CMBO Optional Rule - Limited Losses

[JasonC]

On the "loss tolerance" thread, Moon explained that in CMBB there will be a new "force readiness" feature that effects the chance of a battle ending early, influenced by global morale, ammo states etc. Which sounds great and which I can't wait to see. I thought of a simple way to impliment a rougher version of such a system in CMBO, by mutual consent of the players. Which I propose here as an optional scenario or QB setting, to be used or not as the players stipulate beforehand. I give the procedure and then explain the motivation.

If a game is agreed to be "limited losses", then at the start of each turn each player looks at his global morale indicator. If it is below 50, then that turn he must choose the "ceasefire request" option. If it is 50 or more, he can use or not use the ceasefire request option normally.

That is it. A very simple rule. What effect does it have? Well, if both players take reasonably high losses they will each see their global morale drop below the threshold. Since each must choose "cease fire" if below it, this will end the game early in an agreed ceasefire. Well before both forces are destroyed to the last man.

Meanwhile, if only one side has been forced below the 50% global morale level, his opponent effectively has the option of continuing the fight or ending it early. Since he is free to choose "ceasefire" or not. A defender who still holds the flags e.g. might want to end the battle, and if the attacker is sufficiently messed up this would let him. The attacker losses effectively make his force "break off the attack". While if the defender is badly messed up, the attacker and choose to stop by picking "ceasefire". The defender's losses have notionally "forced him to retreat".

The idea is to make players a bit more cautious about losses, and to provide an alternate way of ending the game short of the time limit or annihilation of one side or the other. In the real war, forces often retreated or broke off their attacks well short of utter destruction.

This way of implimenting the idea may not be perfect, and undoubtedly the system in CMBB will be an improvement. But it is a very simple system to impliment. And it can be used for CMBO battles, right now, if the players agree. Just specify in your game conditions "limited losses" or "no loss limits", the same as you'd now specify "short 75" or "panther-76", and the like.

Comments welcome, and AAR reports on using the idea even more welcome.

[Viceroy]

JasonC,

I've been following the threads on this and it sounds interesting and easy to implement. But is it fair to use the same numbers for ME's, probes, attacks and assaults?

[JasonC]

I think so, on the basic principle of keeping it simple. Global morale runs as a percentage, and larger forces have to lose more before it drops. So the different relative odds of those fights will marginally effect the loss tolerance.

Obviously, players could negotiate different levels - higher or lower for both sides, or "handicapped" by one side having a lower loss tolerance than the other. Scenario designers might use such things.

But all of that seems to me unnecessarily complicated, for an agreed on QB setting. You don't want a negotiation over it, you want a reasonable all purpose setting that is fixed beforehand, and either used or not.

50% is a big enough drop from the start that you aren't going to get pushed there by trivial events. But it is high enough above the auto-surrender levels that it will have a meaningful effect on game end events.

It is also easy to remember and to relate to intuitively - "don't lose or rout the bulk of your force, or there will be consequences". "57% for probes" or what-not, would not have those qualities.

[Wreck]

A great idea! It could be very useful in a campaign format. Hmm...

[JasonC]

Very good point, Wreck. Indeed, in a campaign format you might have loss tolerances even lower than 50 (which is still pretty robust, after all). Then you'd expect more repeat fights at the same or nearby locations, but each more tenative, less "to the death" than typical CM fights today. Campaigns provide a player incentive to preserve forces (although there can ba a breakdown between what the operational commander desires and what the tactical commander actually executes). But this provides a harder, game-ending way of enforcing that. The retreat and break off levels can also help decide who gets the fight location on an operational map, and that sort of thing.

[Sheck]

JasonC,

Actually we have seen a different situation in CMMC1. Force preservation is important, but most players have a tendency to sustain high losses.

Some of the reasons (in no particular order) are:

* Desire to win. Few players like to withdrawal to preserve forces as many will think they can 'win' and continue to fight until it is painfully obvious their best resolution is a limited draw.

* Tendency to hold whatever ground they occupy regardless of the operational benefits. In simple terms, similar to previous reason, most player hate to withdrawal.

* Its easy to fight...virtual soldiers feel no pain and have limited morale. The result is that casaulties tend to be high because it is just a game without real consequences.

* In a similar vain - it is a game. So many players do NOT want ot play if they have to subscribe to more realistic actions i.e. typically taking 10% casualties was considered high and was NOT the norm. All of us know of situations with sigifigantly higher casaulties, but these were uncommon. So everyone 'considers' their fight - one of those situaitons.

* Lack of casualty implications - we had these and people freaked out for reasons above. They also beleived the GMs should not intervene (this has merit). So most casaulty restrictions and penalites were removed.

Interestingly, game behavior dominated historical or realistic behavior.

Sheck

[NightGaunt]

Originally posted by Sheck:

JasonC,

Actually we have seen a different situation in CMMC1. Force preservation is important, but most players have a tendency to sustain high losses.

Some of the reasons (in no particular order) are:

* Desire to win. Few players like to withdrawal to preserve forces as many will think they can 'win' and continue to fight until it is painfully obvious their best resolution is a limited draw.

* Tendency to hold whatever ground they occupy regardless of the operational benefits. In simple terms, similar to previous reason, most player hate to withdrawal.

* Its easy to fight...virtual soldiers feel no pain and have limited morale. The result is that casaulties tend to be high because it is just a game without real consequences.

* In a similar vain - it is a game. So many players do NOT want ot play if they have to subscribe to more realistic actions i.e. typically taking 10% casualties was considered high and was NOT the norm. All of us know of situations with sigifigantly higher casaulties, but these were uncommon. So everyone 'considers' their fight - one of those situaitons.

* Lack of casualty implications - we had these and people freaked out for reasons above. They also beleived the GMs should not intervene (this has merit). So most casaulty restrictions and penalites were removed.

Interestingly, game behavior dominated historical or realistic behavior.

Sheck

for the love of god don't bring cmmc into this argument. This has been discussed to death in cmmc terms and doesn't need to be re addressed in yet another forum. There are plenty of people who agree with what you have stated. I on the other hand believe that although force preservation is a problem; the reasons you have listed are in the VAST minority. Especially reason #1.

[NightGaunt]

please don't bring cmmc into this argument. This has been discussed to death in cmmc terms and doesn't need to be re addressed in yet another forum. There are plenty of people who agree with what you have stated. I on the other hand believe that although force preservation is a problem; the reasons you have listed are in the VAST minority. Especially reason #1.

I have stated many times that the reason people exceed "realistic" (whatever that may be, it changes/battle) is they don't have the EXPIRIENCE and KNOWLEDGE when to withdraw.

thats it, thats the main reason. I've witnessed probably 25-30 cmmc battles, and any time this question has come up it has been one side not RECOGNIZING their situation and REALIZING it is time to call it quits.

also, i would put forth that the players that do have the exp/knowledge are the players that are having the most "success" in cmmc terms. Their units are still capable of effective combat operations where most players that don't have shambles left of their units.

[ June 06, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: NightGaunt ]

[TigerChow]

It seems to me that a big factor in the fight to the death is that as long as a player thinks he can win, he will continually sacrifice his troops. Unless the game is a draw, somebody will end up winning.

How about this idea - instead of accounting for all 100 points to either player at the end, why not limit allowable points based on your losses? The total points between players needn't add up to 100, although 50 points would be still needed to "win" the game. Depending on how much losses a player takes, he might not get enough points to win even if he has all of the victory locations.

I suppose though that this wouldn't work too well for those tournament type situations in which someone has to win to get points, but for two guys who want to duke it out somewhat more realistically, it might have some merit.

Of course, any implementation like this would not make it into the next CM release...

Tiger Chow

[JasonC]

Loss limits are a form of unit morale, not a form of victory condition. Just as a CM squad can panic and stop responding to orders, or become cautious and react only with delays, a CM force can retreat, or be unwilling to press attacks home. Morale effects are not limited to groups of 2-10 men. Whole companies and battalions also experience morale effects. Global morale tracks that sort of thing very well, it just doesn't use it for much in CMBO until basement levels (autosurrender). The idea is to use it sooner, with less drastic but still important results. Just as a CM squad has states besides "feed me more nails" and "I surrender". It doesn't have anything to do with victory conditions.

[NightGaunt]

JasonC

I see where you are trying to get with this. I don't think it works with a VP based game.

Because VP based games are made to be "even" ie the points are structed so that the attacker/defender is realitively even, you end up with absurd amounts of casualties.

the reason: the points are set to EVEN OUT the attacker/defender.

If you want more "reasistic" levels of casualties in a game, I would recommend the following as a solution that works for me.

1. NO VP flags.

2. No force selection

3. 3rd party created scenario with the idea being meeting objectives.

4. 3rd party AAR to help decide the final "winner" of a battle.

Basically, a 3rd party creates a battle, the forces don't have to be even or even close to even (one i played had 14,000 pt attack vs 1,300 pt defender), I played as defender and "won"

how? well in that particualr battle, the attacker, playing germans, was tasked with breaking thru a town as quickly as possible while minimizing damage to his armored forces. He had a BN of mechanized inf, a BN of Recce units, and a BN of Armor, total of over 100 armored vehicles and a whole lot of infantry.

I, as defender, had some AT guns, 1 coy of inf, and a green sherman. I was tasked with slowing him down as much as possible BUT I needed to preserve the AT guns and get them offmap.

He had 1 main route out of heavy woods, along a road, and a minor route thru light woods off of that same road. Then it opened into some fields and finally the city. So he had limited approaches for his vehicles. The map was 2kmx2km.

I was able to get almost my entire force off map, slowed him (he took 30 out of 40 turns) and did some decent damage, i got 2 tanks, a couple of ACs, and 6+ HTs, maybe a platoon of inf.

After the 3rd party took into account the setup and awarded me a victory. Now, if he had taken maybe 30 turns, he probably would have got the victory because he accomplished clearing the map, he just took to long.

hmm,this post ended up being long, sorry wasn't trying to preach, just give another idea.

[JasonC]

Of course it works in a VP based game. The forces needn't be mashed together as hard as possible. That one side or the other wins does not force to the death fighting. Neither does forces being relatively even.

Relatively even forces could play cat and mouse and nibble at each other, or mash together so hard only a few on one side remain standing. The former might be relatively uninteresting; the latter is certainly completely unhistorical. Right now CMBO errs on the latter side, pretty clearly.

Which is one reason such a system is going to be in CMBB ("force readiness", based on global morale, ammo, etc), as Moon mentioned on another thread on the subject. The point of the optional rule is to allow players to use a crude version of that idea in CMBO too.

Nothing to do with balance between the sides or victory. It is just a matter of getting overall force morale more nearly correct. Modeling overall morale too high always results in excess losses compared to historical results, because it *rewards* mashing forces together harder than the participants were actually willing to be mashed together.

Just using greens doesn't address it entirely (although it does help some) because that leaves morale only relevant at the level of individual units. Which leaves the "second half" of the units in the force essentially as willing to eat nails as it was before anyone was hit.

This is a very old, common, well understood game design issue for grand tactical games. Unit morale rules alone do not scale directly to higher echelon morale effects. The bigger the aggregate of units, the tougher it fights with the same unit morale settings, if only those are used to model morale.

This is why the late 70s era Terrible Swift Sword game system (source of the Battleground Series on computers) already had a "brigade combat effectiveness" system, in addition to individual unit rout results. To make a brigade that had been messed up brittle, even the fresher regiments among it.

Something, incidentally, that the Battleground series neglected to copy over to the computer version, with the predictable result that large BG games also show unrealistically high losses. They thought their new "fatigue" system would have the same morale-lowering effect. But that was tied to individual units too, so it didn't.

BTS had the right idea with global morale and autosurrender, but only addressed the complete collapse case in CMBO. In CMBB, Moon says there will be more, which is great. This optional rule lets players put more such morale effects into CMBO too, if they agree to do so beforehand.

[ June 07, 2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[sbg2112]

Good idea.... I'm gonna start using the rule and if there's any interesting outcomes as a result I'll post 'em....

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Which is one reason such a system is going to be in CMBB ("force readiness", based on global morale, ammo, etc), as Moon mentioned on another thread on the subject. The point of the optional rule is to allow players to use a crude version of that idea in CMBO too.

BTS had the right idea with global morale and autosurrender, but only addressed the complete collapse case in CMBO. In CMBB, Moon says there will be more, which is great. This optional rule lets players put more such morale effects into CMBO too, if they agree to do so beforehand.

Hey Jason, what thread did Moon mention this about global morale? I think this would be a tremendous addition to CMBB if the global morale actually had an effect prior to autosurrender. Can you give me a link?

[JasonC]

The thread is from about 5 days ago and was titled "Late CMBB feature request - loss tolerance". Moon wrote -

posted June 03, 2002 06:32 PM

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

All I can say at this point is that CMBB has a "force readiness" feature, which, additional to Global Morale, determines the possibility for a premature ending of a battle. It's tied to ammo levels and the type of battle played (assault vs. attack vs. probe vs. meeting engagement)...

Martin

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

"Nobody dies."

- When Trumpets Fade

I hope this helps.