Suggestion for CM2

[Dr. Brian]

The search engine didn't help in this, so if it's repeated, I apologize now.

In effect, my suggestion has to do wth unit status (elite, regular, green, etc.).

Not every individual soldier is "elite" and as they go away one by one in a squad, the Green guy in the formation is now is elite as portrayed in CM.

Forces were being constantly commited with newly raised troops, or refiting mauled units around a cadre of veterns. When some of those key veterens were KIAd, the unit should lose some expereince, and no longer be veteran.

There should be some "in game" loss of expereince as units undergo combat losses.

What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

This is a suggestion that in theory has a lot to recommend it (certainly more than an increase in experience after each firefight), but I think it is not relevant at CMs scale, since replacements are not modeled (and probably won't be at this scale), and a single fire-fight is not really the place where a unit's experience may drop as much. If you want to have it realistically then you would need to get down to individual soldier/leader treatment for morale. Would be interesting, but somehow I can not see it happen.

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

Andreas

[Dr. Brian]

Andreas,

Thanks for the input. I was thinking along that line too.

Then, I thought, here is my squad, in the middle of the battle. We're basically a bunch of average soldeirs, but it's or Sgt and Cpl, veterans of North Africa, Sciliy, and D-Day that are making us veterans.

And now, they are both whacked. What do we do? Where do we go? We want our Sgt. Mother, Waaaaaaa....etc.....

The game does represent individual rifles and pistols, so I think an individual morale (somehow abstracted) could be applied in there as well?

Anyway, that's my o.os zlotey.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[David Aitken]

As I understand it, an Elite squad will effectively be Elite throughout. A Regular squad may incorporate a mixture of Veterans and Green troops. A Green squad, likewise, will be more or less entirely Green, with maybe one or two guys of higher or lower calibre. So, in other words, I'm not sure it would make a significant difference to account for the loss of a squad's more experienced members.

Maybe if CM or its successors ever have 1:1 representation of troops (not something I endorse, and not something we're likely to see in the near future), then this kind of detail will be modelled - but at the moment it's on an entire different level of realism.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

As I understand it, an Elite squad will effectively be Elite throughout.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can see your point, but your quote above, I think would be unfair.

For example, you are in a squad of 10 elite soldiers... all elite. Now, 8 or 9 of them are dead. Are you going to be Elite? Well, I think at that point, I'm a conscript, just trying to save my butt. Nine guys just got whacked, run awayyyyyyyyyyy.

Just my thoughts. I just want you to keep in mind I am NOT recommended an indivdual tracking. But, I think an abstract system, based on perhaps %loss of squad, can be represented, w/o any major change in the source code.

Just some more musings.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[IPA]

Dr Brian,

Are you referring to replacements between battles in operations. Replacements did not always necessarily come in the form green or inexperienced troops, but also experienced units that were shattered or reduced to such extents that they were disbanded and pooled to other units. I guess if your suggestion were to be considered the effect on experience of the reinforced unit could be randomised, but only in extreme loss cases. Large numbers of replacements to a unit would also surely affect squad integrity.

Slightly on a tangent, it would be a nice feature to be able to reorganise and combine reduced squads between battles into reformed units. Especially in scarce supply ops. A reduction in squad integrity could also be modelled in.

IPA

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

"Surrender? Tell them to go to hell."

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

For example, you are in a squad of 10 elite soldiers... all elite. Now, 8 or 9 of them are dead. Are you going to be Elite? Well, I think at that point, I'm a conscript, just trying to save my butt. Nine guys just got whacked, run awayyyyyyyyyyy.

I think an abstract system, based on perhaps %loss of squad, can be represented, w/o any major change in the source code.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely right, this can be represented with positively no change in the source code, since it's already represented

Elite or otherwise, if a unit's taking terrible losses, it'll lose cohesion and effectiveness.

So, I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. Are you asking for units to break faster when they've taken losses? I'm a bit confused here.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Aggamemnon]

What you're suggesting was done in ASL in a somewhat abstracted way with Experience Level Ratings. If a squad failed a morale check by more than its ELR it was replaced with the next lower squad type (i.e. Elite became Regular, Regular became 2nd line, etc.) I think it would be a good idea, but I have no idea how hard it would be to program. I wonder if this is partly taken into account in CM. Does a sides global morale affect the way it acts on the battlefield beyond possible surrender?

[PvK]

* Germanboy said "...replacements are not modeled..." - The manual says they are (p.94, first paragraph), abstractly at least, in the sense that some units with casualties regain men between battles of an operation, and some of these are not just recovered but also replacements.

* It seems to me that a more likely result would be that experience level would go up after losses, because the green men were generally much more likely to be the first to go, not having the experience to help them stay alive.

PvK

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PvK:

* Germanboy said "...replacements are not modeled..." - The manual says they are (p.94, first paragraph), abstractly at least, in the sense that some units with casualties regain men between battles of an operation, and some of these are not just recovered but also replacements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D'uh, got me there PvK

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PvK:

* It seems to me that a more likely result would be that experience level would go up after losses, because the green men were generally much more likely to be the first to go, not having the experience to help them stay alive.

PvK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure whether that is not one of the endearing myths of the war. Any evidence? Seeing that a lot of casualties came from ID fire I would think that experience did not really matter that much (just surmising, but that's what I think you did too).

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

Andreas

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IPA:

Are you referring to replacements between battles in operations.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, I'm referring towhat is there, what is being used now. That Veteran Squad that just lost 9 out of 10, is, in my opinion, not "Veteran" any more.

Perhaps, the unit should be reclassified as "Regular" or "Green."

The ELR loss in ASL is exactly what I am referring too. It makes a lot of sense.

During the course of battle, the loss of a key member could cripple that unit. Additonally, the Heat of Battle forged better men, and a Regular unit could become a Veteran, and all the benifits that bestoys.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

I am not sure whether that is not one of the endearing myths of the war. Any evidence? Seeing that a lot of casualties came from ID fire I would think that experience did not really matter that much (just surmising, but that's what I think you did too).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if it's a myth, it's one that's been sworn to in print by a lot of people. Of course it varied from national army to national army, with the Germans generally pulling a unit out of the line and integrating replacements during retraining, and the Americans being the worst about feeding green recruits into a unit already in combat. In the latter case, something like 50% of the casualties occurred among the 10% of the troops representing the new arrivals. The buzz was that if you survived your first two days of combat, your chances of surviving several more weeks improved significantly.

On the face of it, Andreas, your observation re indirect fire appears to make sense. But consider how troops reaction time to incoming fire could vary, with the greener troops either being slower to "hit the dirt" or less astute about finding a little bit of extra cover in that millisecond of time. Little things count, and it takes a while to learn all the little things that can spell the difference between being able to finish the fight and being hauled out of there on a stretcher...or in a body bag.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Well, if it's a myth, it's one that's been sworn to in print by a lot of people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, I accept that, but in effect that would mean that we just assume that the inadequacies of the US repple-depple system (as highlighted by Doubler) will have an effect on all armies modeled. I am not too happy about that idea.

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

Andreas

[tss]

Germanboy wrote:

I am not sure whether that is not one of the endearing myths of the war. Any evidence? Seeing that a lot of casualties came from ID fire I would think that experience did not really matter that much (just surmising, but that's what I think you did too).

The Finnish experiences of the last month of Winter War was that green troops would have horrible casualty figures when they were thrown to line (and at the time Soviets relied almost completely on artillery and tanks). I'm not certain how much of this can be attributed to poor training compared with lack of experience.

There are a couple of interesting data points, though. Several batallions were transferred from North Finland to Viipuri Bay area. Those units were well-trained and had two months of experience of fighting in forests. However, they too had very heavy losses at Viipuri Bay because they were not accustomed to that kind of war.

However, I'm not certain how well their losses would have compared with well-trained units that had fought the whole war at Karelian Isthmus, since almost none of those experienced troops were sent to Viipuri Bay (the defence of the area was more or less improvised from second and third rate troops) and conditions there were worse than in other parts of the front.

- Tommi

[howardb]

Thanks for putting the board on topic again Dr.Brian

[Philistine]

If I understand what you (Dr. Brian) are saying, you are asking that the following be done (although abstracted):

For an example of an elite 12 man squad might have 2 crack, 5 elites, 4 veterans and 1 green which would result in (for argument's sake) an average of elite. As the squad takes casualties, the game would track which individual soldiers were lost, resulting in a lower average as the higher experience were killed off (and presumably a higher average if the lower experience were killed off).

Also, I believe you are advocating an abstraction of the above, so rather than tracking each individual soldier, you would put in place some sort of function so that (for example) for every 2 soldiers killed, there is an n% chance that the squad's experience would go down (or up).

I think it is a seperate issue of whether when there is only 1 or 2 men left in a squad, they shouldn't be treated with experience as high as the original experience, because of the trauma of losing so much of the rest of the sqad.

To hit the second point first, this seems to be adequately represented by the morale portion of the engine. I.e., that most squads that are reduced so greatly become routed or broken, or at least are much more likely to become so.

With regard to the first point, it seems an interesting idea, but to do it right (which BTS requires in order to make that kind of basic change in a major portion of the engine) would take quite a lot of work.

BTS would have to assign historical breakdowns of experience to each type of squad type (and really, to get it right, by date), so that elite U.S. Infantry sqauds in early 1945 would have a makeup of x, and veterans would have y, etc.

I'm not sure that any realistic appraisal can really be made of the makeup (and in any event, this type of parsing would limit scenario designer's ability to model units with, for example, high training, but low experience). Thus, while the current squad-level experience ratings are an abstraction, the individual experience ratings would seem to be just as much of an abstraction.

So, while I agree in principal that some sort of "individual" tracking of experience might be nice, in practice, I'm not sure it would really be more realistic, and it would take some flexibility away from scenario designers attempting to model specialized units.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

[Los]

A few points. Obviously this applies only to Operations since scenario designers can make the units any exp level they want and it's just a single scenario so there is no aftermath to the casualties.

Now in terms of experience levels like "elite" or "crack" or whatever. These represent the sum of the squads experience levels not the exact experience level of every guy (as stated above somewhere.) Not everyone in an elite squad will be a long-term veteran or whatnot. (There will be a higher number of vets in an elite squad, which makes it less fragile to drastic morale changes.) However replacements to these types of units regardless of experience level will normally come from the replacement pool drawn from the elite units training centers. For instance if you are a Royal marine Commando or a British Paratrooper, they are not going to send you, as replacements, privates from the clerk typist pool. These will be guys that have at least been through some selection and training. Granted they may/will still be green, but of a quality commiserate to the unit. It's also understandable that in times of crisis there may be temporary changes to their policy in the short term. It's well known that Fallschirmjaeger in the late war years forsook parachute training. However the training battalions of the FJRs still maintained a higher standard of training and the culture of those units ensured normally better performance. Again all this is in the power of the scenario designer.

The elite status of squads remains normally in the hands of a critical mass of vets. The fact that elites break less quickly than conscripts means that the critical mass (number) of vets in that squad is higher than in a green squad.

Anyway I'm not sure that an entire rewrite of this portion of the engine (Sure it sounds simple but I doubt it is, I know we talked a bit about this amongst the beta list a while back), would be worth the very little value added gain it would provide. Particularly when there are many other things to do in the workplan. And especially since in the scope of a CM operation which last at most a few days to a week, when a squad suffers casualties, it rarely if ever receives replacements but just remains at it's current reduced strength, making it inherently more fragile to further fire effects regardless of it's exp. status.

One more thing that we learned very early on is that a scenario designer should refrain from buying whole units of crack or elite forces. These squad types (crack mostly) should be sprinkled amongst veteran formations to bring a unit up to crack level. Having a whole company of elite troops would be unbalancing.

SO for instance in La Fiere, where you have A Company 1/505th Parachute Infantry from the 82d Airborne Division. It would be real easy to make the entire company crack. After all the company is in it's third campaign at this point, as a member of arguably the most elite division in the army. But making everyone crack would most likely muck up the scenario and be unrealistic anyway. SO I make the unit veteran and then upgrade a critcial mass of leaders and squads. While each platoon might have a crack squad, you could also make most of the leaders crack, and you get that "critical mass" that makes a unit crack.

POTENTIAL VILLERS BOCAGE SPOILER!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Even in the Villers-Bocage operation, the only elite soldiers in that whole operation is (IIRC) Wittman. Though a few other of the tank commanders and leaders are made crack (along with a few follow reinforcements squads) the rest remain veteran. Still the overall performance remains consistent with their historical rating.

Likewise on the British side these are troops from the Desert Rats, a highly experienced formation stretching way back into North Africa. But their performance on that day, getting their pants caught down like that, was worthy of the greenest of formations. The only way to even closely replicate all this in the CM battle was to tweak downwards some of their ratings. It's all in the scenario design. Cheers...

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Let see. If your a given squad of ten men is composed of 5 vets, 2 crack, 1 normal, and 2 green, for an average of vet, and we want to model individuals getting killed, what is the real effect?

Well, lets say two guys get whacked. We randomly select, and it turns out that it was one vet, and one crack (ouch!). Ok, so now we have 4 vets, 1 crack, 1 normal, and 2 green. Hmmm, still vet overall.

Ooops, just took another casualty. Who got whacked... ah, one of the vets! Now we have 3 vets, 1 crack, 1 normal, and 2 green. Gosh, still vet.

Ack! Artillery strike! Damn, I hate that American VT! 2 more losses! This time, we lost a vet and a green! This leaves us with 2 vets, 1 crack, 1 normal, and one green! Gosh, that would make us.... uhh, still vet overall.

But, that last arty strike really hurt, so we broke, and are running for that clump of trees. Damn! Right into the path of that MMG! Where did HE come from! :-( Lost another trooper! Who was it, looks like that regular just took one of the leg! Now we have lost 6 men, surely we will see a change in experience level, what with being left with just 2 vets, 1 crack, and one green! Uhh, well, no, still looks like it averages out to a vet...

Etc., etc., etc. My point is this. In 95%+ of the time, it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever, and by the time it might make a difference (significant number of squad members are casualties), it won't make any difference anyway.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Well, lets say two guys get whacked.

...[snip]... Lots of more guys get whacked...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

His example is one of the things I find disturbing. The unit is still a vet, when you know and I know, it is in a lot worse shape.

Which brings me to another point, whre can I find good information (the manual is lacking).

-What is the breaking point?

-What is the morale differnce between experience/morale levels?

-Are there fire benifits to being on higher ground?

-Are there defensive benifits to being on higher ground (i.e., Infantry Height Advantage)?

Basically, where can I find a detailed discussion, i.e., sort of an ASL rulebook, telling me the pluses and minuses of each andevery situation.

(Please, I know this is not ASL, but some guidance would help).

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

His example is one of the things I find disturbing. The unit is still a vet, when you know and I know, it is in a lot worse shape.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am confused. What is the problem?

Of course it is in a lot worse shape. It has lost men, and with those men it has lost significant firepower.

Further, with the loss of men, the unit cohesivenness and moral has significantly reduced, making it much more likely to break/panic/rout. How much more likely? Unknown to player.

They are still vets though. That has not changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Which brings me to another point, whre can I find good information (the manual is lacking).

-What is the breaking point?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown to player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

-What is the morale differnce between experience/morale levels?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown to player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

-Are there fire benifits to being on higher ground?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown to player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

-Are there defensive benifits to being on higher ground (i.e., Infantry Height Advantage)?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown to player.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Basically, where can I find a detailed discussion, i.e., sort of an ASL rulebook, telling me the pluses and minuses of each andevery situation.

(Please, I know this is not ASL, but some guidance would help).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, this info is intentionally left out of player view. Personally, I am with you. I think that is a mistake from a design standpoint. But it is not an oversight, but rather an intentional decision by the designers in an effort to try to make the player play in some manner that they feel is more realistic.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Doc,

The info you requested is unavailable to the player for a couple of reasons:

1. Because we did not want the player to feel like this stuff matters in a real sense. There is too much stuff going on to make this information hold any pratical or applicable value. So cluttering up the interface with lots of numbers (see below) would be a great mistake from a game design standpoint.

2. There are a large number of factors, and a decent degree of variability. To give you the information needed to assess the likely outcome of x or y we would need to provide you with a huge range of factors in a dynamic format. This would, obviously, kill the game as a game.

3. Although some of this stuff was in ASL, it had to be since there was no other way to play the game. It also had to be simplistic enough to be done on paper with no computer aid greater than a calculator. CM's system is more dynamic and flexible, which makes displaying this information inherently more complicated.

After playing the game a bit you get a sense for what a unit can, and can not, do in a general circumstance. This doesn't mean that you have enough information to predict the outcome of a particular incident (which would be unrealistic), but enough to know roughly what to expect for a given situation.

As for the basic question...

Every game must pick a particular level to ground itself in. Combat Mission is grounded in the Squad/Team level of simulation. It is a slippery slope to start adding stuff below this level of simulation (i.e. to the individual man). As Los and Jeff point out, the vast majority of circumstances the abstraction level we have going on is not necessarily yeilding unrealistic results on a regular basis. Yes, we could have a greater degree of fidelity if we dropped down to the experience/morale of the individual solider, but the potential gain in realism is not worth the effort it would take to acheive it. More importantly, the greater degree of fidelity would not have a serious impact on a given battle's outcome. Therefore, it isn't in the cards to happen for CM's follow up games.

Steve

[RMC]

Interesting thread. The break-to-a-lesser-quality-unit is already in the game in a way. If a squad is broken and then rallies, it gets the red ! to show that it is now more fragile. So it qualitatively inferior to it original status in at least morale terms which seems to be the gist of Dr. B's idea.

The other side of this decrease in quality is the loss of skill attributed to the loss in morale status. In ASL a squad with 6 firepower could be replaced by a lower morale unit that also had lower firepower.

I am not sure of the level of this modelling on the infantry side. We all know elite tank crews have bonuses, but what about the infantry? Certainly there is the reduced command delay. Is there more than that? It doesn't appear that they have more firepower or other attributes that would change.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

I am not sure of the level of this modelling on the infantry side. We all know elite tank crews have bonuses, but what about the infantry? Certainly there is the reduced command delay. Is there more than that? It doesn't appear that they have more firepower or other attributes that would change.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. They definitely do have more firepower. Testing has shown that each level of increased experience results in an approximate increase in FP of ~10%.

You can see this yourself. Create a scenario were you line up several squads shoulder to shoulder. Park an enemy squad some fixed distance away, and go into the map preview. You can see the firepower difference based on experience.

Presumably, there are other differences. More experience will tend to fire more often, tend to react more quickly, etc., etc.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AFAIK, this info is intentionally left out of player view. Personally, I am with you. I think that is a mistake from a design standpoint. But it is not an oversight, but rather an intentional decision by the designers in an effort to try to make the player play in some manner that they feel is more realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct. I must also add here a partical demonstration as to why a greater degree of information is not usefull. Check this out...

You have a squad that is Alerted, 3 casualties, Veteran, in command and control of a decent Platoon HQ, currently moving in brush on a dry day with great visibility.

OK, how many numbers would be required to represent the above to the player in a table type format? Right now the player gets this information from several sources:

1. Unit Info Panel - displays things like unit state and, if you flip over to the Detailed Info Panel, current firepower at various ranges.

2. 3D representation - you can see what the unit is doing, and where it is doing it, right on the map. And to some degree you know about things like visibility etc.

3. Scenario info - this defines ground conditions, time of day, etc.

The point is that all this information is divided up so that the player isn't overwhelmed by numbers. A combo of visuals, constants, "fuzzy" language (i.e. Alerted, Veteran, etc.), and some numbers (i.e. headcount, FP at x range). To make it numerical would be a nightmare.

OK, back to the squad I mentioned above...

Let us say that we did give a morale state number instead of the Fuzzy term "Alerted". OK, you look up in the manual and find that a 4.5 is half way inbetween a 6 (OK) and a 3 (Shaken). Besides knowing that you are spot in the middle here, what practical value does this information give you from a game standpoint? None what-so-ever. One shot in the first .01 second of the next turn could kill 3 men and drop the morale down to 2.5, or the unit could be lucky enough to be missed by all enemy fire for the next 60 seconds. My point is... as soon as you hit "GO!" all bets are off no player control within this time frame. Watching that number jump around therefore has no pratical value.

Steve

[mensch]

I've got to put my two cents in here. I'm playing a QB with scan I got some pretty tough canadian troops Crack or Elite, I must say they are tough cookies but they broke just a little longer then would have vet troops.. a rifle squad was reduced to 1/4 and the moral was pretty slim, on the other side they did fall back (organized retreat) to safer grounds and refused to budge..grr. where as a vet unit would have been broken. so even thought they are elite they did not respond to orders as if they were broken... this making sence? I ramble sometimes.bla bla bla. seemed pretty realistic to me elite does not mean fanatic I think... most do fight to the last man or till I roasted them with my own Crocidile FT.