Late CMBB Feature Request - Loss Tolerance

[JasonC]

I realize it is probably too late for anything like this idea to be included in CMBB, but I can hope. The reason I would like to see it is to address the often "to the last man" bloodiness of CM fights. I have thought about the problem, and it seems to me CM has all the tools to address it, it a way that would be optional enough that players could make it practically as free or restrictive as they like. Those who like the present way of things need not change anything.

The idea is to have each side in each scenario assigned a "loss tolerance" rating in the scenario set up phase. This is tied to global morale, calculated the same way as it is today. But instead of nothing happening until global morale hits the basement, and then an autosurrender, things would happen much sooner but be less drastic.

The easiest system would just have a "break off attack" level for the attacker, and a "retreat" level for the defender. When global morale falls below the tolerance figure, that side breaks off the attack or retreats. Which would work much like the "offer ceasefire" option does now. If the other side "accepts", the scenario ends without further fighting. Remaining units do not surrender and are scored as "OK". Flags on the map go to the side which did not pass its loss tolerance threshold.

So, one might have a probe scenario with the attacker loss tolerance set very low. Any serious causalties and they would break off the attack. While the defender might be willing to stand and defend the position. Or, a defender with a low loss tolerance could be used to represent a fighting withdrawl situation, with preservation of the force imperative for the defender. Setting both loss tolerances high would act just like things today, without change. Setting both some what lower would result in quicker "decisions" with less bloody overall outcomes.

A more complicated version might include additional intermediate effects from global morale, before ending the scenario. When half way to the loss tolerance, say, rally becomes slower and command delays go up. So the whole force gets a bit more sluggish. This would be nice, but harder to impliment as it means changing more things. I don't know how hard these additional effects would be to do.

An important thing about this proposal is that it extends morale effects beyond the unit fired on, in effect. Because my diagnosis of high losses in CM battles is that it does not stem from "uber-toughness" of each unit fired on, or rally that is too rapid. It is that the rest of the platoon "doesn't care" when one squad is blown away.

CM already keeps careful track of global morale. Just use that number before it goes to near zero, and much more realistic global morale effects should not be hard to capture. By making the settings scenario variables, players can tune the level of it they want, and use the settings to represent a wide variety of military situations.

I hope this is interesting, and that the idea does not come too late to be of practical use.

[Aacooper]

A different method to cut down on the tendancy to fight to last man would be, in the scenario parameters, assign a multiplier to the VP's awarded for causing casualties to the enemy.

So, one side's briefing should say something like "keep your losses light, it's a long war", then maybe they lose double, triple, or quadruple VP's for each destroyed unit. Since you shouldn't know if your opponent is penalized this way, if both sides get the same multiplier, it should produce a more realistic result. Another benefit of this, since Eastern Front battles tended to be more bloody, would be as a scenario balancer. This way, almost any historically unbalanced situation could produce a balanced scenario.

Just another thought.

[aka_tom_w]

"The idea is to have each side in each scenario assigned a "loss tolerance" rating in the scenario set up phase. This is tied to global morale, calculated the same way as it is today. But instead of nothing happening until global morale hits the basement, and then an autosurrender, things would happen much sooner but be less drastic."

Think the idea has ALOT of merit.

I doubt anything like that can be ready (if it is not already) for CMBB but perhaps it could be refined and discussed further for inclusion in CM II the engine rewrite?

I think it is good to identify that in CMBO, battles to the last man (sometimes involving whatever crews you have left) are unrealistic and certianly not exactly historically accurate.

There should be an optional mechanism to encourage the player to try to win with minimal or sustainable (?) or historically accurate (if that's possible) losses.

This however would mean that inflicting heavy losses on your opponent in a small (1500 pt) could easily trigger a retreat, withdrawl or surrender and this would likely not be a very good thing.

Something to think about for SURE

-tom w

[ June 02, 2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Louie the Toad]

Another approach, more AI complicated, would be my description in my reply to Michael Dorosh in the Scenario Talk Forum under Dynamic Flags battle.

Similar minds are gathering..... Toad

[Michael Dorosh]

I like your comments there, Louie, regarding differing "objectives" for each side. Too true! With your ideas, you would be able to have situations in which each side can "win".

I think JasonC's approach is the wrong one; I think these kinds of issues could be fixed with more flexibility in victory conditions - including conditional VPs for casualties, exit, etc.

Knowing that each one of your squads getting eliminated would cost 10 times their normal amount would force the (good) player to conserve his forces in the same manner that JasonC's artificial restraints would. Only in this case, it is the player doing the controlling, not the computer AI. Something a little more attractive for most game players.

Therefore, my counter proposal would be to allow a multiplier to knockout points, on a per unit basis.

Trying to simulate a unit with no stomach for fighting? Penalize them 10 times the knockout point rate for every unit they lose.

Want to simulate a mission where you have to get armour into position for an important counterattack (outside the scope of the current scenario)? Give the enemy 5 times the knockout points they would normally get for knocking them out, and also bump up their exit point value by a 2.5 factor, and eliminate victory points entirely for all infantry.

[ June 02, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Emrys]

I like both Jason's and Michael's suggestions.

But I would also like to see individual squads and platoons breaking sooner, but with maybe a little less in the way of permanent morale effects (the red exclamation point) than is presently the case.

Michael

[JasonC]

No, it is not about victory conditions, and multiplying knockout points does not address it. Nothing in my proposal says that the side the retreats loses the battle. They lose the flags, and may lose the battle because of it - but if they hurt the other side enough, etc, they can still win or get a draw. The point is realistic morale, not victory conditions.

Players mash their forces together far more violently than the real participants were willing to be mashed together. That is the principle cause of bloody, to the last man fights. And the reason this can happen is because one unit getting clobbered only effects the morale of the other 1-11 guys around them, never anybody else. A company that has had a platoon blown away is completely unaffected by it. That is not particularly realistic (we are not talking "crack" here).

The idea is to give scenario designers or QB players the option to put in loss tolerances. Not as ways to make killing the enemy 10 times as important as taking a flag, but as a way of stopping the battle when the participants would not realistically be willing to continue the mission at still higher losses. Forces broke off attacks or retreated under pressure far more in the real war than they do in CM today. With most of the men alive.

CM does have two mechanisms already in place that can address this. It tracks global morale. And it has a cease fire request option that ends the game early. The idea is simply to put those two existing things together. Players could even do that voluntarily, without a designed-in system. But it would be better if (1) the levels were set beforehand and the game implimented them and (2)if flags changed for end VC calculations if side A "retreated" as opposed to side B.

Right now, there are three possible end of game triggers. Autosurrender, cease fire agreement, and the time limit. This would just add a fourth, in a sense between the autosurrender and the cease fire agreement. With less carnage required to bring it about than the former, and less mutual agreement needed to bring it about than the latter.

Players who prefer fighting to the last like now and just set the loss tolerances high, and there would be no change from things today. Not many settings would be needed. Global morale 65, 50, 35 might do, in addition to the present "near zero".

[Steve McClaire]

I'd like to see the 'settable' global morale breaking point, too. The AI wouldn't necessarily have to be modified to take this into account, either. As long as the scenario is designed for the AI to play one side (and if the AI is going to do reasonably well they pretty much have to be) the designer can take this into account.

[Yeknodathon]

Just to throw in a few more ideas (I've no doubt that they are unrealistic to code for CM:BB):

How about adding tactical "goals" during a game?

Usual points for flags and losses to calculate who wins the game. Then at a certain point (based on player choice, scenario design, changes to morale, whatever) other "goal conditions" are introduced (appearance of exit zones for retreat, points modifiers to units destroyed or preserved or freed after capture).

I'm not suggesting that the second level of "goals" should affect the outcome of the game based on the original victory conditions (players can ignore the goals if they wish), but what this might do is add more interest to end-games and provide an incentive to use tactics to manage retreats and pursuits rather than conduct last man stands. Nice to have a goal report within the context of the end-game victory report.

Sort of introduces more fluidity onto the battlefield as priorties change and adds more possibilities to scenario design. Perhaps this is all "beyond the scope of CM" - hope not, I think it would add value to the game and enhance tactical play.

Yeknod

[Redwolf]

I would welcome any feature that allows for a honourable (i.e. non-surrender) premature end of CMBO battles.

The current fight-to-death is both unrealistic and it takes up too much time. A medium-size ME quickbattle of 1500 points and 30 turns easily takes 4 to 6 hours for me if victory level is important and/or people hope for the opponent to do something stupid.

I am not sure what the best way to achive this is. Increased HE leathality against infantry would do the job nicely, of course

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]No, it is not about victory conditions, and multiplying knockout points does not address it.

Nothing in my proposal says that the side the retreats loses the battle. They lose the flags, and may lose the battle because of it - but if they hurt the other side enough, etc, they can still win or get a draw. The point is realistic morale, not victory conditions.

Nothing in my proposal says that the retreating side loses the battle either. And the point is not morale or VC, but getting the player - not the AI to make realistic decisions about how to use the manpower at hand. Your proposal simply takes more control away from the player - not much fun. Changing the knockout point value does the same thing, but puts the onus on the player to change his way of fighting.

Isn't the whole point to get players to realistically use their manpower and avoid fights to the last man?

Players mash their forces together far more violently than the real participants were willing to be mashed together.

Because they currently have no incentive not to; lives are cheap to them. Sometimes, in real action, lives are cheap to commanders too. Sometimes not. Variable knockout points can simulate this to a degree, I think, but is just as inelegant as your system. I agree there needs to be a better way. Stripping even more control from the player doesn't sound like a fun way to do it.

That is the principle cause of bloody, to the last man fights. And the reason this can happen is because one unit getting clobbered only effects the morale of the other 1-11 guys around them, never anybody else. A company that has had a platoon blown away is completely unaffected by it. That is not particularly realistic (we are not talking "crack" here).

In action, how many guys in one platoon ever even know what happened to the neighbouring platoon until AFTER the battle was over? Come on, you know as well as anyone that most infantrymen don't even see anybody else during a typical action, and platoons were not tied to each other via radio as they are today. In many cases, they would have no idea, during the 20 or 30 minutes of a firefight, whether or not another platoon was "wiped out".

The idea is to give scenario designers or QB players the option to put in loss tolerances. Not as ways to make killing the enemy 10 times as important as taking a flag, but as a way of stopping the battle when the participants would not realistically be willing to continue the mission at still higher losses.

Forces broke off attacks or retreated under pressure far more in the real war than they do in CM today. With most of the men alive.

Taking more decision-making from the player and putting it in the hands of the AI is going to make for a woefully dull game, don't you think?

I'd rather see real life decision making imposed on the player before hand - not simply triggering the end of the game at random since the computer isn't really smart enough to make those decisions in any and all circumstances.

So if you have a relatively cheap infantry force and two expensive tanks, and the tanks both get gun hits, what then? Your tolerance is set to low. Would the AI be able to take into effect gun hits in addition to mere casualties and global morale losses, and impose on the player a "realistic" solution? Wouldn't it depend on individual infantry commanders, in real life, as to whether or not they press on? I think it would all depend on personality, something you can't simulate in CM. That kind of choice should be left to the player.

As you indicate, the CM player will always opt to continue in this case, since ending the game is simply not fun.

I'm not so sure the AI could be made that sophisticated - nor would it be able to provide an explanation to the frustrated player who sees his battles ending early.

I can see the posts now.

"How come when I attacked with 12 Veteran Rifle45 squads with a tolerance of 35, I was forced to surrender after losing 12 casualties, and 5 squads were panicked? BTS fix or do somefink!"

The problem with your method is that it is invisible to the player, like so much of CM now, which does lead to frustrations. Unless you propse some sort of on screen indication also of where the tolerance point is?

[ June 03, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

Just to throw in a few more ideas (I've no doubt that they are unrealistic to code for CM:BB):

How about adding tactical "goals" during a game?

Usual points for flags and losses to calculate who wins the game. Then at a certain point (based on player choice, scenario design, changes to morale, whatever) other "goal conditions" are introduced (appearance of exit zones for retreat, points modifiers to units destroyed or preserved or freed after capture).

I'm not suggesting that the second level of "goals" should affect the outcome of the game based on the original victory conditions (players can ignore the goals if they wish), but what this might do is add more interest to end-games and provide an incentive to use tactics to manage retreats and pursuits rather than conduct last man stands. Nice to have a goal report within the context of the end-game victory report.

Sort of introduces more fluidity onto the battlefield as priorties change and adds more possibilities to scenario design. Perhaps this is all "beyond the scope of CM" - hope not, I think it would add value to the game and enhance tactical play.

Yeknod

Or the ability to change goals during the game. Maybe once the tolerance points JasonC suggests have been reached, for example, the VC would change to encourage retreats off the map?

Perhaps the best way to judge victory is not a 100 point ratio of winner:loser, but to have each side judged out of 100 solely on its own performance?

Or keep the standard 100 point ration winner:loser, but also have each side rated on force conservation with a seperate multiplier? So your AAR would look like, in a case where the Germans attacked, inflicted casualties but also took some, and the Russian opted to retreat off the map rather than suffer any more:

Final Score: German 65 Russian 33 German Victory

Force Conservation: German 22 Russian 84

Weighted Score: German 14.3 Russian 27.72

The "final score" would judge only tactics, the "weighted score" would judge force conservation and realistic play.

[xerxes]

I like the more flexible VP proposals. I like the extended morale. For the morale I'd like to see global, company level morale, and platoon morale. As morale drops to a low level the low morale units should be much less willing to advance/fire, and more likely to break/retreat on their own. That way if two platoons of a company has been mauled, you can't just collect up the survivors and launch a fresh attack.

Good ideas.

[Michael Dorosh]

Platoon morale is a great idea, actually.

[FFE]

Good ideas, the lot of them. I am shocked BTS allowed for so much hand-to-hand combat to happen. It is a regular event in CM. Entire platoons are wiped out without cascading morale loss. Squads reduced to 1 or 2 men are another contentious issue of mine. I absolutely hate how 2 men can draw fire from everything within 500 meters. Ever seen a 2 man MG-42 waddle its way a hundred + meters while receiving fire from four corners of the map? I would love to see the abstract ammo code changed to accommodate CM’s over-aggression shooting code. If target A has 1 or 2 individuals->Ignore small arms ammo reduction.

[JasonC]

If players want "complete control" and to "fight to the last" then use uniform elites with 50% fanaticism, highest loss tolerance setting and if you like a long time limit. But all players do not want infinite control, because WW II combat without realistic modeling of morale is not realistic. Let those who want the realistic experience of commanding less than suicidal troops do so. It interfers with nothing for those who want to play total control fantasy roleplaying with WW II icons - just set loss tolerance high.

Having any morale system at all is a recognition that morale effects on the men are *not* subject to commander discretion, are *not* mere "suggestions" or "incentives" to him. A commander deciding his losses are too high so he should stop the attack is an entirely different thing than the men deciding they will not comply with orders to further sacrifice themselves. That risk of such a reaction from the men is a *constraint* on the commander (like limited ammo, or slow reaction to orders), not a piece of advice from his superior or a scolding if he fails at it, like VCs.

Sure, platoon and company and battalion morale would be nice additions. But much more complicated, and harder to impliment. Right now platoon morale of a sort exists in the form of the question whether the platoon HQ is in good order of not. If it isn't, it cannot provide its support from rally and such. But one squad down has no such effect, and nothing above the platoon level really matters. Infantry is not effected by the loss of their armor support, or seeing spectacular failure of equal sized units on their flanks, etc.

Global morale is already tracked. It measures such effects, it doesn't measure anything else. It effectively does represent a company or battalion level morale indicator, in battles of that size. Which is the level seriously missing. And there already exists a capability to have game end states beyond "everybody dies" or "massacre until the last second on the clock". The game already recognizes a position draw outcome, with both sides unwilling to continue to risk their men - but only by mutual agreement of the rival commanders.

Keep it simple and overall morale is easy to impliment, because it is practically implimented already. The carefully arrived at global morale number just isn't used for anything until it goes to zero. Use it, and provide ways for the game to end short of death of all parties.

Mr. Dorosh says infantry in battle never knows how things are going because they never see anyone outside the squad. That is far from accurate, if you read combat AARs. Whole units are pinned down when they see nasty things happening to bits of them. The rest get more cautious. They hear about an officer killed, a failure to stop a charge, a flank giving way, and battles are often decided by their reaction. A tired unit will often refuse to close and instead rely on support arms to do much of the fighting (low loss tolerance).

Right now, the casualty toll from a typical CM company level 30 minute battle is as high as entire divisions lost in a day of combat. They did not stand for being pushed that hard in the real deal.

VPs for knockouts just encourages a player to be sure he kills the other guys men. 10 times losses for both sides still rewards bloody fighting, it just makes terrain objectives comparatively less important. It does not prevent mashing the men together harder than they were willing to be mashed together, historically.

Killing some of the enemy did not in reality make one's own side fully willing to go get killed. But in a VP calculation, it must, for one side or for both. Absolutely not being willing to sustain high losses is simply different from a point penalty for losses, because point penalties can be neutralized by point benefits - like killing the other guy.

It is not in the end about VCs at all. It is about how "tough" a whole *formation* of CM troops fights. CM models how tough a squad fights, and it allows a panicking platoon HQ to penalize the morale of its squads (if a higher HQ doesn't come along to help). But beyond that, it only impliments results of the whole unit morale it tracks at the "all broken" level.

Consider also how much more realistic some fights would be with this feature, and reasonably low loss tolerances. A rush that gets half the men broken along the way, and then expects the payoff from what the other half do afterward, might easily fail due to global morale. Without e.g. MGs massacring every man in an attacking formation, they might break enough that global morale gets dangerously close to the "break off attack" threshold. Forcing the attacker to proceed much more cautiously, or repelling the attack outright - without needing to kill everyone involved in it. A *small* rush will still work fine, because the global morale damage even if it fails will be acceptable.

At any rate, a few small changes (one or two hotkeys akin to offer ceasefire, one added scenario setting, one additional subroutine where the autosurrender check is currently made) would let players explore such things, without any huge changes to calculate morale of every intermediary formation in an entirely new system. Players who don't like the "loss of control" involved will not need to say "BTS fix", because they can just dial up the loss tolerance themselves.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Mr. Dorosh says infantry in battle never knows how things are going because they never see anyone outside the squad.

[JasonC]

Read any operational history. You can find any number of them at the US CMH, let alone in your library. "I've never read anything" is not much of an argument. It is also scarcely credible in your case.

[Cooper]

posted by Jason C

If players want "complete control" and to "fight to the last" then use uniform elites with

50% fanaticism, highest loss tolerance setting and if you like a long time limit. But all

players do not want infinite control, because WW II combat without realistic modeling of

morale is not realistic. Let those who want the realistic experience of commanding less

than suicidal troops do so. It interfers with nothing for those who want to play total

control fantasy roleplaying with WW II icons - just set loss tolerance high.

Can't you just play the reverse and play with green and conscript. Those guys bugger out at the first sound of of gunfire. Most green or conscript squads will panic and withdrawn after a couple of casualites.

The one thing I don't like is the fact that when your global moral drops past a certian point your whole force surrenders. I doubt the my 3 hmg teams and 3 81mm on board motor teams would surrender (position near the back of the map) because the 2 companies they were supporting got mangled. They would quietly sneak off.

[Yeknodathon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Just to throw in a few more ideas (I've no doubt that they are unrealistic to code for CM:BB):

How about adding tactical "goals" during a game?

Usual points for flags and losses to calculate who wins the game. Then at a certain point (based on player choice, scenario design, changes to morale, whatever) other "goal conditions" are introduced (appearance of exit zones for retreat, points modifiers to units destroyed or preserved or freed after capture).

I'm not suggesting that the second level of "goals" should affect the outcome of the game based on the original victory conditions (players can ignore the goals if they wish), but what this might do is add more interest to end-games and provide an incentive to use tactics to manage retreats and pursuits rather than conduct last man stands. Nice to have a goal report within the context of the end-game victory report.

Sort of introduces more fluidity onto the battlefield as priorties change and adds more possibilities to scenario design. Perhaps this is all "beyond the scope of CM" - hope not, I think it would add value to the game and enhance tactical play.

Yeknod

Or the ability to change goals during the game. Maybe once the tolerance points JasonC suggests have been reached, for example, the VC would change to encourage retreats off the map?

Perhaps the best way to judge victory is not a 100 point ratio of winner:loser, but to have each side judged out of 100 solely on its own performance?

Or keep the standard 100 point ration winner:loser, but also have each side rated on force conservation with a seperate multiplier? So your AAR would look like, in a case where the Germans attacked, inflicted casualties but also took some, and the Russian opted to retreat off the map rather than suffer any more:

Final Score: German 65 Russian 33 German Victory

Force Conservation: German 22 Russian 84

Weighted Score: German 14.3 Russian 27.72

The "final score" would judge only tactics, the "weighted score" would judge force conservation and realistic play.</font>

[Moon]

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

[Mr. Johnson--]

Steve and Charles already said that they are trying to achive excactlly what you guys are asking for in CMBB.

I forget where and when, but they said that battles will be ending much sooner then we are used to in CMBO.

But we will have to buy the game to find out how it works in a normal 1250 tcp/ip game, and if we like it. I think they even said we will be pleasently surprised with their new system.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Read any operational history. You can find any number of them at the US CMH, let alone in your library. "I've never read anything" is not much of an argument. It is also scarcely credible in your case.

But Spunky, I'm saying they don't exist, so how can I read them?

[JasonC]

That sounds great Moon, exactly the sort of thing I was after. BTS never ceases to impress. Thanks.

To Mr. Dorosh - you might start with "we were soldiers once and young", then. "They got Lt. Taft" "Damn it, somebody stop the bastards" "They are killing the wounded" as three quick examples. No "news" infantry combat does not happen. Or ask anybody who got out of LZ Albany alive whether they knew how the general battle was going, and whether it made any difference to morale.

[Louie the Toad]

If victory conditions were set randomly for each side by the AI at the beginning of the game, without the other player's knowledge and these victory conditions were generated from a list of many possibilites, each player would be challenged to accomplish his own objectives, while trying to decipher and keep the enemy from accomplishing his objectives.

So player A receives his orders to take the crossroads and hold it at all costs. While player B receives his orders to preserve his forces by retreating them off the map. Both players could achieve a tie by following their orders. A victory would go to the player who best followed his orders plus interdicted the enemy.

With a long list of possible 'Orders' the chances for some interesting matchups would result. Smashing the enemy would not always be the best approach.

This does then, put an emphasis on what would be more akin to Operational Orders. But it would give us the opportunity to try different objectives and new ways of approaching the game than fighting to the last man.

Not the last of Toad