Casualties in CMBN

[sonar]

German 3 para regiment,elite unit, defending Cassino town 1944.Between 14 and 23 March, during very heavy fighting they lost 50 men killed, 114 wounded and 270 missing. from a force reckoned to be 700-750, 60% casualty rate.

CMBN one hour battle, what looks to be a German infantry battalion, 157 men ok, 100 killed, 70-78 wounded = about 32% casualty rate, that is a bit stiff.

once again if it is just playing style, though again, from what I saw the ai did nothing suicidal in the battle, then ok, no problem but if it is that the accuracy of the aimed fire is too high, then that is a problem.

[stikkypixie]

German 3 para regiment,elite unit, defending Cassino town 1944.Between 14 and 23 March, during very heavy fighting they lost 50 men killed, 114 wounded and 270 missing. from a force reckoned to be 700-750, 60% casualty rate.

CMBN one hour battle, what looks to be a German infantry battalion, 157 men ok, 100 killed, 70-78 wounded = about 32% casualty rate, that is a bit stiff.

once again if it is just playing style, though again, from what I saw the ai did nothing suicidal in the battle, then ok, no problem but if it is that the accuracy of the aimed fire is too high, then that is a problem.

I feel that it's not the accuracy of aimed or unaimed fire that is the problem, but the fact that we put our little virtual soldiers in the position where they receive a large volume of fire. I guess in real battle most of the time people are hiding in cover.

[RogCBrand]

I feel that it's not the accuracy of aimed or unaimed fire that is the problem, but the fact that we put our little virtual soldiers in the position where they receive a large volume of fire. I guess in real battle most of the time people are hiding in cover.

True! The average experience of a unit would be a bit more boring than we'd want to "play". It is a game and it takes a lot of reality and facts, but puts us in exceptional circumstances where we can experience all out battle.

It's a major balancing act to get enough realism, while keeping a game fun, not taking too long to play and not too much work to run!

[Ryujin]

once again if it is just playing style, though again, from what I saw the ai did nothing suicidal in the battle, then ok, no problem but if it is that the accuracy of the aimed fire is too high, then that is a problem.

AI did nothing suicidal? You're talking about AAR2? Where the German attack consisted of what looked like a pair of platoon+ sized human waves across open ground? It was a massacre despite 40% advantage in numbers, as it should be.

They eventually got fire superiority, but for much of the battle was a shooting gallery for the Americans until the Germans over ran them due to having more than enough bullet sponges and MG42s to throw at them.

For human waves, I'd say 32% is reasonable enough.

[Dadekster88]

Yep, bullets are cheap. Trained soldiers are not. In RL no one is gonna follow an idiot into combat. I earned my blue cord and would've followed some CO's anywhere but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sprint through a minefield covered by machine guns in pillboxes because some butterbar who doesn't have the first clue tells me to. In this game they will, until morale factors kick in. Course most of the squad might be dead by then. In other words you can easily lead your virtual men to death and they won't question you one bit before you scream out GOGOGOGO!!!. That would never work in RL and so everything is done with a tad bit more caution. Little more boring, but definitely safer for all involved as far as combat can be called 'safe'.

I think BF has come up with a very well done compromise between playability and realism imo.

EDIT-

Let me clarify something, only an idiot would follow an idiot into combat.

[MikeyD]

Are you guys talking about the QB AAR, not a the purpose-built scenario? Criticizing casualty rates in a QB seems a pretty fruitless endeavor. Its a frickin' QB! What do you expect? I'm sorry if the one feature of the game that offers least control doesn't play as convincingly as a purpose-built historical scenario.

[Sgt Joch]

If you play the game as a real commander would, namely take your time to scout out enemy positions, stay under cover, use artillery/AFV direct fire to root out enemy positions, you can advance with minimal casualties...however that does not make for an exciting video AAR since your troops will spend most of their time sitting around waiting.

[Broadsword56]

Call me weird, but the suspense of scouting and moving into position and waiting for that first "buddabuddabudda" of enemy mg fire is about as exciting as anything else in CMBN. Realism = fun. Good tactics = fun. If I just want to see things blow up, I'll go to my local multiplex.

[Dadekster88]

Call me weird, but the suspense of scouting and moving into position and waiting for that first "buddabuddabudda" of enemy mg fire is about as exciting as anything else in CMBN. Realism = fun. Good tactics = fun. If I just want to see things blow up, I'll go to my local multiplex.

Agreed, waiting on first contact imo is the most tense. I think the second most would be watching the replay and seeing who gets a first shoot off between two heavyweight contenders in a tank duel at short range.

[Battlefront.com]

This topic comes up quite regularly. There's probably thousands of posts on this topic over the past 12 years because unrealistically high casualties is a standard problem with wargames. Especially tactical ones.

The bottomline is we can only do so much to keep casualties in line with real world averages. To really change things we would need to remove the player from having significant control over what happens. Because when you boil things down, the player is the "problem", not the game system itself. A game without a player, however, isn't much of a game! So obviously we're not going to go that route.

Steve

[Broadsword56]

As long as player/modders can tweak things to their liking if they like fewer casualties or many casualties, all will be well. Not the weapons lethality (which isn't the problem), but aspects of the game that reward/punish certain player behaviors.

[JonS]

... 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?

Yes. Of course. That's the point.

If you charge like a bull at a gate then your force is going to get shredded and you'll have difficulty completing the campaign, beit an internal CMBN campaign, or an external meta campaign. If, on the other hand, you play like you care about your own forces then you may not achieve all objectives in any given battle, but your forces will be fit to fight the next one.

[stikkypixie]

As long as player/modders can tweak things to their liking if they like fewer casualties or many casualties, all will be well. Not the weapons lethality (which isn't the problem), but aspects of the game that reward/punish certain player behaviors.

Sure you can really heavily penalize own casualties as a scenario designer or set the morale or motivation of the troops really low so that they will be very reluctant to fight back.

Play an average CMSF scenario as the Syrians and you'll see what I mean.

[sonar]

Hey MikeyD. no need to be sarcastic, I am only voicing a concern about something i see that worries me.

let me try to explain my question a little better.. I am worried about the actual accuracy of units firing in the game.

In cmx1, as a player, I tried and for the most part kept my casualties to within a level I would expect in real life, will my playstyle achieve similar results in cmbn, or is the casualty rate running higher across the board and if so why?

[Broken]

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.

WWII weapons may have been less lethal than in CMSF, but the units back then were packed much more densely. Historically, formations have become more spread out as firepower has increased. Since a modern platoon can put out the firepower of a WWII company, it can cover a defensive front equal to a WWII company. More, if you factor in more lethal arty, etc.

Also, tactical doctrine back then encouraged more densely packed infantry assault formations than is true today. These formations did not have the luxury of advancing under armor in an AFV.

The net result is roughly the same lethality per soldier in battle. Actually more, since highly casualty rates were tolerated in that era than are today. Consider that there were more US KIA in a few weeks in Normandy than in Iraq and Afghanistan over 10 years.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Doesn't seem at all the same kill rate given the circumstances.

Yeah, lots of guys getting hit, but lots of guys moving while under enemy fire. Try manoeuvring in CMSF while under infantry fire. It will be a short game if you do.

[Cameroon]

Hey MikeyD. no need to be sarcastic, I am only voicing a concern about something i see that worries me.

let me try to explain my question a little better.. I am worried about the actual accuracy of units firing in the game.

In cmx1, as a player, I tried and for the most part kept my casualties to within a level I would expect in real life, will my playstyle achieve similar results in cmbn, or is the casualty rate running higher across the board and if so why?

I would say that of course the results are going to be different, it isn't CMx1.

CMx2 has new mechanics and behaviors all over the place, so things you expected to work in a particular way won't and it will bite you.

And, as always comes up, the casualty rates are reflective more of the person in command. If you had low casualty rates in CMx1 and you and your opponent would quit/surrender/ceasefire when they got too high, then you can still do that in CMx2. On the other hand, if you had low casualty rates in CMx1 and your opponent had huge casualties, then you were just far outplaying them - not really keeping "realistic" (or maybe historically normal) rates.

[womble]

The bottomline is we can only do so much to keep casualties in line with real world averages. To really change things we would need to remove the player from having significant control over what happens. Because when you boil things down, the player is the "problem", not the game system itself.

To a point, I agree with you, but when the AI does things the player wouldn't ask them to do, if they actually had the ability to give less ambiguous orders, I think you're overstating the case some. Obviously, there will always be limits as to the level of control the player can exert, and those will change between WeGo and RT play. And it's always going to be hard to elicit the intentions of the player and translate that into numbers an engine can crunch.

Maybe the 'problem' that some players are in this respect is misusing the controls already available to them (using Quick, where Hunt would actually get them the result they desire, maybe). Maybe this can be addressed somewhere down the line, or finer grains of control made (possibly optionally) available, like a 'commitment' level for a type of move, maybe.

[Sgt Schultz]

Use green troops.

Their 'commitment' level is rather low, and their highly developed sense of self-preservation should keep your casualty rates low as well.

Although... this may result in a higher number of captured pixeltruppen, plus those few fellows that remembered pressing business off the map edge.

I take it we don't have the Global Morale meter hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles any more, making sure we do not press our boys too hard.

---

Now that would be a handy addition ...

Adjustable Global Morale(GM) triggers.

Casualties and lack of objectives = falling GM.

Time passing and no improvement of measured metrics = falling GM

Once GM reaches a set value ... battle ends and calculations for all victory conditions commences.

By adding in objectives to the casualty count, it denies formulating exact numbers needed to push the enemy into ceasefire.

Historical scenario where the battle ended after few casualties(Recon)?

Set it to 65%

Fictional Assault with historical units and a good fight ...

Set it to 35% for the Defender and say 50% for the attacker.

By making the settings adjustable for both sides, each with its own trigger value, you could obviate the need for objective calcs and just use casualties.

Scenario designers can build in increases in GM during a battle by way of reinforcements. EX. If the battle takes a lot out of one side early, but too much force at once would be unbalanced, send in reinforcements on turns 15 for a quick boost.

By adding objectives and a few other things into the mix(I see steve saying lol at the coding times involved), one could add more granularity to the rise and fall of GM during a battle. GM rises the longer a 'hold' objective is held. Each 'touch' is worth not only victory points, but GM percentage poinst as well... put in by the designer. GM rises/falls as median/average suppression rises/falls.

*

[Dadekster88]

Well, should make the east front interesting?

[Ryujin]

Well, should make the east front interesting?

The AI is way ahead of you

[Pandur]

WWII weapons may have been less lethal than in CMSF, but the units back then were packed much more densely. Historically, formations have become more spread out as firepower has increased. Since a modern platoon can put out the firepower of a WWII company, it can cover a defensive front equal to a WWII company. More, if you factor in more lethal arty, etc.

Also, tactical doctrine back then encouraged more densely packed infantry assault formations than is true today. These formations did not have the luxury of advancing under armor in an AFV.

The net result is roughly the same lethality per soldier in battle. Actually more, since highly casualty rates were tolerated in that era than are today. Consider that there were more US KIA in a few weeks in Normandy than in Iraq and Afghanistan over 10 years.

__________________

hm, regardless what was "back then", the soldiers are as stacked in CMSF as they are in CMBN. footprint of a squad/team is the same.

its not like i am against high casualties, WWII needs to have high casualties, but they should not be "scored" at the same speed/rate as CMSF casualties, when everything else is the same. and it seems they are in CMBN, from what i saw in the videos.

but again, maybe this looks different in the videos, the demo will tell.

EDIT:

PS.: conside how many casualties the iraqi and afghan side lost in "10 years"... ? maybe thats more like it?

[Peregrine]

Doesn't seem at all the same kill rate given the circumstances.

Yeah, lots of guys getting hit, but lots of guys moving while under enemy fire. Try manoeuvring in CMSF while under infantry fire. It will be a short game if you do.

This is 100% correct.

In CMBB playing big quick battles (1 regular vanilla battalion plus tanks 4-6 tanks in support) it was possible to move large numbers of Soviet troops across open snow.

Move in the open in CMSF and whole sqds get wrecked super quick at long range. Not comparable.

[gunnergoz]

I haven't played the game yet, so I can't be sure, but my guess is that the game may be labeling some WIA's as KIA's. IIRC, average casualty ratios then were something like 1:3, i.e. one KIA for each 3 WIA or 25%. 170 casualties in a scenario should then work out to about, say, 40-45 KIA and the rest WIA or missing. I'm curious to see for myself.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I haven't played the game yet, so I can't be sure, but my guess is that the game may be labeling some WIA's as KIA's. IIRC, average casualty ratios then were something like 1:3, i.e. one KIA for each 3 WIA or 25%. 170 casualties in a scenario should then work out to about, say, 40-45 KIA and the rest WIA or missing. I'm curious to see for myself.

If it is anything like CMSF the wounded to killed ratio is actually a way better match compared to what happened during a scenario then in CMx1 where you typically got about that 1:3 ratio no matter what happened.

In CMSF lots of exploding tanks/APCs and well aimed heavy ordinance kinda depresses the amount of wounded one gets. I expect it to be more or less the same for CMBN.