High casualty rates in CM games

[womble]

13 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

While I agree that HMG fire doesn't seem to suppress like we'd expect, FWIW area fire does shift fire to the AS on either side of the targeted AS. 

And there is *some* suppression in AS adjacent to AS where bullets strike, I believe. I think the determination (several years ago, so it may have changed) was that it was about half that of the targeted AS. 

[holoween]

36 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

While I agree that HMG fire doesn't seem to suppress like we'd expect, FWIW area fire does shift fire to the AS on either side of the targeted AS. 

This doesnt happen what happens is this:

21 minutes ago, womble said:

And there is *some* suppression in AS adjacent to AS where bullets strike, I believe. I think the determination (several years ago, so it may have changed) was that it was about half that of the targeted AS. 

Basically it seems the mg targets one burst on the left edge of the square one on the right edge and one in the middle. With supression having some aoe it bleeds into the adjacent squares depending on where the enemy actually sits i the square.

[Bulletpoint]

32 minutes ago, holoween said:

This doesnt happen what happens is this:

Basically it seems the mg targets one burst on the left edge of the square one on the right edge and one in the middle. With supression having some aoe it bleeds into the adjacent squares depending on where the enemy actually sits i the square.

I think what actually happens is:

Small arms are extremely inaccurate in this game, and there's a large angular spread left and right. As it's based on an angle, not targeting specific squares, the farther from the gun, the larger the spread.

If you target a square close to the gun, it will look like the gun basically targets the centre of the square.

Farther away, it will look like the gun targets centre, left and right parts of the square.

Even farther, it will look lik the gun targets the selected square and the one on the left and the right.

At very long distances, it looks like it targets the actual square, plus two squares left and right.

[holoween]

7 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think what actually happens is:

Small arms are extremely inaccurate in this game, and there's a large angular spread left and right. As it's based on an angle, not targeting specific squares, the farther from the gun, the larger the spread.

If you target a square close to the gun, it will look like the gun basically targets the centre of the square.

Farther away, it will look like the gun targets centre, left and right parts of the square.

Even farther, it will look lik the gun targets the selected square and the one on the left and the right.

At very long distances, it looks like it targets the actual square, plus two squares left and right.

I thested the us hmg at 130m and it clearly fired bursts at each edge and the center.

[Bulletpoint]

23 minutes ago, holoween said:

I thested the us hmg at 130m and it clearly fired bursts at each edge and the center.

Did you also test it at longer ranges?

Edited June 1, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[holoween]

44 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Did you also test it at longer ranges?

Just tested 800m and there the left and right bursts were hitting the adjacent action squares.

Though it also never managed to fill the supression bar even on the target by more than 2/3.

[sburke]

15 minutes ago, holoween said:

Just tested 800m and there the left and right bursts were hitting the adjacent action squares.

Though it also never managed to fill the supression bar even on the target by more than 2/3.

what were the ratings for the defending unit?  That could impact how they suffer suppression.

[holoween]

8 minutes ago, sburke said:

what were the ratings for the defending unit?  That could impact how they suffer suppression.

I always test on regular experience, normal motivation, Fit Fitness and 0 leadership for both sides with hotseat on Iron skill level.

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, holoween said:

That i could use other assets doesnt change the fact that the hmg cant perform as it should

Funny you don't address the issues of the HMG in the indirect fire mode just behind the crest of a ridge. They have special sights for this. That is what I like to see, and their HQ could call for a linear plunging fire. I solve this problem by for example the 60 mm mortar for US forces and the 50 mm for British commonwealth. I think that is why those units were so generously supplied in the game. I agree with @mjkerner that MGs shift their fire anyway. Combined arms are always the answer to solve tactical problems and innovation. Shooting an HMG from a defilade position for suppression is usual a waste of ammo. A German MG 42 in HMG mode is supplied with four thousand rounds in theory he can go through them in 4 minutes.  Go to camera position 1 and observe in which manner the game let him fire. 

[holoween]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Funny you don't address the issues of the HMG in the indirect fire mode just behind the crest of a ridge. They have special sights for this. That is what I like to see, and their HQ could call for a linear plunging fire.

I didnt adress it because 1 it isnt particularly relevant to general troop survivability as it can only be used at fairly long range and at those ranges it doesnt make a big difference and 2 because it isnt particularly relevant to the issue of supressing.

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I solve this problem by for example the 60 mm mortar for US forces and the 50 mm for British commonwealth. I think that is why those units were so generously supplied in the game.

The game depicts historical oob. The mortars are there because they historically were.

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I agree with @mjkerner that MGs shift their fire anyway.

I ight have different standards to you but at best that mg fire covers 10m of that wall barely more than a single action square. Thats not shifting fire for me.

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Combined arms are always the answer to solve tactical problems and innovation.

While true its irrelevant to the discussion on the capabilities a specific weapons system should have.

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Shooting an HMG from a defilade position for suppression is usual a waste of ammo. A German MG 42 in HMG mode is supplied with four thousand rounds in theory he can go through them in 4 minutes.  Go to camera position 1 and observe in which manner the game let him fire. 

1 Depends on the situation and your fire doctrine.

2 2500rounds

3 3:20-2:40min for 4k rounds

4 It shoots at 125rpm exactly the same as the us hmg at 300m. And 190rpm vs 160rpm at 100m.

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, holoween said:

I didnt adress it because 1 it isnt particularly relevant to general troop survivability as it can only be used at fairly long range and at those ranges it doesnt make a big difference and 2 because it isnt particularly relevant to the issue of supressing.

You better start reading some books. Or watch some useful movies. I try to copy their tactics and surprise they work. 500 yards is what they are using in the movie. 

Employment of Heavy Machine Guns in the Attack - 1944 - YouTube

Edited June 2, 2021 by chuckdyke

[holoween]

16 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

You better start reading some books. Or watch some useful movies. I try to copy their tactics and surprise they work. 500 yards is what they are using in the movie. 

Employment of Heavy Machine Guns in the Attack - 1944 - YouTube

Where do i even start

Your previous post contained 1 true but unrelated statement and one that is arguable aside from that every single thing you said was wrong yet you feel the need to tell someone elst to read. Especially since i do take the time to actually test what im talking about ingame.

they are using 500 yards to give a size for the beaten zone. They have to because the size and shape of the beaten zone changes with range and the ground youre shooting at. That doesnt mean all their shown positions are at 500yards.

i assume with indirect fire youre talking about fire from what the video calls Position Defilade. Youre only able to do that at longer ranges. Note how its demonstraded once and never actually used throughout the rest of the video except where they talk about supporting advancing infantry with overhead fire and specifically note the long range required on flat ground makes it "unsatisfactory"

 

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, holoween said:

Youre only able to do that at longer ranges.

It depends on the ground it is typically 1000 meters in partial defilade position it is closer. The game doesn't allow us to do this and typically we get a No-LOS. I think it is a shame. I have tried it in game it is just not worth the hazzle. 1km is something we can do on an average map. Your points are taken and enfilade is partially solved by oblique fire. For HMG we need a different dialog at present they don't and only direct fire is possible. For your request you need a linear fire command which we don't have. Say 3X 15 seconds a turn. Just agree to disagree there is nothing wrong with that. I stick with MG's combined with light mortars to get the tactical advantage, using MG's alone make them candidates for a purple heart if they are lucky. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by chuckdyke

[John Kettler]

Relative to division strength, combat infantry makes up a tiny portion of overall manpower. Infantry combat chiefly inflicts casualties on this relative handful, whose loss can defang an entire division. To give some idea of how bad things can get, take a look at what a tiny FJ force in Normandy was able to do in terms of inflicting severe casualties (WIS, KIA, POW) on multiple battalions of the US 90th Infantry Division. Back in the 1980s, I read a US Army study found that at the small unit level: platoons and companies, some 80% of the casualties were the result, not of artillery but small arms fire. What's true at the macro level isn't necessarily true at the level of many infantry actions. 

https://www.historynet.com/us-armys-90th-infantry-division-the-tough-hombres-battle-in-normandy.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Everyone has access to the editor. If you want to construct a 'typical day on the front' low casualties scenario all the tools are there. But spending hours on a map trying not to get noticed and not to get shot sounds pretty tedious. That's not what people come to the game for. Its like visiting a porn site and only watching videos of couples shaking hands goodbye on the doorstep after a dinner date. 

[Bozowans]

Yeah I wouldnt want the game to be totally realistic. War is boring. It's just a bunch of guys hiding in a ditch all day. Firefights might last for hours. It could take hours for hundreds of men just to clear a single apartment building. War is a dull, miserable, boring and exhausting slog.

What might take hours or even days IRL might take just minutes in CM. It took the Russians a couple of days to clear the reichstag building for example. 

The game could always be improved though. I wish units would rout off the map. They could in CMx1 but they cant in CMx2 for some reason. Units get pinned against map edges and wiped out. And I wish units could withdraw off the map voluntarily without needing an exit zone.

Anyone remember Shock Force 1? Broken troops would get an exclamation point appearing over their head and then vanish into thin air, to represent surrendering, routing, or otherwise going missing. It was realistic in a way. I can see why they changed that so that units would physically run away but they still dont get routed completely. 

[dbsapp]

How is "realistic level of casualties" measured? I guess, some average number could be calculated after the end of conflict (in fact, those numbers are never accurate and Soviet\German losses are disputed till this day). But even this virtual number will encompass the days of heavy fighting and month of boredom. 

Not to mention that it all depends on billions of factors, like time, front, weapons, skills etc. 

CM like every other game couldn't be fully realstic by definition (you should participate into actual conflict for full realism, not to sit in front of PC screen), but to claim it's not "realistic" in certain aspects you should know for sure what  "realistic" is. 

 

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Everyone has access to the editor. If you want to construct a 'typical day on the front' low casualties scenario all the tools are there. But spending hours on a map trying not to get noticed and not to get shot sounds pretty tedious.

The issue is not whether casualties are high or low, but if they are needlessly high.

When your guys don't go prone while HUNTing but just continue sleepwalking while bullets whiz around them, that is artificially increasing casualties.

When regular average troops can just keep attacking and rarely surrender despite horrific losses, that is also artificially increasing casualties.

If these two points were adressed, you could still have games with high and low casualties. It would just be a more interesting and more realistic game, in my opinion.

[chuckdyke]

On Hunt they only stop on full contact. The AI once a unit is 'Triggered' it is in Banzai mode. Fun when you first try the game but now, I just stopped playing a few scenarios prematurely. The game becomes sometimes a Turkey Shoot.