Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies

[shahadi]

IronDuke99 in his recent thread: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=833713&postcount=1 proffered that winsbmpt casualties are too high given real world perceptions of acceptable losses. I found the discussion fascinating and in designing my latest Afghan USMC scenario I am testing various ways to impact battle points with respect to casualties.

Question, what percentage of a light infantry company from a First World army would be accepted as losses, no more than 6, 8, or 10 percent?

=====

[Suhiir]

The problem with "acceptable losses" is you're dealing primarily with civilian perceptions which are most definitely NOT the same as military.

In general, and I stress this is the military viewpoint, the US Army considers a unit to be "combat ineffective" at around 25% casualties, the USMC at around 50%. The key here is the term "combat ineffective" not the number of casualties. It's felt that at these casualty percentages the loss of firepower, unit cohesion, and morale means the unit can no longer be expected to perform the mission a unit of a given size would be expected to perform.

For a US Army 9-man squad 25% is the loss of 2-3 men, the remaining 6-7 can no longer be expected to perform a full squads mission. The USMC squad is 13-men, so a loss of 50% still leaves it with 6-7 men ... the same size as the US Army squad with 25% losses. This is one of the reasons the USMC feels it can accept more losses (also the "Sturmtruppen" attitude of the USMC).
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/06/16/5_differences_between_army_and_marine_infantry_108 075.html

Civilians on the other hand tend to see losses of more then 5-10% as horrific. And I can understand this, imagine if 1-in-10 people near you died or were maimed in the next few minutes ... that's pretty devastating to the uninitiated.

Keep in mind WinSPMBT deals with military not civilian perceptions (and I've long felt the AI is secretly run by WW II Japanese).

[shahadi]

The problem with "acceptable losses" is you're dealing primarily with civilian perceptions which are most definitely NOT the same as military.

In general, and I stress this is the military viewpoint, the US Army considers a unit to be "combat ineffective" at around 25% casualties, the USMC at around 50%. The key here is the term "combat ineffective" not the number of casualties. It's felt that at these casualty percentages the loss of firepower, unit cohesion, and morale means the unit can no longer be expected to perform the mission a unit of a given size would be expected to perform.

For a US Army 9-man squad 25% is the loss of 2-3 men, the remaining 6-7 can no longer be expected to perform a full squads mission. The USMC squad is 13-men, so a loss of 50% still leaves it with 6-7 men ... the same size as the US Army squad with 25% losses. This is one of the reasons the USMC feels it can accept more losses (also the "Sturmtruppen" attitude of the USMC).
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/06/16/5_differences_between_army_and_marine_infantry_108 075.html

Keep in mind WinSPMBT deals with military not civilian perceptions (and I've long felt the AI is secretly run by WW II Japanese).

Good stuff!

By Iwo Jima losses the game AI maybe ran by Japanese ghosts. I read an account of that battle where only 7 out of 22 battalion commanders survived and other accounts where privates were field promoted to lead platoons. Horrific losses. Even, more to your point of civilian expectations, after the San Francisco Examiner ran stories of the mounting losses, the panic screamed.

Thanks suhiir. I'm thinking more of civilian perceptions than military combat ineffectiveness.

Actually, I'm working on the scenario when I got email notification of your post.

=====

[IronDuke99]

Speaking as a Pom who lives in Aussie, I agree with what Suhiir said.

Modern (ie, certainly 2000 onwards) western censors, firepower and body armour all tend to reduce casualties against 3rd world enemies. (although body armour sometimes prevents death rather than wounding).

These days in a modern Western military with body armour, and helo evacuation of casualties, excellent medical services, etc if you lose 10 men as casualties chances are only one or two will die.

Civilians, including the media, tend to take much more note of military deaths than they do of military wounded (which, maybe, is partly why we end up with so many homeless/in problems ex military, but I digress).

In game terms a casualty is a casualty, without regard to being more or less slightly wounded up to atomised.

No Commander likes casualties to his own men. Every Commander, worth his salt, strives to minimize his own sides casualties in his plan, while still carrying out his assigned job of work. Battalion Commanders and above tend, these days, to be very conscious of the media, while those below them are much less so.

My own view on modern, COIN/terrorist/guerilla, game scenario design would be that an objective would have to be very vital for it to give victory, in an offensive operation, to a Western military that suffered, at most, anything over 25% casualties. Defensive ops would have different rules, since being overrun, against a lot of these types, would almost certainly result in 100% unpleasant death and the spoiling of ones whole day.

Scenario designers need to make maximum use of assets like, night vision devices (ie, a Western military should be able to spot the enemy considerably better than the enemy spots them at night or in poor visibility) attack helos, spotter drones, close air support and artillery, etc.

Use Preferences and increase a Western forces Search (to help spotting) and also Infantry Toughness (to allow for body armour). I also tend to slightly raise Western and/or lower terrorist/guerilla Hitting as well since many of them -not all- seem to have poor shooting skills.

My view is that, in general, the game is pretty good at showing peer on peer warfare, such as a Russian or Chinese battle group v a US or British battle group (that is always going to be bloody) but you have to tweek it a bit to be more accurate for COIN ops and then give the western side fairly strict parameters to win the game.

[IronDuke99]

PS
Please remember Western soldiers are relatively expensive (although none of them are paid enough) and there are fewer and fewer of them.

In my day (1980's) the British Armed Forces (Royal Navy including Royal Marines, British Army and Royal Air Force) was over 325,000 strong.

Today the British Armed Forces are only about 187,000 strong, in my view, at least, 50,000 short of what is required.

(That compares to to over 393,000 prior to WWI and over 384,000 prior to WWII, although the vital RN strength was relatively much higher in both cases).

US, and other Western, forces are also all thinner on the ground than they once were...

[shahadi]

Use Preferences and increase a Western forces Search (to help spotting) and also Infantry Toughness (to allow for body armour). I also tend to slightly raise Western and/or lower terrorist/guerilla Hitting as well since many of them -not all- seem to have poor shooting skills.


Regarding Preferences, do have numbers in mind to affect the changes you suggest? I'd appreciate the numbers.

=====

[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)

[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.

[DRG]

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]

Use Preferences and increase a Western forces Search (to help spotting) and also Infantry Toughness (to allow for body armour). I also tend to slightly raise Western and/or lower terrorist/guerilla Hitting as well since many of them -not all- seem to have poor shooting skills.


Regarding Preferences, do have numbers in mind to affect the changes you suggest? I'd appreciate the numbers.

=====

For post C. 2000 games, for what little it is worth, I tend to increase the Western forces spotting to 150% and and infantry toughness to 140%, while increasing hitting to 110-120%. If terrorist/guerilla forces have any armour I will also reduce that armour's toughness by 10-20% to simulate poor maintenance,lack of spares etc. This latter is especially important with more advanced tank designs with advanced armour.

As I said, this goes along with setting the Western forces low, ie, 25% maximum in most cases, casualties to gain victory.

[IronDuke99]

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

[Imp]

For post C. 2000 games, for what little it is worth, I tend to increase the Western forces spotting to 150% and and infantry toughness to 140%, while increasing hitting to 110-120%. If terrorist/guerilla forces have any armour I will also reduce that armour's toughness by 10-20% to simulate poor maintenance,lack of spares etc. This latter is especially important with more advanced tank designs with advanced armour.

As I said, this goes along with setting the Western forces low, ie, 25% maximum in most cases, casualties to gain victory.

I tried these settings are you aware quite how powerful they are, as above using 120% to hit.
Only rough as did not set experience to 60 for each unit just switched off training & set experience to 80 for the USA & 63 for the enemy which was also USA using identical units.
Played both sides for a few turns with the following observations.

Side A exp 80 & boosted prefrences.
Side B exp 63 standard prefrences. (3rd world tend to be 60 to 65 experience.

17% average experince diffrencealready effects morale search hit etc.
80 experince attempt to dodge shots fairly often, 63 hardly ever.
80 gain more shots in 3rd & 4th slots need to be higher to gain overal shots so not much diffrence both have same number of shots for rifle & LMG.
80 will also normaly recover quicker & stay in the battle longer.

1) Did not notice much diffrence due to increased toughness though it was the thing I looked at the least, may benefit more if weapon is size zero but did not study much.

2) Spotting big diffrence on occasion side A moving 2 hexes could spot a stationary side B unit first.
If both units moving at 2 hexs A would spot B 3-4 hexes earlier. Big advantage massive if was defending.

This does not take into account side B is more likely to be suppresed as takes longer to recover & USA would be far more likely to be able to bring support weapons or vehicles to bear.
Also doesnt allow for units vision 15 or 20 vs zero helping with minor vision hindrances due to terrain & invisible smoke etc, this simulation units were identical.

3) Hitting realy dont think needs modifying, my guess the more accurate the weapon the bigger diffrence this makes.
To hit fully stationary units with accurate weapons (above6 accuracy) is often 50% better for side A

Bradley (bushmaster firing) Abrams firing at range 30 hit chances at range 30 vs identical target.
Side A around 90% vs 60% for side B.
Infantry vs infantry or above vehicles vs infantry the diffrence is not quite so severe but still a third sometimes more, depends on range.
MMG at range side A is twice as accurate as side B 6 vs 3%

I would say if using these settings side A needs there unit costs increased quite considerably especially if they are allowed the luxury of time to make best use of the adjustments.

[shahadi]

I wonder if the game has taken into account variations in quality of armies with adjustments to formation experience and morale modifiers in the Mobhack utility.

I am hesitant to publish scenarios relying on changes to Preferences as it is cumbersome to manage, switching back and form between default and a particular scenario settings.

=====

[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.

[jp10]

I am hesitant to publish scenarios relying on changes to Preferences as it is cumbersome to manage, switching back and form between default and a particular scenario settings.

I am building a series of scenarios right now where I am using edits to unit's Experience, Morale, Speed, Ammo...etc to reflect the historical factors of leadership,supply, situational awareness and reaction and for one group, their orders to defend their location only. This is allowing me to simulate a varying quality of units without using a global preference setting outside of default.

[Imp]

I wonder if the game has taken into account variations in quality of armies with adjustments to formation experience and morale modifiers in the Mobhack utility.

I am hesitant to publish scenarios relying on changes to Preferences as it is cumbersome to manage, switching back and form between default and a particular scenario settings.

=====

The game does take this into account if I understand you & you have training switched on.
A countries experience & morale varies across the time frame according to training.
Elite units get formation specific increases.
Some units like second line get formation specific reductions.

No expert but experience effects many factors of a troops capabilites including its secondary command options, number of shots, accuracy, avoidance, vision.
Set some infantry to 120 exp. & put them against 60 exp. infantry to make the diffrences obvious.
If weapons are the same & exp diffrence is quite large the more experienced unit is better off trying to fight at long to mid range to capitalise on its accuracy & possibly extra shots & better spoting abilities.
High experince units though also are far more capable in terrain where they bump heads, more likely to spot the unit even if surpressed, hardier & often devasting firepower.

As you can adjust morale seperatly its not hard to produce the type of unit your after.
Poorly trained fanatics for example would be low experience but high morale.
You can edit individuals but just copying the formation & applying modifiers to it is quicker.

A good example of experince albeit in WWll is Russia vs Germany
Germany starts with a good experince advantage which swings through the war to the Russians favour.
At the start Russian tanks are inacurate & get very few shots with which to increase accuracy due to staying on target. Their is a Fair bit of engage & pray involved, later Russian experince increases help offset the generaly more accurate German tanks making life far easier overall.

Worse equipment so long as it can do the job is not a major problem in good hands but combined with poor troop quality its a huge problem. Experince (training) is probably therefore more important than technology till technology has an advantage that makes the other systems fairly redundant so long as you use the right tactics.

[Suhiir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zOEpJtqjCw
VERY good series !

[IronDuke99]

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

[Suhiir]

I know from personal experience up till the 80's the USMC was still working under the "achieve this objective" model, how it was achieved was up to the subordinate commanders.

During Gulf-I (I was with 2nd MarDiv) each regimental task force (more-or-less the equivalent of a US Army Brigade) was given a corridor of responsibility and the final objective, Kuwait City. Each subordinate battalion had it's own section of that corridor. Units were expected to coordinate with those on their flanks to insure they stayed in a more-or-less in a cohesive line of advance.

While it may not sound like a terribly large improvement from "Go to A, now go to B, now..." being assigned a sector of responsibility and an axis of advance is pretty significant.

[Airborne Rifles]

I know from personal experience up till the 80's the USMC was still working under the "achieve this objective" model, how it was achieved was up to the subordinate commanders.

During Gulf-I (I was with 2nd MarDiv) each regimental task force (more-or-less the equivalent of a US Army Brigade) was given a corridor of responsibility and the final objective, Kuwait City. Each subordinate battalion had it's own section of that corridor. Units were expected to coordinate with those on their flanks to insure they stayed in a more-or-less in a cohesive line of advance.

While it may not sound like a terribly large improvement from "Go to A, now go to B, now..." being assigned a sector of responsibility and an axis of advance is pretty significant.

This is still how it is, in the Army as well. Operation orders can get voluminous, but in the end you get a mission and a commander's intent from higher, and you have great freedom in how you execute within those wide boundaries.

[Airborne Rifles]

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.

[Suhiir]

There are always things to be learned from history. To bad so few seem to actually do so.


Thats a human constant I think because most people are too focused on the "here and now" or think they have "evolved" more than past generations so "assume" they could not possibly make the same mistakes.

I wonder if the Russians in Finland in 1940 remembered what happened to three Roman legions that were destroyed in the Teutoburg Forest 1,931 years earlier long before the term "Motti" was coined

Don

[DRG]

Oh-oh..........I really screwed that up, it was supposed to be a reply with quote not an edit !!...... :mad::doh::doh::doh: Mea culpa

[shahadi]

In the game against third world armies, the force values of Western armies are significantly greater, putting a tremendous advantage to the third world or insurgent forces.

To achieve a DV requires near complete destruction of the opponent with minimal damage to the Western side. A loss of an aircraft, FOO, or an USMC SMAW team can negatively affect the ratio of damage points so much so that a DV is not possible with such a singular loss.

I am finding that in a timed objectives scenario, the placement of VFs impacts the game battle damage points more than in a non-timed objectives battle.

In general, when a Western army is faced against a determined insurgent force, the scenario must pay particular attention to the value and placement of VFs.

I am struggling to get a balance in my scenario given an extremely high force value USMC side (western forces are expensive) against a low force value Taliban side with mixed results. Therefore, I am forced to study Pros and his suggestions for the use of victory flags (although his tutorial proceeded timed objectives).

=====

[Imp]

Regarding timed objectives which I use them regulary to force the pace in any battle I sm supposed to advance including meetings, this could be the opposite of what you desire.
Western side vs third world my one adjustment would probably be to time, make the battle longer to allow better recon & use of support.
You only have to look on youtube to see how loses are kept low.
Infantry finds the target then requests backup & if needs be mops up. Fortified house, plane or artillery lends an assist.
Sniper, fire ATGM or finger of god at the building or if hes in a field break out the grenade launcher or better still wait for the Bradley to turn up.
Seems a bit like overkill but it certainly saves lives & to be fair thats probably more US side than Western side the rest are more likely to get their hands dirty.
Youtube videos as a reference may not paint a realistic picture though if things are getting up close & personel taking the video might take lower priority.

[Suhiir]

Time is really the big thing. While the action might be hot and heavy for a few minutes or hours it's rarely longer ... the battle of Ia Drang (from the "We Were Soldiers" movie) is the exception. The "West" has a lot of support assets and makes liberal use of them. For the most part "Third World" forces have what they carried to the battle and little else.

[DRG]

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and corps commander during the war but as far as " rises to the top " goes it's hard to beat this....

Enlisted as Private July 1861. (White's Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
Commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel, October 1861 (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)

3 months from Private to Lieutenant Colonel is quite a feat

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don

[shahadi]

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?

=====

[Suhiir]

Logistics......... I had intended to (mis)quote Nathan Bedford Forrest's "git thar fustest with the mostest." to illustrate the point but that sent me down the google rabbit hole of information and I'll derail this thread a bit

But on the thread topic I think forcing a quick outcome only benifits the "low tech" side so allowing more time to bring all the support required to cut down casualties would help balance the high cost of first world units ....and best caution the player to not rush things

Don
I'd tend to agree.
If you look at most of the battles in Vietnam, post-invasion Iraq, and Afghanistan the low-tech side tends to hit as hard as possible as fast as possible then run for cover before the high-tech assets can be brought to bear.
No one ever said they were stupid, as a whole ... there's always the 10%!

[shahadi]

He (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and corps commander during the war but as far as " rises to the top " goes it's hard to beat this....

Enlisted as Private July 1861. (White's Company "E", Tennessee Mounted Rifles)
Commissioned as Lieutenant Colonel, October 1861 (3rd Tennessee Cavalry)

3 months from Private to Lieutenant Colonel is quite a feat.

Don

Sorry, but I can't let this go.

It was the custom of that era and many proceeding epochs for a man of wealth to pay the expenses of raising troops. In return, he was given command. Such was the case with this devil Bedford Forrest.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861:

'I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged. COME ON BOYS, IF YOU WANT A HEAP OF FUN AND TO KILL SOME YANKEES.' "

"...Surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime."

A testament to his skill as a cavalry commander, "William Tecumseh Sherman declared: 'that devil Forrest must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the federal treasury.' " Yes, the same General Sherman that raised the Georgia country side on marching on Atlanta.

A successful southern businessman and most able commander, but also to many a despicable character.

"After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869."

Source: Civil War Trust: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html ("http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html?)

=====

[Imp]

The scenario is an USMC company airborne assault, the Alpha 1/6 "Apache" in the Helmand province of Afghanistan.

I've extended the turns to give the Marine player time to assemble for the assault after debarkation, with the understanding in an assault timed objective scenario, points are awarded after a third of the turns.

Apparently, points are awarded each turn on the number (not value) of VFs held by the Taliban. Correct?

So, the tweak is to assign an appropriate number of hexes with VF's that are central to the mission and none more. Further, to do so in a way the Marine player has a reasonable period of time to accomplish the mission, else the Marine player will fail to achieve a victory. Makes sense?

Finally, making the scenario within "acceptable losses" suffered by the Marine player as introduced by IronDuke99.

I was erroneously looking at casualties to personnel (loss of men), but the game is concerned with casualties as loss of force value or damage points. Is this right?
=====

Not in front of my computer but I would read your game guide again.
VF hexes, any controled hexes would award points to the controling side. Therefore the only way to make it benefit the attacker is to ensure they control the majority by the time they start getting awarded points for them.

Game looks at force value not men so outcome is based on value of units damaged or destroyed plus any points awarded for VH at game end.
So if you have a high cost unit its loss can easily swing the outcome.
Losing 10 squads at 20 points each is the same as losing one vehicle thats worth 200 points.
Hence expensive units like FOOs should not be put in danger.

Fairly sure though I do it just because it feels right that losing a unit is far worse than it being damaged so if an infantry unit is badly damaged if possible try to stop using it in combat.
As I say unsure but if you have a 10 man squad & its wiped out you have lost the total unit cost.
If it is just reduced to 5 men but survives the loss is less than 50% of the unit cost.

[jivemi]

Sorry, but I can't let this go.

It was the custom of that era and many proceeding epochs for a man of wealth to pay the expenses of raising troops. In return, he was given command. Such was the case with this devil Bedford Forrest.

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861:

'I wish none but those who desire to be actively engaged. COME ON BOYS, IF YOU WANT A HEAP OF FUN AND TO KILL SOME YANKEES.' "

"...Surrounding Fort Pillow, near Memphis, Forrest demanded the surrender of the garrison, which included 262 soldiers of the U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery. When the Union forces refused, Forrest’s men easily overran the fort. Then, according to several eyewitness accounts, the Confederates, enraged by the sight of black men in Federal uniform, executed many of the colored troops after they had surrendered: an unambiguous war crime."

A testament to his skill as a cavalry commander, "William Tecumseh Sherman declared: 'that devil Forrest must be hunted down and killed if it costs ten thousand lives and bankrupts the federal treasury.' " Yes, the same General Sherman that raised the Georgia country side on marching on Atlanta.

A successful southern businessman and most able commander, but also to many a despicable character.

"After the war, Forrest is best known as having been a prominent figure in the foundation of the Ku Klux Klan, a group composed of mostly Confederate veterans committed to violent intimidation of blacks, northerners and republicans. He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869."

Source: Civil War Trust: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html ("http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html?)

=====

OK, but OTOH Forrest later disassociated himself from the Klan and even made a speech for racial reconciliation. Likewise accounts of his role at Fort Pillow--where most probably some or most surrendering colored troops (and a few whites?) were massacred--may have been embellished by a Congressional committee looking for atrocity stories. Recall the Greek writer Aeschylus' maxim that "The first casualty of war is truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Speaks_to_Black_Southerners

http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/10/11/nathan-bedford-
forrest-and-racial-reconciliation-part-ii/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

[shahadi]

"He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization in 1869."

Source: Civil War Trust: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html ("http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/biographies/nathan-bedford-forrest.html?)

=====

OK, but OTOH Forrest later disassociated himself from the Klan and even made a speech for racial reconciliation. Likewise accounts of his role at Fort Pillow--where most probably some or most surrendering colored troops (and a few whites?) were massacred--may have been embellished by a Congressional committee looking for atrocity stories. Recall the Greek writer Aeschylus' maxim that "The first casualty of war is truth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest#Speaks_to_Black_Southerners

http://the-american-catholic.com/2015/10/11/nathan-bedford-
forrest-and-racial-reconciliation-part-ii/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

On the KKK:
He was “Grand Wizard” until he ordered the dissolution of the organization.

There is none can revise the accounts of his uncanny feel for battle and exemplary use of his command. But, there are too many that wish to rewrite a history glossing over certain acts of debauchery and others of disreputable character. The city of Memphis recently voted to remove his statue from public lands, culminating from the wicked murder of nine Christians while praying in a Charleston South Carolina church at the hands of Dylaan Roof based on Roof's penchant for the Confederate battle flag.

Bedford's order to "charge 'em both ways" at the battle of Parker's Crossing is as salient as Chesty Puller's famous assessment, "we're surrounded, that simplifies our problem."

This forum is about military tactics within the context of our game. Often, we stray into unintended matters. That devil Bedford Forrest may be one of those stray matters.

=====

[jivemi]

Indeed. History is subject to revision according to the tempers of the times.

[DRG]

"At the outbreak of the Civil War, Forrest volunteered as a private before deciding to raise and equip an entire unit at his own expense. He was commissioned lieutenant colonel, and issued this call to arms in June, 1861: ==


Ah ! Well, that salient fact was missing from the synopsis I quoted. I had forgotten that at the time is was possible to buy your way to the top. Had I dug deeper I would have found that

HOWEVER, what has followed points out how easily "history" can be "re-interpreted" when past events are viewed in a contemporary perspective. There are enough events from 70 years ago under current PC scrutiny, turn back the clocks a further 80 years and it's possible to find more examples of behaviour that would have been acceptable or at least tolerated at the time that are not now. How many remember ( or care ) that at Agincourt Henry V ordered the slaughter of several thousand French prisoners when he feared the French were regrouping for another attack......should we tear down his statures it a fit of PC angst too ?

That said , I started the deviation in the thread when I searched the source of the " first with the most" quote so now I'm ending it

Don

[IronDuke99]

In a COIN scenario that is a planned operation, say clearing a village, I think it would be fair to have the Western assets on call at the outset.

Also bear in mind these days you are likely to have all the troops on a radio net, of some kind, not just a platoon or even section/squad commanders. So if, in a planned operation, a platoon or section gets pinned down, or even comes under heavy fire, it is often fairly easy to call in air support, helos, artillery etc and to get that support fairly quickly.

An ambush of a patrol, can be a different thing, especially if your force is less 'asset rich' than the US tends to be. People may recall the Royal Marine hanging on to the outside of a Apache attack helo in Afghanistan (I think he was trying to get to a friendly casualty) because at that stage the Brits still did not have enough transport helos in Afghan...

[shahadi]

Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."

In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.

If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.

Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.

So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.

However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.

A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.

So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."

=====

[IronDuke99]

Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."

In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.

If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.

Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.

So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.

However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.

A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.

So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."

=====

I generally try to avoid as much military jargon as possible on here myself. Not sure it makes anything much clearer either, as, just to take your example, using the USA as a base I would probably make France and Japan peer, in game terms. While the Japanese Self Defense Force lacks much recent experience, their military history suggests they would be formidable, highly disciplined, troops.

So you might have USA (including USMC of course) UK, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia and China as peer nations in terms of a land battle group as of this year.

Near peer would be much of the rest of Western Europe, including Poland, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, assorted former Eastern bloc nations, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, maybe South Africa (although nothing I hear about that army, these days, would give me all that much confidence in it against a serious enemy from outside Africa) perhaps one or two of the richer South American nations.

Non peer would be just about anyone else, including assorted terrorists/guerilla groups.

Of course you could argue about exactly what nations are peer and what are near peer (for example, I think you could make a strong case for Australia and Canada being rated as peer forces) and sometimes they change over time. Then you have exceptions like New Zealand, excellent, well trained, if very small Army, but, these days, they lack Armoured and air support.

[shahadi]

Interesting stuff you put on the table.

It just seems stale and dated to talk about "Western" armies as if they are all of comparable capabilities.

====

[IronDuke99]

When I talk about 'Western Forces' most of the time I mean US/British/Old Commonwealth (ie, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The Anglosphere, if you like.

My knowledge of, and interest in, German, French and Italian forces is more limited. Beyond those nations, most Western European armed forces are really no longer fit to face first class enemies at all, in my view (although the Netherlands has a fairly small force of good marines who sometimes operate alongside the UK Royal Marines).

In terms of peer forces: German forces are important in Europe (as are the Poles). France, as always, runs a two tier army with some very good forces, like the Foreign Legion, that are mostly used for purely French purposes. How good French, or Italian, armoured battle groups might be remains to be seen and, hopefully we shall never have to find out. For my money Germany and the EU are very unwise to push Russia on anything east of Poland and certainly lack the military strength to back it up. I hope UK stays well clear of this. I actually think there is a very strong case for some sort of 'entente cordiale' between 'Western nations' and Russia, given that China is a much bigger, much richer, much longer term threat to both.

Most Western European nations spend less on Defence than the percentage NATO officially requires. Even the UK - that does spend proportionally more than other European nations - is only doing so with a bit of 'creative accounting' at present.

In terms of US allies, outside Europe, especially east of the Gulf of Arabia, only UK, and, to a considerably lesser degree, France, within Western Europe, is at all likely to have the will, or military capacity, to act usefully. So then you have to look at countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan and, perhaps in due course, India in terms of any major war involving China and perhaps North Korea.

[Suhiir]

While a fair number of nations have decently trained/equipped forces available (perhaps not their main military force but some "elite" units) a big part of being a "peer" is the ability to move a useful size force to where it's needed in a timely fashion. A lack of this capability severely limits their "peer" status.

[IronDuke99]

One reason I was trying to avoid using the term 'peer'. We were using it it in game terms, for a well equipped battle group.

Obviously Strategic lift (air or sea) does not really fit into the game much. Even if it did I don't think I would change the list I used earlier by all that much.

UK can field a reinforced Marine brigade and a reinforced Para brigade pretty much anywhere in the world, fairly quickly and in due course, back that up with a good Armoured Div, and that is more than anyone else in Western Europe can do.

[shahadi]

Obviously Strategic lift (air or sea) does not really fit into the game much. Even if it did I don't think I would change the list I used earlier by all that much.



Indeed, you gave a compelling list as well.

=====

[shahadi]

According to the Office of Naval Intelligence: "The naval buildup includes three new classes of advanced submarines and several new types of warships that the report warns will “provide a flexible platform for Russia to demonstrate offensive capability, threaten neighbors, project power regionally (my emphasis), and advance President Putin’s stated goal of returning Russia to clear great power status.”

Source: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/intelligence-report-warns-of-russian-naval-buildup/

And, this is another tidbit: “We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/world/europe/russia-bolsters-submarine-fleet-and-tensions-with-us-rise.html?_r=0

So, it seems the Russians want to up the ante to become a "peer" adversary to essentially challenge the US, the UK, and NATO anywhere and everywhere.

=====

[Suhiir]

Much like China, tho perhaps less important than it is to China, Russia lacks a navy that has any hope of matching the combined US/UK capability. A few subs one way or the other really don't make much difference.

[IronDuke99]

Russia has a very out of date navy right now. The two major units in the Russian Task Force shadowed by the Royal Navy recently, on its way to the Med, a Carrier and a large guided missile cruiser, were both old, Soviet era ships.

Russia, rather like Germany in the 19th-20th century suffers from geography in terms of her Navy. To operate as a Blue Water Navy the Russians have to get out of the Baltic or the Black Sea or operate (and defend) a significant base in the remote far east of Siberia. All them very hard to do. Plus it would be hugely expensive to maintain three significant fleets. Russia is, and always has been, mainly a Land Power.

Longer term, China has much more coastline on more open warm water and also has a lot more money than Russia. The Chinese are also looking to become a Carrier Navy, but it will be a while until the Chinese fleet could really challenge the USN and its major allies -Australia and Japan- in that part of the world.

Prediction: Japan will have a Carrier again by the end of the 20's. Indeed Japan (and Australia) already have flat top ships large enough to operate F35B.

Then there is India, with a Carrier Navy, that has been drawing a little closer to the US and UK lately (the Indian Air Force and the RAF carried out some joint training last year) in the face of the increased threat from China, etc.

[Aeraaa]

Let's consider updating our terminology or language. So, rather than "Western," or "Third World," I suggest we consider whether an army is a "peer," "near-peer," or "non-peer."

In general, we are comparing these peer terms to the US military forces as her forces extend power over the globe.

If we were to consider a peer army, in terms of our game, certainly, then our concerns are not whether a force can challenge the US anywhere, but only if that force can challenge the US on a winspmbt map with like TO&E.

Then, our use of a peer does not encompass strategic qualites, but is confined to the tactical determinants.

So, we might agree that while Russia and China are conducting joint naval exercises in the South China sea, this does not mean Russia and China combined can challenge the US anywhere.

However, in our game, we may agree that a Chinese belligerent force vs an American or for that matter, the Brits meets the condition to talk about the belligerent as a peer, because the Chinese have comparable TO&E.

A near-peer would be France (I like french fries), and a non-peer would be Mexico, Japan or the Daesh forces in Syria and Iraq.

So then to proceed, the title of this thread would more aptly be titled: "Acceptable US Casualties Against Non-peer Armies."

=====

I generally try to avoid as much military jargon as possible on here myself. Not sure it makes anything much clearer either, as, just to take your example, using the USA as a base I would probably make France and Japan peer, in game terms. While the Japanese Self Defense Force lacks much recent experience, their military history suggests they would be formidable, highly disciplined, troops.

So you might have USA (including USMC of course) UK, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia and China as peer nations in terms of a land battle group as of this year.

Near peer would be much of the rest of Western Europe, including Poland, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, assorted former Eastern bloc nations, Vietnam, Egypt, Singapore, maybe South Africa (although nothing I hear about that army, these days, would give me all that much confidence in it against a serious enemy from outside Africa) perhaps one or two of the richer South American nations.

Non peer would be just about anyone else, including assorted terrorists/guerilla groups.

Of course you could argue about exactly what nations are peer and what are near peer (for example, I think you could make a strong case for Australia and Canada being rated as peer forces) and sometimes they change over time. Then you have exceptions like New Zealand, excellent, well trained, if very small Army, but, these days, they lack Armoured and air support.

I disagree with Germany's position. IMHO this has more to do with German army's reputation rather than their current capabilities. Germany belongs to the near-peer status.

[jp10]

In considering the OP question and not addressing terminology, I have thought of this.

We know how public reaction in the US to the casualty levels in Iraq and Afghanistan was portrayed.

I just quickly grabbed these numbers to see how it related as a % of total force.

1,429,995 total US Military Strength (at some point)

AFGHANISTAN

2,386 KIA in Afghanistan as of October 18th, 2016
20,049 WIA

22,435 total 2.46 % of total force


IRAQ

4,424 KIA as of June 29, 2016
31,952 WIA

36,376 total 6.47 % of total force

So if you are searching for a figure to be an upper limit of unacceptable casualties (US), perhaps 2% for start of political dissent, 6% for serious dissent and 10% for collapse of government? (4% between the different levels) of total forces involved.

Not etched in stone, just a quick calculation to test the theory.

[Suhiir]

So if you are searching for a figure to be an upper limit of unacceptable casualties (US), perhaps 2% for start of political dissent, 6% for serious dissent and 10% for collapse of government? (4% between the different levels) of total forces involved.
I'd look at Vietnam too.

9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the official Vietnam era from August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam.
58,148 were killed in Vietnam.
75,000 were severely disabled.
23,214 were 100% disabled.

But there is one MAJOR factor numbers can't account for.
Public perception.
If the public totally supports (WW II), generally supports (the "War on Terror"), is kept generally ignorant (the Russia vs the Ukraine), or is generally opposed (Vietnam) to a war the "acceptable casualties" vary considerably.

[jp10]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

[shahadi]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

Interesting.

[Suhiir]

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?
Not sure it could be done in a scenario but you could in a campaign as you can set the victory levels.

[Imp]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores.

[jp10]

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?

[Suhiir]

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?
I may steal the Political ones for the opening scenario in my forever-in-development campaign.

After all gunning down hordes of rock tossing civilians that may be in your way is generally frowned on ... well ... most places.

[shahadi]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores.

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?

Defining battle results in terms of political, military, and strategic is intriguing. Imp has suggested scenario designers use Excel in an effort to determine the outcomes of a battle within the game.

In the game guide the difference of damage points determines the outcome as either “Decisive Victory (8:1 ration),” “Marginal Victory (less than 8 but greater than 2),” “Draw (less than 2 but greater than 1),” and a “Defeat (less than 1).”

Not much wiggle room for a draw, but a designer could slice up the categories to include additional definitions with a lot of space to play with in decisive victory and defeat, with about 6 points to play within the marginal victory category, but we have no room for a draw to add additional categories.

I’ve been playing with what I call a “Battle Calculation Sheet” that calculates the difference between total scores of the two sides as follows:

=IF($N11/$O11>7.999,"DV",IF($N11/$O11<1,"DF",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=8,$N11/$O11>=2),"MV",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=2,$N11/$O11>=1),"DR")))).

Column N and O contain cells of the total scores between the two sides.
DV is a decisive victory, DF is a defeat, MV is a marginal victory, and DR is a draw.

Next step would be to pin down, based upon force values how much damage is acceptable within the scenario to say obtain a political, military, or strategic advantage.

=====

[Imp]

Can set values as you like if want more outcomes, The Blitz Score Sheet uses
Overwhelming
Decisive
Medium
Minor
Draw
So a total of 9 outcomes

[shahadi]

I agree that it is a very 'sliding scale' type of approach. Historical battles could more easily be analyzed to use this method as a rough guide to determine victory/defeat levels by casualties rather than victory points.

To increase casualty effects in the game currently a creator must edit the units to increase a loss effect to be greater/less for a particular side.

It could be done easier if an option in the game could be added during battle/scenario/campaign creation to add/decrease victory point modifiers between the forces to give more/less weight to casualty points for a side or even a 'political effect' modifier to reflect external support or even world reaction to a conflict.
This could offer battles that a player could tactically win but suffer defeat or draw in a larger context. Could add three victory results? Military (or tactical)/Strategic/Political ? Decisive Military Victory/Strategic Draw/Political Minor Defeat ?

You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores.

Thinking it further, maybe different terms for each?
military battle results: (current) decisive defeat/minor defeat/draw/minor victory/decisive victory
Strategic: planning disrupted/operations delayed/no effect/ position improved/ operational advantage
Political: world condemnation/ citizen dissension / draw/ prestige gain/ global acclaim

Anyone with better terms?

Defining battle results in terms of political, military, and strategic is intriguing. Imp has suggested scenario designers use Excel in an effort to determine the outcomes of a battle within the game.

In the game guide the difference of damage points determines the outcome as either “Decisive Victory (8:1 ration),” “Marginal Victory (less than 8 but greater than 2),” “Draw (less than 2 but greater than 1),” and a “Defeat (less than 1).”

Not much wiggle room for a draw, but a designer could slice up the categories to include additional definitions with a lot of space to play with in decisive victory and defeat, with about 6 points to play within the marginal victory category, but we have no room for a draw to add additional categories.

I’ve been playing with what I call a “Battle Calculation Sheet” that calculates the difference between total scores of the two sides as follows:

=IF($N11/$O11>7.999,"DV",IF($N11/$O11<1,"DF",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=8,$N11/$O11>=2),"MV",IF(AND($N11/$O11<=2,$N11/$O11>=1),"DR")))).

Column N and O contain cells of the total scores between the two sides.
DV is a decisive victory, DF is a defeat, MV is a marginal victory, and DR is a draw.

Next step would be to pin down, based upon force values how much damage is acceptable within the scenario to say obtain a political, military, or strategic advantage.

=====

I have not advanced the Battle Calculation Sheet beyond the Excel formula herein. What I'd like to do is develop a method to determine acceptable outcomes based upon initial force values between the two sides.

Given that, the sheet could be used to assess acceptable loss as we've discussed thus far, in particular, to what jp10, and other commentors have brought to the table.

=====

[Suhiir]

Mispost

[shahadi]

I believe this discussion really is appropriate when talking about a dominant power vs a non-peer adversary, as we'd find in the most recent SEAL operation in Yemen. There, we had Senator McCain of Arizona decrying the raid as a failure using the following language: "When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost and wounded I don't believe you can call it a success...” Collins, Eliza, USA Today 9 Feb 2017 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/trump-attacks-mccain-over-criticism-outcome-yemen-raid/97687592/).

So, I'm thinking in game terms, can losses be expressed as a ratio against the force value.

FL/FV

Where, FL is force losses and FV is the force value. The FL then would be determined by FVa - FVb. Such that, FVa is the initial force value at start of battle and the FVb is the force value at end of game.

(FVa-FVb)/FVa

Now, if we could evaluate the ratio in an expression.

if (FVa-FVb)/FVa < 4%

We could say, for example that this battle earned (in jp10's language) "global acclaim."

=====

[Suhiir]

Regarding Preferences, do have numbers in mind to affect the changes you suggest? I'd appreciate the numbers.


I'll frequently adjust Searching for 1st World forces to 150% when fighting vs 3rd World.

Depending on which 3rd World forces we're talking about I may adjust their Hitting to 60-80%, for say Vietnam I wouldn't adjust at all, for some Arabic forces I'll reduce their accuracy as many make extensive use of the "unaimed spray and pray" method.

I almost never adjust Tank Toughness, they may not be as reliable but that doesn't effect their armor.

I often increase Infantry Toughness to 120% to represent body armor, tho I sometimes reduce opposition Infantry Toughness to 80% instead if I'm dealing with say Korean War human wave type situations.

[Suhiir]

... as we'd find in the most recent SEAL operation in Yemen. There, we had Senator McCain of Arizona decrying the raid as a failure using the following language: "When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost and wounded I don't believe you can call it a success...”
Personally I just chalk this sort of thing up to political maneuvering. Believe me, SEALs know what they're signing up for, and while the loss of a man pains them they don't consider it remotely unacceptable or unexpected if their mission was accomplished. And I seriously doubt anyone in any of the worlds "elite commando" organizations view it any differently.

[jp10]

I would think he would be hesitant to talk about losing aircraft.
He lost two Navy aircraft while piloting them. One crash was found to be be McCain's fault, the other due to an engine failure of undetermined cause. He also returned from a training mission to the USS Intrepid with a busted oil line and trailing several feet of electrical cables. Seems he knocked down some power lines while flying too low over southern Spain. As he later wrote. "My daredevil clowning had cut off electricity to a great many Spanish homes and created a small international incident."

[shahadi]

I believe this discussion really is appropriate when talking about a dominant power vs a non-peer adversary, as we'd find in the most recent SEAL operation in Yemen. There, we had Senator McCain of Arizona decrying the raid as a failure using the following language: "When you lose a $75 million airplane and, more importantly, an American life is lost and wounded I don't believe you can call it a success...” Collins, Eliza, USA Today 9 Feb 2017 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/09/trump-attacks-mccain-over-criticism-outcome-yemen-raid/97687592/).

So, I'm thinking in game terms, can losses be expressed as a ratio against the force value.

FL/FV

Where, FL is force losses and FV is the force value. The FL then would be determined by FVa - FVb. Such that, FVa is the initial force value at start of battle and the FVb is the force value at end of game.

(FVa-FVb)/FVa

Now, if we could evaluate the ratio in an expression.

if (FVa-FVb)/FVa < 4%

We could say, for example that this battle earned (in jp10's language) "global acclaim."

=====

I am changing FL from (FVa-FVb) to SCb/FVa, where SCb represents the Standard Score of player B and FVa is the Force Value of player A.

Now, we may easily get the forces lost of player A, as the standard score of player B from the Battle Report screen at end of game. The force value of player A is obtained from the Editor in the Deploy screen at the end of game (to keep yourself honest) as well.

With such a tool, we may talk about the military outcomes as taken from the Battle Report and political outcomes as taken from manual calculations, to be determined by the scenario designer, or between players in a PBEM game.

=====

[shahadi]

Finally, after playing several scenarios whilst in the process of authoring a few, I turned my attention to the Battle Calculation Sheet to develop a tool whereby players may account for political consequences, in particular where dominant forces engage non-peer adversaries.

The Excel worksheet is self explanatory. I have protected Columns C, D, and K as these cells contain formulas. The other cells are open to insert data.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14785&stc=1&d=1498641457
<br>
The political results are coded from suggestions from this thread as follows:

GA Global Acclaim
PG Prestige Gain
AP Apathy
CD Citizen Dissension
WC World Condemnation


The Data tab houses the settings for the political and military outcomes.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14786&stc=1&d=1498642800

<BR>

[Steves308]

This spreadsheet is pretty fun, I like it!

Steves308

[shahadi]

In Avi Kober's (2008) 'The Israel defense forces in the Second Lebanon War: Why the poor performance?' frames a compelling discussion whose nexus is that Western soldiers fighting a "non-existential" war are not willing to scarifice fellow soldiers to accomplish the unit's mission.

According to IDF’s Chief of the Manpower Branch Major General Elazar Stern, part of the explanation for the IDF’s failure in the war was over-sensitivity to casualties.

An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment
to fulfill their missions.

The ‘post-heroic’ style of warfare, which characterized the Israeli conduct of the Second Lebanon War, is not a new innovation. Post-heroic warfare has two main rules: (a) the avoidance of casualties to your own troops, and (b) the avoidance of killing enemy civilians.

Its roots are demographic, social and moral, and it is characteristic of Western democracies conducting non-existential wars in which their readiness to sacrifice is relatively low, as per Edward Luttwak who penned the term "post-heroic warfare." Accordingly, when an IDF company attacked the mountain town of Bint Jbeil in the Second Lebanon War, losing eight men in one night, that number was perceived in Israel and broadcast around the world as a disastrous loss.

Juxtapose the scarifice of American forces on D-Day, an operation deemed "existential" where most reports put fatalities at 29000 while all of Iraq war we find reports of 4800 deaths.

Or, consider the lines of Americans during the weeks following December 7, 1942 against the paltry number of volunteers following 9/11.

Hence, we may have an additional tool, "non-existential" or "post-heroic" warfare to understand the complexities of what are acceptable casualities today.

Kober is from the Department of Political Studies and, BESA Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.


<br>

[jivemi]

US fatalities were 29,000 on D-Day? Some sources say more like 10,000-plus total casualties with over 4,000 KIA. Similar casualties for the Germans. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Quibble aside, the concept of post-heroic or non-existential warfare bears repeating. Without the prospects of plunder or glory it's hard to see how Western troops' morale and motivation can be maintained on a battlefield. Perhaps special forces with classic warrior's spirit and a taste for danger are the answer? In any case missiles, jets, drones, long-range artillery and eventually robots may render the question moot as warfare becomes increasingly mechanized. Stay tuned.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You know I have to wonder about this all somewhat. I really don't think these judgements can really be made until that war or this war is actually going on. I was just a young kid watching the nightly news on TV during the Vietnam War,I saw the cost in human lives, the wounded who'd never be whole again, the compassion of those same troops, the fear, the guilt, the sacrifice, devotion to duty, the loss and the will to live and so much more. I do believe for anyone that has served many of these traits are within themselves. It's the motivation to get the job done when you no longer believe the mission can be accomplished in a tactical or strategic sense. They were 19 years of age four years younger than when I began my career. They are still now getting the job done and sacrificing again as they have down the ages and unfortunately will into the future.

I posted in the Vietnam Forum about the PBS covering the war. A Marine described how he was wounded in an ambush, two sacrificed themselves to save him, a third finally did after being severely wounded himself in all three cases they kept that Marine alive by throwing their bodies over his.

As an NVA soldier I think rightly pointed out at the end of the segment "...the only people who care about winning or losing are those who've never fought."

Until actually tested none of us will know how we'll react, we can just hope we'll do the right thing if tested. My motivation is simply, just to come home to CINCLANTHOME at the end of the day, though I hope I'll never have to find out if that's enough or not. I feel based on some of the people I work with, know otherwise and from watching programs as noted above, it seems that "motivation" driven by whatever reason(s) seems to be a constant theme.

When the KURSK sank (2000) in relatively shallow water (Where a DSRV/or other can reach you.) we joked about the poorly built in some cases Russian subs. We did know however, they were at a depth where rescue of the crew could have easily been achieved. We would find out during the event how badly damaged she was, and out of respect not one person working for me (All Submariners.) didn't think how sorry we felt for those dead and their families, and how angry we became at the lack of response by their government and the refusal by them for not allowing us and others to send in our equipment to effect and assist in rescue operations for the survivors.

We all accept the risks, that's why they weed out the ones that can't from Sub School on. As the days went on we all also knew the various stages the crew was going through in the slow death they were experiencing (We're trained in such matters.). No one did anything and a 118 never went home alive to their loved ones.

That's respect for their service, bravery and empathy for their situation until the very end.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/kursk-submarine-disaster-watch.html

Those are the words I hear.

I don't know and where ever my Dad I know he's glad I never found out, but I can tell you he respected those 19 year old kids he was training to go to Vietnam after all the combat he saw in three wars.

Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

It's all very VERY situational.

Even the exact same unit fighting a near identical battle may, and often does, behave differently during each. There are so many factors it's impossible to even list them all much less quantify them. This of course never seems to deter the Armchair Quarterbacks.

Yes, you can make generalized assessments based on training, leadership, equipment, and "national character". But anything more precise is nothing but guesswork.

[shahadi]

Which ever side they are on, I feel they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them.


I hear you loud and clear. And, that sentiment is much aligned with the Israeli investigation of the poor performance of her forces in the 2008 Second Lebanon War.

From Kober's much cited report we find the following: "An investigation committee headed by Major General (res.) Yoram Yair found that during the war commanders’ sense of responsibility for the lives of their troops over shadowed their commitment to fulfill their missions."

The assertion, "...they'll do their duty for whatever their motivation is given the proper tools to do the job and the leadership to guide them," coincides with the conclusion reached in the Yair report as I have noted here; namely, that the leader's respnsibility to their troops mitigated their mission objective.

In short, the Israeli soldiers were led by commanders who did not press on with the mission, but as that company that suffered eight casualties one night at Bint Jbeil the company commander halted and withdrew.

There is no question Western armies are casualty adverse.

What we would like to do is capture the effect of a casualty adverse force in the game.

Other than introduce an additional scoreboard such as the Battle Calculation Sheet, scenario designers could significantly increase the cost of Western forces, in particular infantry units.

As an example, a USMC Fire Team cost would rise to 577 from 77.

<Br>

[Suhiir]

Easy enough to do for your own purposes.

Just go into the editor and double, triple, whatever, the cost of units.

I've done the opposite in one scenario I tested. Since you can't have a negative unit cost I set the insurgent forces to zero and the battle results are used backwards.
I.E. You get a high score you lose the battle (too much bad press from murdering unarmed civilians).

[Oche]

Easy enough to do for your own purposes.

Just go into the editor and double, triple, whatever, the cost of units.

I've done the opposite in one scenario I tested. Since you can't have a negative unit cost I set the insurgent forces to zero and the battle results are used backwards.
I.E. You get a high score you lose the battle (too much bad press from murdering unarmed civilians).

Exactly, no need to alter core values since you can do that to your interest in the scenario/campaign design scene so far.