Casualty expectations

[wyskass]

In general for Combat Mission and more specifically for the Marines in Syria campaign, what are expected casualty rates for Blufor? Are we to expect casualties as normal?

I've gotten myself into rerunning every minute save when I get casualties as a mistake, and it's making me find this game masochistic and frustrating. It's taking me weeks to finish every 2 hour campaign, with breaks to forget how much I don't enjoy playing this. But I used to like it more in the beginning with other campaigns though unfinished due to become a chore rather than enjoyment. 

The main reasons are getting myself too exposed instead of waiting to pick off everyone, or the dreaded house clearings. Also for enemy mortar fire, not willing to accept if it's supposed to be random deaths on my side. Are random deaths also supposed to be normal? Should I not be angrily replaying minutes multiple times whenever I get hit and killed with mortars on way to objective? Was enjoyment factored into the design of this or is this supposed to also model how battle sucks?

Maybe if they didn't allow every minute saves I'd be forced not to run it differently. I like it because of the realistic modelling, and needing tactical skill, I'm also not really wanting to take a an Army course or read textbooks and field manuals to play this enjoyably.

Edited December 30, 2023 by wyskass

[Halmbarte]

In general, I don't try to play thru w/zero casualties. I will redo turns if I make a bonehead mistake, but I generally only save each 5 minutes or so. 

Suppression is the key. You've got a lot of ammo, use it on spotted enemy positions & suspected enemy positions, and on places where you would put a position.

Suppression lets you move, movement gets you better positions to destroy the enemy. 

As far as the mortars go, the OPFOR call in times are glacial. Try to keep moving faster than the Syrian FOs can call or adjust fire. Move by routes where enemy FOs can't see into. Put artillery or airstrikes on those spots where you would put an FO. 

H

[wyskass]

This is good advice. Thanks!

I do appreciate using supporession, and have improved in timing it more effectively with advancing movement into buildings.

Yes it's a good insight to target what I'd consider good enemy spotting locations to take out spotters who will not show themselves. In general looking at things from that perspective is important. Yes, I have seen that it takes a few minutes of running through exposed topography before a wide area gets shelled. My problem has been feeling safe and settling in behind cover to spot and bomb, while not considering that the exposure to get there will call in fires with some delay. I tend to either get to slow or too fast.

So yea, good timing with suppression and targeting likely OPs, while also continued advancement sound like the right way. 

That said, this may not be a good game for everyone as it is quite punishing and emotionally humbling.

Edited December 30, 2023 by wyskass

[Erwin]

It is usually quite possible to accomplish CMSF missions with minimal casualties.  It takes practice and an understanding of how the game system works, and that takes experience.  CMBS is much worse in that one error can cost you the game.  I found CMSF be be a huge "shock" after playing CM1 games for 7-8 years.  The CM2 games are all very "sensitive" and errors are heavily punished.

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, wyskass said:

Are we to expect casualties as normal?

Yes.

8 hours ago, wyskass said:

Also for enemy mortar fire, not willing to accept if it's supposed to be random deaths on my side. Are random deaths also supposed to be normal?

Yes. In war, there will be casualties, even with the best planning.

8 hours ago, wyskass said:

Should I not be angrily replaying minutes multiple times whenever I get hit and killed with mortars on way to objective?

No.

But I understand it can be really frustrating. In the beginning, I also reloaded every time something bad happened, like an unexpected barrage, or friendly fire. But then I realised that it's much more enjoyable to take these things in my stride and try my best to continue with what I have left, trying not to lose my cool.

So I began only reloading when something bad happened that wasn't due to my own decisions. For example, a tank refusing to go straight from A to B through good terrain but making some long weird detour for no reason and getting destroyed. Or troops refusing to enter a house through the back door, instead running all the way through streets and getting cut down.

I also found this way of playing made me better at the game. Which is an advantage against a human player where you can't just reload. I played several PBEM games where my opponent started out very sensible, but then there would be some mass casualty event on his side, and all of a sudden, it was clear that he got frustrated and started giving all kinds of risky orders that just made things worse. It's easy to fall into the trap of "oh man, I just lost a half platoon to that barrage, so the game is over.. I better gamble now".

But what he doesn't know is that I also took lots of losses. So we're actually still equally matched, but it's his rash decisions that end up costing him the game.

[Anthony P.]

Same as @Bulletpoint, I used to replay frequently when I felt that the game hadn't been "fair" to me. Ultimately though I've realised and accepted that that is a bad attitude to have to the game, not least because it takes the fun away. The only times I save and replay is when e.g. bugs/engine limitations cause absurd events or certain missions pressure me to follow unreasonable paths.

E.g. "Into the valley" in the Task Force Thunder campaign: there's no way on Earth that a tank company supported by a single understrength mechanised infantry platoon with zero indirect fires or air support would go ahead and push through a textbook "ATGM ambush" valley known to be brimming with enemy SF equipped with state of the art ATGMs. But the briefing didn't inform me of what the consequences would be for forfeiting the mission instead of completing it (would I lose the campaign? Would the units in the mission be delayed and not available later on or even be lost for the duration of the campaign, or would they find another path "off screen" between missions?), and too much depended on clunky/unpredictable game mechanics to make it work, so I replayed to get around those issues without using it too gain unfair advantages, and so it worked out enjoyably though time consumingly.

The Cold War training campaign has also helped get me into the right mindset/"role play" for especially Shock Force: even if you're playing as a modern Western army pitted against a third world, third rate military, that doesn't mean that you would be sloppy IRL; you'd both train as if that enemy is very capable, and behave as if they were. And even then, you're going to lose some people every now and again.

[Bulletpoint]

Sometimes in a campaign, I will take so heavy casualties that it makes it impossible to win the mission or even continue with the campaign (for example, key AT units lost, etc). What I do is not to reload the turn before it all went wrong, but to force myself to start the mission over from the beginning. Maybe it sounds masochistic, but I will then avoid targeting enemy positions I revealed in my last playthrough, at least not before I properly spot them.

Not saying my way is the "best" way of playing, but just my two DKK.

[MikeyD]

Playing CM requires a certain degree of fatalism. Bad things are going to happen, sometimes its going to be your fault, and oftentimes it was preventable. You just have to accept it.

My advice playing CM (though I haven't said it for awhile) is to play as though YOU are one of the soldiers on the ground. Would I stand up and walk across an open field into the teeth of un-suppressed mg fire? Heck no! Then don't expect your pixeltruppen to do it either.

CMSF2 is a snapshot of history, of a time and a (fictional) war where minimal Blue casualties are expected and a victory with a high body count is considered a grave political disaster. You often receive stiff penalties in-game for exceeding max allowed Blue casualties. You're supposed to feel bad about it. Compare it to CM Red Thunder where life is cheap.

[wyskass]

All good advice.

How do you manage ATGM threats against vehicles? I do try to lead on foot and clear/observe, but too often end up moving up thinking it's safe to get better angles for fire from vehicles, and get blown up out of never observed shooter. I generally consider them for standoff fire support, but not entirely sure how to use IFV's properly since I get into trouble with them. When best to give squad protection during movement, and when to use as fire support. Can't seem to square both contradictory usages.

As to Humvees? I have even more trouble with those, especially TOW ones. I guess standoff again. 

[Erwin]

Generally, the same tactic works for all CM2 games.  Recon and lead with inf.  Locate the enemy's primary threats, ATGM's or ATG's (more WW2).  Kill them with arty.  Then the AFV's can blast away at buildings and troops.  In CM2 the tanks seem rather delicate.  While we read about geat tank assaults, leading with AFV's etgc. designers usually make that a suicidal tactic since the designers create defenses specifically to make that tactic suicidal. 

It seems common that one spends perhaps 75%+ of the game prepping the battlefield and the last 10%-20% actually rolling out the assault.  So, patience is critical. - much more so than in CM1 games.

[Halmbarte]

23 hours ago, wyskass said:

All good advice.

How do you manage ATGM threats against vehicles? I do try to lead on foot and clear/observe, but too often end up moving up thinking it's safe to get better angles for fire from vehicles, and get blown up out of never observed shooter. I generally consider them for standoff fire support, but not entirely sure how to use IFV's properly since I get into trouble with them. When best to give squad protection during movement, and when to use as fire support. Can't seem to square both contradictory usages.

As to Humvees? I have even more trouble with those, especially TOW ones. I guess standoff again. 

Exposure times and angles.

Where would you put ATGMs if you were the enemy? Get eyes on those areas and if you have the assets hit them with arty or airstrikes. Minimize exposure of your vehicles by moving them down covered routes and don't expose them long enough to be spotted, aimed at, and have ATGMs guided onto you. Suppress spotted enemy elements and those 'really good' locations before moving into the open. You'll still lose units, but fewer of them. Don't advance into obvious kill zones w/o stacking the deck in your favor. 

H

[George MC]

Even doing things ‘correctly’ bad stuff still happens. I thought I’d eliminated all enemy units in this vid clip. Moved up a BIFV to dismount some guys to clear woods. A key holed unsupressed, unidentified RPG 29 team did their job. 

sometimes you just have to roll with the punches. Doing saves to eliminate poor decisions or unlucky events teaches bad habits IMO - which will bite you on the arse the first PvP game you play. 

[wyskass]

Yes, I agree that playing this as the movie Edge of Tomorrow to predict every event and achieve perfection is against the spirit and intent of the game. This "game" makes me muse on the purpose of gaming or simulators. Enjoyment and realism eventually does diverge when taken to a certain point. I tend to enjoy simulators and maximizing realism in gaming, with planning and skill to succeed being enjoyment itself. It just tends to cross the line at times subjectively.

I have gathered but haven't read through Marine Corps and Army field manuals on tactics, because they are so voluminous and limits even me with. I wonder if those would actually be useful to improve tactics and/or enjoyment of the game. As far as I've come to understand, CM is as close to pro ground warfare simulators as it gets while still being a game and affordable. I also enjoy Cold Waters for subs, and Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations.

To return to original topic, I surely try to avoid doing obvious mistakes like running into identified kill zones or exposing myself too much. I even developed a process for creating topographic maps of each scenario. (Included example) As was said and I had hunches, patience seems quite important, which was maybe a clue that I'd end up finishing scenarios at much less than 50% of the time given. That, with the Edge of Tomorrow style play. What I'm taking from the advice so far, is.. 

- Have more patience with recon, and delay assaults a little more. The challenges I've had is multiple minutes of no activity and not well identified further observation points, and then upon movement, new unobserved threats responding to thwart. The hiding and waiting aspect of the enemy being most challenging.

- Thinking like enemy. Identifying OPs that may be other than objectives. I'm going to try to incorporate than more and do scouting or strikes against these points. The challenge here is lack of feedback when devoting barrages to what may or may not be effective. Still working on getting a good feel for support fire intensity and length. Getting the timing right with spotting, accuracy, delays and choice of weapons.

- Accepting losses as part of it. This is more emotional as most games tend to not want to make players get irritated. As most have suggested, playing through mistakes and random losses is both part of it and makes you better ultimately. Of course it's subjective and anyone can play as they want, but it's about getting the most out of the game.

- Lead with foot troops. Spot and call in arty, before bringing in vehicles too close. I do try this, but easier said than done and the challenge is temporal. It's almost contradictory, that I need to expose my vehicles to fire on spotted enemy but exposing my vehicles also places them at risk to unseen AT fire. 

Usage of IFV and tanks is a current unsure aspect for me. It's the question of using their armor as protection vs their standoff capability. On one hand I can bring in troops faster and closes to an objective with vehicles avoiding their exposure, but at the same time exposing the vehicle to AT. With tanks the same, as I can come in closer for better angles and with protection that can't be done at distance. Sometimes it feels not much more progress can be done from a particular position and there is no new movement, so I move to next identified topo cover and then get hit with an awakened AT or some game trigger.

Anyway.. enough ramblings for now.

Actually, in the scenario below.. an odd thing happened where from my positions indicated, it became mostly quiet, and I've eliminated existing and incoming armor and observed enemy, but then when I tried to advance with snipers on the southern most building.. Upon spotting a line of fortifications along the higher elevation line, it seemed it caused an awaken trigger. and AT fire from the south started against my northern placed units on the hills. 

Are there triggers in this sim, based on being observed to "awaken", because while nothing else changed, seeing units got them to soon after fire, which they haven't before.

Edited January 1 by wyskass

[Erwin]

16 hours ago, wyskass said:

- Have more patience with recon, and delay assaults a little more.

 

16 hours ago, wyskass said:

- Lead with foot troops. Spot and call in arty, before bringing in vehicles too close

Both the above solve 90% of the challenges.  In CM1 one could make a lot of errors and still have an enjoyable game and win.  CM2 is MUCH less forgiving and requires a higher skill level.  CM2 can be a lot more boring than CM1 as many times one needs to recon and wait (and wait) for arty and air to do its job and only get into the "fun" assault stage in the last quarter of the Mission.  It depends on the skill of the designer as to whether the level of "fun" is maintained all through the mission.  

[MikeyD]

I recall an anecdote. At some point following operation Cobra Patton's advancing army lost contact with the Germans. So he turned to his subordinate and told him 'Take that jeep and drive down the road til someone shoots you, then report their location back to me', or words to that effect. Patton's troops didn't like him much because he tended to conduct his battles like a CM player. 

Edited January 2 by MikeyD

[Centurian52]

I never replay turns that don't go well for me. My feeling is that if I make a mistake in real life I'd have no choice but to live with it, so I force myself to live with any mistakes I make in-game (the point is to recreate real war after all, at least as much as the technology allows). I do save every turn, but that's mostly because I like to go back and re-watch old battles from time to time, and because I like to imagine that one day I'll go back and make Hapless-style videos of them (not that it's terribly likely that I'll ever get around to it). When I do make a costly mistake I console myself with the knowledge that even the professionals blunder from time to time. I do my best to recover from the mistake, make the most of the troops and resources I have left after the mistake, and try to understand why that particular set of actions was a mistake under those particular circumstances so I'll do better in the future.

Casualties are inevitable in war. I'm playing through the WW2 titles right now. That was a high intensity peer vs peer war, so the casualties that I'm experiencing in the scenarios I'm playing these days are higher than what could reasonably be expected in CMSF2. CMSF2 is still high intensity, but much more asymmetric. So the NATO player can usually expect to take fewer casualties. But even in CMSF it's rare that I take no casualties. With some skill you may be blessed with the occasional zero-casualty mission, but that will not be the norm. I'd advise aiming for lopsided casualties, rather than zero casualties (obviously zero casualties is best if you can manage it, but it's usually not realistic). In CMFI I'm happy if I can get 2:1 (maybe 4:1 if I'm fighting the Italians), but in CMSF2 you should probably be getting at least 10:1. If 10:1 gets to be too easy for you, then try shooting for 20:1 or higher. Aim for a loss exchange rate that's high enough to be challenging, but low enough to be attainable. Keeping in mind that some scenarios will be more challenging than others.

Edited January 2 by Centurian52

[Brille]

Well I would be lying if I wasnt ever upset or angry about some random or unexpected loses and rage quitted as a reason for that (only in Singleplayer games of course).

Maybe thats the reason I play PVP most of the time. There you have to deal with your stupid decisions, No saves or resets...Just the hopes that your oponent is doing something stupid of equal worth.

 

But yeah playing stuff like Combat mission and XCom, taking loses is part of the idea. I guess to much saving and rewinding takes a lot of fun. I would know because I played my Singleplayer games this way for far to long and sometimes still do.

The most fun I had however when I managed to pull out a victory with the battered and bloddied forces I still had.

 

 

[Erwin]

Maybe helpful to discuss (what I think are) good reasons for replaying turns:

1)  Very common: The TACAI does something really stupid and gets guys killed.  Eg:Troops are not sent through a "safe" door or destroyed building wall but instead go out in full view of enemy and are slaughtered.

2)  Stupid TACAI #2:  One's heavy weapons unit/AFV fires close to friendlies and you lose a bunch of troops. 

3)  Enemy unit is able to fire through an impossible to see 1 pixel wide gap through tens of meters of dense woods and buildings and kills a vital friendly unit.

4)  In a campaign mission one loses vital FO "leaders" or (in modern titles) Javelin "gunners" and in the next mission, these guys are not replaced so one may find it hard or impossible to call in air or arty even tho' the FO radio operator and/or "Javelin assistant" may still be present as useless one-man teams.

5)  In a campaign mission you lose too much so that several missions later, it is impossible to proceed and you may even be kicked out of the campaign.

 

Edited January 3 by Erwin

[OBJ]

For what it is worth, relating to the OP, I am with a number of folks here, expect to take some casualties regardless of side being played, try to suck it up when I make a poor choice and my pixeltruppen pay the price, but occasionally do replay a turn 'if the game did something wrong' e.g. I improperly accounted for some aspect of how the engine was going to deal with a specific situation.

I find most of my casualties are infantry in infantry fights, built up areas, heavy forest, and that when I am honest with myself it is pretty rare for, 'the game to do something wrong' that I wasn't aware of and already knew how to counter.

[wyskass]

Yea, I tended to complete scenarios with zero casualties or just let a couple go because I didn't want to replay again. So ya, that seems excessive perfection seeking.

Also as noted, if a movement path was executed unexpectedly and into line of fire. Or getting bogged down and immobilized. I don't care much for that realism feature as there is already enough to go wrong to not need random vehicle losses. Maybe I'm not distinguishing terrain types properly, but whatever. 

Also, agree that often my most memorable and satisfying playthroughs in other games, for example HOI4, is when surviving and returning from the brink. So good to apply that here too. I'm actually just trying to finish the Syria campaign so I can move on to Black Sea next. Will be interesting to see the differences.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, wyskass said:

I'm actually just trying to finish the Syria campaign so I can move on to Black Sea next. Will be interesting to see the differences.

Get ready. CMBS models much more near-peer warfare than CMSF2. The jump from asymmetric warfare to near-peer warfare can be pretty shocking if you aren't braced for it. You'll find that the Russians are still a bit behind the US in most areas, but not by anywhere near as much as the Syrians. You really will need to be prepared to accept heavy casualties from time to time. If you get chewed up in your first few scenarios, don't worry. Apparently we've been focusing on COIN operations for so long that even the professionals are getting chewed up for the first few days of exercises in which the OPFOR is given near-peer capabilities.

[wyskass]

12 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Get ready. CMBS models much more near-peer warfare than CMSF2...

Oh boy. If I'm already getting too frustrated with Syria, that will be difficult. At least good to know ahead of time and adjust before. It seems to assume certain things before the real conflict illuminated realities about Ukraine and Russia, but at least playing more like an underdog defensively may help with those expectation. afaik there should be less MOUT at least.

Yea, for sure about getting too used to COIN and needing service wide adjustment in training and equipment focus. NATO has also learned some new lessons from Ukraine.

Edited January 3 by wyskass

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

CMBS models much more near-peer warfare than CMSF2. The jump from asymmetric warfare to near-peer warfare can be pretty shocking if you aren't braced for it.

The shock one feels going from CM1 to CMSF will probably be similar to the shock going from CMSF to CMBS.  One can afford hardly any mistakes in CMSF.  One cannot afford ANY mistakes in CMBS.  Good game tho'.

[Halmbarte]

38 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The shock one feels going from CM1 to CMSF will probably be similar to the shock going from CMSF to CMBS.  One can afford hardly any mistakes in CMSF.  One cannot afford ANY mistakes in CMBS.  Good game tho'.

The1st time my guys hiding in a building got hosed by multiple 30mm auto cannons from BMP2s was shocking. H

[ALBY]

I only play PBEM and tournaments and there is only one casualty I care about!
 

replaying turns to get better luck does actually seem like a Groundhog Day type of hell. 
 

these are just pixeltruppen and they will gladly give their little digital lives for me and the glory…

Edited January 4 by ALBY