The Western Way of War today.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

...

The overall USMC losses in WW II were much lower then those of the US Army, but there were far fewer Marines to start with and their losses tended to be very high percentage wise invading islands (90% in the first wave on Tarawa), then months of nada as they prepared for the next island.

You have to look at situation and circumstance. I totally agree massive losses vs a "second rate" enemy would be unacceptable. Everyone expected serious losses during Gulf I (1991) but circumstance intervened in favor of the Coalition.

Another thing to keep in mind is WinSPMBT is a wargame not a simulation, thus the entire concept in a scenario is to make it challenging to the player, that means losses.

Your Tarawa example is exactly what I was trying to say about WWII and WWI scale losses. I was in Africa before, during and after the first Gulf War, so did not pay it as much attention as I otherwise might have. The media, generally no nothings, might have expected heavy losses, but I wonder if the military really did?

Of course your last paragraph is entirely correct, but I was hoping to get scenario designers to set modern Western forces facing non-peer enemies (3rd world or whatever) victory conditions that require them to not lose too many men, while accepting that peer to peer combat is always liable to be very bloody.

[Suhiir]

Based on the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) it certainly seemed the Iraqis knew how to defend from dug-in positions. While most of the Coalition forces were well trained they were not combat vets, whereas the Iraqis were. Then there was the probability they'd use chemical weapons, while they're not really that lethal to well trained/equipped troops they do cause non-lethal casualties and they are a REAL pain in the butt (FYI Nuc-Bio-Chem was my primary specialty) to deal with. Finally we knew much of the Coalition had a significant technological advantage, but no one had ever fought a major ground campaign with such a tech advantage so we intentionally didn't view it as "Wunderwaffe".

So, yes, we expected significant casualties. Believe me no one was happier then we were when the Iraqis turned out to be a paper tiger.

[DRG]

If "for fun" you want to experience "Wunderwaffe" with the latest patch set up big point armour heavy Syrian advance against the Isrealis in say......1992 buy the best armour they had....use a large map ....don't be stingy with the FOO's and put then where they have good LOS, buy a half dozen Pereh NLOS and buy 3 Ordnance Sec and tuck a ammo bunker beside each of the Pereh's. and tuck all those behind a nice solid hill near the back of your side of the map. Keep some ATGM teams in reserve and some Merkavas to protect the Pereh's. and buy three of four coys of infantry to act as speed bumps should the AI actually get tanks onto your side of the map.

Now. that said they are not totally a game changing "Wunderwaffe".They are not nearly as effective against top of the line 21st century armour as they are when dealing with the threat they were designed to counter ( they aren't useless against new armour just not so much " Rods from God".....

Read the guide on how they are used ( now that it's fixed with the 'b' version) then "have fun".

Don

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

One thing scenario designers need to look at in modern warfare is what is, and what is not, acceptable to Western democracies in modern warfare.

So if you are designing a scenario where Western forces take on say the IS terrorists -may all the Gods rot them- it is not at all acceptable to lose near half your men in winning.

Designers may impose winning conditions based on points. In this point system, the advanced side must post points greater than the opposing side.

The Camo Workshop has a number of scenario s requiring victory based on a point system.

Interestingly, scenario #3 requires the Israeli side to score twice the points of the Egyptian side.

There maybe other options available as well. Designers may tinker with experience and moral mods plunging lower rate armies into negatives while boosting first rate armies well into positives. Additionally, dramatically increase cost of first rate army units.

Finally, tinker with player preferences in searching, hitting, quality, and roughness. Because preferences are not persistent, designers would have to announce the settings in the scenario text.

Thanks Ironduke99 for this topic.

--------

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

(FYI Nuc-Bio-Chem was my primary specialty)

Gas, Gas, Gas!

Had the highly dubious pleasure of doing the Portland Down battle run in the British Army many moons ago, which was the highest level NBC training back then. Couple of days in a 'Noddy suit' and wearing a respirator for 24 hours while instructors sprayed CS gas all over the place.

Most of us were smokers and a lot of us were doing smoking drills when no one was looking. Only the Platoon NBC Cpl (not the most popular of blokes) really enjoyed it.

[IronDuke99]

In game terms it is generally very easy for a Western force to win a defensive battle against the AI.

I have set up games where a reinforced Company of Royal Marines, with some Heavy MG's, etc, in a defensive position, and with some artillery and air support, were able to defeat vast hordes of AI controlled Taliban, with relatively small losses.

The challenge is to use a Western force to attack a dug in non-peer enemy and win without suffering heavy losses. This is much more difficult.

I have been working on a contemporary game based on the British Army taking out a dug in Zimbabwe armoured force -no doubt wish fulfillment, since I detest Mugabe- and they can certainly win every time, but it is doing so with relatively few friendly casualties that is the harder thing to do in the game. In reality I am fairly sure many of the enemy would start to run fairly early on. To get this right in the game as shahadi says you have tinker with preferences, etc...

[Suhiir]

Yeah, that campaign I'm S-L-O-W-L-Y working on is based on a similar premise. You start with your whole force, and while no single battle in the campaign is overwhelming you get almost no repair points between battles so attrition is the killer. With the entire starting force the final couple battles are pretty easy, but if you've lost a cumulative 50% in the previous battles ... well ... no one ever said life was easy in the military.

The biggest headaches are getting the damn AI to do what I want (needing to run the same battle 20 times to insure the turn 30 AI reinforcements are doing what you want gets old) and having to use reverse Polish logic in one scenario (you can't assign a negative point cost to a unit, so the ones you can kill are set to zero cost and you win the scenario by having the lowest possible score).

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

The challenge is to use a Western force to attack a dug in non-peer enemy and win without suffering heavy losses. This is much more difficult.

You may have seen scenario #87,"Pookie Leads the Way." Check out the scenario text for Special Rule and Speical Victory Conditions.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

If "for fun" you want to experience "Wunderwaffe" with the latest patch set up big point armour heavy Syrian advance against the Isrealis in say......1992 buy the best armour they had....use a large map ....don't be stingy with the FOO's and put then where they have good LOS, buy a half dozen Pereh NLOS and buy 3 Ordnance Sec and tuck a ammo bunker beside each of the Pereh's. and tuck all those behind a nice solid hill near the back of your side of the map. Keep some ATGM teams in reserve and some Merkavas to protect the Pereh's. and buy three of four coys of infantry to act as speed bumps should the AI actually get tanks onto your side of the map.

Now. that said they are not totally a game changing "Wunderwaffe".They are not nearly as effective against top of the line 21st century armour as they are when dealing with the threat they were designed to counter ( they aren't useless against new armour just not so much " Rods from God".....

Read the guide on how they are used ( now that it's fixed with the 'b' version) then "have fun".

Don

Ha I practiced using the British Exactor for NLOS & the Typhoons armed with 18 brimstones a piece.
The planes really would come into their own if you were attacking/assaulting, cant call them in quick enough to stop all advancing armour.

Expensive but 2 Flights of Typhoons & 1 SEAD flight gives 6 planes carrying 88 missiles!! I had one SEAD damaged but no doubt technology saves lives for the side with the advantage.