Best defensive formations.

[tuhhodge]

Ok, this is a difficult one to answer because of the number of variables, but I'm just setting up a 2000 point assault QB as the Germans as the defenders of a large village in hilly and moderately forested central region. It's the usual ridiculously wide battlefield with victory flags spaced out across from one end to the other. I know I'll be outnumbered by the Russkies, even more so because they've got a +25% advantage. I bought a company of veteran infantry, and a platoon of pioneers, plus support weapons and artillery spotters, loads of anti-personnel mines and barbed-wire. :confused:

So, how do I defend such a large area with so few men? Do I concentrate in one part of the map and try to hold three of the 7 flags while sacrificing the others? Or do I space my platoons out laterally across the map and watch a company of grizzly Russkies attack my individual squads?

I chose a middle option. I spaced out a bit, using barbed-wire to funnel Russkies into anti-personnel minefields in the non-defended areas. I still feel a concerted attack will destroy my (still) thinly spread resources.

Could someone kindly explain how to defend in these circumstances? And, also, can someone explain why a 2000 point battle on a medium map leads to 7/8 flags spread along a 2km front line? Why can't they just have 3/4 flags around a village (I mean who wants to capture that sodding gorse-bush out there on the map-edge: It has no strategic value!!!).

[ April 14, 2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: tuhhodge ]

[RSColonel_131st]

I assume your 7 flags aren't all the same size, so you did the right thing concentrating on the 3 or 4 main ones.

Personally, I would NEVER voluntary spread out. Try to hold more than 50% of the territory, with the possiple option of a counter-blow later after you anihilated most of the enemys main force.

[laxx]

hi,

a. um...if the qb against the ai or a human opponent ?

b. i am a newbie CMBB player, but here are my comments:

- if you are playing against an AI, one characteristic is that attacking the russkies in one Victory Location will lead the bulk to that VL.

- are the flags the same size ? most often the more important locations are indicated by the larger sized flags. so defending those would be more important.

c. instead of looking at the number of VLs to defend, i would rather position the troops for optimal location to destroy the (a) tank assets like the heavy KVs or Flame tanks FIRST ( HQ units next followed by the © bulk of the troops.

d. the other tip i know is that german ammos runs out pretty quickly, so hide all your troops until the enemy is near (i have achieved less than 40 m before my troops opened up). this way, the russian will break and panic. Long distance attrition is no good except for artillery.

[tuhhodge]

It's a question of degree really. My 'spread-out' may be someone else's 'concentrated'. But, I hadn't really thought about the value of the flags! Mind you, where there are 8 of the damn things it may not make much difference!

[laxx]

actually, i want to highlight a good article on defense: http://www.combatmission.com/articles/Learning/learning.asp

though it is for CMBO, i am sure it applies to CMBB as well.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by tuhhodge:

Ok, this is a difficult one to answer because of the number of variables, but ...

[snips]

So, how do I defend such a large area with so few men? Do I concentrate in one part of the map and try to hold three of the 7 flags while sacrificing the others? Or do I space my platoons out laterally across the map and watch a company of grizzly Russkies attack my individual squads?

I chose a middle option. I spaced out a bit, using barbed-wire to funnel Russkies into anti-personnel minefields in the non-defended areas. I still feel a concerted attack will destroy my (still) thinly spread resources.

[snips]

Could someone kindly explain how to defend in these circumstances?

Rather than give you any answers, I'll give you a couple more questions to think about.

Should the prime task of the defence be to protect the victory flags, or should it be destroy the attacking force?

Does the terrain permit you to concentrate effects without concentrating troops?

ISTM that you are thinking along the right lines in using an obstacle plan to channel the enemy where you want him. Still, do you want to be channelling him into minefields, which will only inflict a few casualties, or into a proper killing zone?

Finally, what indirect fire assets can you afford, and is it worth investing in a few TRPs?

All the best,

John.

[Ron]

Just a couple suggestions that probably won't help this battle but something to keep in mind for the next.

Yes the QB generated maps don't *seem* fair for the defender because they are so wide, what I always do is to select a 'Small' map to reduce that. It is still plenty wide but more doable for the Defender. As an alternative now in CMBB, in case you weren't aware, you can create your own maps, ie the frontage you deem appropriate, in the editor and then load it when starting the QB.

Force selection is highly important. You know you will be outnumbered in just about everything so you have to select your troops to get the 'most bang for the buck'. Personally I would not select Veteran troops, prefering Regs or even some Greens to fill 'space'. You have to realize the troops will generally not be your prime killers, your support assets will. The troops will act as 'blocks' to help create and shape the killing zones for your support assets. The support assets will include HMGs, AT guns, Infantry guns, FOs, Mortars, AFVs etc.

The increased lethality of HMGs in CMBB and their abilty to cover a very large area, make them your prime support asset. Minefields, AT mines, barbed wire, roadblocks etc. can be used to shape your killing zones but can't be counted on to destroy/stop the enemy. TRPs are a great multiplier, allowing your Mortars greater flexibility and faster response for your FOs. They can also give your AT assets the 'edge' in a duel versus enemy AFVs.

Play, experiment and have fun, you will eventually find the right combinations/tactics that work for you.

Ron

[Sergei]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a big flag is worth 300 points and a small flag 100 points. So it really can make a difference.

[Redwolf]

The wide defenses are a very bad aspect of the CM quickbattle system. I really don't know why they chose to do it this way. The real deal with defenses is doing defense in depth.

But yes, in CM quickbattles you should fight for enemy kills. Calcutalte the victory points. He has 3750 points of units on the map. How many flag points do you have Probably much fewer. In addition, for tanks the crew losses are in addition to the knockout points for the tank itself.

So here's what to do:

Forget about some flags right away.

He will usually lead with infantry harrass them with MGs and mortars until he is blue in the face.

The points you payed for the mines are wasted, too wide battlefield. Some for engineers, the probablity they end up being in the right spot is pretty low.

Confuse his tanks. Pick single tanks and kill them by having them turn to some bait unit and then shoot them from the other side. Try to have LOS only to that one tank so that your shooter doesn't come under fire from other attackers.

Try to counterattack crumbling flanks, especially to get crews and to delay him.

Try to avoid autosurrender, sit one some flags and hopefully you killed a lot of vehicles. This is probably the best you can do. Alternativly, if you have mostly mobile units you can try to knock out enough enemy units to have more points than the flags are worth and then retreat off the map.

And yes, in my opinion there should be far more flags on CM maps. Applies to both Quickbattles and scenarios.

[JasonC]

2000 points is a large force of defenders, that is why you have a large map to defend. When the flags are widely spread, you should think of the mission as linear defense. That is, the Russians don't really care where they break through, just that they do break through, and your job is not to hold a village but to hold a line, to protect the units on your flanks from being turned, etc. That doesn't mean you need to defend every flag - you don't - but it *is* realistic for the attackers to get points for penetrating anywhere along a wide front.

On force selection, the main defender assets are guns and HMGs forming a "heavy weapons network", trenches protecting infantry and heavy weapons alike, and TRPs setting artillery "traps". Mines and wire are useful in conjuction with those things, but are no substitute for them.

You should plan two aspects of the defense, an AT network and an anti-infantry plan. The AT network must be able to KO tanks in positions that can blow up your heavy weapons and the bulk of your infantry positions. They do not need to protect the whole map. If you can arrange a single AT kill zone where most of your AT weapons bear, great - but you need some coverage as well, to kill single tanks practically anywhere they can see your men.

Understand that the practical alternative to taking out a tank is everyone in LOS hiding to avoid its fire. Before anyone is close enough to fully ID your shooters, you can afford to fire even under LOS of a tank - e.g. HMGs at 300m. But once leading infantry are close enough to spot you, you either stop shooting or kill any overwatching tanks. That is how tanks help infantry forward.

As for the anti-infantry network, you should think of it in terms of the firepower needed to deny particular areas to enemy infantry. Your own infantry can help against all open ground positions within 250m - but you should plan on them only holding the cover they are in and about 100m of open ground around it.

When there are bits of cover within 250m of your own position, you need some plan to deal with enemy infantry firefighting from there. That can be AP mines in the cover, a TRP on a body of woods, an infantry gun with LOS to a heavy building to take it out with HE. It can't be just "I'll shoot at his squads with my squads". Understand that defending infantry does not have enough ammo to shoot at attackers in cover, unless the range is nearly point blank.

Open ground areas should be covered by HMGs. It takes 2 HMGs within 500m with clear LOS to halt easy infantry movement. And you will only pin, you will not kill. Covered areas should be sighted for HE, whether HQs spotting for one map 82mm (50mm is too light), FOs, or direct fire from 75mm or larger HE.

Think in terms of creating protected areas for the defenders, not in terms of covering every avenue of approach. A good defense is one with living defenders. It should be hard to get at your guys. Open ground, wire, mines, registered arty traps, should together form a shield ahead of your men.

Your fighting positions should be deep enough forms of cover that you can withdraw into them, breaking LOS entirely. A reverse slope, a large wood, or enough large buildings that there are near side lower floors or second houses back to head for - those are what you need. The attacker will always have superior overall firepower, and you can't afford to shoot it out with him at range and into cover, in ammo terms. So you need the ability to "deny battle" locally, when the terms are unfavorable.

You should also string out a few small teams well ahead of your main body, as listening posts to see what is coming down each avenue of advance. A few LMGs are enough for this, or a couple of half squads in a pinch. Do not expect much from these. Mostly they just tell you the directions the attackers don't send anything, which can let you reposition the forces behind that spot.

You must always be ready to shift forces on defense, particularly on a large map. The same large body of cover principle that lets you deny battle locally should also create covered routes into the back of your fighting positions, for help to arrive from unthreatened areas.

Split squads and HQs can provide a fall back line of foxholes at set up time. You can also use heavy buildings and trenches for some positions, moving to them in the first few minutes from others selected to create foxholes. One set of foxholes for every fighting position should be deep in cover, avoiding all LOS at long range. The enemy should be forced to send infantry into every large body of cover you hold, and not be able to instead destroy all the defenders with ranged fire.

In operation, a good defense runs as a series of traps and escalations. Minimal stealthy forces harass and delay at first. That means light guns and MGs at "sound contact" ranges. Do not blow all your off board arty ammo at this stage. Early arty fire only delays, as the attacker has plenty of time to rally.

Let the attackers get well forward along a given line of advance before opening up on them with all weapons within LOS. You want a bite sized chunk, something it will hurt the attackers to lose but small enough that you can defeat it. That can mean the first tank, or a half a company of infantry - it depends on the scale of the reception you have ready. Mix shortened covered arcs and "hide" orders, to have some units up and spotting (compared to all "hide).

Pioneers create short range "ambush" blocks by the threat of their demo charges (and FTs, in the case of Germans). These are 30m weapons, but are fully effective inside of cover, unlike small arms. Mix with areas of wire in front of and just inside larger woods, or AP mines covering small patches of cover (like single woods tiles).

Understand that attackers tend to be "cover limited", with more troops to feed forward than they have spots to put them without bunching up into juicy artillery targets. So just about every scrap of cover along the attackers route of advance will be used. What you want to do is deny portions of this cover to force the attackers into the open (for MGs and small arms), or force them to bunch up. Then you use your FOs and on map HE from guns or tanks to hit the bunched up spots.

You will never stop attacker numbers with your available ammo if you blow squad infantry ammo on targets in cover at range. Nor if you reveal heavy weapons one at a time at ranges that allow full ID - those will be KOed in sequence by attacker firepower. You fire heavy weapons at ranges too far to fully spot, or all at once in "mad minutes" to break all attackers in LOS. You fire small arms at the leading attackers at ambush ranges, 50-100m, then continue with fire into open ground only out to 200-250m. Never beyond that even into open ground, or into cover beyond 100m. Hide again or relocate rather than firefight men at range in cover.

Make him come to you, and make it hard for him to dig your men out of wherever you decided to put them. If he gets forward elsewhere, fine. Just kill or break anyone that tries to actually get on top of your men. At the end of the day, if you succeed in that your defenders will be alive, they will have expended their ammo at reasonable targets and so will rack up significant kills, and they will retain at least some of the flags. Even if the attackers do not mess up. More than that depends on them making mistakes - which they will, often enough. If you have live defenders you will be able to exploit them.

[offtaskagain]

There's a saying about your problem: He who defends everything defends nothing. I personally tend to ignore flags when planning my defense and instead try to pick out the best terrain for a defensive position, i.e. reverse slope kind of places. I make my goal to destroy the enemies forces rather than control the flags.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

There's a saying about your problem: He who defends everything defends nothing. I personally tend to ignore flags when planning my defense and instead try to pick out the best terrain for a defensive position, i.e. reverse slope kind of places. I make my goal to destroy the enemies forces rather than control the flags.

But this only works (as in giving you a victory at game end) because the Quickbattle generator and most scenario designers place so few flags on the map.

If the value of all flags would be like 2/3 of the attacker points things would look different.

[ April 15, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[SgtMuhammed]

One of the biggest things to remember in the game is that wire and mines can only be used to delay not deflect the enemy. The AI tends to run right through them, especially wire. While this will increase the ability of your minefields to cause damage you cannot count on it to do the job of stopping the enemy for you. Unless you get lucky and the map offers a route that the enemy absolutely has to take you will find that the points spent on mines and wire are often wasted.

FOs and TRPs are great defensive weapons and can often be decisive. Pick an area that forces the attacker to come after you rather than being able to plink at you from long range. Pick covered routes so you can shift troops where they are needed. I guarantee that if you focus your defense on the enemy doing a particular manuever that that is the one thing he will not do.

On really big maps with lots of troops, you can try to set ambushes at outlying objectives with cheap troops while defending with your major assets around a few core locations. Unless you get lucky though you can count on losing these forces.

Basically plan for the worst thing the enemy can do to you.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

There's a saying about your problem: He who defends everything defends nothing. I personally tend to ignore flags when planning my defense and instead try to pick out the best terrain for a defensive position, i.e. reverse slope kind of places. I make my goal to destroy the enemies forces rather than control the flags.

But this only works (as in giving you a victory at game end) because the Quickbattle generator and most scenario designers place so few flags on the map.

If the value of all flags would be like 2/3 of the attacker points things would look different. </font>

[laxx]

**** spoiler alert *****

With the facinating inputs from you chaps, let me muddle this a bit, how would you defend against the Russians in Yelnia Stare ?

Would you defend a line, defend all the flags or create multiple depths with Recon/Security Element, MLR and possibly a SLR ?

laxx

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

There's a saying about your problem: He who defends everything defends nothing. [snips]

But this only works (as in giving you a victory at game end) because the Quickbattle generator and most scenario designers place so few flags on the map.

If the value of all flags would be like 2/3 of the attacker points things would look different. </font>

[Redwolf]

The discussion whether wargaes should award victory more based on terrain taken or on enemies disabled is very old. The saying about not defending everything cuts both ways: it can mean if you try you will lose your units. It can mean if you try you lose even more terrain. This saying cannot be used to make a decision here.

So here is why I think that unit knockouts are overvalued in CM:

1) there are more victory points on the map than you think. Crews count extra, 6 points/man. prisoners count extra.

2) in CM you get the knockout points for a variety of damage. The moment a vehicle is abanonded, even out of nothing else than fear, you get the full value of the vehicle as victory point. The men you lose in squads are not dead, they may be slightly wounded, shocked or missing. The majority of CM knockout points is awarded for units which will be able to be used again the next day.

3) Nobody in real life expects a battalion which attacked a deliberate defense in a village to come out intact and fight again without reorganization and repairs.

So, in a word, taking the village in CM while taking 1/2 or 2/3 losses in the CM sense would have counted as a very clear victory and mission accomblished in WW2. Few of these losses would be permanent (if the attacker holds the ground and can rcover everything and everybody).

I don't want the counting of unit losses removed from the scoring. But to make the terrain as valuable as 2/3ds or 1/1 of the CM point value of the attacker is entirely appropriate.

[JasonC]

Redwolf suggests that "taking the village in CM while taking 1/2 or 2/3 losses in the CM sense would have counted as a very clear victory and mission accomblished"

Hardly. Players tolerate loss rates in CM that our historical counterparts would have seen as bloody shambles. Players routinely lose as much in 30 minute, single company attacks as entire divisions lost on the average day. Or losses to attacking battalions that equaled the worst outlier fights of the war, or the average for a whole division on a day of heavy frontal attacks.

If anything, CM overvalues terrain and drastically overvalues haste. Nobody in the real deal willingly sacrificed an entire platoon of men to hold a small secondary objective at the end of a particular 30 minute schedule. CM also overvalues ammo - in the real deal, attackers expended far fewer men to take a given piece of terrain, but lots of ammo, especially artillery ammo.

It was entirely normal for attackers to shell an area then probe into it and find all the defenders had pulled back to get clear of the shelling - even a light shelling. Because both attackers and defenders valued their men more than loss of ammo, terrain, or time.

Ammo expenditure in periods of operational attack were so high, a full CM FO's worth only had to inflict 10-20 causalties to run the defenders out of front line manpower over a time scale of a week to a month. It was absolutely vital to defenders to deny the attackers any decent artillery target, or their units would be progressively destroyed by attrition.

Just spotting an enemy location could force the men to move, or at the least to thin out their front to small OPs while withdrawing the bulk of the defenders. That is why you see things like stubborn fights for points of observation or a few important terrain obstacles (river crossings, major cities), coupled with regular movement of the front by miles per day elsewhere.

There are cases when you find battalions losing the hundreds in a single outing you see regularly in CM. But they were regarded as bloody failures, not as successes. And they were rare. Which is obvious enough - no force can lose a third of its members in a single day in the midst of a war lasting years.

There wouldn't be anyone left at the end of a week. Divisions in action had to last months before rebuilding, which means battalions in action had to last several weeks, at a minimum. Getting one destroyed every day or two to take 500 yards at a time would not count as success.

[JasonC]

One fellow asked for an example of defense schemes applied to Yelna Stare. I can give a sample.

I give up the small flag on the right front. It is too far forward, with approaches close to it with scattered tree cover, sufficient to firefight into the cover there. Also plenty of brush to approach, and long lines of sight due to the lie of the ground.

Instead, I notice that it is relatively hard to advance closer from that spot once gained. There is the wide marsh ahead, channeling anyone who reaches that flag toward the center. The next body of cover is the center objective. Between is open ground, a good kill zone. So live defenders in the center position will block any further progress from the right flag area.

I still have to think about how to defend that center location once attackers reach the right flag body of cover. Since they would have decent cover there at a reasonable range to defenders in the center objective, I need HE to be part of that plan. So I will put the 2 light FOs in the center objective with a view to the right objective.

So now the plan for the right is, let them into the first flag, stop them from proceeding further via infantry blocking positions in the center objective, and when or if they accumulate in the right flag area, drop my limited available arty on them in those trees.

To further defend the crossing zone between the right flag and the center, I put an HMG position back behind the marsh with a view to its left front, sweeping the open ground between the two bodies of woods. The position is meant to be far enough back to remain a sound contact to attackers in the right objective area. It also covers the marshland, very difficult to pass if under even minimal fire.

I have thereby "held" the right third of the map, as much as I intend to anyway, with an HMG and 2 FOs. The attackers should get one flag there, but at the cost of few good options forward for the troops that reach that position, and some loss from FOs.

For the rest of the map, there are two main positions. The center objective area, and the left side large woods. The left side large wood is the kind of terrain defenders look for. It is big, easy to withdraw into, hard to locate all the defenders. The left side of it is on a reverse slope, while the tongue of trees forward to the right act as a "bastion" with forward slope views of the open ground ahead of the position.

So the basis of the defense is three held areas - left reverse slope woods, forward "tongue", and center woods. The 2 former are connected, with the same fall back position - the woods interior. The 2 latter are "up" positions with views of wide areas of open ground, and therefore mutually supporting by fire rather than by repositioning.

So naturally, the ranged weapons go in the two latter positions - HMGs and PAK. Some infantry is needed in the center "block", so one platoon goes there. The company HQ can be used to command a 4th platoon, or a heavy weapons position with optional squad attachment, or in the interior of the left side woods to facilitate rally and shifting of troops from left to right. Tank hunter teams go in the woods on the left.

The route between tongue and the center is thus the point of PAK cross fire, and thus the most heavily defended against tanks. The woods on the left block tank movement forward, and tank hunter teams provide a limited AT ability against tanks coming right up to the tree line. The main anti-tank measure on that side, however, is just to withdraw into the woods if necessary, breaking LOS. On the right, the marsh forms an anti-tank barrier.

This scheme does leave one route around the AT defense. Between the right flag and the center, tanks could pass, and circle the center objective area between it and the marsh. I tolerate the weakness because it should not be obvious it is the right route, and because I hope to be able to strip infantry off any tanks that head that way. If any still make it, the PAK in the tongue area can turn to face them.

Notice that the HMGs behind the marsh and in the tongue area can cross their fires in the open ground between the conceeded right flag objective and the center one. This is an important principle of defense - that positions interlock.

The idea is to avoid a situation where smashing the troops immediately ahead of the attackers allows free movement forward by those attackers. That allows local concentration to beat the defenders in sequence. With interlocked heavy weapons fire, an attack has to get forward in one spot to help one forward someplace else, and that spreads the attackers.

The infantry defenders in the center woods area plan to remain in hiding. They are potentially subject to overwatching tanks. They also will need their ammo to defeat frontal or right flank attacks over the open ground ahead of them, at close range.

The one HMG stationed there can provide long range pinning fire until enemies get close enough for a full ID, but after that will be in danger from tanks. To minimize this, it is placed on the left side of the woods area, not on the front edge. Notice, this will also tend to "invite" tanks forward into the area both PAK can see, trying to get LOS to the HMGs.

The FOs in the center woods also provide a "stealthy" means of hitting things, without providing targets to tanks. The 50mm mortars can also go there with the like idea, or they can go back with the HMG behind the marsh, or they can split between those and the tongue.

The infantry in the tongue area can afford to fire off some of its ammo at range, into open ground, to slow the attackers. Until tanks get close, that is. They can rotate positions with the other infantry in the left woods, and with more infantry defenders there the ammo discipline problem for each is less stringent.

Now put on the other side's hat and you can see that it is a workable defense scheme. It is possible to approach on the left, but doing so will face first a little harassing HMG fire from tongue and center, then a reverse slope defense of infantry in woods, in multiple platoon strength. Attacking straight into that with infantry over open ground will fail.

Tanks can mass opposite the woodline, but must get quite close to do so given the slope. Even then, they only drive defenders deeper into the woods - infantry must still go in and get them. During which it the tanks will not be able to help.

Attacking straight at the "tongue" area is possible. It is at least a place tanks can overwatch, where defenders are somewhat "cover limited" as to numbers. The idea would be tank overwatch and shelling of the tongue "area fire", then a convergent infantry advance. While this might work, it would draw fire from either side in the last bit of open ground approach. The defenders would withdraw into the left side woods. Success would put attacking infantry in the "tongue", but in the midst of all the defending infantry - and possibly under mortar fire.

The right flag can be reached relatively easily, with only a little HMG and rifle fire from the tongue area holding up the approach. From there, infantry can overwatch toward the center woods. But then somebody else must advance. The open ground between the right flag and the center woods is not a fun spot for infantry. And movement into that area will be the signal for arty to rain on the right objective itself.

The approach most likely to succeed would be some combination of the tongue operation and the right side flag, coordinating the moves forward and trying to silence tongue and center woods areas in turn, with the tanks. But the bulk of the defense will have to be fought for that to work. Only one platoon of defenders are left out, off in the left woods. And they have a covered route to support the tongue, or behind that on the side of the woods facing the center area, to do a "right face" if the center woods should fall.

The attackers can still win obviously. But they will have to fight essentially all the defenders to do so, the defenders have options to break contact and shelter over on the left. Meanwhile the attacking infantry faces arty wherever they can reach cover and a combination of long range HMG and short range infantry fire over patches of open ground to get there.

For what it is worth.

[ April 16, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Jason makes a very good point about casualties. No unit would find the casualties you see in a typical CM battle acceptable. Anything over about 15 percent is considered excessive and anything over 30 renders a unit officially combat ineffective.

Yes units are expected to be able to finish an objective and then proceed on to the next one. This normally follows a pause to reload and reform but this does not entail the replacement of casualties.

One of the major criticisms of the NTC and the U.S. Army's other training facilities is that units are willing to sustain much higher casualties than they would in actual combat. Often entire units are wiped out to take a single objective. In real life this would get a commander cashiered.

The effects of casualties on combat effectiveness is one of the most poorly modelled aspects of any military simulation. Consider that the wounding of one man is enough to put half a squad out of action to help him (yes even during a fight). If the casualty system actually matched historical reality the casualties in a normal CM battle would be measured in a few tens for the majority of battles rather than the hundreds that we tend to see now.

[JasonC]

It is possible to play CM with a gentleman's agreement rule that simulates low loss tolerance, instead of reckless commitment of forces.

The way it works is each side before the fight has an agreed global morale "floor". 65 is a good number for regulars or medium troop quality. It could be 70 for low quality greens, 60 for vets, as low as 50 for an all crack-elite force representing commandos or what-not.

Then during the game, each player is under the following obligation. During his orders phase, he must look and see whether his global morale is under his "floor" limit. If it is, then he *must* use the "prepare for cease-fire" option. If it is not (he is still above the limit), then he may choose to use "prepare for cease fire", or not, just as in normal games. This obligation recurs every turn.

If both players drop below their floor, then a cease fire necessarily results, the first turn the second player is below his threshold.

If only one player has dropped below his threshold, the other player effectively has a choice whether to continue fighting or not. If he wants to end the fight immediately, it is in his power to do so (though he may not be sure of it, not knowing the other side's current global morale). He just freely chooses "prepare for cease fire".

Thus an attacker who goes over his threshold may be forced to "break off the attack". Or a defender to "retreat". But victory is calculated long before annihilation, based on flags already held and damage already inflicted.

This should make fights at more realistic odds feasible, without annihilation resulting. It should also make for much more careful play. It is one thing to only lose VPs because your losses are high - you can always just drive enemy losses up too and call it even. It is another thing, though, to lose control over the time the battle ends.

If you find a given size fight is too tenative under such rules, just increase the scale slightly. You will be able to afford losing a portion of your (larger) force. But you better get something critical for them, or you hand the "end game or not" decision to your opponent - perhaps after you "paid" your losses but before you "collected" on flags changing hands.

I hope this is interesting.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Originally posted by sgtgoody:

The effects of casualties on combat effectiveness is one of the most poorly modelled aspects of any military simulation. Consider that the wounding of one man is enough to put half a squad out of action to help him (yes even during a fight).

This is an interesting point from a strategy perspective. It seems like it would be advantageous to wound an enemy soldier instead of kill him. If he is wounded, the rest of the squad will be distracted attempting to help him. If he were killed outright, there would clearly be morale effects on the squad, but a disciplined team would be able to return immediately to their military objective. On the other hand, a wounded soldier could potentially return to fight another day.

Did any of the strategists or weapons designers take this into account in WW2? I suspect that this philosophy was part of the booby-traps and other maiming devices in Vietnam. If the difference between a wounded or dead enemy does play a critical role strategically, then CM should calculate "kills vs. casualties" before the end of the game and allow the squad to react accordingly.

I'm interested in the opinions from any of the more knowledgable readers of this forum.

Thanks,

Dr. Rosenrosen

[PeterX]

JassonC posted:

It is possible to play CM with a gentleman's agreement rule that simulates low loss tolerance, instead of reckless commitment of forces.

It's a mystery that BFC didn't include, in CMBB, a way for players/designers to adjust Globale Morale threshholds on a battle per battle basis.

[JasonC]

Peter X - while I for one asked for it, but it wasn't included. Perhaps they just didn't have time. I miss it most for AI fights, because with humans I don't mind depending on my opponent's good faith on such a subject. It would be nice to have it implimented by the machine directly (as a scenario parameter, akin to setting fanaticism levels) to avoid cases of honest forgetfulness and to allow limited loss games against the AI.

[PeterX]

Peter X - while I for one asked for it, but it wasn't included. Perhaps they just didn't have time.

Yes, it's one of those simple enhancements whose absence is rather baffling given- one supposes- the minimal coding required. Like the option to send out blind first turn PBEM files.