"Casualties in wargames" Topic

One thing that annoys me a bit is how non-lethal casualties are essentially ignored in miniatures games. I have played a lot of different rules sets, from a lot of different periods, and only one (Force on Force) requires the player to give any regard to wounded figures. Why is this?

For some games it doesn't make sense for the soldiers to take care of their wounded – I don't need to be worrying about individual injured troops when I'm playing a huge ancients battle in 10mm, for instance – but wounded soldiers play no role even in skirmish games featuring 10 or fewer figures per side.

Is it because people don't want to deal with the rules overhead? There are a lot of other aspects of the battlefield that are modelled in our rules, but which have a much smaller impact on the battle than casualty evacuation.

Force On Force handles it well, in that you at least feel like your little pewter soldiers are taking care of the one who got shot in the leg, not just leaving him to die in the dust so they can carry about their mission as if nothing happened. It's such a huge part of combat, why is it virtually ignored in our games?

THW has rules for wounded in NUTS! and ATZ. Don't recall anything in other tactical rules, however.

Stargrunt2 includes this aspect too.

I suppose the complexity of taking care of the wounded isn't something which most people want to game. It's odd though, particularly in the context of modern weaponry where some of it is at least partially intended to create such issues.

Fad has rules for wounded troops & medics.

I suspect many rules allow for just this point by giving some sort of "wearing down" effect upon a unit as casualties mount. It is also true that wargames rules often allow far greater death rates than are usual. A real life unit suffering 30% casualties would be considered "bust" but wargamers would often expect to carry on after receiving a 60% casualty rate.
It should be normal for a loser to still have most of his units in existence but still lose the battle.

PBI (Peter Pig WW2 company level, since 1981!)assumes that all casualties are wounded and therefore require the platoon commander's attention. Failure to attend to these wounded will bring the platoon to a "failure of will" point. The casualty markers remain unless dealt with using the PC precious resources.

Just adding to the conversation.

martin

Ambush Alley's games have similar rules as Stargrunt II.
Which is very good.

Hi, Snodipous. I see two issues with this.

1. In most GAMES, all the players want to know is how casualties affect their miniature unit's ability to function. IMHO, if true, they are definately using the wrong set of applicable parameters! (IMHO, they should be looking at how much control the leaders have lost over the unit.)

2. Logistics. Taking care of wounded delves into the world of sustaining a fight. Most GAMERS view the whole issue of logistics as being dull and don't want to have to deal with it in their games. It tends to disrupt the rythmn of game play.

So if want to play games that yield believable results, look for those sets that explain the parameters the designer used to arrive at their desired results and do a "sniff check" as to real life factors and how close they mirror your gut check to reality.

There are a few sets out there that seem to produce believable results but others that achieve that goal unconciously. (A few have been mentioned to check out that many enjoy that works for them.) For me, my preference for non-squad level games is NOT to use casualties as a value set that determines the ability of a unit to remain functioning. There are just too many examples in history that prove this. (Just look at actions in the Pacific in WWII or even the current unrest in Syria and Mali.)

Just my two scheckles worth in an attempt to answer your question.

v/r

Tom

More likely to find wounded is taking into account in squad games. To say only FOF represents this is incorrect there are lots of rules that represents this!

Of course, TSATF has always (if you play that option)
had rules regarding the wounded.

Dye4minis wrote:

2. Logistics. Taking care of wounded delves into the world of sustaining a fight. Most GAMERS view the whole issue of logistics as being dull and don't want to have to deal with it in their games. It tends to disrupt the rythmn of game play.

I think this is it. Anything that involves transport, supply, recovery, repair, or medical evacuation tends to be ignored so that wargamers can get on with shooting things. It doesn't matter if toy soldiers are fed, watered and rested, and most wargamers have a pretty low tolerance for planning even a simple scheme of manoeuvre, never mind anything else.

All the best,

John.

One other factor that should be considered is that people involved in a firefight or advance often have to leave their disabled colleagues – this happened historically all the time.
In my rules, I assume a morale result of 'Halt' or 'fall back' includes some element of casualty care or evacuation.

We are playing A GAME, and we can ignore the real horrors of war if this impinges on the fun elements of a game.

Hope this doesnt make me sound too callous!!!!

"We are playing A GAME, and we can ignore the real horrors of war if this impinges on the fun elements of a game."

That would depend on what we want the game to portray.

If we want a John Wayne story the main protagonists would just have a morale boost when their comrades die.

If we play a Full Metal Jacket inspired game the effect would be different.

One of the reasons for FonF having rules like this is the level of the game and the fact that casualties play a much larger role in modern combat then they used to. Horrendous losses don't play well on the news anymore.And Soldiers just do not leave behind anyone for any reason. Many of you have stated that many a mission changed on contact from whatever it was before to medivac if somebody gets wounded.
And since thier are so many people on thier consultant and playtest teams that are former or active military it seems natural that these rule mechanics would be included.I used to train soldiers using these rules also played them for pleasure. Trained about everything you can think of with them,Ive got to say I like them alot. I have had alot of fun gaming with them. But there is still one truism play the game that you enjoy and play with folks that make you happy and you can't go wrong…..Mikey

WRG stated clearly a KO result for an infantry element did not always translate to being wiped out, but had suffered so much physically and psychologically it was unable to continue as an effective unit. We experimented, when playing 6mm Vietnam games, either

a) Accept the book result as a KO which might represent the loss as surviving members of the unit tending their fallen comrades.

b) Increase the chance of a KO for Free World forces. simulating the effects of losing manpower as troops exposed themselves to greater danger to rescue the wounded/ troops being used to ferry the wounded back/provide first aid.

c) Increase the chance of suppression, representing a temporary drop in firepower as units are shifted to the rear.

d) Borrow from Command Decisions reorganise command and when two elements are KO's return one element at a later date.

The Challenger rules had an excellent step loss system with the usual pinned and eliminated, but also disrupted and permanently disrupted (in the fight but permanently in a weakened state), which could represent casevac.

To balance the greater fragility of Western units, losing combat power quickly their morale ratings were strengthened, especially if pinned (buddies won't leave you).

Fistfull of Miniatures allows players to return stands to damaged units. Only the first stand loss cannot be returned. So a damaged unit cannot return to starting strength but it can still be brought back to decent fighting level.

Fistfull of Miniatures allows players to return stands to damaged units.

In Black Powder, a commander can rally a unit, removing casualties.

I generally assume that all casualties are the gradual loss of combat power.
A volley hits a unit. The effect is 6 figures. One of those figures might be dead, another might be walking wounded, combat ineffective but can get himself out of danger. Another is seriously wounded and two guys have to carry him back to the aid station/ambulance. Those guys are likely to be gone a little longer than they need to be and may not find their unit again.

Sword and the Flame does wounded well for colonial powers.

I think it also has to do with scale.

If we are fighting a battle with thousands of troops. A lot of simplification takes place since you are in the role of a general – who is not worried about how a particular wounded guy is being taken care of. Divisions/Brigades/Regiments are becoming ineffective due to casualties, that is his concern.

When we get down to 1:1 ratios SAGA/Bolt Action etc. The time frame of the battle is too short. The action takes place over a period of minutes to maybe an hour. A buddy might pause to bind the wound of his comrade, but cannot stop to evacuate him – that sort of action will take place after the game.

A set of Wargames rules cannot simulate everything. We don't check for contagious diseases prior to a game even though they usually killed more that enemy action. As a wargamer we would rather have "howling mad" Martin the general that wins pyrrhic victories at most of his battles over Caleb "the cautious" who usually yields the battlefield. This would be true even if Caleb was demon on his troops about sanitation and rarely lost troops to dysentery while Martin hits the brothels and buys "rounds" for his troops while letting them camp in open sewer.

Yes, it's more of a logistics matter when considered within the gaming paradigm. This also has to do with game scale. Like in many games we played on a tactical level with 3-5 man stands/Fire Tms of Infantry. As mentioned previously, if that stand suffered a "DE" type result and taken off the board. Of those 3-5 men in that stand, some may be KIA, some WIA and even some still capable of fighting but caring/evacing the WIAs & KIAs … Or all were KIA'd ? It just depends on how much detail you want to put in your games …

I suspect that in a lot of battles, as Herkybird suggests, the non-casualties usually worry about fighting the enemy first, and then tend to casualties if they can.

Seems to have worked that way in WWII, Korea, some battles in Vietnam, etc.

Not sure about present day, but imagine if the enemy is really pressing you, the instinct to survive yourself kicks in, and tending to the wounded is probably secondary.

If the Cold War went hot, and commies were steamrolling you, both sides would have suffered horrendous casualties, given the lethality levels of modern weaponry, so I can't really seeing halting an action to tend to the wounded, on either side. They'd get attended to later, if anyone was still alive to do that.

Of course, if the enemy are just taking pot-shots at you from a distance, and not attempting to close assault, or really being effective against you, the troops have more time to tend to the wounded, especially if they are in hardcover.

I will echo Mako11…

In training we were instructed to leave the wounded where they fell until the firefight was over. Its not to say we abandoned them or would not put a field dressing on them. We would double back and collect them after the shooting had stopped or the battle had shifted from the area. Concluding the firefight might save more lives than attempting to evacuate casualties under fire. We were taught mission accomplishment is more important than life.

In large preplanned battles there are stretcher bearers and extra medics on hand to haul the wounded away their addition to the gaming table would not enhance most games.

In a more modern context most of our battles have been fighting insurgents. If one man gets hit we can go to great lengths to save him. The reason is in the grand scheme of things tomorrow is another day and we will have another chance to kill that insurgent. Save the life of this soldier here and now. In a total war scenario against a credible combined arms opponent casualty collection becomes a secondary concern, mission accomplishment becomes the priority.

My original point was that numbers do not equate to effectiveness as a unit. A single man holding his ground is still a force that must be dealt with. You can find instances in history where units ran just from receiving fire; little or no casualties while battalions went to defend a piece of ground and when relieved, only squads came out. I have yet to find any studies that have made any kind of linear formula that linked casualties to a unit's ability to remain under control and functional.

If the historical record cannot set such a standard, why should our games be based on such a value set?

Of course, your unit will never be fresher on the day of battle than just before the first engagement with the enemy. So a system is required to account for a decline in efficiency. Of course, during the lulls in fighting, good unit leadership will have the men do things that will recover some modicum of efficiency AND control. So a system that recognizes this sliding scale of unit effectiveness would have to use a different kind of value set to base this on. "Casualties" seems to have been the mechanic used to track this as many designers claim. But when you look at the modifiers, none seem to refelect any efforts of the unit's leadership to regain control and regain cohesion of the unit.

Numbers of men in the unit do not equate to the unit's ability to remain functioning as a unit. The unit, if still with cohesion and with ability, remains a unit that needs to be dealt with by the enemy…just like the man standing holding his ground.

v/r
Tom

Jlundberg wrote:

We don't check for contagious diseases prior to a game even though they usually killed more that enemy action.

I see a great need for a pre-game routine, when each side being assessed for disease losses, with modifiers for how well they dig their latrines.

As for the priority of tending casualties and winning the firefight, I recall the time a pal of mine was being tested for his St John's Ambulance badge for first aid in the TA unit we belonged to. A realistic training course had been arranged, with simulated casulaties at intervals along an obstacle-strewn course, and an LMG periodically firing off blank rounds to lend verisimilitude. When he came across a casualty with GSW from a machine gun, my pal, correctly recalling his first-aid drills, recalled that his first immediate action was to remove the casualty from danger. So he gave snap orders for a section attack on the LMG.

All the best,

John.

If the historical record cannot set such a standard, why should our games be based on such a value set?

A lot of games these days treat "casualties" effectively as an arbitrary loss of combat effectiveness. In some, this effectiveness can be restored to some extent, usually by the intervention of a command figure ("rallying").

"recalled that his first immediate action was to remove the casualty from danger. So he gave snap orders for a section attack on the LMG."- John salt

Good thing he had the section on hand to conclude the firefight so he could perform his job.

"recalled that his first immediate action was to remove the casualty from danger. So he gave snap orders for a section attack on the LMG."- John salt

Good thing he had the section on hand to conclude the firefight so he could perform his job.

I hope his evaluators gave him points for creativity!

An interesting note from the Vietnam supplements to Flames of War is that the original Flames of War rules assumed that a single man down would effectively remove an entire stand of 3-5 men from combat. In the Vietnam games, you can shuffle casualty counters around without necessarily losing the entire stand.

I really like the Battlegroup rules, where medics and Forward Aid Points help keep you in the fight longer.

On of the things or Manuver Group rules had to give up due to the nature of the game was a casualtie system akin to that of Stargunt 2. It is excelent in moderen asymetric warfare type model of a requirement, but may not be so relevant to a more equal fight like the cold war. Just to keep th game playable we sacrificed loss of figure and or wounded figures for a fear fire and fatigue marker (too long a name so we called it leadership). Interstingly there often comes a piont in the game often considerably before it is officially "combat ineFfective" when a well "used" stand is left behind. It is not worth the overhead to rally and indicates a unit that is out of ammo, has lost its will to continue and is proably attending to the induries. Whatever system you use needs to reflect the overall responce. In some cases woulded overide a mission. In other cases as has been stated the mission comes first. It is very interesting to see what wargamers define as critical parameters even when they are looking at simulatiom. These parameters are again diffrent to those which are chosen for a game where relation to reality is not a strong requirement. MG can be a bit like chess, no need to write orders but a plan is still fundamantal to survival. This is certaily not everybodies idea of the perfect game. It would be a poorer world if that was the case.

Padre Paul Wright's rules for 54mm lawn and table top games,
"Funny Little Wars," as well as the companion volume, "Little Campaigns," both have extensive rules for recovering wounded, their treatment and recovery during or after the battle.

These rules are by their nature independent of specific figure scales, and can work with one-to-one rules particularly well, but also up to figure ratios up to around 1:30 or even 1:50. Much beyond that, a different system would be much more effective.

Indeed, the amount of detail and preparation for deploying and operating field hospitals (including stores of specific medical supplies, stretcher teams, nurses, surgeons, orderlies, ambulances, tentage, etc) are such that they are intended to be under the command of a player/Medical Officer who is responsible for recovery, treatment, and transport of the wounded. It is a full time job, and no player with a combat command can be expected to handle this aspect of the game himself.

Firing and weapons effects rules require no special changes. It is only important to know the total number of casualties to a give unit each combat turn. The specifics are determined when the victims are picked up by the stretcher teams, allowing for the Surgeon to institute a triage system.

The rules provide Turn Number markers to be placed beside casualties as they occur, and the number of turns between the initial wounding and actual treatment can influence the patient's outcome.

None of the rules are difficult, with many random details determined by dice throws, but the actual moving of stretcher teams/ambulances/wagons/carts to where they are needed--frequently in the line of fire--are action enough for most players. And when some sort of Points System is used to help determine victory/defeat, the recovery of casualties to fight again--or even the simple humanitarianism (at the heart of Wellsian War Games)--can make the difference.

I suspect that most games/scales/periods can benefit from some effort to identify, recover, and treat those not killed outright, but first the players have to think a bit more like actual commanders (at all levels) and recognize the importance of conserving his soldiers. Again, games employing points systems are the easiest to apply such thinking to, but the concept is sound whatever rules are in use.

And, finally, the key to making any such system work is to let a player take the job for its own ends. Admittedly, "saving" lives might not be so thrilling as "taking" them on the table-top, but it's hard on the ear to listen to gamers going back and forth about which rules set is more "realistic," when virtually all players act as if only the dead matter, and the suffering wounded don't.

TVAG

"..recognize the importance of conserving his soldiers."

In earlier periods, when medical treatment was far less sophisticated and successful than today, the best way of achieving this admirable objective was to minimise the number of killed and/or wounded in the first place.

In the Disposable Heroes family of rules a "casualty" is listed as being anything from being wounded to killed. The point is your soldier is out for the fight, regardless of whether he is just bleeding or dead, he is incapacitated.

You could even say a 'casualty' in game could be one helping another to the rear…

I guess part of it comes down to how you visualise the narrative to removing the toy soldiers from the tabletop.

To me the 'casualties' are not all dead. Some are, some are wounded and some might be deciding that a quick trip to the rear may be better for their health…

I believe Howard Whitehose's Combat! (in various incarnations) game has rules for dealing with casualties.

I have always treated dealing with casualties as part of a scenario victory point system rather than a system rules issue. It just seems to make more sense that way.

As mentioned in several of the above points, how casualties are dealt with is highly situational – who you are, how pressing is the threat, how accessible is "real" help, etc. aren't really a part of the milieu in general, but individual battles.

Yes, in many cases, as noted, you'll generally finish up the firefight and/or advance before evacing many of the WIAs. Or possibly picking them up as your unit is falling back … And a lot has to do with game turn scale too …

We play a squad level WWII Pacific War game using 4-6 man Fire Teams. When Fire Team stand suffers causalities the entire Team can be KIA, WIA or Walking Wounded. The WIA needs to be evacuated or it can become a KIA. Walking Wounded can stay with the rest of the Squad but at reduced efficiency. Walking Wounded that make it back to Company HQ can come back on the next turn as a fresh Fire Team. We think this simulates "friction" better than just KIA causalities. It accounts for light wounds/injuries, concussions, heat causalities, etc. We try to have the causality ratio 25% KIA, 25% WIA and 50% Walking Wounded. We have Corpsman that can be used to adjust the causality die roll but have a chance of getting hit by a sniper each time they are used. We wanted a game that made you account for the wounded.

Whenever WIA needs to be evacuated the player needs to make a decision of having one of his Teams take them back (and not having them available for combat for an entire turn)or wait for stretcher bearers. Waiting for the stretcher bearers increases the chance for the WIA to become a KIA as each turn a WIA is not evacuated it takes a KIA check.

Wolfhag

Your 10 man section has 4 Kills on it?

That is 1 man dead, 1 man wounded, one man tending him, and 1 man too freaked out by the sight of blood to do anything

Your 10 man section has 4 Kills on it?

That is 1 man dead, 1 man wounded, one man tending him, and 1 man too freaked out by the sight of blood to do anything

Exactly what Last Hussar says here. Me, I'm fairly comfortable with abstraction. I prefer to think of casualties as 'combat ineffective' for however many reasons, rather than a straight-up bodycount.