"Removing 'Destroyed' Units" Topic

Why do so many rules-sets call for units which are 'destroyed' to be removed from play – ie. suddenly vanish from the table top? Fair enough, in a skirmish game or an aerial dog fight, a single man or a single plane can be 'wiped out', but in any reasonably sized land battles this simply should not happen – and certainly not as a result of ranged fire.
I cannot think of a historical instance of a unit suddenly ceasing to exist – perhaps events such as Custer's Last Stand or Isandlawa (both of which involved hand-to-hand fighting) are about as close as one can get to this historically, but even in these cases, some men escaped (and were pursued) and the victorious troops had to spend time finishing off the 'wiped out' unit – it might not have been an effective fighting force, but it didn't suddenly vanish. In the case of Isandlwana, small groups of red-coats or even individuals fought on for hours after the camp had been over-run (and, in wargames terms, all British units would have 'vanished'). Representing all this might be below the 'scale' of a wargame, but it certainly meant the the attacking forces couldn't just say 'right – what now?' and should be represented in some way – disorder amoung the victorious troops or a lengthy (randomised) time delay as they mop up the remains.
Similarly, if a unit surrenders, it should have to be escorted away from the battlefield – this will take time and mean that troops have to be detatched to gaurd and deal with them.
So why do we, as wargamers, seek to take the easy way out and simply have units disappear?

Probably because we wargamers will tend to fight on regardless of stupendous casualties---sort of like the knight at the bridge in "Holy Grail"!

You're right---"destroyed" units are really not wiped out, but are combat ineffective due to losses, morale drop, etc.

NOt a problem for me, as it kind of forces me to keep to the main thing, get on with the fight, and speeds up play.

Mike

'Cos it's easier.

I think the best 'Other aspect that never gets represented' that compares to this is Logistics and supply. Many armies were beaten long before they reached the field, and frequently army A put army B into a situation where it degraded due to poor supply over a lengthy time before allowing it to give battle. But that's slow, time-consuming and for the guy whose army gets 'No breakfast and wade an Ice-Cold River before engaging the enemy' result on some table, maybe a little frustrating.

When I started out in Wargaming every manufacturer made dead'uns. It was asssumed you would want these in numbers. Nobody did, so now fairly few Dead'uns are available. The exception is armoured vehicles for some reason. I think a game where you were obliged to put down windrows of dead guys where your unit took casualties might be seen by some as a little too realistic.

The more important aspect you cover – dealing with the prisoners, the stubborn remnants of shattered units – are all very good, and I would play a game that dealt with them in more than an abstract way. But I think a lot of people want games that can be played quickly and to a decisive result, rather than a realistic representation of Warfare.

Every description of battle I have read dwells on how much time on the field was spent doing nothing – you could hear gunfire over THERE and people doing stuff over THAT WAY – but where you were, much time was spent doing nothing at all. A game where that happened would not be popular I guess.

How would you represent Prisoners and stubborn hold-outs ?

Pat

Perhaps have the unit detsroyed but then penalize the victorious unit for a turn or two. Or have them pursue the fugitives for a turn. But you are right – they shouldn't just smartly wheel and fall on the next unit in line.

My house SYW rules require American Indians to have some warriors go home with trophies and prisoners when they rout their enemy.

Because if you do not remove it, you have to administer it.

Unless there is some effect on the outcome or course of the battle that can only be represented by retaining units that have lost combat effectiveness, why would you leave them on the table?

At Isandlwana, the battle was over at that point. A few Zulus might have died that won't in a game, but could they truely have changed the outcome impacted Zulu combat effectiveness? If there had been another British company on the horizon, I expect that the Zulu forces would in fact have said "right -- lets get em"

As far as prisoners go, unless you are playing a very high level of abstraction (stand as a company or higher) or running a campaign, processing them is going to be out of the time scope of the battle anyway. Again, show me a battle lost at the level of the game, or a unit seriously impeded, by prisoner escourt.

Not all games do. Many use steps or attrition points. It just depends on the level of complexity that you are looking for.

And Pzivh43 makes a good point. Quite often a unit, while not killed to the last man, is rendered destroyed in the sense that it is no longer a cohesive fighting force. It might take longer for the time scale of the game for the scattered survivors to be reorganized. And to some gamers, keeping track of units in such a condition would be little more than a pointless exercies in bookkeeping.

I tend to prefer games where units suffer attrition.

Lentulus

"If there had been another British company on the horizon, I expect that the Zulu forces would in fact have said "right -- lets get em""

I am sure the commander would have wanted them to, yes – but his men would be scattered all over the battlefield, disembowelling the wounded, collecting red jackets and pith helmets or winkling the hangers-on from the caves on Isandlwana mountain.

I am not suggesting endless book-keeping, but merely that there should be a severe delay – esp where indisciplined troops are concerned.

Mandt2

"And to some gamers, keeping track of units in such a condition would be little more than a pointless exercies in bookkeeping"

This is, however, not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is that, even though a unit has ceased to be an effective fighting force, it still exists in some shape or form.
This could mean that it is instead replaced by a different sort of marker which indicates the 'remains' of a unit. This will still have some sort of effect on events around it, until it is completely destroyed some time later.

Sane Max

"'Cos it's easier."

I think that's pretty much the real reason. Let's not let historical reality get in the way of us pretending what great generals we all are!

Perhaps you could look at this from the other side of the fight: what about units who have successfully eliminated those in front of them as an effective fighting force? Some rules do allow for 'pursuit' (voluntary or otherwise) which reduces the level of conrtol over victorious units; other sets (like Armati) have troops accumulating fatigue as they fight, requiring at least a decsion as to whether to keep up the pressure or reorganising before pushing on. In general though, the level of control over victorious units remains very high – this is what I would like to see addressed.

Hey Bulldog-

I see your point. I remember playing the original D-Day, and having these collossal battles between stacks of divisions. You'd roll a 6D and get "A-Elim," and bingo! The equivalent of 60,000 men and 500 tanks were gone, leaving nothing but empty space. The other guy didn't lose a thing. Combat results have come a long way since the 60s.

Still, at some level recording casualties in almost all wargames need to be abstracted, except as you noted in skirmish or air-combat gaming. A lot of games have you flipping a unit to its reduced side if it receives casualties, which is sort of what you are saying, I think.

I think it goes back to chess. Units captured are removed from play.

It is largely administrative convenience – if a unit is no longer combat effective the simplest thing to do is take it off. If you don't do this then you need some other way to represent its current state – which could be a marker or a special formation or a tick on a roster or something.

Not all rules require removal of units, I play quite a few which don't, and is quite entertaining to have herds of disbanded troops hiding in the woods, running through their pals and generally getting in the way.

There is a difference between casualty removal as a means of tracking combat effectivness and the removal of whole units of course.

"But that's slow, time-consuming and for the guy whose army gets 'No breakfast and wade an Ice-Cold River before engaging the enemy' result on some table, maybe a little frustrating."

I'm pretty sure there's an 'Ice-Cold River with breakfast/no breakfast' table somewhere in "Advanced Squad Leader."

Battlefront WWII does a good job. "Kill" results are rare. Instead, the units are more often disrupted or suppressed.

I think the key is how many figures/units are on the board. If you are working with low density of units, then NOT removing the casualties is an option (a la Battlefront). In fact, not removing the casualties and dealing with units in various forms of discomfiture is part of the game.

If you have a ton of stuff on the board, then casualty removal is a good idea, because in the scope of the overall game, as many have already pointed out, "dead" units are an administrative burden that gets in the way.

Hi

I rules aren't "tidy" and don't do this. Most units break into a mob and try to flee.

1066.us

Rocky

Units that are no longer significant take up table space and the figures sometimes are damaged because no one is paying attention to them.

For my part, taking care of the figs is a major priority.

mjc

I think most agree that a unit will cease to be an effective military unit long before it is completely destroyed. ie. there is a huge difference between a unit being 'effectively destroyed' and 'completely destroyed'.
Assuming this is the case, we next have to establish at what stage does a unit:
a) become 'not militarily effective'
and
b) what this means to the remainder of the unit
I would suggest that a unit which is 'not militarily effective' is one which cannot undertake offensive ops. What remains of the unit in this case can actually still be quite potent and cannot (or rather, should not) be dismissed by a wargamer. I have read that losses of 'only' about 30% would generally render a unit 'ineffective'. However, a good comtemporary example was the bombing of the Sir Galahad in the Falkland War.
Though the Welsh Guards lost 'only' 32 killed in the attack (so one might reasonably assume perhaps another 100 WIA), I have heard it said that this meant the battalion was effectively finished as a fighting unit.
So, in wargames terms, a battalion of c.650 men would simply 'vanish', despite there being about 500 'effectives' left.
Clearly this is nonsense.

I agree that non-combat effective units should be removed from the table immediatly. The issue is should the victorious units be able to carry one immediatly.

I've recently been play-testing Sharp Practice. One of the things I really like is that units acquire shock points that degrade their combat and movement ability. In our last game the French had to retreat due to shock points, but two of the three British units had so many shock points that they were not able to pursue.

In many other sets of rules, as long as a unit hasn't broken it can still attack – it's either on or off. These guys were glad to see the enemy go and had no wish to follow them.

It is a good point. After a hard fight- especially in pre gunpowder periods- the victor would be knackered. We mark cavalry as blown, why not infantry? Maybe have a 'reform rule' FOR INSTANCE (off the top of my head) A unit may not move until it is secured (ie the last of the 'removed' enemy driven off) During the morale phase roll a d6- mark the number, and once this gets to 7 then the unit can move next turn, -1 if you are elite (so you need 6), +1 if poor, -1 if enemy poor, +1 if elite (so a elite unit that destroys a poor one needs to accumulate 5 before its is good to go)

What's the TIME SCALE of the game's turns? If it's measured in hours, that would be plenty of time for mop-up, reorganizing, etc. after destroying an opposing unit. For example, skirmish games would be "real time", all the way up to the AH counter games where a turn could represent a day or even more. Helps to keep the time factor in perspective….

In some recent research, I discovered that during the WWI battle of Ypres, entire German units were wiped out within seconds! The Germans called the battle "The slaughter of the Innocents". (Talk about the "rate of taking casualties"……

Besides Japanese units in the Pacific in WWII, finding examples of entire units simple ceasing to exist is rare. What is NOT rare is seeing units cease to remain "effective". A rules set that calls for "ineffective" units to be removed is just fine with me! Assuming "ineffective" means "no longer functioning as a "unit"", such units would be incapable of contributing anything "useful" to today's battle.

Such mechanics reward the proper practice of keeping reserves!

Best,
Tom Dye
GFI

I can remember playing several historical games (mostly Napoleonic era) that applied "victor casualties" to the winner of an assault to represent not only attrition but the need to assign troops to prisoner & casualty details. The concept of having to deal with POWs isn't completely ignored, at least in larger scale games.

I firmly believe in stuff on the table that interferes with what you want to do.

Limbers should be mandatory, to clog the roads, and get in the way.

Routing units should head for the table edge, and in the meantime, get in the way.

Broken units should either cower in place and do nothing, or rout. Or, they may recover their nerve, and shoot. They don't evaporate.

Pretending they are not there is just silly. It shows you do not really care about "realism". They ARE there, and they ARE in the way.

Calling them "ineffective" is just hand-waving, and hoping they would go away.

Wow, again I agree with the OFM. Battlefields are messy!

John the OFM

You are spot on, old chap.

Re. my example of the Welsh Guards – 'ineffective as a combat unit' perhaps, but how can any think that the surviving c.500 troops would not have an influence on their immediate surroundings?
To deny this is to take the easy option and to hell with reality.

Funnily enough, GW's games seem to do what you want, most of the time; units lose models as the take casualties, and become less combat effective (fewer attacks, reduced rank bonus in combat). When they rout, the unit heads for the 'home edge', and can entice other units to follow them, or may have a change of heart and rejoin the fray. units are only destroyed in their entirety if they get successfully pursued by their foes after routing on close combat.

It all boils down to the rules. Most of us, I assume, are playing games for fun. If all a unit is doing is moving towards the table edge with no hope of recovery, I'm going to just take them off the table right away, since moving them 8" or so every turn is meaningless. if there's a chance they can have some other effect on the game (by rallying, or simply getting in the way), then fair enough.

GW rules do it a bit 'cos they are based on Old-fashioned mechanics that the authors loved as Kids. Ooorah.

I would like more clutter in my games, but I am a member of a club that meets from 6.30pm to 10pm and a game I can't fit into that is hopeless.

I am 40 on sunday. Now, as an 'Old Man' i intend to demand a second night out from my wife, and will start attending a local club that meets for 5 or six hours on a sunday when I can play the sort of games where rivers are treated like rivers not as table decor, where the condition of the horses really matters and where a unit without any brekky gets at least three tables to look up their effectiveness upon.

Pat

Destroyed is only acorrect term when dealing with planes, ships or vehicles.

A better term adn one we used in 1979 with Guard du Corps is combat ineffective. Destroyed untis areactually those formations no longer capable of providing a coordinated action. The remaining men mayE&E in small or large groups or surrender in Mass depending on the era.

In several pictures of Napoleon , there are surrendered enemy troopsshown near him and not trying to kill him. But a similar situation would not exist in other places or eras.

If our definition about 'not militarily effective unit' is that it cannot take the offensive, then in empty battlefields of modern wars, it would be extremely hard to know whether an enemy unit is combat effective or not: even after huge amount of casualties there would still be some guys shooting the enemy and keeping up the illusion.
So not only should ineffective units be kept on board, but it also shouldn't be too obvious for opposing player to see whether an unit is combat effective or not. Of course, this doesn't necessary apply to other periods.

"Assuming this is the case, we next have to establish at what stage does a unit:
a) become 'not militarily effective'"

I would take issue with 'not being capable of offensive operations' as the definition. The Germans defined divisions as having four levels of capability:

Fully capable
Limited offensive
Defensive
Limited defensive.

But exactly what casualty levels these correspond to is not specified – as divisions like 12th SS were described as 'wiped out' after Normandy when they still had half their men left on strength it leads us to….

the levels for battalions used in the War Office 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame
01-19% losses: no effect
20-39% losses: half combat power
40-74% losses: no longer capable of operations, requires a week to reorganise. Will be overrun if attacked (but can still present a front to the enemy)
75% or more losses: unit destroyed, requires complete reorganisation.

As Karsta says, to the enemy it is not at all obvious what state an enemy is in, on the modern empty battlefield at any rate. Their mere prescence can require a formal attack whcih takes time to organise etc. I would suggest that units falling back before an enemy advance offering feeble resistance are in the 40-74% bracket.

Any game which uses hidden unit strengths/rosters (e.g. megablitz, PoW etc ) models this quite well.

Scale has much to do with it.

I firmly believe in stuff on the table that interferes with what you want to do.

You bet. Tactical battles are much more interesting, and fun when there are all kinds of messy variables, like wrecks.

My friend and I actually use a "body" to mark the loss of a stand in "Fire & Fury." It serves no purpose whatsoever than to show where the toughest fights had occurred. Still, it adds color to the battlefield and flavor to the game. (Terrible way to put.)

But, if you are playing the Russian front, and you destroy a Russian tank corps in a battle, I'm not sure what you gain by placing a wreck counter in the 20 mile by 20 mile hex.

The thread seems to have covered to many eras. Different interpretationscould be applied to the terms depending onthe specific era being discussed.

"I am 40 on sunday. Now, as an 'Old Man' i intend to demand a second night out from my wife, and will start attending a local club"
mere teenager

did you play London Wargames ACW?
1st 0r 2nd WRG ancients?
were stuck with Featherstone for WW2?

no … baby

Hi

rudy, even in airplanes, when we play Mustangs and Messerschmitts(every thursday), it is common to trace the fall of the wreckage as part of the problem.

Had a game where my dead oscar pilot ended up ramming the B29 next to the one that killed him and THEIR wreckage decended in arc that hit two more in a lower formation. And once in korea, I nailed a mig at low level who's trajectory had it crashing into the truck convoy I had just been straffing…..as two examples.

Our guys do not tend to "tidy" in our games or our rules!

Rocky

it seems that the problem with linear combat periods is not seen in modern warfare, is that right? units are largely invisible to each other in modern warfare when the battle is raging. an exception might be made for street to street fighting but mostly the men are not seeing each other. if a platoon dies that means its men are out of the combat. in most games wouldnt this mean that the figures have already been removed because they are dead wounded or routed? in earlier periods where the armies can see each other a destroyed unit is still one that has men on their feet but they are running away. i suppose a unit in a gunpowder period battle could be all on their faces in the dirt like in the acw a lot of the time. that unit isnt going to be visible either unless you walk right over their bodies. so a unit which runs away or goes to ground is the same except for how long it takes the figures to be removed. the gone to ground unit can be taken off the table right now. but the routing unit will only take figures off as they run off the table. does that seem reasonable to anyone?

I use casualty markers (body outlines) for troops and build wrecked armour and vehicles just for this reason (and for…fun). That way, having the last bridge blocked with a burning wreck is a real pain in the ass for both parties (blocks line of sight and blocks the route)

It makes games so much more intersting (and my dozer tanks all the more useful)

Johan