Jump to content

Casualties always leader/gunner.


semmes

Recommended Posts

I've been playing a lot with smg squads. You really do not want to get caught in the situation where the enemy is outranging you by 80m+ and there's nothing you can do about it. The PPSh is a buzz saw but you've got to get up really close to use a buzz saw properly. I appreciate having guys with long rifles around to help me out in that situation. Better yet, bring a lmg along but they do tend to die fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Nope - rather because it is hard to hit a man-sized target at anything beyond 200 meters.

Here are some guys hitting targets way smaller than man sized out to 500 yards. Accuracy at 500 yards= 70 percent.

Range accuracy is of course higher than combat accuracy, so let's halve that range and say that a small target can be hit consistently at 250 yards. On the other hand, a man sized target would then extend that range considerably.

But let's be modest and say scaling up to man size would only give 50 more yards. That would give us good accuracy at 300 yards.

However, in Combat Mission, it's nearly impossible to hit anything with a rifle at that range.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I also get the feeling that rifles seems a tad too ineffective vs automatics ingame, it was not the US belief that their rifleman were as precise as consistently hitting at 250 yards in combat. From their ACR program they wanted to improve on the fact they only expected 1 in 10 shots to hit the target at 220meters ~= 250 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rifle target range distances and actual combat distances have nothing to do with one another. Using the former can lead to some very tenuous conclusions.

A more useful thing to look at would be data collected by different militaries on what they determined to be actual combat ranges for a given period, as well as their doctrine and training requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2020 at 2:09 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. 

If you want to demonstrate an issue, you need to create a test and run it many times, upwards of 100, to get a sample size. For example, if you created a test where you had a squad get hit by one mortar round and 75% of the time the only casualty suffered was the squad leader, then you would have real evidence to make an argument with. Thats just an example though. 

Maybe you would like to quote the very first sentence too: "This proves nothing".

I did -some- tests too and they show a tendency, maybe that's why I was talking about checking squads after the battle.

 

On 4/16/2020 at 2:35 PM, General Jack Ripper said:

Casualties are not random. Soldiers armed with automatic weapons are a higher priority for the TACAI to shoot. Leaders armed with SMG's and Gunners armed with LMG's stick out like a big neon sign saying 'Kill This Man First'.

The only way to mitigate leader casualties is to not expose them to so much fire. I usually split off an Assault Team from each squad as a way to protect the squad leader until use of their SMG and grenades becomes necessary. Otherwise they sit out of SMG range and use their binos while the team's rifles do the shooting.

So, we do know that they are not random?

That means that somebody decided that when 10 guys are rushing 8m. from one cover to the next another guy 300m away, with a MG, is going to aim at one of them? really?

Is that what we could call "gamey"?

 

As somebody was saying "range" and "combat" are not the same... and you don't need "combat". You just need to get to a field, lay down, keep your eyes on the dirt and then raise your head... to see how clearly you are going to see a target 200m away... and while you are aiming remember nobody is aiming at you.

 

I did not find the ensuing fighting half so pleasant as it should otherwise have been. Kincaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DerKommissar,

Having recently finished that same book, I find myself wondering how you came to such conclusions, especially when you read Russian unit tallies in which practically everyone left after extended combat is either a sergeant or an officer. Believe that was Lyudnikov's division, which was practically a remnant of a remnant, with some parts having taken 90 losses. I know that the Combat Regulations specified the officers should lead from the front only under certain specified circumstances but am aware of no such restrictions on NCOs, though there may've been some. Frankly, I was shocked to see nary a simple infantryman anywhere in some of the formations described. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, semmes said:

I did -some- tests too and they show a tendency, maybe that's why I was talking about checking squads after the battle.

Just keep track of what is the pose of the squad members. Leaders and gunners tend to switch to the "one knee down" pose while idle rather than being prone. Any soldier not prone is more exposed to fragments, incoming fire, etc. They may also not be able to take advantage of the "microcover" associated with particular tile types.

The job of a leader first and foremost is to ensure an adequate level of situational awareness. Being prone is not conducive to that. 

Similar issues with the guy with the squad status weapon. These guys are more likely to experience "weapon pull" - since they have the big gun they are more likely to use it. So he squats to scan for targets. Being prone is not conducive to use that cool gun. 

On top of the above we have the target prioritisation for higher value targets: leaders and the dudes with the big gun. In your examples my guess is that what you see is about the posture of the pixel truppen.

RockinHarry, several years ago, demonstrated beyond doubt how swapping the default animations had a significant impact on casualty rates.

There's still a lot of game to enjoy @semmes, don't get too caught up on the little artifacts that follow from the approximations to the real thing that were deemed necessary to get this game out of the door.

Peace out and stay safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Just keep track of what is the pose of the squad members. Leaders and gunners tend to switch to the "one knee down" pose while idle rather than being prone. Any soldier not prone is more exposed to fragments, incoming fire, etc. They may also not be able to take advantage of the "microcover" associated with particular tile types.

The job of a leader first and foremost is to ensure an adequate level of situational awareness. Being prone is not conducive to that. 

Similar issues with the guy with the squad status weapon. These guys are more likely to experience "weapon pull" - since they have the big gun they are more likely to use it. So he squats to scan for targets. Being prone is not conducive to use that cool gun. 

On top of the above we have the target prioritisation for higher value targets: leaders and the dudes with the big gun. In your examples my guess is that what you see is about the posture of the pixel truppen.

RockinHarry, several years ago, demonstrated beyond doubt how swapping the default animations had a significant impact on casualty rates.

There's still a lot of game to enjoy @semmes, don't get too caught up on the little artifacts that follow from the approximations to the real thing that were deemed necessary to get this game out of the door.

Peace out and stay safe!

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 8:21 PM, John Kettler said:

Having recently finished that same book, I find myself wondering how you came to such conclusions, especially when you read Russian unit tallies in which practically everyone left after extended combat is either a sergeant or an officer. Believe that was Lyudnikov's division, which was practically a remnant of a remnant, with some parts having taken 90 losses. I know that the Combat Regulations specified the officers should lead from the front only under certain specified circumstances but am aware of no such restrictions on NCOs, though there may've been some. Frankly, I was shocked to see nary a simple infantryman anywhere in some of the formations described. 

I'm still in the first quarter of the book. My conclusion was based on that there were quite a few officers/NCOs acting as riflemen during the assault on Barrikady, and the Germans prioritizing forward observers and command posts. Mark often notes that such-and-such officer was killed, and was replaced. Now that you mention it, there isn't that many rank-and-file accounts in the book. I thought that was just because there's less Soviet sources than German ones. Are the officers/NCOs fighting in CQB because all the riflemen are dead? Could be, I haven't seen the tallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 12:06 PM, semmes said:

That means that somebody decided that when 10 guys are rushing 8m. from one cover to the next another guy 300m away, with a MG, is going to aim at one of them? really?

Um.

Yeah.

Dudes aim at other dudes.

That's how it works.

If the leader is the first one to be seen, given he's usually the first in line, then he's the first one to be shot at.
If the leader is shooting his SMG, then he's drawing more attention than the men around him, and is the one most likely to be shot at.
If the machine-gunner is doing all the shooting, and thus being spotted and noticed by the enemy constantly, then he's the one most likely to get shot at.

I don't know why this is difficult.
Unless you're ordered to fire at an area, you're going to aim at a specific enemy target and try to hit him.

There is no random area fire in this game unless specified by the scenario designer.
Every time you are being shot at, they can SEE you, and they're TRYING TO KILL YOU.

 

Quote

The only way to mitigate leader casualties is to not expose them to so much fire. I usually split off an Assault Team from each squad as a way to protect the squad leader until use of their SMG and grenades becomes necessary. Otherwise they sit out of SMG range and use their binos while the team's rifles do the shooting.

I gave you perfectly good advice. Try using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 4/20/2020 at 1:14 PM, c3k said:

This is a great summary. As well as stationary pose, in action the Leader of a unit is often in the front, in-game. The first man in the entry stack is the leader. If there's an enemy inside waiting, the leader dies. Etc.

Agreed, I think @BletchleyGeek hit the nail on it's head.

In WW2 games I often use the squad lead on point during assaults, as they often are the only one to have an SMG and need to provide close c2. Although, if it's a green/-2 leader I tend to use them for overwatch duties rather than for assaulting duties. Also, when you are duking it out with enemies at range I try to keep HQs etc on covered arcs. Squad lead's SMG isn't that usefull in that regard so he's used to provide c2 with Plt HQ, while the other parts of squad are exchanging fires with enemy.

In modern titles the squad the squad lead isn't the only one with an automatic weapon. And often even split squads have radio, so there is no real need to use the SL on point. Also, point man in modern titles is a bit more dangerous due to accuracy and proliferation of high calibre direct HE chucking weapon systems. I scout more and try to give most units covered arcs so I can start the firefight on my terms.

In my experience mortars aren't picking of Squad leads more than other pixeltruppen. But, that's also anecdotal. 🙂

 

 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To General Jack Ripper

 

If...        or... not.

If...        or... not.

If...        or... not.

 

or... not.

 

Have you being aiming a lot, with a LMG, at 300m, at a few guys running from one cover to the next?

I submit then.

 

The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circumstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2020 at 6:06 PM, semmes said:

Maybe you would like to quote the very first sentence too: "This proves nothing".

I did -some- tests too and they show a tendency, maybe that's why I was talking about checking squads after the battle.

 

So, we do know that they are not random?

That means that somebody decided that when 10 guys are rushing 8m. from one cover to the next another guy 300m away, with a MG, is going to aim at one of them? really?

Is that what we could call "gamey"?

 

As somebody was saying "range" and "combat" are not the same... and you don't need "combat". You just need to get to a field, lay down, keep your eyes on the dirt and then raise your head... to see how clearly you are going to see a target 200m away... and while you are aiming remember nobody is aiming at you.

 

I did not find the ensuing fighting half so pleasant as it should otherwise have been. Kincaid.

I have a view similar to yours. The leaders tend to get hit more than other soldiers. I also perceive that gunners and AT weapon bearers tend to get hit a lot more as well. I did a count on two battles but the results were inconclusive. The sample is just way to low. It probably brought me more towards the view that it is random than the other way. I have the stats if you want them.

As some other posters pointed out I am not unhappy if leaders and other high value targets are getting prioritized by the AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of that line "DON'T THINK OF A PINK ELEPHANT" which naturally causes you to think of pink elephants. Now that we're talking about leaders dying early all I can see is 'Ooops- another leader just bit the dust!' Is it happening more often or is it observational bias? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I'm reminded of that line "DON'T THINK OF A PINK ELEPHANT" which naturally causes you to think of pink elephants. Now that we're talking about leaders dying early all I can see is 'Ooops- another leader just bit the dust!' Is it happening more often or is it observational bias? :blink:

A platoon got an AT round in some trees behind them... around 30 guys: 3 casualties... 1 leader, 1 gunner, 1 rifleman.

Bias... obviously.

 

Salut les Gendarmes! Beaucoup de pertes, ¿chez vous?. Verdun.

Heil MP! You had many casualties?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 4/14/2020 at 11:12 AM, MikeyD said:

Its not your imagination that the AI prioritized who to shoot. In the real world the US stopped dressing their officers distinctively because snipers tended to pick them off (the exception being showboating egoist Patten, of course).

Yep, little anecdote: my father was a line infantry officer in the 60s and 70s in the Canadian Armed Forces. Officers were officially supposed to go into battle with an SMG. He would always turn that down for any exercise or deployment. He preferred to carry and assault rifle just like everyone else. His reason was to stand out less.

 

On 4/14/2020 at 8:47 AM, IICptMillerII said:

This is just your perception. You notice it when a squad leader/platoon leader goes down more because it is more damaging to your immediate combat effectiveness. Same goes for the automatic gunner in a squad/platoon.

This. I don't like it when that happens either. It sucks. To assert that this is somehow lopsided against the human player needs some serious backing up with lots of evidence. To assert that leaders and gunner are dying at a higher rate overall that they should be also would require a lot of evidence.

And I don't mean my self or anyone else cannot be convinced I mean we have people come to these forums and cry that they lost this asset or that asset and its not fair. Hell I do that - but I don't blame a game bug it just feels better to tell other of your troubles 🙂. There just is no point in investigating each cry that the game is broken just becasue some one pops in here and says so. For a claim like this, I would not lift a finger until there is thousands and thousands of verifiable data to back it up. Which consisted of not just who died and which side they were on but what they were doing when that happened.

The game is designed so that once the battle playback starts all soldiers are controlled by the AI. There is no difference between troops controlled by humans vs the computer because none of them are controlled by humans. They are all controlled by the computer. Bugs are possible, of course, but if someone is going to try to convince the testers or the programmers that the AI has some kind of advantage in who becomes a casualty vs who does not - well that's a huge lift. Huge. The game is literally designed to not do that.

Combine that with all of our built in observation bias and the chances that this are a real thing are vanishingly small.

Edited by IanL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@semmes One of the problems we run into when playing these games is the tendency to over commit to a battle and suffer far too many losses than a unit would typically take before withdrawing. However, there were certain situations during the war where units were decimated to levels similar to CM levels and it is interesting to take a look at those battles and compare.  

Every fall my small town of 2000 people hangs pictures off the light posts of the men and women from our community who served in the Canadian Army and have now passed on. I took my kids for a walk and while looking at their faces, saw one young man who was killed in action on July 21st, 1944. I decided to research him and see what unit he was in and where he died. His unit was the Essex Scottish, and the battle he died in was the Battle of Verrieres Ridge, just outside of Caen. I did a little further digging and found the war diary for his unit. On the day he was killed, the Essex Scottish and the South Saskatchewan Regiment both attempted an attack over the same ground, failed and then were counterattacked. The South Saskatchewan Regiment went in first and the Essex backed them up. The Essex's ended up bearing the brunt of the counterattack and suffered severe losses.

In 1944, a typical Canadian Regiment was comprised of 36 officers and 809 other ranks, with the rifle companies having 5 officers and 122 other ranks. It was standard practice in the Canadian army to have several officers left out of battle in case the regiment suffered severe losses, they could be rebuilt quickly with an experienced core. So for simplicity sake, taking out those officers, any previous casualties, and the men not at the actual tip of the spear, lets assume both Battalions had 25 officers and 700 other ranks in active combat on July 21st. According to the Essex Scottish war diary, on July 22, there were 14 officers and 287 other ranks not present for roll call. Of those losses, 3 officers were KIA, 8 WIA with 3 MIA. The other ranks suffered 17 KIA, 140 WIA and 130 MIA. The South Saskatchewan war diary does not break up their losses as neatly, 13 officers and 209 other ranks were not present for their roll call on July 22. 

What this shows is that in hard, brutal fighting, the kind of fighting CM tries to simulate, losses of roughly 50%+ for officers and 30%+ for the other ranks was very much real. If we can make the assumption the NCO's would suffer a similar loss rate as the Officers do, it shouldn't be a stretch to say the losses you are seeing in game represent losses suffered in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Left out of battle (LOB) system was used across all the Commonwealth forces wasn't it?

Anyway, I've always missed the "total force" morale factor from the CM1 era. That little '%' score that used to tick down as you took losses. Yes there's still a surrender point in CM2 but you probably already threw in the towel before it kicks in.

The ability for scenario designers to put in a forced 'ceasefire' point for each side based on casualties suffered would be a big help in keeping things a bit more grounded. Particularly for individual scenarios where there's no consequence. A low percentage assignment would reflect a force not willing to commit, while a high percentage would be fanatics or a force knowing their mission is effectively do or die. Assigning victory points to keeping force cohesion like we can now is one thing, but having the game do an auto ceasefire and calculate the victory score from that point to reflect the force disengaging but holding onto what they've done would be interesting - well in my head at least. :)

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...