WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?

[vic]

Sorry this response took so long Nick. I was referring to multiple infantry UNITS in the same hex. I realize larger squads take more casualties than small ones, all other things equal.

E.g you can load up a hex with multiple units so that the density of men in a hex is so large that it would be "in real life" a "can't miss" proposition. I have tested this, particularly with artillery and the only conclusion I can draw from the data is that the DENSITY of men in a hex plays little if any part in resultant casualty calculations.

IRL more densley packed areas generate casualties at a PROPORTIONALLY higher rate than sparsely populated areas. This is because of the good old pi r^2 deal, with blast defined as a radius (proportionally more men clsoer to the center of the blast). This is why terrorist bombers go for high personnel-density targets.

What appears to happen in the game is that each UNIT checks to see if it's IN a hex that receives fire and causalties are assessed BUT no adjustment is made for the fact that unit members are more densely arranged because of other units in the hex.

So, for example, in the game 4 infantry squads in the SAME hex will suffer the same TOTAL casualties from an artillery hit as they would if each squad were ALONE in a hex each of which was hit by artillery round. IRL causalties would be significantly higher in the case of the "packed" hex versus 4 squads spread around. Brings to mind the phrase "target rich environment".

In testing this I have gone to extremes, literally packing a hex with infantry squads (the equivalent of shoulder-to-shoulder). [I think all this testing is a sign I need to "get a life". ]

There is a penalty for putting multiple units in a hex, namely one "shot" affects mutliple units. But the RATE of casualties caused aren't any worse than if the units were alone in a hex.

This may have been done to enhance playability, making more of the fire-and-maneuver aspect. The game (compared to actual combat stats) diminishes casualties from fragmentation weapons (arty, mortars etc.) while enhancing rifle fire lethality. Also, given the limitations of computer hardware and software at the time the original game was developed the designer(s) may have had little choice in omitting more complex modeling (e.g. also MG fire).

The other point is of course this started life as a "tank" game with an emphasis on point targets and vehicle-to-vehicle fire. The infantry was shoe-horned in to the vehicle model. With all these limitations considered, the Camo guys have done a remarkably good job in bringing the game along to its current level. And all purely for the love of the game, wow.

Best,
Vic

[chuckfourth]

Hi Vic
Im actually looking at casualty causes at the moment, would you be able to point me to any references that detail casulaties causes? especially from indirect fire fragmentation?
Best Regards Chuck.

[vic]

Chuck,

All I had was from the library and that was some time ago and my aging memory fails.

However from "Dirty Litle Secrets of WWII" (Dunnigan and Nofi, not a bad little read incidentally):

U.S Army Medical Service, Historical Unit "Wound Ballistics"
Washington, D.C, Office of the Surgoen General, 1962.
Alllegedly "not for the fainthearted"; covers WWII and Korea.

Also from "DLS of WWII" (page 58):

Regarding GI opinions of which weapons were feared:

"Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" [i read this as >= 50% - vv] "...mortars 17%...MG's 6%..."

same page...

"Interestingly none of the troops feared rifle fire or considered it 'dangerous'. This was also quite accurate. The most dangerous weapons were artillery (including mortars) and these accounted for over two thirds of all casualties."

Add in other fragmentation (grenades, mines, aircraft ordinance etc.) to the fragmentation numbers, take into consideration most bullet wounds came from MG's (sheer volume of fire) and there's precious little left for "rifle fire" and even that would include snipers.

The classic (tactical) method of inflicting casualties on advancing troops (especially in the open) was to pin them with MG fire and then mortar them. Obviously "advancing in the open" was avoided if at all possible. Company and battalion mortars were handy, responsive and very accurate, particularly in the hands of experienced crew.

The USMC made good use of the 60mm (two or three tubes per company) and first-person info on this can be found in "With The Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa" (the late E.B. Sledge, Marine mortarman, who later became IIRC a college professor, Presidio Press, November 1981. There is also a Bantam Press paperback version, crica 1983.)

Also from DLS of WWII (pp 237-238):

Re: German tactics

"Every infantry squad of ten [not twelve] men had an MG ...crew would always set up before the rest of the squad advanced. In defense, the rest of the squad was there mainly to defend and find targets for the MG. The platoon commander had his three squad MGs to work with and was trained to ensure that enemy troops would rarely avoid walking into a wall of MG fire. The Germans put a lot of thought and energy into placing their MGs...In effect a German infantry squad was just one big MG unit. The other men in the squad [provided protecion, spotted targets etc.] and of course carried a lot of [MG] ammunition. ...German units carried a lot more [MG] ammuntion with them than did comparable American outfits. On the battlefield, firepower was king and the Germans knew it."

hope this helps some. seems like i did a web search for detailed casualty stats a while back and didn't, strangely enough, come up with much sufficiently detailed information. maybe i quit too soon.

as an aside, i did a lot of testing in SPWW2 in an effort to get rifle fire casualties down but none of it did much good. i shortened rifle to range to 7 (the practical maximum anyway) and reduced HE kill to 0 and it was still very bloody, particularly at closer ranges.

part of this is due to the significant overstatement of rifles in a squad. e.g. the SPWW2 German squad "fires" 12 rifles. in fact a real squad had 7-8; 10 man squad with a two/three-man MG crew. (firepower-wise the SP squad is more like a 14-15 man group.) this was what gave rise to the "subtactical" (another post this thread) tests i did. in this i had fire teams (3-4 men) that had ONLY rifles/grenades and others that had ONLY an MG. this mitigated things somewhat casualty-wise (i.e. no slot 1 weapon x "men" PLUS MG in the same unit). however other issues (fragility, propensity to pin etc.) developed which made the try problematic.

perhaps another scheme might work, e.g. "men" in squad equals actual MINUS MG/"secondary weapon" crew. so a GE squad of 10 with rifle, MG, HG, RG would use an SP "men" value of 7 or 8. This would reduce rifle fire casualties and help the fragility issue (enough?). likewise a USMC squad of 12 with rifle, 2xBAR, HG, torch would use "men" = 9 (deduct 3 for the BARs and the flamethrower).

it's a lot of work doing all the modifying and testing and i kind of burned out on the last iteration.

good luck with your research and please share any good info/sources you may run across!

best,
vic

[chuckfourth]

Hi Vic
Thanks for the reply, one site I know of that may be of some interest to you is
http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm
Ill try to dig up the library stuff, but this can be difficult, might be better to look online as I know Ive seen some stats online but never bookmarked them, so the long search begins. Ill send on any links I find.
I do have a comment about artillery you may find interesting.
The statement "Artillery was the major cause of casualties among the infantry" probably deserves a little qualifying. Without seeing the references Id say that its not just the number of casualties thats important but -when- they occoured. At any one time, on most fronts most units sat opposite each other relatively inactive. During these periods other than occassional patrols and sniping the best way to "annoy" your opposite is to drop mortar rounds (or bigger if available) on him any time there is a gathering or any other opportune time. These casualties shouldnt be included in statistics presented to define in-game weapon effectiveness as the game models battles and these casualties occour outside of battles. The question remains of course, what proportion of artillery casualties occour within battles? I seem to remember seeing somewhere that it is actually quite small, but Ill try to confirm this. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that the Mortar was thoroughly hated by the infantry because of its use in this way as a tool of harrassment.
Best Regards Chuck.

[thatguy96]

For those of you who haven't seen it yet.

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1