The abacus syndrome

[Sig]

Hello,

I have noticed from time to time tactical comments assessing the efficiency of a defense (or attack) by comparing the relative values (in points) exchanged during a phase of the fight. This sounds usually a bit like: "...well, as long as I exchange the 36 pts of my regular 50mm PaK38 AT gun for the 122 pts of his regular M4A3 Sherman, I can consider it a success even if I then loose the gun to the following artillery strike...".

If I personally prefer a more "role-playing" approach ("Ack, my poor gunners are under heavy fire, I must find a way to help...aaaaarrrr..too late) versus a "number" oriented one, I find nothing wrong with the latter, so far.

However,

1.Obviously, the value of an asset is highly variable once the fight has started. Example: if my regular 50mm PaK38 AT gun blocks the main approach to the objective and therefore stalls the attack, its value is not anymore 36pts but *far* higher (I win as long as the gun holds). Furthermore, if this is my last AT element in a crumbling defense, its value is now infinite (I lose if the gun is destroyed). In this last situation, even if my gun were able to, say, KO 3 of the five M4A3 attacking before it is silenced, its loss would be a disaster! Even though the "points" exchange would heavily be in my favor (36 to 366).

In another situation where the enemy is already holding the objective having bypassed my MLR, the same gun would have a much, much lower value. In addition if I could then destroy even one AFV before the AT gun is blasted, I would be a clear winner.

2/I have the *feeling* that people basing their fight purely on calculating points lost versus points destroyed are severely limiting themselves. Understand me well: I do not imply these people cannot win or have bad tactics. No, my feeling is that if you see units in a fight only as friendly "points" which must remove at least an equivalent amount of "points" from the enemy's order of battle in order to be worth buying, you may well limit your perception of the battlefield. This is because your focus would be *absolute* point ratios (my 600pts vs. his 1200pts) and not the *relative* point ratios (e.g. my strong hull down position vs. his "exposed-on-the-slope" AFVs).

So, what can be the impact of such an approach of the game, especially against another player (I lost 122 "points", he lost nothing, I surrender)?

Does such an approach actually *have* an impact on the way you plan, play, think?

On the contrary is such an approach an advantage in simulations? If yes, is this a limitation inherent to all simulations vs. the real stuff?

Last but not least, if you know your opponent thinks "numbers", is this good for you (can you outsmart him *because* he thinks like that)?

I would be very interested to hear comments. I am curious about that, especially because it seems to touch a lot the way gamers (esp. wargamers with extensive "board game" background) think. And we all know it helps a lot to understand how the "enemy" thinks.

Sig

(Insert little disclaimer) Sorry if this is not crystal clear, but English is not my mother language. Feel free to ask for precision.

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by Sig:

<lots of snippage>

In another situation where the enemy is already holding the objective having bypassed my MLR, the same gun would have a much, much lower value.

How could you let a manoeverist do that to you? Attrition r00lz! [if this comment makes no sense, and you've got a lot of time on your hands, check out the various recent threads on attrition vs. maneuver warfare.]

So, what can be the impact of such an approach of the game, especially against another player (I lost 122 "points", he lost nothing, I surrender)?

Does such an approach actually *have* an impact on the way you plan, play, think?

On the contrary is such an approach an advantage in simulations? If yes, is this a limitation inherent to all simulations vs. the real stuff?

Last but not least, if you know your opponent thinks "numbers", is this good for you (can you outsmart him *because* he thinks like that)?

I think that people use points in this way as a rule-of-thumb to estimate combat power (this sort of works because the point values assigned in CM are supposed to solely reflect combat power and not include any "rarity" factor). So if you're not too familiar with a particular piece of hardware, you can still get a rough idea of how effective it is from the point value. Obviously it is a very rough estimate, and doesn't take circumstances into account (as you point out in your post).

Do points affect how I plan? No. Maybe some people plan based on point values, but I determine missions and assign assets to them based on my knowledge (imperfect though it may be) of their capabilities.

Losing points also doesn't demoralize me in a particular battle (although it can be depressing in a QB to lose an expensive asset early in the battle without "getting your money's worth"). I worry about losing capability, not points. In a QB, I do like to estimate how much of the opponent's force I have seen by adding up point values, so I can have some idea of what kind of surprises might be lurking ahead (or at least how big they might be). But I don't obsess about killing a certain number of points. I suppose someone might try to use this as a psychological ploy, showing what appears to be a "lot of points" on one flank to invite an attack into a strong defense elsewhere. But this is really just deception, and again points are just a heuristic for assessing what % of an enemy force is represented by e.g. a rifle platoon IMO.

I don't think many players really think this way (basing an approach on points). However, I suspect based on my experiences in other games that there is a significant population that get demoralized by early reverses and will quickly "give up" rather than fight out a position they feel is disadvantaged. Personally, I kind of enjoy the challenge of fighting it out, until/unless things turn into a rout.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I think you are misunderstanding the use of such an analysis. It is about settling on tactics and techniques, and it is one factor in planning out a defensive set-up and force mix. It is not about analysing on-going events in a battle at all.

If I notice that is practice my 50mm PAKs can be neutralized by an enemy combined arms force, I might conclude that they are useless and drop them from the force mix altogether. But this could be an error. The point-like attrition-thinking calculations are only meant to check whether this is so.

If the enemy combined arms force that can neutral one 50mm PAK, requires 2 Shermans, an infantry platoon, and an 81mm Mortar FO, and the end result is one dead tank, the ammo of the FO gone, and the entire force above engaged distracted held up or delayed for 5-10 minutes, obviously that 50mm PAK was doing a heck of a good job. And 2-4 of them might do an even better job. And the enemy might not be able to tackle them at all, combined arms or no, or might not be able to tackle my whole force mix with 2-4 50mm PAK included in it.

Looking only at an incident in which the enemy took out one of your units by applying superior force to it, you can easily get an incorrect idea of his capability to neutralize such units, and of their effectiveness. There is nothing you can buy for your force, than an enemy cannot defeat if he throws 10 times the force cost at it, to neutralize it.

And especially with cheaper, more common weapons, one can easily get an incorrect impression, because at some point in their fighting lifetimes they will almost certainly be hit by a much larger portion of the enemy force, than they represent of your own.

The thinking behind this is really quite simple. If it uses up and wears out 10% of his force to neutralize one of my weapons of type A, then whether a tactic or technique using weapon A can be used against him successfully, has everything to do with whether I can have 5 of them or can have 20 of them. (Not that I am going to buy 20 of anything besides infantry squads, mind).

The particular context in which this discussion arose, was the use of light cannon - PAK and FLAK especially, infantry guns and on-board mortars too - as part of a German infantry defense force. Some thought the light cannon were too vunerable to enemy artillery to help much.

But in fact, no attacker is going to have time and artillery sufficient, to neutralize all the light cannon of a proper German infantry defense, and still have enough left to help him with his main task of taking on the German infantry as well.

The apparent vunerability of one gun, to enemy artillery, is a trivial consequence of the fact that 1 20mm FLAK is not nearly as big a military item as a battery of 105mm off-board artillery. In CM terms, the 20mm FLAK costs only 1/8th as much. Concluding that its vunerability made it ineffective, therefore, would be like concluding an infantry squad is "ineffective" because an enemy infantry company can break and rout it with overwhelming firepower. Which is not true, for exactly the same reason - he cannot match every squad of yours with an entire company of his.

That is all it is about. Do the guns add to the infantry defense or are they a waste, an ineffective tactic or technique, because of their supposed vunerability to enemy artillery? (Basically, because they can't run away from an artillery barrage zone, in the words). The answer is "no, they are not a waste; yes, they are an effective addition to an infantry force". And an attrition-thinking, "abacus" analysis, will show that. From which the conclusion is just "buy the guns".

An additional conclusion of the same nature are - you can afford to lose PAKs if they get kills of enemy tanks, but you *cannot* afford to lose your PAKs after only picking off a half-track or scout car. Which is very important tactical information to have, because it will change the ambush techniques used, the fire discipline decisions, the way enemy scouts are dealt with, etc.