Unacceptable Losses

[I/O Error]

Stacheldraht had mentioned at the end in the (fortunately torpedoed) thread about KIA uniforms (and don't ANY of you guys mention that EVER again! ) about the idea of unacceptable casualties, borrowed from William Trotter's opinion piece in the new PC Gamer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Btw, there's in interesting column by William Trotter in the latest PC Gamer about the idea of increasing wargame realism by factoring (un)acceptable casualty counts into final scores, something real leaders deal with on political, practical, and moral grounds, particularly when the media are watching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's something that's always been on the back burner of my brain, almost afraid to raise its voice. I do find this to be a very interesting idea.

In the context of CMBB (just as an example, I'm not trying to say this should be a feature... so back off with that club. ), imagine how that would change the very attitudes of the commanders.

I imagine a Russian commader would be authorized to go to ANY lengths in some situations to stop a German attack, while a German commander would be restrained by worsening supply lines and a slow drip of reinforcements and replacements.

I find the idea of what Trotter terms, "Casualty Budgets". We've all heard of Pryhric victories, right? (I'd also like to point out that it would be darn-right mean to point out my spelling of "Pryhric". I tried, okay? )

You might "win" the battle and take that one critical hilltop, but what if you simply can't push on? If your troops are exhausted and ammunition is low, you've just singlehandedly slowed an advance to a crawl, if not a stop. The time needed to send up reserves to keep pushing could ruin an offensive operation.

I would also like to close with another quote from Stacheldraht:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am disappointed, though, by the tone that some posters adopt in this forum, making this a frequently inhospitable environment, particularly for newbies or those just voicing a dreamy "what if...." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So remember, I am weak and easily ignitable, so do not flame me too hard for my thoughts.

[CMplayer]

This sounds like a really good idea, to

be able to variably weight losses in

victory conditions, depending on the type

of mission, or constraints of the

historical situation. It might be able

to increase the richness of scenario

variety.

This is, of course, already partly doable

with Victory flags and exiting.

--Rett

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:

Stacheldraht had mentioned at the end in the (fortunately torpedoed) thread about KIA uniforms (and don't ANY of you guys mention that EVER again! ) about the idea of unacceptable casualties, borrowed from William Trotter's opinion piece in the new PC Gamer.

So remember, I am weak and easily ignitable, so do not flame me too hard for my thoughts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is something that has been discussed, but most relegated to the side since it is an engine change. Mostly, it looks like a scenario design change allowing the engine to assign "value" to the casualties compared to the objective and the intrinsic value (what it costs to get a new unit).

CM:BB rarity may help this out a great deal, since a hoard of dummies with picthforks that are hugely common do not cause as much shock to the old score if they get mowed down as long as they keep more useful units from getting it.

Ideally though, at some point a scenario design mechanism would be incorporated which allowed the relative value of the objective to be taken into account against the importance of taking the objective.

[Andreas]

I/O Error, I think it is Phyrric

Your idea is absolutely spot-on, and it is one of the most important thing to get the players e.g. in CMMC to understand that force preservation is much more important than winning the next fight at any cost.

I hope that BTS will be able to introduce a system whereby scenario designers can assign a value to the objective (as is done now implicitly, by probe/attack/assault settings) that will make the amount of losses a dynamic part of the victory conditions. So in an assault you are allowed to lose quite a lot more guys and tanks than in a probe etc.pp.

Good idea, and hopefully comes in soon. Not sure how good that would be for QBs, but for scenario design I'd love to have that tool.

[veteran of the psychic wars]

me thinks it's pyrrhic.

[Dschugaschwili]

Yes, it's "pyrrhic". So now I'm darn-right mean, right?

Dschugaschwili

[I/O Error]

*sniff* *sniff*

Hey, I'll bet at least one of you guys actually looked it up. Considering I guessed, that ain't so bad!

[Gremlin]

"Pyrrhic" derived from Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus in Greece. He defeated the Roman armies in 280 BC but couldn't go on to attack Rome since he lost too many troops. Hence, "Pyrrhic victory."

[David Aitken]

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

So in an assault you are allowed to lose quite a lot more guys and tanks than in a probe etc.pp.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would, I think, be unreasonable as long as the goal is to capture certain points on the terrain. For example:

• Assault: take the objective at all cost.

• You outnumber the enemy 2:1.

• Therefore, you are allowed to take high casualties, but in effect you should totally overpower the enemy.

• Probe: take the objective if you can.

• Your forces are equal to the enemy's.

• Therefore, you are not allowed to take high casualties, but you are at a disadvantage and will be lucky to take the objectives without losing the majority of your forces.

In other words, just now it is effectively the other way round: a Probe will probably result in heavy casualties, whereas an Assault should be easy and not hurt you much at all.

Of course, you are talking about scenario design, in which case the definitions of Probe, Attack and Assault would be distinct from the force sizes and mission objectives.

Personally, I tend to play cautiously, and have on occasion withdrawn my forces instead of throwing them in for a final assault on the objectives which might win me the battle, but would doubtlessly destroy most of what I have left. I am not, however, aware of any of my opponents playing kamikaze-style, so this is not of major concern to me.

Sounds like a good idea, though, and would certainly encourage more realistic play.

[I/O Error]

Also, for battles/operations that imitate real life events, there can be POLITICAL effects to consider.

(The very word lodges in my throat. )

[I/O Error]

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

"Pyrrhic" derived from Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus in Greece. He defeated the Roman armies in 280 BC but couldn't go on to attack Rome since he lost too many troops. Hence, "Pyrrhic victory."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... Gremlin? I think I knew the history. I wouldn't have used the word if I didn't. Thanks anyway.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by I/O Error:

Um... Gremlin? I think I knew the history. I wouldn't have used the word if I didn't. Thanks anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um... don't worry that wasn't a shot at you, some of the rest of us did not know the history and I did indeed find Gremlin's post very enlightening. I'm sure there are lots of folks on this board who did not know the origin of the term "pyrrhic victory"

Thanks Gremlin

-tom w

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Gremlin]

I/O Error, that was just general info in case someone was interested.

[Rocket Fodder]

This is an area where Close Combat did a good job. As you may remember, in CC2 your losses haunted you throughout the campaign. Lose a tank and it's gone during the next engagement. Lose half you're men and that's too bad.

If CM had a campaign like CC then casualties would be more important. But right now you can lose all of your men and still win the battle.

Therefore this is something I would support seeing in future games.

Regards

[David Aitken]

Your losses do matter in CM Operations. As BTS has explained at length, it would be unrealistic to carry the same force over to another Battle or Operation, because in reality it would not have been exactly the same. Focusing on your combat effectiveness in a single Battle makes much more sense.

[zgrose]

I could be wrong but it looks like losses are taken into account for victory points. I have been playing a couple 300 pt QB attacks and in one of them the germans had 1 75mm Inf gun and 1 AT team. Needless to say I captured all the flags and killed or routed all the germans. I lost 2 vehicles and a few mortars in the process. Even though I had achieved 100% percent victory in terms of objectives, my score was not 100%. I think it was closer to 70%. Perhaps there are other factors at work that I am not aware of, but the score did seem to reflect the fact that I should have creamed ther germans with minor losses but in fact got my nose bloodied.

There is, of course, always coincidence.

[David Aitken]

That is not so much a case of you losing points because you lost troops, but rather the enemy gaining points against you because you lost troops. You can't have 100 points if the enemy has 25 points. This is not the same as being penalised for wasting your own forces.

[Sergeant Saunders]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is not so much a case of you losing points because you lost troops, but rather the enemy gaining points against you because you lost troops. You can't have 100 points if the enemy has 25 points. This is not the same as being penalised for wasting your own forces. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'm new, but isn't this the same thing? If you loose a lot of your forces, the opposing side gets points for them, which lowers your possible score.

[Enoch]

A very good idea. To a certain extent this is already in place in operations obviously. I've also been fiddling around with something similar by making longer scenerios.

For example, the Americans start an attack. At some point later in the scenerio German reinforcements show up. Now, if the Americans have completely expended the forces and ammo in the initial attack they will be in trouble when the German counter attack comes.

I still think this would be a great addition to include explicitly into how games are scored.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sergeant Saunders wrote:

I'm new, but isn't this the same thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose you're right, depending on how you look at it. I think the simplest way to put it, is that what I/O Error is suggesting, is rather than simply having points scored against you for the casualties you take, you would actually be penalised on top of that for losing an unreasonable proportion of your force in achieving the objectives. This, as he suggests, would be different depending on the attitudes of the particular army.

[Battlefront.com]

We are adding at least two features to CMBB to address this. And that is a Global Morale modifier. It works much the way the force Handicap does, in that it either gives or takes Global Morale points prior to the first shot being fired. This will simulate the "force morale" prior to the battle. Two pumpped up forces will more likely fight to the last man, while a larger demoralized side might pack it in after only a small percentage of its force has been toasted.

The other feature we are putting is an automatic Ceasefire when a side's Global Morale drops below a variable point compared to the enemy. This is sorta in the game now, but it doesn't kick in soon enough. Once the game is autmatically ended the players will have the option to keep fighting it out, but the score will not change from that point on.

Neither of these are exactly what Trotter was talking about, but they are both intended to force a side to call it quits when things become far too bloody.

We are also thinking of putting in "acceptable casualty rates" for the different types of battles, but I don't know if that will happen. So you can lose 80% of your force in an Assault, but maybe only 20% for a Probe. The problem with this idea is that it requires a CRUD load of testing/revising/testing. So we shall see.

Steve

[David Aitken]

Thanks Steve!