Havermeyer Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 Thus far scoring an 80 in CE has been my best (using a hyper-offensive charge down the road with my armor on the right, and a feint on the left). However, I incurred far more casualties than I wanted. It is likely because I continued to rapidly push the offensive after knocking out the Stugs (though I did wait for the ground troops to recover the armor's position). What casualty rate would be acceptable? Is 30-50% indicative of success (this seems awfully high) or have I been softened by casualty rates expected in modern conflicts? What about defensive casualties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 The "acceptable" casualty rate that I've always thought of is that the minimum number of casualties should be incurred in order to meet the objectives that you were ordered to take / meet. I.e. all objective flags taken, all units exited specified edge of map in time given, etc. The question is, what is the minimum number, right? Mikester out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 I think you hit it on the head Mikester...it really depends on what you OB is, and how much time you have to attack. If you can afford the time to sit back and drop arty on the enemy for 3 days first, that would be preferably to a quick attack with minimal support. Probably NOT the answer you were looking for, huh, Havermeyer? NOTE: ONLY ONE SMILEY WAS ANNIHILATED IN THE TYPING OF THIS POST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 Yes, the type task and the importance of it are what determines "acceptable" casualties. Also, friendly casualties are somewhat mitigated by the size of the enemy force if it is larger, as well as enemy casualties caused. In other words... If you had a head on collision, over a little piece of useless soil, with a force roughly the same size and sustained 50% casualties I'd say you had way too many. But if the enemy force was 3 times bigger and they suffered 2x more casualties than you did, you didn't do so well. Generally, in a battle at CM's scale I'd say roughly 30% is acceptable. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 7, 2000 Share Posted June 7, 2000 I think that CombatMission's inclusion of Operations is the way to answer the question about acceptable casualties. Too much of my wargaming experience has focused on a single engagement. If I held the objectives at the end of the scenario, I won. End of game, everyone is happy (except perhaps for the person who lost). Knowing that I must use the same force pool for several fights is going to influence the way I play. What I currently consider acceptable losses for a one off scenario probably will cause me to lose an operation. Of course, being too conservative of my assets may cause me to lose an operation or two as well. I imagine that we'll all be learning to judge our losses in view of operations when we actually get our hands on the game. -Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 I think no losses are acceptable!!! I think that being a former grunt has made me connect a bit more than I should with my little guys, and I try to not have any, but damnit the AI doesnt cooperate with me and stand out in the open waiting for me to mow them down with my charging MG platoons led by Carl Lewis and Flash Gordon. Ok, really I think that there are no forms of acceptable losses in an Operation unless you think you will have the replacement pool to keep you at or near full strength. And losing a few tanks as the US will be brutal as atleast a 3 to 1 ratio will be needed in my estimation to deal with the superior German tanks. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 My theory, like MantaRay's is no casualties are really acceptable, but if you're going after something, you're obviously going to get down and dirty and lose some good people. I usually am still somewhat happy if I accomplished something with 20-25% casualties. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epée Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 I played CE yesterday as the allies, and gave the Axis +25% balance. I scored 90-10, so there is still room for improvement! I sent ALL my squads to the woods in front of the grain field, massed them all together, and proceeded to slowly make my way across the woods killing every german I saw. I put the Shermans facing the crossroads, just below the woods, and they knocked out all the 3 Stugs. The rest was easy. Epée Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Havermeyer: You've got peanut brittle crumbs on your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 I think that in the scenarios we are playing now, we accept more than we should. When we start playing operations a lot of things are going to change. Lorak ------------------ http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 CMMC will have people freaking out every time they lose a Tiger or a Cromwell! You won't be having too many of these deathnell battles that individual battles/operations have. Considering if you get someting like 75% casualties you might not have a battalion, but more like a weak company in which to fight your next battle with! The Germans will be especially hard pressed, as, replacements (especailly Tigers!) will be hard to come by. I can see people being VERY cautious, resulting in those who are typically reckless to have a field day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom: CMMC will have people freaking out every time they lose a Tiger or a Cromwell! You won't be having too many of these deathnell battles that individual battles/operations have. Considering if you get someting like 75% casualties you might not have a battalion, but more like a weak company in which to fight your next battle with! The Germans will be especially hard pressed, as, replacements (especailly Tigers!) will be hard to come by. I can see people being VERY cautious, resulting in those who are typically reckless to have a field day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From Delaforce 'The Fighting Wessex Wyverns': The losses are incurred by Batallions with a nominal strength of about 800 OR and 50 officers, but often a lower real strength because they had been in action before. Fighting around Etterville and Hill 112: "During the week of Death Valley and the attack on Hill 112, the 4th Somersets, out of a strength of 845, suffered 556 casualties, and between 26 June and 14th July 4th SLI received 19 reinforcement officers [out of a complement of 48 in a batallion, IIRC] and 479 ORs as replacements." The chapter is tellingly titled "The batallion that had landed no longer existed" During the first attack, for an advance of 1,500 yards they lost 192 men. All this within 12 days of landing in Normandy. Fighting at Etterville, first full-scale battle of 4th Dorsets: "During that bloody day 4th Dorsets suffered 208 casualties. 2 officers and 41 ORs KIA, 9 officers and 113 ORs wounded and 43 ORs missing." Eight days later, fighting at Maltot: "4th Dorsets had 48 members of the batallion KIA [...] and nearly 300 wounded or taken prisoner." Still Maltot: first person account, Sgt. Jim Stephen, E Troop 129th Battery 86th A/Tank Regiment (5th Devonshires): "We pulled out of the line having suffered 60% casualties" So this batallion seems to have incurred casualties of 60+% in two actions. The same day fighting at Maltot, Normandy. "On that awful bloody day, the [7th] Hampshires lost 226 men, 1 officer and 12 ORs killed a further 9 officers and 51 ORs wounded and 5 officers and 145 ORs missing, either POW or KIA." Fighting at 'Cornwall Hill', Normandy: "In all the 5th Cornwall suffered 320 casualties in 11 hours of bitter fighting. They lost only one man captured but 93 were killed. [...] Their opponents [..] suffered casualties on a comparable scale. Their companies were down to five or six effective men and they lost 8 out of 10 tanks." [the 5th DCLI had to withdraw] ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 Hi, the top man in casualty ratio number crunching is Trevor Dupuy. Given the following assumptions, 1)size of force ratio, attacked to defender of 2.4/1. 2)Defender is in hasty defence posture/mode. 3)The attacking and defending force are of the exact same quality. Given the above assumptions the casualty ratio one would expect is 1.44/1, attacker to defender. All the best, Kip. I do not know what the "percentage" casualty rate would be, have not done those equations yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyamoto Musashi Posted June 8, 2000 Share Posted June 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Epée: I played CE yesterday as the allies, and gave the Axis +25% balance. I scored 90-10, so there is still room for improvement! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I played CE at 2am last night as the Amis with the Axis up 150% and... well, I managed a draw Even though I figured I should have won a minor victory since I had killed all 10 StuGs (while losing 4 of 5 Sherms) and caused 334 casualties (104 killed). Plus I controlled both hills while allowing the Germans to kill themselves as they tried to retake my real estate. Oh well... in my book I won, so there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 After a particularly brutal woods fight (we both put our Schwerepunk(sp?)s in the same spot), Black Sabot suggested putting this picture in the Acceptable Casualties thread. Had this been an operation, I for one would have turned the Axis around through the woods (after losing the armour and 'schrecks), and I'm sure Black Sabot would have just sat outside the woods. But it wasn't an operation, and at the end Black Sabot scored a 'Minor Allied Victory'. Enjoy. Scale is at +2. http://24.141.87.83/cm_files/CE_Carnage_aar_bs_060800.JPG I'll leave it up for a couple of days. This server doesn't exactly have a lot of bandwidth, so be patient. PS: if anybody tried it and got nothing, try again. No IIS expert here, but now it works. [This message has been edited by aaronb (edited 06-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts