Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread

[vincere]

Loving the debate that Jason C is prompting.

Let me premise this that I have no complaint with how casualties generally stack up in CMSF game, and very unlikely to complain about Normandy's.

That said, the realism issue (however accurately argued by JC) promted some thoughts.

Seems to be a school of thought that less dead will be less fun. Hmm I go with that some way because I don't want to play 4 hrs of waiting for squads to unpin all the time. But, Steve metioned that they are going to look at how casualties are dealt with in more depth in the future. This, I think he said may be an option available aka Iron mode. If he was talking a little more than just increasing the time it takes then could this provide some of the fun. More detailed and emotive effects of casualties and supression represented in actual effects in game and the visual and audio.

Re specifics of casualties in Normandy; an account of the Canadian Black Watch attack on Verrières Ridge springs to mind: "Of the 325 men that left the assembly area, 315 of them were either killed, wounded, or captured". Unique circumstances in this one from the German perspective that I read.

[Jon L]

I will also weigh on on the sub-global moral issue (ie platoon or Coy morale). Why does this have to be programmed? Why does the game have to simulate everything? Spoon feeding the experience to the player.

I have many times seen the player and his moral be a significant factor. How many times do players think they have won/lost and made wreckless decisions as a result? I am not sure why some people are so quick to remove the player from the game and try to replace it with algorithms. We are central components of the game. And I will tell you people are central components to warfare in any age.

Trying to marginalize people and "force" the game-to-effect thru design is bad design. Let me have the environ and play the man, as all great human competitions have, and the experience will speak for itself.

I imagine that two of the goals for CM are to be an accurate simulator of tactical warfare, and to be an enjoyable game. Sometimes those goals coincide and sometimes they don't. You ask "why simulate everything?" I would say that if you compare the CMx2 engine to CMx1 it's clear that BFC cares about improving the quality of the simulation if it doesn't negatively impact the game. So, does the current system accurately simulate the morale effect that a squad should feel if they see another squad get torn apart? In my opinion no, the simulation could be improved. Would that change make for a better game? There I don't know. I'm sure there are players out there who would prefer anything from no morale or suppression model at all, to what we have now, to some theoretical system that's even harsher. BFC gets to decide where on that continuum is best for CM.

I don't think making this change would significantly marginalize the player any more than the current morale system. We already accept loss of control over units if they're treated harshly. Is that removing the player from the game to an unacceptable degree?

[The_Capt]

I imagine that two of the goals for CM are to be an accurate simulator of tactical warfare, and to be an enjoyable game. Sometimes those goals coincide and sometimes they don't. You ask "why simulate everything?" I would say that if you compare the CMx2 engine to CMx1 it's clear that BFC cares about improving the quality of the simulation if it doesn't negatively impact the game. So, does the current system accurately simulate the morale effect that a squad should feel if they see another squad get torn apart? In my opinion no, the simulation could be improved. Would that change make for a better game? There I don't know. I'm sure there are players out there who would prefer anything from no morale or suppression model at all, to what we have now, to some theoretical system that's even harsher. BFC gets to decide where on that continuum is best for CM.

I don't think making this change would significantly marginalize the player any more than the current morale system. We already accept loss of control over units if they're treated harshly. Is that removing the player from the game to an unacceptable degree?

Well maybe best if we agree to disagree. I think there is a limited level of realism any wargame can implement. The main reason is back to the player. The player can fly over the battlefield, he can remain apart from the action. He can send orders that are deliveredI a instantly.

We all have to accept some level of abstraction, balanced against the realism.

If I could boil it all down, perhaps it is the letter vs the spirit.

JasonC and his adherents are asking for the letter of the law. I argue this is not only impossible, unrealistic but also makes for a bad experience.

I argue strongly for the spirit of the law. A realistic environ where the player vs player is still king (AI is solid but hey you want a real experience play another human). This not only make for an engaging experience but also brings the community together. We enjoy playing in historical context, accepting abstractions where we have to.

This does not detract from appreciation, in fact I argue it enhances it.

Players can still fully appreciate WWII and hopefully will enrich their study of the era as more vets die off. But to think that any machine can reproduce, what was at its heart an immense (both the valour and the horror) human experience is fundementally flawed.

[dan/california]

It is worth pointing out that JasonC is attacking the morale model based on insufficient information. Getting the behavior he wants might be as simple as setting initial troop morale and motivation to very low levels. It is far to soon to judge.

His larger argument about Design for effect vs engineered simulations amounts to requesting a whole new game. Which is less likely than my fat rear end winning the next Tour de France. I am at greater risk of winning the lottery, literally.

[Paulverisor64]

I too am enjoying the debate which Jason C has initiated. In the AAR of a very entertaining game preview is a good place to discuss how well the game holds up to RL. It also brings up the question of the what and wheres as far as how the game could be tweaked to gain the proper effect.

I'd like to say that Jason C was very helpful with me getting involved with the CM BB game. His Russian tutorials helped me understand the importance of engaging combat the proper way. I also appreciated his help on the forum in explaining how to achieve the desired effect. Someone who has enhanced the love of the Combat Mission game for the rest of the community deserves to be listened to.

On the other hand I understand the apprehension of people who do not want to lose direct control of the pieces on the figurative chessboard.

It appears that what comes into direct question is whether the casualty rates are unrealistic. Do troops get driven far beyond their RL capabilities.

It appears to me that the game modeling and mechanics of the 3d battlefield might be outstanding in of itself. I really enjoyed watching the battle between JonS and Elvis unfold. The main culprit that I am seeing through my perspective for unrealistic results is the person who is commanding his troops. This person will always see more of the battlefield than what the RL commander would see. He will drive his troops without regards for losses, only to take the objective. These pixel troops will always move according to the flesh and blood commander who will be able to see the entire battle unfold.

I do think delays to engagement would help in seeing more realistic casualty results, but for the sake of keeping the game more in control of the flesh and blood commander it would be good if these delays would be literal rather than making number triggers to bring about the delay. In the game between JonS and Elvis there were several occasions where the troops did delay as a result of taking fire.

This may be a little outside the "type" of delay that is in focus but I am wondering if re-introducing the Command type delay which was featured in CM BB might actually help in getting more accurate casualty results. What this would penalize would be the human commander's on the fly decisions, as the troops would need to receive the order from it's command. The battlefield actions however would be acted out at full speed as long as counter orders were not given.

I believe that Steve from Battlefront has a good grasp of how this best could be implimented.

1. Reactionary - taking fire while in the middle of the street? Moving to an adjacent building or back to an alley way should not have much, if any, delay.

2. Tactical - taking fire from the middle of the street might mean having to figure out how to flank and enter the house where the fire is coming from. So while there should be practically no delay to get off the street, there should be some delay involved in attacking to clear out the enemy.

3. Operational - being told to not take out the enemy in that particular house because the entire Company is going to pivot on 3rd Platoon and clear the park next to all the houses so supporting armor can move in and silence the enemy in the houses might involve a LOT of time to get going.

The problem with the CMx1 Command Delays is that they didn't really do any of these three things well. #1 was hamstrung by a basic Delay, #2 was frustrated by waypoint usage, #3 was not scaled well depending on the scope and complexity of the plan change (e.g. in real life it could take 20 minutes just to tell a unit to stop doing what it was doing, not to mention get it coordinated with others).

The real solution for simulating command decision is to have three different systems at work. Reactionary would basically be no artificial delay and instead be based on inherent unit attributes and situational issues (like being pinned). Tactical would be based on conditions specified by a planning overlay, such as unit boundaries, operational waypoints designated ahead of time, etc. The operational layer would simulate the difficulties of changing these plans to the degree of change and communications capabilities.

IMHO this is what we should shoot for. Unfortunately this is a TON of work. Months. So I don't have any clue when we'll have enough time to do it. Until then, we are remaining open about putting in an OPTIONAL CMx1 system (along with all of its shortcomings). But definitely not for CM:BN.

Steve

I realize that this would take a lot of coding to impliment but I love the literal realism possibilities that this might represent. This would slow down the twitch responses to the changing battlefield which I believe would reduce casualties. This also would put a greater emphasis towards having the best initial planning, making it more of a figurative chess game.

[Vark]

I don't think anyone is saying that a medium for entertainment could or should simulate the true horrors and confusion of war but this forum prides itself on historical veracity. Threads about penetration figures and correct TOE's litter the forum and scenario designers go to great lengths to 'get things right', so the player is faced with similar problems as his historical counterpart, which is not the same as replicating them. I for one do not want to keep on changing my underpants becausing of involuntary soiling, or have the rest of my life haunted by visions from the 'hell in the hedgerows'. All Jason is highlighting is that his original prediction of unrealistically high casualty rates is borne out and I might add poo poohed by some posters who are now trying to justify them after the battle. Whether his solution is correct is a moot point but his unease at the level of slaughter and the ramifications for the game should be listened to, not dismissed as him wanting to change the game.

I have suggested running the same scenario using the CMBO engine and seeing if similar results are achievable, that way we could see if the results are due to over aggressive players or a product of the game engine. Personally I have my doubts, given the plethora of factors needed to be simulated when looking at combat, to me it mirrors the Rolemaster/Runequest v's D&D debates in the 80's, regarding which was more an accurate depiction of hand to hand combat.

Capt, the opponents we fight in Afghanistan are nothing special, just products of an untouched tribal culture that sees martial prowess, and all its attendant qualities, as the ultimate embodiment of manhood. Unfettered by any Western moral restraints and yet driven by a strict code which is reinforced by an adopted religion, that promotes sacrifice they pose no greater or lesser threat than similar products of such societies, past present or day I say it in the future. As for training some are given a brief formal training but most adaopt the hunters techniques to the modern battlefield, so fieldcraft and natural skirmishing are good. If on the otherhand they are the product of the madrasses and have-a-go jihadists then they are sorely lacking in any skills, unless those gleaned from past or present warzones.

[The_Capt]

Capt, the opponents we fight in Afghanistan are nothing special, just products of an untouched tribal culture that sees martial prowess, and all its attendant qualities, as the ultimate embodiment of manhood. Unfettered by any Western moral restraints and yet driven by a strict code which is reinforced by an adopted religion, that promotes sacrifice they pose no greater or lesser threat than similar products of such societies, past present or day I say it in the future. As for training some are given a brief formal training but most adaopt the hunters techniques to the modern battlefield, so fieldcraft and natural skirmishing are good. If on the otherhand they are the product of the madrasses and have-a-go jihadists then they are sorely lacking in any skills, unless those gleaned from past or present warzones.

My friend, I will forgive your POV as one built on distance and probable media spin. Let me assure you our opponents are deadly from the ground up in a way unique to our experience in warfare.

Let us not blur strategic threat with tactical however, as most Afghans are not interested in holy jihad outside their own small perspectives of the world. Trust me, the men I fought were not international terrorist, but more akin to farmers with a grudge.

That said, do not for a second understate them for what they are capable of. This disperate group of untrained "farmers" have given the Canadian military the same rough casualty rates as the Korean War. What the best of North Korea and China could offer in 1950, is roughly equivalent what has been served in this unwashed backwater of the Hindu Kush.

To conclude, I need no lessons here. My men suffered at their hands and I have looked into their eyes across the battlefield.

Read what you will but these som-bitches are the hard-crew. Can we beat them, yes. But do not underestimate them or sweep them under the rug. At best we can negotiate and in the end, never dictate.

Before we go any further, I think we will need to throw-down experience. Coy OC, outside the wire, Kandahar; Panjway and Dand '09, fight season.

Not for a second saying I have the "be all and end all" experience but there are few I will truly get into a debate with on who we were fighting unless they can estabish they spent more time in close proximity to them.

That all said, if you have been there and done "it" I am always looking for different perspectives in what has been a very dirty and muddy war. Plse contact me off-line and we can compare notes.

[gunnersman]

How about starting another thread so folks like myself dont have to wade through crap that is off topic and dont really care about?

[LongLeftFlank]

Trying to impose "Heinlein's Law" (i.e. only veterans have a voice that counts) on a discussion of a computer game is a bit of an overreach, Capt, greatly though I appreciate your important service to our civilization (far more than anything I've ever done for you or your family).

[The_Capt]

gunnersman,

I sincerly apologise if all our bleeding an dying in the 21st century has disturbed your hobby. We will try and be more quiet in the future.

LLF,

This really has nothing to do with WWII and I claim absolutely no high ground wrt that conflict. There are many with far deeper reading than I on this conflict. At best all I can offer is a RL perspective to cbt ops. That said, veterans tend to be be highy opinionated and revisiontist so I will not insult anyone saying my point of view is inviolate.

My debate with Vark is in regard to a very real oppponent I have stared down (and been stared down by) on the modern battlefield, plse notice to my request to take it offline.

Bringing this back to CMBN, my remarks still stand....create the sandbox and let the player decide....that is what creates a community. And the community is what makes us strong.

[Guest]

Trying to impose "Heinlein's Law" (i.e. only veterans have a voice that counts) on a discussion of a computer game is a bit of an overreach, Capt, greatly though I appreciate your important service to our civilization (far more than anything I've ever done for you or your family).

I think you've grossly misunderstood what he's saying. If someone said to me "building an AI is easy", I would say "please tell me from what experience or knowledge you draw that conclusion." You needn't be a programmer for your voice to count in that discussion, but unless you've been involved with AI as intimately as I have I'd think a retraction of broad generalizations might be in order.

[gunnersman]

@ The Capt,

It's not directed at you. And your missing my point.

On page 8 JasonC started a dissertation. On page 9 Steve mentioned that JasonC's point will get nowhere... and now it's spilled over this far.

If one should so desire to argue their point, by all means do so...BUT ON ANOTHER THREAD. And feel free to make reference to another thread (such as this one).

As to my point getting this thread further off topic, I'm done. Any further comments about my point getting even further off topic are on the next poster...at which point he/she shall burn in hell.

[The_Capt]

@ The Capt,

It's not directed at you. And your missing my point.

On page 8 JasonC started a dissertation. On page 9 Steve mentioned that JasonC's point will get nowhere... and now it's spilled over this far.

If one should so desire to argue their point, by all means do so...BUT ON ANOTHER THREAD. And feel free to make reference to another thread (such as this one).

As to my point getting this thread further off topic, I'm done. Any further comments about my point getting even further off topic are on the next poster...at which point he/she shall burn in hell.

`He needs more and less blankets!!`` Well I suppose at the end of days it will all become clear. Lambs will become lions etc etc.

My family has done Bosnia, Croatia, Sudan and Afghanistan....I would be happy for a normal night sleep to be honest.

But until then, CMx2 look like a promising diversion

[WineCape]

JasonC and his adherents are asking for the letter of the law.....

I argue strongly for the spirit of the law.

That will then be Law 18 in the Laws of the Game. Makes for a far better match indeed.

[scottie]

To be honest i have stopped reading this thread too (from this point ). Just seems a bit off topic to me too (IMO sorry). Im not knocking the debating skills , some incredibly well argued articulate arguments, just seems to have drifted from the original AAR diagnostic IMO.

[Michael Emrys]

P.S. Your counter examples don't work (e,g, there were no paras at the rear of Omaha).

Never said there were. Why would you think I did?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I think there is a limited level of realism any wargame can implement.

Certainly. I for one do not dispute that for one minute. What is a legitimate topic of discussion and debate is where exactly that line should be drawn. The issue is not absolutely black or white as you (and for that matter, Jason too) keep trying to depict it, but rather varying shades of gray.

Michael

[BFCElvis]

To be honest i have stopped reading this thread too (from this point ). Just seems a bit off topic to me too (IMO sorry). Im not knocking the debating skills , some incredibly well argued articulate arguments, just seems to have drifted from the original AAR diagnostic IMO.

I keep forgetting if I talked about buddy and me in my DAR or since but I'll say a couple words about it now and how it pertained to my game.

Reading Jon AAR it looks like he went to some lengths to use some buddy aid to get some AT assets back in his hands. Normally when I play any CMx2 game I use buddy aid pretty frequently. My attacks are generally slow because if a man goes down I try to neutralize the threat and then hang around to provide aid. But in the particular battle I made very little use of buddy aid. And mostly because of the situation I got myself into. When I got torn up on Hill 154 the men went into survival mode. Very little could have been gained from scavenging weapons or ammo off of my fallen men. All surviving troops had weapons and all the ammo I thought they would ever need. On the cart path and run up to Hill 144 it was too dangerous to hang around hunting for ammo because I was having such a hard time knocking out the bad guys that were doing the killing. All men were left behind top fend for themselves. Once I got to Hill 144 not as many men died up there and as I regrouping there was some aid going on that I didn't really pay a lot of attention to. It was one of those "if it happens it happens...and if it doesn't no big deal". Which gets us up to the one point where I intended to intentionally get some buddy aid going. The Pioneers who breached the wall in the Alamo had 4 demo charges when they went in. When the smoke cleared there was only one charge left. I was determined to blow a second wall and possibly more so I decided to get somebody on the fallen Pioneers to retrieve the extra demo charges. While I was getting myself in position to do that my other units finished off all the Germans in the Alamo and getting the charges back became moot.

When buddy aid was added to CMSF I thought (and still do) it was one the best additions to the CM franchise ever. It can be a real game changer and not in a gamey way. And with the more recent introduction of ammo sharing it becomes even more important. Now I can have a guy perform buddy aid and get bazooka ammo and then bring it to Tube Guy and give him the ammo to use! As anyone who has played CMx1 knows once the bazooka guy is dead or out of ammo then he is no longer able to fire a baz for the rest of the game. I used to find it frustrating having a unit right next to a dead baz team and yelling "just pick it up!!" and knowing they couldn't.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll try to get this back on topic. Hopefully others can help me achieve that.

In the AAR casualties were certainly higher than the average WW2 battle. Not necessarily higher than various exceptional battles, but certainly more than the average. Units in the AAR battle were also used in ways that would be considered "extreme", or at least unusual, in WW2. There should be no disagreement about this because it's pretty much just a factual issue that can be fairly easily verified.

The only significant question is... why can casualties in CM:BN be higher and unit use more flexible than in real life? For the same reasons these two things happen in every other tactical wargame; because the player wants it that way.

The notion that excessive casualties and unit misuses is because of CMx2's engineered game engine is nonsensical. As is the claim that designed for effect games avoid these issues. Games that restrict player action to the extent that casualties and unit uses are consistent with historical tactical battle do not exist. So if someone's primary measure of a "realistic wargame" is casualty and use outcomes then there's not much in the history of wargaming to be very excited by.

While we can, and in fact do, make game features to discourage historically incorrect and/or questionable behavior within the game, there's only so much we can do before we start alienating players. Since a game without enough players paying to play means a short life for the developer, there is an obvious reluctance to alienate customers for the pure sake of realism when that particular bit of realism risks alienation. Because the basic elements of a wargame alienate such a massively huge chunk of the potential market, wargame developers have to tread very carefully.

The beauty of Combat Mission is that the tactical engagements are extremely realistic. That's where the fun is, that's why people play our games. CMx2 produces superior tactical results compared to CMx1, so if people derive their fun from the realistic depiction of tactical warfare, then CMx2 will not disappoint.

In the future I do expect we will have even more features which will encourage players to be cautious about casualties and unit misuse. But these features will NOT come at the expense of allowing players to fight to the bitter end, casualties and sensible unit employment be damned if that's the way want to play.

Steve

[dan/california]

John, you separated your to tank destroyers to increase your coverage and flexibility. In the end you lost one of them for relatively little return, and the other one that littered the field with burning Shermans before it took once shell too many. Do you think if you had kept them together, there would have been an opportunity to achieve true fire superiority and reduce the amount of return fire they had to deal with.

[Rocky Balboa]

John, you separated your to tank destroyers to increase your coverage and flexibility. In the end you lost one of them for relatively little return, and the other one that littered the field with burning Shermans before it took once shell too many. Do you think if you had kept them together, there would have been an opportunity to achieve true fire superiority and reduce the amount of return fire they had to deal with.

I would like to hear from Jon S on this as well, but I suspect he divided his assets so as to cover all ave's of approach. Careful terrain analysis might have shown a suitable location for both but sometimes this comes at the cost of decreased mobility....

[Vark]

Which is wjy it was such a shame that Combat Mission Campaigns was dropped. If playing a campaign, such blatant disregard for casualties would be punished appropriately and force preservation would be get a new lease of life. How will the new CMBN campaigns encourage realistic force deployment and preservation?

As for the complaints of being off topic, ask not what your thread can do for you, but ask what you can do for the thread. In the spirit of cooperation I would like to ask, Elvis what were the five greatest changes forced upon him/exploited by him with the new engine. i assume he played CMBO, if not then disregard the question.

See Steve, two on topic questions to help your new relevancy drive!

Capt, final word. lest we get sniped at! Thanks for your service, I am not military, but as a teacher have stared into the eyes of the warriors but also those they leave behind. I find the scenes in Once Were Warriors, detailing this family/soldier dilemma, uncomfortable and always seem to have an attack of my eye-watering dust allergy, ahem! I have a very low opinion of standard journalism so disregard most of their reporting (a close relative is a journalist so get all the gossip on the self-important prima-donnas) and an interest in ancient and medieval conflicts. It is because of this that I would NEVER underestimate a tribal opponent and if my clumsy exposition led you to believe this sorry. My point was that your opponents were no more/less dangerous than if you had of been fighting a Viking Bondi, Select Fyrd Anglo-Saxon, Dacian or Berber or Montagnard (of course the ancient/Dark Age examples would benefit greatly from Sov-Bloc weaponry!). I could go on but think it might be best to start a new thread, I would say though that the question has direct relevance to the topic of game design, as simulating tribal cultures as military units is a fascinating area of study. Good discussion, thanks.

[JasonC]

I enjoyed all the varied straw men, and appreciate the kinder comments from some.

No I'm not asking for a whole new game. Only for a design principle that in practice ensures continued refinement of simulations in a way the engineered approach does not.

In the engineered approach, if you believe what you put in as inputs, then you accept the result as supposedly realistic - whether the measured outcome actually is realistic or not. You've effectively cut off the last part of the feedback loop from model to prediction to observation back to refinements. Because you can make the observation - 60% losses are too high to be typical - but then don't do anything with it. DFE on the other hand is all about adding systems as needed to "hit" the measurement. It grades the outcome, not the inputs, for realism.

One can reasonably argue that doing both is superior to doing either one alone - no argument on that point. It is just more work, but bully if anyone is up for that. When only DFE is used, some of the inputs may seem cartoonish or "canned", but the outcomes (in command dilemmas faced, critical variables, as well as range of outcomes) can be got right in finite design time. When only engineered input is used, however, you get immersion for free (vs. sometimes cartoonish mechanics I mean), but you are quite unlikely to get outcomes right, and the direction of the errors are remarkably consistent.

Friction is simply harder to model as an engineered input than firepower is. Nobody's fault, it is just a more complicated set of causes.

Next to the issue whether it is just the players and up to the players, or can just be addressed by changing VCs, we know the answer from lots of previous designs. Higher loss rates on both sides, with both sides continuing the mission, especially with *even* high losses (as opposed to occasional lopsided "snowballing" wins, where the winner loses next to nothing but the loser is wiped out), always reflect higher than realistic average overall morale, or the absence of adequate morale and confusion systems. Raising the importance of losses vs. locations in VCs, for example, do not solve it. You can just collect more enemy kill points to balance those suffered oneself.

Grand tactical wargames of earlier eras have shown this issue well. E.g. Napleonics or ACW games will show loss rates 2-3 times historical levels if the unit morale of all units are set 2-3 levels too high in "die roll morale check" type games. Realistic morale levels and formation command and control systems result in armies "coming apart" and becoming ineffective at realistic levels of casualties.

Yes some of this might be addressable in CMx2 as it stands without extra systems, by just lowering typical morale levels. This was already seen in CMx1, in which fights between mostly green troops were significantly more realistic than fights between veterans with morale bonuses.

Next to the question whether the game just suddently ending when it wants to is what I am asking for. No. A global morale level cease fire system is more controllable than that, by the commanders, and has a subtler in game effect. It would only have the impact if players ignored it as a game subsystem. When instead they can pay attention to it, they can decide when it is more important to push and when it is more important to retain in hand the ability to prolong the battle. Unlike cumulative losses which only go in one direction, global morale can move in both directions, as units can rally or as reinforcements arrive.

Also notice that the cease fire offer system does not help the side forced into it to end the battle if the other side wants to continue and is still at sufficient global morale. Snowball lopsided wins can still happen. Only mutual assure destruction to the last, won't.

The only one of the proposed systems that actually requires a code change is a BCE style system for subformations. You can get lower individual unit morale by using greens over vets and a global morale ceasefire system can be player implemented voluntarily, if they agree beforehand (or as a scenario designer's specification, which the players can abide by or throw out as they like). I think it would be a clear improvement and that the resistence to the suggestion is basically defensive. Whatever. It certainly would not require an entirely new game or a higher operational level being depicted or anything remotely of the sort.

Nor would it take all command out of player's hands, or rout untouched units - I specifically suggested that in only slow rally for units within bloodied-up subformations. If you've never taken any suppression, slower rally is a non-issue. What would happen is messed up companies would not easily force their last platoon through heavy action.

As for the comments about my depiction of typical American performance in Normandy and it supposedly meaning the men were pantywaists or something, it is a strawman argument. It is also inaccurate about what the men actually did. If divisions in the hedgerows routinely massed together as recklessly as in this AAR, they would not have sustained the quite high loss rates of 300 a day each in the push to St. Lo period e.g. Instead they would have evaporated completely in well under a week. They didn't, because they were not pushed that recklessly.

BTW I entirely agree with URC's comments about group loyalty as the primary motivator in combat and collective norms within such systems as the controlling factor in dangerous behavior by individuals. Such norms settle at levels that allow the preservation of the group to see the next dawn - and pretty much everyone within actual rifleshot of the enemy accepts that as the primary consideration. Junior officers and NCOs definitely included. They want to keep their men alive and consider it the highest calling they can have in battle - and morally they are quite right about that. When "brass" instead expects self sacrifice not in order to preserve one's comrades but to get more of them killed to hurt the enemy somewhat faster, they are regarded by the "line" as martinets and violently resented.

These behaviors set typical levels of danger the men will face. And from the introduction of firearms to the present, that willingness has been the primary determinant of actual battle losses - not the raw technical considerations of firepower. The higher firepower goes, the greater the reaction from both conscious tactics and behavioral response. The portion of those engaged actually killed or wounded in a day of combat has not risen with rising technical firepower; instead it has fallen, and wars have become more extended in both space and time. Because you simply can't get a mass of men to face steel breechloading artillery the way they might be willing to face smoothbore muskets, and could not coordinate them under the impact of such fire if you tried.

I trust we all understand that, and understand also that it implies no modern battle simulation without prominent morale systems can be realistic. CM is successful because it does have such systems. It would be even more realisitc if they were stronger, and measured against actual typical battlefield outcomes to get the strength of such effects about right.

Nor am I asking for paralysis in saying this. When I win CMx1 battles I routinely do so with losses far below the levels seen in this AAR, and approximating those seen in actual tactical combats. Yes the losing side sometimes gets blown out - and that do does happen in real life, though nothing like every time.

I hope that deals with the various straw men...

[Blackcat]

"Junior officers and NCOs definitely included. They want to keep their men alive and consider it the highest calling they can have in battle"

That my be true in some armies in some battles in some periods. It is not however a universal truth and it is not even wholly applicable to the US army in the ETO 1944-45. Even a casual reading of the history of that campaign will reveal numerous examples when the desire to get the job done trumped the need to avoid casualties.

[LongLeftFlank]

Don't think Jason suggested it was the only calling, or was attainable for a front line infantry subaltern. His statement seems reasonable. Straw man again.

I suppose you do get callous Lt Niedermayer types, but then, look what happened (fictionally) to him.

Btw, re bloodiness one can always merely assume that a large share of the dead and wounded are actually unhurt but have been so unnerved that they have skulked away leaving their weapons and are unrallyable in the remaining timeframe. How's that for abstraction? Doesn't address the global morale concept (which I do like) but does close the survivability gap between game and RL average in an SLA Marshall-ish way. While leaving the "gutful men" to soldier on.