the enemy and a player who is controlling the troops of their side wants to be able to actually control the troops under his command.  So if you have your troops firing at the enemy and that firing yields little to no result other than to perhaps pin the enemy that player will probably be unhappy.  On the flip side if your troops are all pinned down by enemy fire and you can't ever move them then you aren't going to have a very satisfying gaming experience either because you can't actually do anything.  Spotting is similar in that you can probably see the enemy on the CM battlefield with much more precision than you probably can on a real battlefield.  There are game considerations that come into play when coming up with soft factors in the game and game play has to be a part of the discussion.

Edited January 8, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[stealthsilent1]

Combat Mission in one paragraph.

thats any game, that's the way to play games

[womble]

...if you have your troops firing at the enemy and that firing yields little to no result other than to perhaps pin the enemy that player will probably be unhappy...

On the whole, I find this is a pretty good characterisation of the effect of infantry small arms, most of the time. Though since suppression is the aim, I wouldn't call Pinning "little to no result", personally.

Where this changes is at close range, less than 50m close. So urban combat, final assaults onto the enemy position, that kind of thing. Oh, and if the opponent, particularly the AI, breaks. It's particularly emphatic when the AI "routs" from their firing positions, because they generally don't rout very far, so, in Bocage country for example, they're sitting in the open when my assault teams reach the "far side" of the previously-occupied fighting positions and start massacring fish in an open field. Human players at least pull their troops back to the next cover line when they fall back off the first firing step. Or push them back into the original line and surprise my assaulters...

[Melchior]

Can all depend on the infantry and range too. American Airborne squads have something like 2-3 machine guns per squad + rifle grenades. Like Wehrmacht squads they can really "reach out" at targets and comfortably suppress guys from pretty far away. 

 

Course' for overall firepower nothing quite matches the "leave-you-speechless" horror of those Sturmgewehr/Russian SMG squads.  

[John1966]

On the whole, I find this is a pretty good characterisation of the effect of infantry small arms, most of the time. Though since suppression is the aim, I wouldn't call Pinning "little to no result", personally.

 

Yeah, I think agree. I'm reminded of my early days of playing Squad Leader about 400 years ago (sorry, but in terms of wargaming that was a very formative time for me). I actually rather liked the way that casualties among my cardtruppen were actually pretty rare. They were in Good Order; they Broke; the enemy Advanced; they Routed. For the most part, they stayed in one piece. I realise that a Broken unit might have taken casualties (although once Rallied they were back to how they started) but you could always visualise it as a bunch of guys who had just had too much Firepower ditected at them and decided to get out of it. It didn't blunt my enjoyment of it at all. CM came as a bit of a shock with pixeltruppen actually dying and stuff...  

[c3k]

Many good points. (JonS pointing out all the non-combat expenditure of ammo is something often overlooked in these stats.)

 

You can easily raise your troops' ammo use by adopting the following rules:

 

1. Ignore the time limit in game. Open every battle and max out the time to 4 hours.

2. Every time one of your pixeltruppen gets a yellow base (light wound), have someone plunge a pin into a meaty part of your body. Up to the head. One pin per wound.

3. Every time one of your pixeltruppen gets a red base (heavy wound), have someone plunge a knitting needle through a limb. Once per wound.

4. Every time one of your pixeltruppen dies, lop off a digit, down to the next knuckle. Counting toes, that gives you up to 60 KIA. (3 knuckles per digit.)

 

Now that you have an aversion to casualties, your tactics should be a little different. I suggest dumping a TON of firepower on any location you THINK the enemy may be occupying. You really, really, really don't want to let the enemy have an observer spot for artillery. Machineguns? Ooh, that'll hurt. Did you forget to protect your flanks or bring antitank weaponry? You may not want to advance over the next ridge.

 

As your troops go red on ammo, rotate them back and await resupply.

 

The pace of the game will slow down. If you're lucky, you'll get through each 4 hour game intact. You may end up dreading the next game session. Regardless, the "send a few men up the road to see what happens" approach will stop occurring. Instead, it'll be "hold here while I organize some arty on that copse, then we'll line up the mg's and fire along the edge of the road, then we'll watch some more and then we'll crawl up the ditches alongside the road" style of movement.

 

Or, just man up and plunge in.

 

 

Real life has consequences. Games do not.

 

Ken

[Rinaldi]

A letter from c3k to the mother of one of his many pixeltruppen

 

Dear Sir/Madam/Abstraction,

 

I'm writing to inform you that your only son was killed in action during the regiment's drive in Holland. He died a piss poor death, having not only killed none of my opponent's men, but having never fired his gun! What a pisspot soldier.

 

With you in sorrow,

 

c3k.

 

PS: If you're going to try again for another child, talk him out of a military career, clearly you don't have the genes for it!

Edited January 13, 2015 by Rinaldi