Scenario: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[DRG]

Originally Posted by jp10

If you increased the cost of the unit in the editor, would the other side not get more points for inflicting losses? You might eliminate a company but the loss of your platoon gives more points than what you received and give a victory them.

If you increase the cost of a unit and it is eliminated, the other side will get the increased points so yes, if you wanted casualties to have a greater effect on the final game score increasing them will do that


Don

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

I think what you also need to remember is game "casualties" (especially in regards to a high tech army Vs 3rd world forces) may not mean any/many are actually hurt - Most "Western" forces will tend to try to extract the wounded man immediately, That means as many as a whole section leaving the fight to carry their stricken comrade.

What I mean by this is SP reporting 6 casualties may mean 1 poor guy shot (but will probably recover) and 4 or 5 carrying him out. Game 6 casualties = military 1 casevac = public zero casualties.

Therefore no real need to change anything as this is effectively already built in (with experience and morale levels)

Yes and no. If a section (squad I think in the US) on a routine patrol takes a serious casualty what you say can, sometimes, be true: ie, a man down halts the patrol (but it often also results in reinforcements, or one sort or another, arriving). Everyone has probably seen something like this on TV documentaries.

How many games are based around very small scale routine patrols? Most are going to be reinforced Platoon sized at least.

In a platoon and Company sized op -and larger- while the man closest might do first aid and call for help, medics will deal with the casualty, if he is not simply dead, and the operation will continue, a single casualty will certainly not stop a whole section as you suggest.

Generally speaking a Platoon or Coy Orders group on an actual offensive operation -as opposed to a routine patrol- will generally include something roughly along the lines of "leave wounded men to the medics and keep bloody well moving."

[Suhiir]

Yep, platoon or larger sized units in most western (and many other) forces include a medic who's job is to deal with the wounded so everyone else can continue the battle.
Many times a buddy, or someone nearby, will provide immediate aid until the medic arrives then stay to assist/protect the medic so a "casualty" takes two people, at most, out of the battle.

[shahadi]

I'm trying to translate what ironduke started in his thread to our game. I'm trying to understand battle points, battle type, and the ratio of points between player 1 and player 2.

Given the force value of player 1 & player 2 respectively, is there a way to determine how many points the respective players need to gain to determine DV, MV, or Defeat. If so, how would VF's affect battle points.

=====

[IronDuke99]

I think this, sort of, fits here: This is some talks from the UK Royal United Services Institute on adapting the military for new challenges.
For my money the third speaker deserved more time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOEpJtqjCw

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOEpJtqjCw

VERY good series !

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

VERY good series !

Yes much of it is good.
I've now watched all of it and it was, in my opinion, very uneven.

The Four British Staff College officers were, with the partial exception of the last bloke, very, very, bland, using a lot of words to say not very much at all. And why no infantry office?

As an Englishman I am not in favour of supporting a German/EU desire (despite lacking the military strength to do so) to confront Russia in Eastern Europe, something for which the British Army is not suited in size, and that seems to me considerably less than vital to British, or even NATO, self interest.

The ex RAF Officer who predicted a 35,000 man British Army honestly horrified me. UK might, with a considerable increase in the Royal Navy (and perhaps the RAF) live with an Army of a regular strength of 70-80,000, since that is not so different from the general historical strength of the British Army in the UK when the British Army had to garrison an Empire, but any reduction much below this will make it useless for almost any serious military purpose.

I thought the CGS speech was so, so, good in parts but really rather too PC when talking about a military force that is designed, at the end of the day, to kill the enemy. As Rudyard Kipling, rightly said, "Single men in barracks don't grow into plaster Saints." Nor should we expect them too.

[IronDuke99]

In some respects this is the most interesting speech at this Conference. He identifies a lot of common military thinking failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zLzW86134

Worth noting though that the US Army took great note of the German Army in WWII because no one ever really defeated them with equal resources. All the Western allies required more men, more air power, more guns, more tanks and more supply to win large scale battles, the same was true of the Soviets (who also needed a whole lot of US trucks and half tracks often fought through to them, at considerable cost, by, mainly, the Royal Navy).

German doctrine and officer, especially staff officer training, was simply better than her enemies on a tactical and, often, operational level. Thankfully this was not true on a strategic level, were Anglo-US cooperation worked, on the whole, very well, despite disputes and often strong arguments.

A lot of the modern idea of a thinking and flexible Army, to me, has its roots in German WWI and WWII doctrine and Staff training.
Especially when you hear about Senior officers being "eyes on and hands off." That is pretty much exactly the pre WWII German idea of give a subordinate an objective but let him come up with the means. C. 1937-2016 and it is, supposedly new...

[Airborne Rifles]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

In some respects this is the most interesting speech at this Conference. He identifies a lot of common military thinking failures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zLzW86134

Worth noting though that the US Army took great note of the German Army in WWII because no one ever really defeated them with equal resources. All the Western allies required more men, more air power, more guns, more tanks and more supply to win large scale battles, the same was true of the Soviets (who also needed a whole lot of US trucks and half tracks often fought through to them, at considerable cost, by, mainly, the Royal Navy).

German doctrine and officer, especially staff officer training, was simply better than her enemies on a tactical and, often, operational level. Thankfully this was not true on a strategic level, were Anglo-US cooperation worked, on the whole, very well, despite disputes and often strong arguments.

A lot of the modern idea of a thinking and flexible Army, to me, has its roots in German WWI and WWII doctrine and Staff training.
Especially when you hear about Senior officers being "eyes on and hands off." That is pretty much exactly the pre WWII German idea of give a subordinate an objective but let him come up with the means. C. 1937-2016 and it is, supposedly new...

Yep, we still study WWI and WWII German doctrine in our professional education.

[SaS TrooP]

Given completely random and totally not argumented exp/mor stats for most of the nations - with very little of actual realism - I would doubt if Mobhack covers that part.
Exp is still most important factor around. When exp is insufficiently provided, strange things happen.