February 27th, 2017, 11:37 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
|
|
Re: Acceptable US Casualties Against 3rd World Armies
Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ?
|
You can do it yourself just set up Excel with the formulas you want & enter the scores. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
|
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.
=====
|