Unit Preservation and Wargaming

[Sequoia]

In another thread there was some discussion about players caring more when their units took casualties in CMSF than they did in CMX1 and whether this concern was due to the modern setting or 1:1 modeling or both.

This reminded me of an issue I’ve thought about numerous times when playing CMX1, and that is Unit Preservation. This concept was first introduced into board Wargaming way back in the early ‘70s by Jim Dunnigan in a number of old SPI games. Here is a extract from the rules of the man to man level game “Patrol”.

“Preservation

General Rule

A group of men can only sustain so many losses and so much combat before their overwhelming primary interest becomes one of saving themselves to the exclusion of any military objective or mission. When a group reaches this point, it is said to have reached its preservation level. The preservation level of any group of men varies according to the determination of the men and the situation they find themselves in.

Effects of Reaching Preservation Level

The effects of reaching the Preservation Level or (for short) the Preservation Effects, begin on the Game Turn following the turn in which the Preservation Level is reached or exceeded. They persist thereafter until the scenario terminates. They are irreversible. Once a force has reached Preservation, it is permanently affected and nothing it does can cure its situation. Once a force has reached Preservation, there is no need to continue the chit drawing process since the damage has already been done. In that that respect Preservation is like pregnancy – a little bit or a whole lot is the same thing in the end.

Preservation Effects come in two classes: general effects which apply in all scenarios to all forces, and specific effects which apply solely to a force in a certain scenario. The general effects of Preservation are described below while any additional specific effects are described in the Scenario instructions when they occur.

General Effects on Firing and Movement:

When a force triggers preservation, its ability to fire is curtailed while its ability to move, for the purposes of exiting the map, is improved. This effect operates through altering the Panic Rules. Increase the Panic Level of firing men by 40% and reduce the Panic Level of men who are executing Movement tasks toward or off the map-edge to a uniform 10%.”

Not surprisingly in the SPI games, WWII Soviets and Japanese have high Preservation levels while regular U.S. troops are lower than average.

As implied above Preservation is a different issue than Panic, or Command Control rules.

My point is not to suggest that Battlefront incorporate something similar into its games but rather to a desire to discuss Preservation in wargaming in general.

But to bring the Combat Mission games into the discussion, often time while playing CMX1 games both the attacker and defender may have taken more than 50% casualties but units obediently continue on with the attack or defense when in reality I can’t help wonder if units would really just call it quits. Not panicking but retreating or halting the attack.

In wargaming however, Preservation, like Command Control and Panic one risks alienating many players. They may think, “What do you mean the attack is canceled?”

“I have 70% of my guys left!” This would turn off many players. We want control over a battlefield much more than our counterparts in reality would have.

In CMSF I only play the Blue side solo and rarely take high casualties, so the issue has rarely emerged, but as others have noted, there is more reluctance to commit a squad that has taken high casualties. I think that’s great. It reflects reality more and it may not even have been intentionally programmed.

What are your thoughts? What other games incorporate preservation? Is there a desire for such a thing in CMX 2 games? Is there anything that can easily be done to incorporate it?

Thanks

[Michael Emrys]

I think this is a real issue. It is one that has been discussed here several times over the years. It is, however more complex than Mr. Dunnigan—for whom I have great respect—describes. In general, well trained and experienced troops will lose momentum in the attack when they have taken around 10% casualties. In the defense, they will continue to fight after having taken higher casualties. But all this is highly situational. If they can see the fight is going approximately as expected, they are most likely to hang in there longer. If hit with some unexpected turn, like an enemy force suddenly appearing on their flank—or worse yet behind them—they are more likely to undergo a catastrophic collapse of morale.

Green troops are less predictable. They are on the one hand more easily shattered by their first exposure to the violence of warfare. On the other hand, they might continue the fight longer simply because they don't know what else to do. Training and leadership are enormous factors. More important than the length of time they are trained is that their training has actually prepared them to meet the reality of battle, and that the necessary moves have been drilled into them to the point that they do them automatically even when fear and chaos overwhelm their normal mental processes.

Leadership is a two-edged sword in a way. If the men have a leader present in whom they have confidence and who himself has confidence in the fight and can communicate that to his men, they will stay in the fight much longer. But if he becomes a casualty then the morale of the unit can again undergo a catastrophic collapse. It becomes important that junior officers and NCOs be able to step in to fill such a gap.

Michael

[squishalll]

This has always been an issue with any game that has good guys and bad guys. Shooters allow you to die multiple times and as long as you win in the end everyone is happy. Wargames have the same issue. I remember playing Napoleon in Russia starting with 500,000 troops..I won the battle but only had 22,000 troops left.

Because there is no actual life lost on the computer you take way more chances than you would in RL. What the heck I will just start again.

Even when the objective of a given battle is successfully reached we keep on chasing the enemy around because, well, isn't the idea to wipe them all out? LOL

And quite frankly the developers of the missions for many games force you to do this as the damn mission won't end until all enemies are dead (at the expense of as many dead friendlies as needed) no matter if you have been successful in the primary goal or not.

I have always felt that there should be a real consequence to getting yourself or your soldiers killed unnecessarily. Maybe the game is rendered unplayable for 24hrs or something. Or even more extreme..the game is made completely screwed and the only way to play it again is buy it again...LOL

Personally I hate dying in any game and I also don't like my fellow soldiers/players dying.I plan my missions in detail looking for ways to win the battle at the least cost in lives. This takes time and I think that is the root of the problem;taking your time is not FUN for the majority of players.

[GSX]

In another thread there was some discussion about players caring more when their units took casualties in CMSF than they did in CMX1 and whether this concern was due to the modern setting or 1:1 modeling or both.

This reminded me of an issue I’ve thought about numerous times when playing CMX1, and that is Unit Preservation. This concept was first introduced into board Wargaming way back in the early ‘70s by Jim Dunnigan in a number of old SPI games. Here is a extract from the rules of the man to man level game “Patrol”.

But, the asymetric nature of CMSF forces you to preserve the Blue Force. If you dont, you loose. The game is designed for you to conserve your forces and so I dont think its anything to do with individual players.

If you can only take 10% casualties or loose a mission, then guess what? Your going to do your best to take less than that 10%.

However, when we get back to WW2 with CMN I imagine that it may be back to objectives at all cost and getting the war over as soon as possible and so I imagine victory locations will be more important then we see in SF.

[Michael Emrys]

I plan my missions in detail looking for ways to win the battle at the least cost in lives. This takes time and I think that is the root of the problem;taking your time is not FUN for the majority of players.

I noticed that when I began playing TacOps 15 years ago that I became very conscious of friendly casualties. I always played to wipe out red force with no losses to my own troops, and I was generally successful by virtue of exploiting technological advantages possessed by the blue side.

Michael