What do you consider "acceptable" casualties?

[mjkerner]

1 hour ago, John1966 said:

Considerably less than I got in my last game.

I don't wish to talk about it.

Start writing!

[MikeyD]

I remember hearing in the days leading up to the offensive to liberate Kuwait infantry platoon leaders on the front line were told to expect casualties. I can't recall the number, it was somewhere above 20% and below 40%. The upshot was they were expecting to take far higher casualties than they actually took. Low casualty numbers usually have been calculated as a percentage of the overall force. For the poor platoon that got caught in the open their casualty rate was 90%.

[Erwin]

To make the game challenges interesting many scenarios/missions are deliberately much harder than the average mission in RL.  When CMSF was first released in 2007(!!) it was normal that taking more than a couple friendly (Blue/NATO) casualties could cost you victory levels - even the entire game.  The challenge was to use one's overwhelming fire superiority effectively so as to win with no/minimal casualties.

But, certainly some designers (Paper Tiger am looking at you) did create hard campaigns where one would suffer many casualties - and still win.  That was ok... no problem.  Buuut....  the problem arises in campaigns in which you may not realize one is taking too many casualties until one reaches a mission where one has insufficient troops to win - and losing means you get ejected from the campaign.  Then one belated realizes that one has to backtrack 3 or 4 missions and replay the dam things (sometimes needing to do that more than once!) so that one does not suffer so many casualties - just so that one can eventually get back to the mission that kicked you out and win it, just so one could progress in the campaign.  That was and is a total PITA.  

Having said that, Paper Tiger's campaigns (eg:  "The Road to Dinas" and "El Derjine") are among the best I have ever played and are highly recommended.  But, probably for experienced players.

 

[John1966]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

But, certainly some designers (Paper Tiger am looking at you) did create hard campaigns where one would suffer many casualties - and still win.  That was ok... no problem.  Buuut....  the problem arises in campaigns in which you may not realize one is taking too many casualties until one reaches a mission where one has insufficient troops to win - and losing means you get ejected from the campaign. 

Don't know who designed the Scottish Corridor but this was basically my problem with it. I'm fine with a difficult scenario if it's a one off (as opposed to being part of a campaign). But I practically never replay scenarios. If I got it wrong, I got it wrong. No point playing it again with all sorts of intelligence information I wouldn't have in RL. Recce etc. is part of the game so there's no fun removing the need for it with multiple replays. So I sort of expect campaign scenarios to be easier (I'm sure many are) so that I can gauge how committed to be and how much of my force I risk. Should I commit my reserve? If every scenario requires Maximum Effort then you need to replay (or cheat as I think of it) to get anywhere.

17 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Start writing!

Well the above is pertinent in this. It was the fictional MG scenario with the British recce troop encountering the Kriegsmarine in the suburbs of Arnhem. Don't think I quite grasped the briefing and sent out a brilliant flanking move to encircle them.

SPOILER: But there was a seemingly endless supply of the Kriegsmarine. Despite inflicting many casualties my boys ran out of ammo and were pretty much wiped out. At game end I discovered there were nearly 400 Germans on the map! I think my attacking force was about 150. Had I realised, I'd have played it a bit differently.

Edited September 18, 2020 by John1966

[snake_eye]

@Erwin Scrolling throught the forum after having had a crash on my computer, I just read your comments. However, I can only take credit for "El derjine campaign" the "road to Dinas " being done by Paper Tiger. Think I will play both as soon as I can get some free time from a WIP scenario I have to start all over after its loss in the crash. No save made of it !

[Erwin]

Yes, my abject apologies to SE...  Both of your guys do some of the best campaigns I have played and sometimes get the designers confused when am in a hurry.

[ALBY]

I lose too many guys unnecessarily. I don’t like that. 
 

when I play the AI, I try to hold myself to very low casualties. 
 

when I H2H against a human ?  There is only one casualty I care about.

Edited June 22, 2022 by ALBY

[Artkin]

On 9/17/2020 at 12:16 PM, Artkin said:

I consider ~10% acceptable, 15% is the point where you can start considering it quits. imo.

Looking back at this, this is a low number. But I would agree this is what's up for small unit actions. If your platoon takes 15% casualties you better hope that's the only objective it has to take, because the next action will see an even larger hit on your troops.