Strength losses besides casualties

[JasonC]

I was reading some quite detailed Korean combat reports today, cases where operations researchers interviewed everyone they could find and elaborately reconstructed the flow of a battle, down to the timing of losses from each company taking part to fifteen minute intervals, the works. And one fact they discovered struck me, that I know has been discussed before, but I wonder how well it is actually handled by CM. Maybe x2 can improve it.

Here is the basic story. An understrength US battalion took a hill during the fighting at the Pusan perimeter in the fall of 1950. Two companies led the attack, the third line company followed with the weapons company.

They were pinned down by mortar fire on the ridge, eventually made it up with help from their own mortars, arty, and air hitting the defenders, and kept the place. Quite high losses (they were hit hard by 120mm mortars in particular) with the attempt pushed very hard, harder than the op researcher's statistics showed was usual, because it was a critical objective in the pace of the overall battle (weeks). (Their other investigations showed most attacks that sustained 1/6th losses gave up and withdrew).

351 men went up the hill that morning. There were 118 casualties. 80 effectives remained at the top of the hill when it was taken, from all companies combined (not just the first two e.g.).

153 out of 351 men who jumped off, were not hurt, but also were not around at the top, at the end.

Only 5 of these were combat stress cases, shell shock.

41 were carried as "missing" that evening, but none ended up as MIA that day when the final accounting was done. So these were not lost bodies, nor prisoners.

That leaves 107 men who were in the attack (not LOB e.g.), were not hit, did not persist to the top, but also were not missing that evening. That is 30% of those engaged and roughly equal to the men hurt. With more than 10% additional, (temporarily) "missing" without being PW or lost KIA.

So what happened to them, the 107? Answer, they did not enjoy being under 120mm mortar fire, did not climb the hill, but also were not willing to leave their units. They *found useful work* to do that *got them out* of the barrage zone. They carried down the wounded, and didn't hurry back. They fetched ammo - as far as the weapon companies at least. They carried messages - to the rear. What they didn't do was come back and help at the summit. Nor did they simply desert on the field.

The 41 missing did something closer to deserting on the field. They tried to avoid the mortar fire by leaving the barrage zone, whichever way they could. Down the slope, off to the sides. They hid, basically, finding whatever scraps of cover and avoiding their own NCOs as avidly as they avoided the enemy. Later they would rejoin their units.

In CM today, we have units that rout, certainly. Whole unit remainders. If they stay routed clear to the end of the fight, or rout off the map, they approximate the second class, the temporarily missing. Arguably there aren't enough of them, but it is something the game tries to model.

The non-casualty trickle of creative work finding danger avoiders, on the other hand, would appear to be underrepresented.

Here is one way they might be handled. Whenever a unit goes into pinned morale or worse, one man leaves the squad. It can stay there as long as it likes, no additional loss. If it rallies back to green, great. But if knocked back into pinned or worse, another single soldier leaves.

It is a proposal. Comments welcome.

[Michael Dorosh]

Authenticity mavens rejoice, ladder players cringe in agony.

[juan_gigante]

I think this is a great thing to be modeled, and would add a lot to realism. But I'm not sure about a strict "pinned, one guy takes off" system. It just seems a little formulaic and unflexible. I don't have any better ideas, but there are probably some out there.

[stoat]

I don't think one man per pin is accurate. The longer a unit remains pinned or worse, the more likely the men would be to leave. If rate of incoming fire and length of pin or worse were also taken into effect, it might be a better reflection. For example, heavy artillery barrage would have a worse effect than a single MG. Experience would also be a factor, too. For example, a man only leaves a veteran unit when panicked, crack when routed.

Also, if a unit goes no worse than pin they should not automatically lose a man, but there should be some kind of random system to determine if someone leaves.

Imagine leading a green platoon across a fairly open map, only to find at the end of the movement you have 6 fewer men, and only two casualties. This is something that should at least be thought about.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Interesting concept for CMx2 JasonC, makes me wonder if deserters could be depicted, ie blokes throwing away their sidearms etc. It might be something that could simulate the effect of NKVD squads with submacine-guns keeping Ivans advancing. Also I have read of many times and seen (The Enemy at the Gates) Russians being given 1 rifle between two and as low a distribution as 1 rifle per 5 concripts esp during the first two years on the Eastern Front, I would like to be able to simulate that, may as some sort of penal Battlion which these half armed or less charges seem to have mostly been. It would be a bit morbid but it apparently happen often enough and sometimes included an equivalent to the rum ration for going over the top - a stiff dose of vodka! :eek:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stoat:

I don't think one man per pin is accurate. The longer a unit remains pinned or worse, the more likely the men would be to leave. If rate of incoming fire and length of pin or worse were also taken into effect, it might be a better reflection. For example, heavy artillery barrage would have a worse effect than a single MG. Experience would also be a factor, too. For example, a man only leaves a veteran unit when panicked, crack when routed.

Also, if a unit goes no worse than pin they should not automatically lose a man, but there should be some kind of random system to determine if someone leaves.

Imagine leading a green platoon across a fairly open map, only to find at the end of the movement you have 6 fewer men, and only two casualties. This is something that should at least be thought about.

Sometimes they go to ground and just stay there, though. Running shouldn't be the only possible reaction. Especially if they find really great cover and get out of earshot of their leadership, they find a hole and just "set awhile."

[JasonC]

It isn't running. It isn't lurid tales of battlefield executions, rare in all armies. It is the perfectly ordinary, everyday practice of avoiding the most hazardous duty, without avoiding all duties.

There is a reason 19th century officers worried themselves sick over the problem of "control" when the necessary move to fully open order tactics was made, to avoid enemy artillery fire.

As for the rate at which it typically happens, it is apparently about as common as actual casualties. I have incidentally read of the same phenomenon as early as the Boer war - read Churchill on Spion Kop, for instance. (On his way up he met many coming down, only half of them wounded. He passed others "in deep sleep" - in the middle of a firefight, but on a reverse slope).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It isn't running. It isn't lurid tales of battlefield executions, rare in all armies. It is the perfectly ordinary, everyday practice of avoiding the most hazardous duty, without avoiding all duties.

There is a reason 19th century officers worried themselves sick over the problem of "control" when the necessary move to fully open order tactics was made, to avoid enemy artillery fire.

As for the rate at which it typically happens, it is apparently about as common as actual casualties. I have incidentally read of the same phenomenon as early as the Boer war - read Churchill on Spion Kop, for instance. (On his way up he met many coming down, only half of them wounded. He passed others "in deep sleep" - in the middle of a firefight, but on a reverse slope).

There are a million reasons to avoid shooting at the enemy, from the sublime to the ridiculous. I am sure that many Marines on Guadalcanal were hors de combat due to malaria, dystentery, and the need to ****. There is something to be said in such cases for a little abstraction. Are we really sure that the present rate of casualty taking in CM does not adequately reflect these "other" cases? And how would you ever quantify such things as Private Bloggins deciding that he can get away with lugging ammo canisters from the company quartermaster, or walking with a buddy who took a shrapnel sliver in the foot?

I take your point, and in some limited way I've done some of the very things you describe whilst on exercise, but the question is - how would you arrive at a figure, and how would you do differently the way CM does it now (ie by making guys simply disappear from the map)?

[JasonC]

Just as now you have 7 (+) 2 unit strengths, you'd have 6 (+) 2 (-) 1, for a unit with 2 men hit and one elsewhere. In ops, the "elsewheres" would all come back automatically. They would not yield any knock out points. They would effect global morale, but perhaps only half as much as actual losses.

Incidentally, I do not read the deep sleepers at Spion Kop as evidence of people simply doing whatever they please or something else, or as left out of battle that day. No, the fight went on for hours, it was a hot day with little water, men hauled wounded down and ammo up a steep stony hill repeatedly, etc. They were on adrenline overload continually. Some of them must have been utterly exhausted. They slept after collapsing in a moment when they were free from immediate danger for the first time in hours...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Just as now you have 7 (+) 2 unit strengths, you'd have 6 (+) 2 (-) 1, for a unit with 2 men hit and one elsewhere. In ops, the "elsewheres" would all come back automatically. They would not yield any knock out points. They would effect global morale, but perhaps only half as much as actual losses.

Reasonable - but I can't see a reason to model them in a battle. (Sorry for not using the "new" terminology, I know "operations" is out - I think? - but will continue with the old CM terminology for now.) Might be mildly useful in between battles of an op, but you could calculate that as a strict percentage, the way KIA stats are calculated now.

Unless there is some other advantage to tracking them inside a battle that I am not getting?

It's a perfectly valid point and would be a nice nod to historical accuracy, but I'm not sure what practical benefit there would be to dividing strength losses between casualties and other, with the exception of the above.

[JasonC]

They would have different cause profiles. Repeated shock and rally, shock and rally, would bleed a unit of men regardless of direct losses. They have different VP profiles for another. Men hit give knock out points, men who simply slip off would not. Realism for a third. Loss rates and battle results might be closer to normal.

[Pirx]

For the men who go "elsewhere" during the fighting, where is this "elsewhere"? It doesnt seem right to have them simply vanish from the battlefield into thin air, particularly if the vanished do not count towards casualty points. Instead they should still be present and able to become casualties at a later point from artillery fire, etc. If they are graphically represented there will be a lot of single individuals on the battlefield, twiddling their thumbs, which might get too visually complicated.

[JasonC]

Pirx - typically they have left the battlefield, actually. They carry wounded to the rear and take their time about coming back. Same acting as a messenger, or fetching water or ammo. They might do one run that way and then linger during the next until they think the fight is over. They get out of the area of danger, under cover of plausible non-combat duties. That is the whole point.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The non-casualty trickle of creative work finding danger avoiders, on the other hand, would appear to be underrepresented.

Here is one way they might be handled. Whenever a unit goes into pinned morale or worse, one man leaves the squad. It can stay there as long as it likes, no additional loss. If it rallies back to green, great. But if knocked back into pinned or worse, another single soldier leaves.

It is a proposal. Comments welcome.

Sounds GREAT!

In CMx2 we will see each man

NOW it would be great if a the appropriate "ratio" or number of these types of "lolly gagging" activities could be modeled!

I would fully support EVERY effort to model such acitivity and behaviour.

It should be a little more random and more unpredictable then you have suggested but some form of game mechanism should be in the game to make some men do everything except actually break and run to "avoid" the fight or actually "engage" the enemy (or risk their necks!).

I like it!

I hope we can see something like that on an individual basis in CMx2

BUT to be honest I think that might perhaps be a degree of fidelity one notch beyond what they might want to, (or plan to) "give" us in CMx2. (A little like Spinal Tap, you would have to turn the realism and fidelity meter up to 11 when CMx2 might only go up to 9.0- 9.5 in its first release....

BUT I could be wrong.

-tom w

[ August 22, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Pirx - typically they have left the battlefield, actually. They carry wounded to the rear and take their time about coming back. Same acting as a messenger, or fetching water or ammo. They might do one run that way and then linger during the next until they think the fight is over. They get out of the area of danger, under cover of plausible non-combat duties. That is the whole point.

I think the whole point Pirx is making is that messengers and ammo bearers are not immune to shellfire, infiltrators, sniper fire, long range machineguns, heavy salvoes or terminal syphilis....the usual things...

In other words, they should still have the capacity to become casualties even though not nominally under the player's command.

[JonS]

And the point Jason is making is that these 'messengers' and 'ammo bearers' were doing those tasks at half speed, making sure they stayed out of harms way.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

And the point Jason is making is that these 'messengers' and 'ammo bearers' were doing those tasks at half speed, making sure they stayed out of harms way.

I didn't realize safe places were so easy to find in "F" Echelon....are we saying that bomb-proof (as they used to say) duty was really so easy to find? I rather doubt it, myself. Safer duty, yes, but not - if this is what is being argued - 100 percent safe. I would think that stuff like moving wounded back or ammo forward would be just as hazardous - perhaps even moreso - than manning a trench "up front". eh?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would think that stuff like moving wounded back or ammo forward would be just as hazardous - perhaps even moreso - than manning a trench "up front".

Only if one is actually moving around.

And you know damned well there is no such thing as 100% safe. There is no need to trivialise.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would think that stuff like moving wounded back or ammo forward would be just as hazardous - perhaps even moreso - than manning a trench "up front".

Only if one is actually moving around.

And you know damned well there is no such thing as 100% safe. There is no need to trivialise. </font>

[JonS]

I'm agnostic, but it basically sounds ok. Though, if implemented, I can just imagine all the complaints about sections melting under fire yet not suffering any cas

As for implementation, basically what Jason said: some variation based on the pin/rout/rally cycle. Either:

1) lose a man each pin/rally cycle, or

2) some % chance of losing a man each pin/rally cycle, or

3) lose a man each rout/rally cycle, or

4) some % chance of losing a man each pin/rally cycle, plus lose a man each rout/rally cycle, or

5) etc ...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Though, if implemented, I can just imagine all the complaints about sections melting under fire yet not suffering any cas

It would be realistic, but yes, for many players it would be a cold douche and they would howl. Which in fact is a very good reason for including it.

Michael

[dalem]

I like the idea in principle as far as the simulation aspect goes, but I can see it being a real downer on the game aspect.

Maybe it could be turned on or off like we do starting casualties now?

-dale

[Soddball]

It certainly doesn't sound any fun to play.

"Okay, 1st squad dig in here, and shoot anything that comes over that treeline".

"I'm just going to get some ammo, sarge."

"Me too."

"Captain wants me back at base."

"I got a note from my mum."

Sarge stands around on his own whilst entire squad wanders off. JasonC rejoices at the realism, and sales of Space Lobsters of Doom plunge to 1.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Pirx - typically they have left the battlefield, actually. They carry wounded to the rear and take their time about coming back. Same acting as a messenger, or fetching water or ammo. They might do one run that way and then linger during the next until they think the fight is over. They get out of the area of danger, under cover of plausible non-combat duties. That is the whole point.

On a small map, yes. On larger maps, I don't think so. On a 4x4km ops map there are plenty of places to get out of the way of immediately impending doom by taking some unscheduled leave without losing the opportunity to get killed by indirect means, such as airstrikes, or artillery, and without leaving the map.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by JasonC:

...I have incidentally read of the same phenomenon as early as the Boer war - read Churchill on Spion Kop, for instance. (On his way up he met many coming down, only half of them wounded. He passed others "in deep sleep" - in the middle of a firefight, but on a reverse slope).

I believe it's called Spioen Kop, directly translated meaning "spy (as in I'm spying on you) knoll"

Jason, still marveling at your typing skills though...

As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore.

[ August 23, 2005, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]