Low casualties

The sequel of the legendary wargame with a complete graphics and interface overhaul, major new gameplay and design features such as full naval combat modelling, improved supply handling, numerous increases to scenario parameters to better support large scenarios, and integrated PBEM++.
Post Reply
pjdegrieck
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:16 pm

Low casualties

Post by pjdegrieck »

I'm noticing low casualty numbers for infantry.

There's a particular scenario when you invade China as the Soviet Union in the 60s, I'll surround and destroy stack after stack of Chinese infantry. It will show 700 Assault squads destroyed, but this only equates to 7000 infantry casualties. I have no idea how many soldiers are assigned to MG units, motar, etc.

I'll even drop 1 Megaton bombs over stacks of infantry. It only appears to strike the top selected unit, and will only kill 137 squads, which equates to only 1037 soldiers. This seems insanely low. Am I reading squads wrong?

I assumed each squad equaled 10 soldiers.

It would make more sense if it was 100.

Thanks!
josant
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: Spain

RE: Low casualties

Post by josant »

Yes, rounding up/down, it could be said that each infantry squad equals 10 men. For me, nuclear attacks in TOAW are too weak.
JA
User avatar
Lobster
Posts: 5469
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Third rock from the Sun.

RE: Low casualties

Post by Lobster »

ORIGINAL: pjdegrieck

I'm noticing low casualty numbers for infantry.

There's a particular scenario when you invade China as the Soviet Union in the 60s, I'll surround and destroy stack after stack of Chinese infantry. It will show 700 Assault squads destroyed, but this only equates to 7000 infantry casualties. I have no idea how many soldiers are assigned to MG units, motar, etc.


If you surround and destroy a unit then the entire unit is destroyed. So yeah, it must have had 7000 soldiers and that was it. You can always open the scenario as the other guy or in hotseat and look at the units to see what's there.
ne nothi tere te deorsum (don't let the bastards grind you down)

If duct tape doesn't fix it then you are not using enough duct tape.

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe-Einstein.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 10060
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Low casualties

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Plus, it all depends on how the Scenario Designer designed the scenario. Squads can represent any number of men, and casualty rates can be adjusted up or down.
User avatar
NikolaiEzhov
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:52 am

RE: Low casualties

Post by NikolaiEzhov »

Hmm, a division should always have rear-echelon units.
For a PLA division in the 1960's, there should be exactly 243 rifle squads with 9 men each = 2187 "infantrymen; while the total personnel division: 12457. Most of them are rear-echelon troops and weapon crews:
RPG squad, rifle company: 7 personnel.
60mm mortar squad, rifle company: 13 personnel.
Feeding squad, rifle company: 10 personnel.
75/82mm recoilless rifle squad, infantry battalion: 8 personnel.
...
These rear-echelon troops' fate can be varied. Sometimes a division gets crushed with all infantry lost and all equipment abandoned, but the structure of the division maintains intact. Sometimes the division vanished in a pocket and all its personnel ends up in POW camps. TOAW is not able to distinguish these. It only represents the loss of front-line troops. Thus an exact estimation of casualties is just impossible.

Some designers may try to compensate this manpower gap by adding "support squad" to the units, but this can still be questionable. Should someone add 1000 support squad for a PLA army division? That can be silly.
Proletariat of the world, unite!
Post Reply

Return to “The Operational Art of War IV”