A case for lowering Global Moral

[James Ling]

Infantry battles in CM are good but not perfect. The AI is a bit too aggressive resulting in easy wins when you end up gunning down whole squads premeturly sent charging into the open. Casulty rates of 70% plus at the end of the battle for the other side are not uncommon.

So I tryed an experiment to lower global moral with the aim of installing more caution in my AI opponant: I simply created a meeting engagement and split all the squads on either side in the set up. The global moral went down to 60% for both sides. Both opposing infantry companies were of approxamatly equal points. It was a sort of Turin test to see if the AI could prevail without weight of numbers against an experienced player.

THE RESULTS: The AI won a marginal victory! As the global moral was 60% the Strat AI must have planned less aggressivly. The split squad Tac AI was also in play so individual self preservation was higher. Playing a cautious AI was actually harder more rewarding and more realistic than facing an aggressive one. I could really belive it was a real.

Try it for yourself, the AI keeps its squads split and you must'nt cheat by reuniting yours.

BTS - Could you consider lowering global moral and raising squads tac AI self preservation?

[Guest blitz]

Good idea, I will have to try it.

Is there 2 dead bodies for each half of the split squad if they are both eliminated?

[James Ling]

There certainly is.

[BloodyBucket]

It does seem that the soldiers in CMBO are very willing to lay down their electronic lives in the line of duty without much reservation. Perhaps a Global Morale option would be a nice touch for inclusion in the final TCP/IP Patch?

------------------

"Roll on"

[James Ling]

Very True Mr Bucket. I cant belive that ordinary Brits, regular guy GI's and German's who knew its really over would've taken such huge casulties. How did any of them survive to become veterens? Why do the wise battle hardened veterens do such suicidal things?

I found in my experiment that the battle was like watching a vietnam news reel where the grunts spent most the time cowering then poping up to shoot. The strat AI seemed to give sensible orders: Short dashes while my men were supressed, dircting squads around concentrations of fire instead of into it.

If global moral was lowered and Tac AI self preservation raised CM would go ultra-realistic. Judge for yourself with your own experiement fellow CM'ers. BTS - What is your view on this?

[coralsaw]

James,

It certainly would be nice to have it as an option.

It would be great if you could repeat your experiment. A one-off has no statistical value. Thanks though anyway.

Regards

[James Ling]

Your right Coralsaw. In fact its only been a two-off so far, I've played both sides of my experimental senario, with simlier outcome. I'll be glad to play more and report the results.

As an OPTION in the game it would great if global moral could be set by the player/and or pre-set by the type of battle ie: an all out assault would have high GM where as a probe or meeting engagement would have a lower one. It would reflect the commitment of the commander and men to the objective, how far their willing to go. You dont expect a sensible enemy to take 70+% casulties in a probe engagement!

It would also be wonderful if as an OPTION full squads could be given the existing Tac AI for split squads. The higher self-preservation and reactions of the split squads seem by far more realistic, more human, than the full squad.

Combine the two and it really does work, the Infantry behave as realistically as the tank AI does now.

BTS chaps what do you think of these suggestions, are they realistic ideas for a patch?

[James Ling]

Just to let you all know I've now compleated 6 battles using split squads for higher infantry Tac AI self-preservation and a lower global moral.

The overall results are still a good balence between caution and aggression together with more sensible infantry. The average losses on both sides are 10 - 30%. I haven't yet seen any suicidal moves like single squads charging at whole platoons, which is what used to happen. Overall I feel the game has become more challenging and realistic.

[BloodyBucket]

Interesting. Historically, MOST (not all, certainly) units having casualties in the 10 to 20 percent range became ineffective.

My experience has been that the last turns of a battle turn into bloody hand to hand struggles for victory locations, with massive losses for both sides. Of course, I am playing against another Jarhead.

------------------

"Roll on"

[Treeburst155]

VERY interesting thread!! I'll have to try it out.

Treeburst155

[Guest Big Time Software]

James, interesting experiment. I'll pass on this thread for Charles to ponder.

As for casualty rates...

This has been discussed in depth before, several times. It was not unusual for a force to suffer 40-60% losses in a single engagement. Near total anhilation was also not unheard of, but was unusual.

One thing to keep in mind is that the bulk of the casualties you see in CM are lightly wounded or otherwise short-term out of action. So even if your Company lost 60% of its effective strength in one battle, it might recover half that within a day or two.

BloodyBucket:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Interesting. Historically, MOST (not all, certainly) units having casualties in the 10 to 20 percent range became ineffective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be interested to see some references on this. It runs contrary to pretty much everything that I have read. In fact, most forces were at 20-60% understrength as a norm (depending on nation and battle).

In CM you generally get to a point of diminishing returns. When you have a bunch of 50% strength squads you generally can't do much with them if the enemy has anything close to it in terms of lethality. Really depends on the situation.

As for the end game slugfest, this is something that is very difficult for us to prevent. However, we do have some ideas on this for CM2.

The big thing we are thinking about is something that would remove the ASSURANCE that the other side has no more reinforcements. Who on Earth would risk rushing his last remaining beat up units if he thought a full strength enemy platoon, fresh from reserves, was moving up to the front? In real life a commander HAD to think about things like this, but in a CM battle (not Operation) there is no "fear" of the unknown because there is no unknown by the end of the game (at least for a Quick Battle).

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The big thing we are thinking about is something that would remove the ASSURANCE that the other side has no more reinforcements. Who on Earth would risk rushing his last remaining beat up units if he thought a full strength enemy platoon, fresh from reserves, was moving up to the front? In real life a commander HAD to think about things like this, but in a CM battle (not Operation) there is no "fear" of the unknown because there is no unknown by the end of the game (at least for a Quick Battle).

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case, would it be possible to include the option to purchase reinforcements in Quick Battles? Let the player choose the time of arrival, and lower the unit cost for reinforcements depending on the time of arrival (not in a linear fashion towards zero though). I don't know if it would be a good idea to have the purchasing AI put units into a reinforcement pool, but at any rate the player should be informed about the reinforcements in an auto-generated briefing.

I don't think it would be too hard to implement this, the cost reduction function is probably the only thing that requires some thinking.

Dschugaschwili

[James Ling]

BTS - Thanks for your reply.

During my latest split-squad battle I used no FOW and observed that a couple of times the AI half squads reuniting through close proximity. A direct compasion between full and split squad Tac AI behavior was possible: The full squads advanced boldly upright into the incoming until 4/5 casulties forced them to break. The split squads hit cover as soon as they were fired on, returned fire and/or found better cover. The latter seems much more realistic and is also a greater challenge to play against. Twice as challenging in fact when your own men are just as prone to self-preservation as the enemy, you have to lead them that more carefully.

The options to give full squads the existing Tac AI of the split squads and player/battle type defined global moral would improve CM both as a game (no more easy wins) and a simulation.

[sbg2112]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The big thing we are thinking about is something that would remove the ASSURANCE that the other side has no more reinforcements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked 'bout this in June. See http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005682.html.

So I agree wholeheartedly with this.

[BloodyBucket]

I quote from FM 7-90, dealing with mortars:

"Destruction renders the enemy combat ineffective. Against soft targets, such as trucks or frame buildings, mortars can be used for destruction, but even then the amount of ammunition expended is large. It requires about 30 percent casualties to render a unit combat ineffective."

Current military doctrine regards a unit with 10 percent casualties (classic decimation) as being signifigantly damaged. Units will sustain high casualty rates, but generally only elite units with no choice in the matter will do so. A good example being the U.S. Marines in WWII, in a small island invasion there is no choice but to win or be driven into the sea.

Note that this is an observation, not a criticism. CMBO is the greatest thing since sliced bread! A more "realistic" aproach to casualty rates might not help the game, and it is a subjective thing at best. Numerous examples of units breaking at the first shot or fighting to the death can be cited.

------------------

"Roll on"

[Guest Big Time Software]

James,

I checked with Charles and Global Morale levels have no impact on the planning of the StratAI. What you are seeing must be due to other factors which themselves influence Global Morale. In other words, you are looking at a coincidence, not a cause and effect relationship.

BloodyBucket,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Current military doctrine regards a unit with 10 percent casualties (classic decimation) as being signifigantly damaged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... not only does this totally fly in the face of pretty much every combat situation between frontline forces I think I have ever read, it is at odds with one of the most detailed studies on casualties. Namely Dupuy's works, specifically his book entitled (oddly enough ) "Attrition".

Think about it... 10% of a 9 man squad (Germans) is just one single man. So what you are saying is that after a squad takes a single casualty, it is combat ineffective. That can't possibly be correct, not even with today's hyper sensitivity to casualties

In a secetion on selected DAILY historical casualty rates, all but a handfull were well into the double digits. In fact, most were well over 20%. Some were as high as 50%. These were for selected US units fighting in various parts of Europe.

For example, one of the more average losses was for Company K, 351st Infantry, 88th Division. In three days it lost 102 men out of 170 (30% daily loss) during 12-13th of May, 1944. In that same period, Company F lost 170 out of 170.

Dupuy figured the daily engagement loss for a US company in WWII was about 21%. So if a unit were to be combat ineffective at 10%... I don't see how we could have won the war with an AVERAGE daily casualty rate of nearly twice that number.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Units will sustain high casualty rates, but generally only elite units with no choice in the matter will do so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so. Raw Soviet units, with little to no training (or sometimes even weapons), sustained casualty rates all the way up to 100% in some battles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A good example being the U.S. Marines in WWII, in a small island invasion there is no choice but to win or be driven into the sea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what CM would call "Fanatical".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Note that this is an observation, not a criticism. CMBO is the greatest thing since sliced bread! A more "realistic" aproach to casualty rates might not help the game, and it is a subjective thing at best.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. But what I am suggesting here is that CM's casualty rates are more realistic than you think they are. Also keep in mind that roughly 3-4 men were wounded for every man killed, and roughly 2-3 of them survived their wounds. Most were able to go back to duty. Meaning that if your Platoon loses 20 men, roughly 15 are wounded or otherwise ineffective, and roughly 5 of those would return to duty within a couple of days (if not hours).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Numerous examples of units breaking at the first shot or fighting to the death can be cited.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen this in CM practically every game I play. In fact, I was recently cursing because I had a ELITE HMG-42 team become ROUTED on me after being raked with MG fire. Not one casualty either

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-07-2000).]

[BloodyBucket]

A well thought out reply. Certainly, front line units sustain higher casualty rates than 10%, and still function. I think that when FM 7-90 contemplates 10% losses in a unit, the vast majority are in the "sharp end", that is the rifle platoons. Also, a rifleman who is simply too terrified to fight might rightly be considered a casualty in CM, but not need medical care.

The term "effective" might be in play here, also. The 28th Division was placed in the Ardennes for refit after suffering badly in the Hurtgen, and fought well during the Bulge. Staff planners would have termed the Division "ineffective" after the losses sustained in the Hurtgen forest, and for planning and offensive purposes, they would have been right.

As to Soviet conscripts sustaining 100% losses, perhaps the only thing more terrifying than facing a gun is having one in your back!

Certainly, the CM modeling is way within reasonable parameters for interpeting WWII combat. Outstandingly so. My observations are not critical, just an excuse to think more about this great game from an academic angle.

------------------

"Roll on"

[Gronk]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Correct. But what I am suggesting here is that CM's casualty rates are more realistic than you think they are. Also keep in mind that roughly 3-4 men were wounded for every man killed, and roughly 2-3 of them survived their wounds. Most were able to go back to duty. Meaning that if your Platoon loses 20 men, roughly 15 are wounded or otherwise ineffective, and roughly 5 of those would return to duty within a couple of days (if not hours).

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FWIW

"You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you here today would die in a major battle."

-- George S Patton

[James Ling]

Steve & Charles - The dayly casulty figures you quoted can't be argued with....but what proportion of those casulties were sustained though artillery during the WHOLE day, not just the 20-60 mins of actual engagement, which is the bit CM models.

Thanks for the helpful revelation that global moral doesnt affect the Strat AI's planning. What I am seeing must be wholly the effect low GM & split-squads have on the Tac AI behavior of the infantry. The hightened Tac-AI self-preservation is worth including as an option as it does give a better game and simulation of battle behavior. I've gone on about results in my other posts so I'll just ask: Please give it a try on your testers who I'm sure will be satisfied and approve it as a patch.

[Guest Big Time Software]

When talking about casualties, and effectiveness, one thing must be kept in mind...

Do not mix Apples and Oranges.

BloodyBucket said that 10% losses made a unit combat ineffective, and therefore CM's units suffer far too many casualties before they become useless. I think I have established that the 10% figure he quoted was misapplied.

James then, rightly, pointed out that the daily casualties includes all forms of enemy action, including artillery bombardments inbetween battles. However, this is a large variable and therefore does not necessarily apply to Dupuy's figures. The Germans were often very short of artillery support and often did not have the luxury to do much more than harrassing fire missions inbetween battles.

We also need to be carefull of unit scale. 30-50% casualties for an American Infantry Company was not uncommon. But 30-50% casualties for a US Infantry Division was almost unheard of (I think the 106th might have got near that when in the Bulge). The main reason is that for every one combat man in a US Infantry division there was almost FOUR non-combat men (I think the number was 3 and change, but it could have been closer to 3). So if ALL of your fighting formations in a division were at 50% (highly unlikely) the overall casualty precentage would only be something like 9%. So you can't go mixing figures up with different sized units. It doesn't work that way.

Since CM is roughly a Company level game, and at the very least is only about combat formations, we should only be using figures that are relvant to that level. The Dupuy figures I quoted were relevant since they were for Infantry Company casualty stats ONLY.

We need to keep the two parts of the conversation seperate, since they don't necessarily influence each other (i.e. a relatively untouched unit does not become ineffective because the rest of the formation got hit hard):

1. Combat Effectiveness - how well a unit could fight based on casualties, experience, and other factors.

2. Combat Casualties - how likely would a unit, in an "all out" battle take the sorts of casualties as we see in CM.

There is something to keep in mind when looking at #2. CM does NOT simulate the average day in the life of a frontline unit. That would make for a boring game Instead, it simulates the much more uncommon direct conflict between two roughly equal sides. So the casualty rates in a CM battle are going to be disproportionally higher for that one battle vs. an overall casualty average. Again, this is why the Dupuy figures I quoted above are fairly relevant, since they are only looking at a day or so. However, for all we know that unit which took 100% casualties in 2 days of fighting lost most of its men in ONE single engagement.

Just remember... averages are just that... statistical calculations based on more than a handfull of instances. Since CM battles only simulate one very specific instance (i.e. one 30-60m battle), in one specific way (all out slug match), for one specific type of unit (combat units), for one specific level of combat (roughly company)... all statistics that involve more factors than this are, at face value, irrelevant.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-07-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

James,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've gone on about results in my other posts so I'll just ask: Please give it a try on your testers who I'm sure will be satisfied and approve it as a patch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tweaks to the AI are never trivial. What might look like a simple cause/effect relationship to you might not be. And any tweaks made to try and recreate your experiements might cause very negative side effects in some situations. So there is no easy fix waiting to happen. Therefore, do not expect to see any tweaks to the AI anytime soon. We need to get going on CM2 and diversion of energy to tweaking the AI right now (as opposed to sometime later in CM2 development) would be ill advised.

Trust me... if there was an easy fix, we would do it. But there isn't one. Not from our perspective when looking at coding and testing.

Steve

[James Ling]

Thanks Steve for your attention on this subject. You've explained all very well. Forge ahead now with CM2 (esp the bit about removing assurance theres no reserves into the Strat AI planning!).

PS: Got any rough ETA as to CM2 coming out?

[BloodyBucket]

I apologize if my sighting the 10% figure caused a stir. Certainly a unit is "damaged" at that level, but not ineffective. The damaged language comes from the aforementioned FM.

I have submited a very favorable review of CM to the Marine Corps University. They already use Tacops, as I am sure you well know.

------------------

"Roll on"