Casualties in CMBN

[JasonC]

"the casualty rates are reflective more of the person in command"

Can you name any person in command who gets casualty rates as low as the actual historical commanders and the actual historical loss rates?

If not, this argument has gotten rather stale...

[JonS]

Yeah: me, when I can be bothered.

[Battlefront.com]

The argument got stale a long time ago, but that doesn't stop it from resurfacing every couple of weeks

A good player, who is cautious about his actions, can get reasonably historic casualty losses when playing a well made scenario. There's plenty of people who played CM:SF that walked away with 1 or 2 casualties after a 2 hour long Battalion - sized fight. But in the hands of a less competent player, the results could be wildly less favorable.

That's for the Blue side. For the Red side casualties in CM:SF tend to be higher than they would be in real life because of two important factors:

1. They are controlled by a single entity, either AI or Human.

2. They actually show up to fight.

In real life Red tends to have problems actually engaging in a ground war. They are either laid waste before they get into position or encounter Blue when disorganized. In any case, Red tends to not put up much of a fight. It's the prime reason something like Thunder Run was able to succeed and why, in one case, the only opposition was an Iraqi Major manning a AAA gun.

But that makes for a really lousy game, doesn't it?

Check out the casualty rates sustained in military training exercises like those out at NTC. The casualty rates I've seen are closer to what CM:SF has and much higher than what real world experiences have been for the past 20+ years.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

Naw, that's just guys not drinking enough Mountain Dew, errr I mean water

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i don't mind the losses caused by pushing hard. what bothers me, a bit, is the way those losses are created.

it looks like it's easy to shoot the enemy dead with small-arms fire, and from quite a range.

it also looks like the TacAI is a bit weak on self-preservation side, letting men run, stand or kneel when under fire. in general it seems men die instead of becoming suppressed. it also seems like the improvements to the positioning of individual men are still not quite where i was hoping they would be (e.g. crawl 2 meters to be able to shoot while laying down, instead of shooting while standing). hopefully it's something to do with playstyle.

perhaps the demo will prove it's better than it looks like. and it's still just a game anyway, no need to be 100% perfect. it already looks like Close Combat 3D and the tanks aren't spinning nearly as much!

btw regarding green troops, it's the green troops that should push on and die and the veterans who should call it a day and live to fight another day.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

it would be so cool if by the time CM returns to the east front:

- individual men would adjust their positions a bit more

- suppression effects would be increased

- squad leaders would be simulated (teams dash & duck, bouding overwatch with teams, volley firing -- some of this is up to player but not 100%)

- platoon leaders would be simulated (seems this is still missing)

[Offshoot]

Out of curiosity, how are personnel casualties calculated in game? I understand from other posts that vehicle casualties are calculated off the 3D model now with multitude other factors incorporated, but what about people? Is the trajectory of every bullet tracked to see if it hits a 3D man? And if it does, how then is a KIA determined rather than a WIA? Are body areas tracked, or a random chance applied based on pre-determined factors, or something else?

[stikkypixie]

Out of curiosity, how are personnel casualties calculated in game? I understand from other posts that vehicle casualties are calculated off the 3D model now with multitude other factors incorporated, but what about people? Is the trajectory of every bullet tracked to see if it hits a 3D man? And if it does, how then is a KIA determined rather than a WIA? Are body areas tracked, or a random chance applied based on pre-determined factors, or something else?

Basically yes if I understood it correctly (and it seems to be that way from experience in CMSF), but in lesser detail. Bullets (all of them!) are tracked, but the soldier models are less detailed than the tank models. In CMSF body armour was tracked for example, but there was no distinction between upper torso or lower torso etc.. Also the "calculations" are a bit fudged to give more realistic results because the 3D guys are not as smart. So a hit to the arm might not result in an injury because the game decides that guy was lucky even though the polygon was clearly intersected. It is a bit less easy to see because unlike tank shells not every bullet can be seen (some people feel the tracers are already over represented). If you look at the second video AARs posted by Tyrspawn you can see that each time a bullet hit a tank it results in a hit text (minute 39, keep an eye on the Tiger).

[Battlefront.com]

it would be so cool if by the time CM returns to the east front:

It would be cool if people played the game before making conclusions about low level behaviors

- individual men would adjust their positions a bit more

It's adequate the way it is now. Doing more risks getting guys into the "dancing" problem where they never seem to be satisfied with where they are, but instead feel there is always somewhere better to go.

Remember, terrain is still abstracted to some degree. FAR less than CMx1, but there's still some degree of unseen cover/concealment.

- suppression effects would be increased

Testers seem to be fine with the current balance. In fact, we have an instance right now where there is a complaint about a specific situation having too much suppression.

- squad leaders would be simulated (teams dash & duck, bouding overwatch with teams, volley firing -- some of this is up to player but not 100%)

It's in there already. If you want organized bounding overwatch, use the Assault Command.

- platoon leaders would be simulated (seems this is still missing)

?!? All leadership positions, and assistant leaders where relevant, are explicitly simulated. As are specialities, such as AT Expert, Marksman, Gunner, etc.

Steve

[JasonC]

JonS - I'm intrigued. Do your opponents also have historical casualty rates when you can be bothered, or are they commanded by a machine and do they die to the last man?

I'm not interested in lopsided cakewalk scenarios, nor in cases where one side has a brain commanding it and the other does not.

Two roughly balanced forces, balanced enough at least that either has a chance to win (counting tactical stance terrain time etc), both commanded by human beings.

And both, not one, resulting in realistically low casualties.

I've no doubt that good enough play against bad enough play (machine or not) can result in a complete force kill for near zero losses for the winners.

What I want to know is, can both sides try, and both sides have moderate losses to the end of the scenario?

I sincerely want the answer to be "yes". But I also want the answer to be true, not spin...

[JonS]

JonS - I'm intrigued. Do your opponents also have historical casualty rates when you can be bothered, or are they commanded by a machine and do they die to the last man?

Sure. Why not? There is nothing in the game that prevents it.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

It would be cool if people played the game before making conclusions about low level behaviors

fair enough, i won't comment further until i have played the game

[Battlefront.com]

Two roughly balanced forces, balanced enough at least that either has a chance to win (counting tactical stance terrain time etc), both commanded by human beings.

And both, not one, resulting in realistically low casualties.

I've no doubt that good enough play against bad enough play (machine or not) can result in a complete force kill for near zero losses for the winners.

And how many of the tens of thousands of tactical battles in WW2 fit THAT description? I know of none in Modern warfare, so I presume you are speaking about WW2.

I sincerely want the answer to be "yes". But I also want the answer to be true, not spin...

The answer has been provided to you about 100 times and you so far don't seem to grasp that what you're looking for is not to be found in a wargame. Not any, not even at a higher level, because once you put a player (AI or Human) into the mix the results become distorted compared to the historical record. Not to mention another half dozen "game" related elements.

Are you familiar with the outcomes of NTC battles in terms of casualties, equipment losses, ground gained, etc? If you're not, may I suggest you educate yourself on what the US military deems a realistic simulation of conventional warfare?

Honestly, people who obsess over historical casualty stats being reflected in a wargame should stick to reading history books. Because, frankly, that's the only way you're going to see what you're looking for.

Steve

[RogCBrand]

Honestly, people who obsess over historical casualty stats being reflected in a wargame should stick to reading history books. Because, frankly, that's the only way you're going to see what you're looking for.

Steve

Very true! In something like CM I may feel a bit more like my troops are real men that I don't want to get killed needlessly, but, in reality, no game will ever truly give you that feeling- they are still going to be computer generated troops in a GAME and you aren't going to be as careful with them as you would real men- for most of us we play because it's fun, while real combat is not fun- it is horrible and losing just one man would be crushing to a leader.

I love seeing CM develop greater realism, starting with CMBO and progressing, but in the end, that realism will always be partial and that's actually a good thing, because most of us want to enjoy playing- as a GAME.