Casualties in CMBN

[sonar]

I just noticed in the video aar, the Germans lose 100 men kia and 70 odd wounded. I know the arguements about the units at the sharp end bearing the brunt of a divisions casualty returns and players pushing harder than in real life but 100 hundred kia, in what looked like a not particulary heavy fight, is in my opinion too high. What is streetfighting going to look like ?

[ChrisND]

I just noticed in the video aar, the Germans lose 100 men kia and 70 odd wounded. I know the arguements about the units at the sharp end bearing the brunt of a divisions casualty returns and players pushing harder than in real life but 100 hundred kia, in what looked like a not particulary heavy fight, is in my opinion too high. What is streetfighting going to look like ?

It's always going to be higher than the historical percentages, as the player in a video game is a very different entity than the real-world commander. Simply put the player is willing to sacrifice more troops than a real-world commander would be.

[sonar]

Normal Dude, I already stated that I'm aware of this point but I'm wondering if the weapons are a little too accurate in the game,as I said, it did not look to be such heavy going in the video and the ai did nothing suicidal yet the casualty rate is comparable with close quarter fighting.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well I don't know about CM:BN but I do know in CM:SF and the CM:x1 the troops do press on into fire a bit more than you might expect. past the point where they would have taken cover, or at least halted.

[Pandur]

interesting thread. from watching the VAAR No.1 and 2 i also found that casualties are not at all much different to CMSF.

it was said that with the older weapons systems and slower ROF of infantry weapons in WWII, lethality will go down and gameplay will get slower, but from the videos it does not look at all like it will.

the number of casualties is secondary here, as the VAAR´s where played against AI which is suicidal at best, but how fast the kills where scored is the primary factor for me here. and a battle with comparable length to a CMSF battle, with a comparable amount of men resulted in the same casualties a CMSF battle would/could produce.

i am very curious when the demo comes out...i will have an eye particular on this.

[YankeeDog]

In addition to other comments, when comparing to CMSF, bear in mind that (a) No one is wearing body armor, and ( a much higher proportion of the small arms fire in CMBN is full rifle-caliber rounds, and © battlefield medical techniques and transport were far less advanced in WWII than they are today.

Of the above, I don't know if CMBN actually takes © into account (i.e., are wounded soldiers who don't get "Buddy Aid" more likely to become a KIA at the end of a scenario in CMBN as compared to CMSF?), but overall, I would expect a higher KIA/WIA ratio CMBN than I would in CMSF.

Now, whether total casualties (KIA + WIA) are too high is another issue... as noted, it's very hard to assess this issue because playstyle such an important factor.

Overall, if people played CMBN scenarios with the kind of casualty thresholds you see when you play Blue in CMSF, I suspect you'd end up with players using much slower, more cautious play styles, and far fewer casualties/min. And I think this would probably usually be more realistic.

But this wouldn't be very fun for a lot of players. It is worth nothing that casualty totals in the CMBN AARs released so far don't seem to me to be higher than what we used to see in CMx1 under similar conditions.

Cheers,

YD

[undead reindeer cavalry]

my strategy is blissful ignorance. holding my breath, almost wetting myself, while watching the VAARs. doing my best to not see anything bad, covering my eyes with the fingers of one hand while quickly skipping the movie forward with the other one. then i realize it looks like a facepalm, so i cover my eyes with both hands. but it's great! the pixeltruppen slowly make their way forward, dashing & ducking from one piece of cover to the next, while supporting weapons force the defenders to keep their heads down. then finally, at the end of a short mortar barrage, the assault groups rise up and the close-assault is in its way, grenades flying, smgs burstings, man agaisnt man, URAAAAA!!11 after a short but fierce battle the positions are overrun and the defenders flee in panic. but it's not over yet, a counter-attack is on it's way, but at that point i faint of pure excitement.

[mjkerner]

Casualtiers are generally too high, especially the kill-to-wounded-ratios, but it's a game, afterall, and so I treat the AAR casualty summary as an intial report, before the squad that took cover over on the flank has reported in, ammo runners have returned to the fold etc., errors due to the general confusion, excitement and adrenalin rush of battle.

And I view the kill/wounded numbers as being posted in the wrong columns and reverse them!

[boresite]

(i.e., are wounded soldiers who don't get "Buddy Aid" more likely to become a KIA at the end of a scenario in CMBN as compared to CMSF?),

YD,

On page 66 of the CMBN manual, it says, "Note: Seriously-wounded (red base) soldiers who have not received "buddy aid" (i.e. disappeared) by the end of the game have a 25% chance of becoming KIA in the final tally."

So it sounds like BF was thinking about it...

[sonar]

mjKerner, I hear what you are saying about abstracting the kill ratio and this could be worked around but what effect will it have on campaigns when your force carries on to the next map ? unrealisticaly high casualties will result in very skewed results will they not? In cmx1, I always tried to play with casualties in mind and could obtain results much closer to reality than what I'm seeing here, I too imagined the lethality rate of ww2 weapons would be lower than cmsf...hmmm.

[Broadsword56]

but what effect will it have on campaigns when your force carries on to the next map ? unrealisticaly high casualties will result in very skewed results will they not? In cmx1, I always tried to play with casualties in mind and could obtain results much closer to reality than what I'm seeing here.

A few thoughts:

1. See the "Cohesion in CMBN" thread for a lively and detailed discussion about this very thing.

2. A good campaign game that models the grand-tactical or operational level shouldn't be just based on body-counting anyway. What really matters more at battalion and above is an overall level of fighting effectiveness -- "cohesion" is another way of saying it.

So it's not really a problem for campaigns if CMBN casualties are a bit higher than was realistic --- but what's really critical is having a formula to translate those casualty levels into some realistic loss of combat effectiveness for the campaign-scale unit.

3. The scenario editor lets us set maximum casualty thresholds in a scenario. So if you want historical accuracy, you can play with that and make the battle end if the attacker wastes too many lives before capturing the objective, or if the defender unrealistically tries to fight to the last man instead of pulling back after a certain point to fight another day.

[vincere]

2. Is bloody good point. Playing Blue in SF I never noticed any degrading of cohesion; but I didnt take mass casualties in the campaigns.

[Smeel]

Maybe a stupid question, but is it possible to make the ai start retreating to exit points if say, it's casuality treshold is too high? Like making a controlled retreat in places where they haven't been decimated.

[Chainsaw]

Much of what you are talking about is up to the scenario editor as well. If the AI is set to high morale etc they continue pushing on beyond what's normal. If the scenario editor have put the AI to low moral and skills they will hit the ground faster after taking casualtys and staying there or trying to retreat etc, so they will give more realistic casualtys figure - But a much boring scenario!

If you want to test realistic casualtys you have to do a campaign thats played human vs human with only core troops, giving the human the info that you cant tell him next time he will get reinforced.

THEN you will see drasticly lower casualtys!

[akd]

The only AI triggers are time-based.

[mjkerner]

mjKerner, I hear what you are saying about abstracting the kill ratio and this could be worked around but what effect will it have on campaigns when your force carries on to the next map ? unrealisticaly high casualties will result in very skewed results will they not?

Sonar, I agree, it will likely skew campaigns.

[skelley]

The only AI triggers are time-based.

Is that Confirmed? I thought they were adding event triggers.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Is that Confirmed?

Yes, that is confirmed.

[Broadsword56]

In that case, just fight the campaign-generated battles against real people, not the AI.

[sonar]

If you have a veteran battalion in a campaign and it takes 100 kia and 70 wounded, in what was not intense fighting, after the first action you have lost more than a full company of vets, after three such battles, you have sustained 100% casualties more or less. How will this affect your core force? I'm not familiar with the new system. The thing that worries me is the accuracy element because if this is maybe too high, then you will suffer higher casualties, irrespective of tactics.

[Chops]

YD,

On page 66 of the CMBN manual, it says, "Note: Seriously-wounded (red base) soldiers who have not received "buddy aid" (i.e. disappeared) by the end of the game have a 25% chance of becoming KIA in the final tally."

So it sounds like BF was thinking about it...

The same description is in both the CM:SF and CM:A manuals. So it does not appear that anything has been changed behind the scenes for the WW II setting.

[LongLeftFlank]

This has been discussed many times and consensus seems to be that CMBN pushes military forces well beyond their RL breaking points. IMHO not setting the triggers too tight is essential to afun game. Scenario builders who wish otherwise have ample tools at their disposal (Surrender triggers, friendly casualty VC, late game arty barrages) to shape more realistic behaviour.

I simply pretend that the "dead" is actually dead + medevac and the "wounded" have panicked, dropped their weapons and routed away, taking no further part in the fight.

[Sgt Joch]

Remember that in RL in WW2, many units would get lost and never get into contact with the enemy or would go to ground as soon as they contacted enemy troops, so even in a full scale assault only part of your forces would be involved.

Here, the player is always operating in god mode so he can make sure all of his forces are in action and his pixeltruppens will never disobey an order to charge a MG nest, so obviously casualties will be heavier than in RL.

However in an actual firefight, say two squads firing across a field from behind respective hedegerows, casualties are about what you would expect: much lead flying, lots of suppression, minimal casualties per turn. WW2 firearms were less deadly than modern weapons (shorter range, ROF) and firefights are more drawn out than in CMSF.

[Renaud]

I was think it would be possible to create small parallel cmx2/x1 scenarios and evaluate the AAR's after playing both to conclusion. The problem is that CMBO was very different than CMBB/AK, particularly suppression from small arms/MG's. Recommend using CMAK for the cmx1 side, rather than CMBO.

Same exact forces, exact same map (as close as possible anyway). Recommend infantry-only company-sized attack (human attacker vs. AI defender). No vehicles or towed guns, but including the typical company-level heavy weapons (mg's, light/medium mortars, etc.). Play both using the same level of care and casualty-aversion, then compare the results.

Note I don't propose this as a way to determine which game is 'right' or 'wrong', only as an interesting experiment.

[womble]

Some things that it'd be nice if the AI could account for, taken from old CMBB/AK and recent, shallow CMSF experience:

* stay the hell hidden if exposing yourself is going to get you killed deader'n a bunny at a jilted stalker's convention. (Example: a Syrian HQ which had been hiding in a hollow, unseen while its platoon was eradicated by artillery, snipers and AC fire, opens up on a squad that dismounts near it, when there are 3 AFVs (including a Challenger) and another squad within 150m, and the HQ has zero anti-armour weapons. They inflicted one casualty and all 8 of them were wiped out to a man.)

* refuse to do really stupid things (Example: drive over and past the crest of the last slope before the enemy's known position, in the open, in a soft-skinned vehicle before anything at all had been suppressed. I misclicked on the unit and didn't mean it to do it, and the driver was nailed before it'd got 10m past the crest.

* it'd be good if there was some way for troops to know that they're not required to advance into unexpected fire. If a RT player (that saw in time) would cancel the movement order and pull his pixeltruppen back out, the AI should be allowed to too, even if the unit in question had the morale to press the attack 'recklessly'. Some sort of orderable differentiation between "Go have a nosey round" and "Go kick any krauts you find out of that farmhouse". Obviously 'Assault' has some implied pressure to take and hold, but 'Quick' could be interpreted as "Quick, get 'em" or "Have a quick dash in there".

Hopefully the AI parameters in BN are all entirely to everyone's liking and this is just me bootlessly expressing a preference