Acharnement | 24 Sep 2015 7:40 p.m. PST |
Two squads enter close combat. Which sides wins? The side that killed the most enemies or the side that has the most survivors? Just started playing Bolt Action and the side that kills the most wins the close combat. There are at least two schools of thoughts to this. What do you think and what do the rules you play say? |
Saber6 | 24 Sep 2015 8:18 p.m. PST |
The side that does not break |
Mako11 | 24 Sep 2015 8:23 p.m. PST |
Usually, the side that killed the most enemies, since the others may break when noticing that, assuming they can run to get away. In some rules, play continues in close combat until one side is eliminated. I think this would be especially true in boarding actions on spaceships, unless the winners are feeling very generous. If they're feeling especially devious, they might let them surrender, and then "space them", after they've caught their breath, perhaps as an example to others. That's what some of the pirates of olde reportedly did, in order to encourage their enemies/victims to be sure to surrender, at the first command, if they wanted a bit more forgiving treatment. Of course, instead of spacing them, they'd just kill them, or make them walk the plank. |
mandt2 | 24 Sep 2015 8:48 p.m. PST |
The side that holds the objective at the end of the scenario. Casualties are secondary to the mission. Though heavy casualties can certainly derail a side's ability to accomplish the mission. |
RetroBoom | 24 Sep 2015 9:08 p.m. PST |
I was trying to figure this one out as well. In my new version of Hail of Fire I've kind of split the difference, saying which ever side had more unsuppressed teams within 8" of the assaulting teams (suppression is also a possible result of close combat in my game). Who ever loses moves a random distance, and anyone still within a radius of the winner dies automatically. |
Whirlwind | 24 Sep 2015 9:26 p.m. PST |
Two squads enter close combat. Which sides wins? The side that killed the most enemies or the side that has the most survivors? Just started playing Bolt Action and the side that kills the most wins the close combat. There are at least two schools of thoughts to this. What do you think and what do the rules you play say? Given those two choices, the side with the most kills. Absolutely no doubt. |
Martin Rapier | 24 Sep 2015 11:05 p.m. PST |
Given the choices, kills. However that is an appalling model of close combat. Most systems for opposed close combat (some sequential) use a mechanism to determine which side breaks, casualties may contribute to the outcome but so do unit states and the tactical situation. |
nazrat | 25 Sep 2015 7:39 a.m. PST |
It is indeed the worst bit of the Bolt Action rules. I know they were going for something that would make the game as fast and easy as possible, but if you lose one guy when the other side doesn't take any casualties it destroys the entire squad. Simply awful rules writing in that particular case. As a result I won't play BA without a house rule about close combat… |
McLaddie | 25 Sep 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
If you really want a meaningful answer to this question, you need to research close combat during WWII and do a statistical study of at least 30 incidents. THEN you can made a statement about what conditions cause one side to retreat. A good book that addresses this question directly with statistical analysis is Brains and Bullets by Leo Murray link |
Lion in the Stars | 25 Sep 2015 6:19 p.m. PST |
30 incidents is the bare minimum for a statistical analysis. 100+ is better. If your only options are "more casualties" or "more survivors", the option is "more casualties". The real answer is "whoever's morale didn't break," which is why I like the Flames of War close combat model. Assaulters move, defender conducts Defensive Fire (and might stop the attack before the grenades start flying), attackers swing and inflict casualties. Then defenders test morale and need to pass before they can swing back. |
McLaddie | 25 Sep 2015 8:00 p.m. PST |
30 incidents is the bare minimum for a statistical analysis. 100+ is better. True, but minimum still works with a lot less work than 100. If your only options are "more casualties" or "more survivors", the option is "more casualties". Why 'more casualties?' If that is simply a game design decision, terrific. You are free to do what you want. If that is supposed to represent actual combat… I gotta ask how you know that is the correct option? That 100 incidents? |
Acharnement | 26 Sep 2015 5:53 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the replies. Our group's plan is to try several games of Bolt Action with varying amounts of close combat and then see what we think. Then- the tinkering! |
badger22 | 26 Sep 2015 11:26 p.m. PST |
From sitting around talking with guys who have done this recently, much of the time you dont even realize what your casualties are until after the fight is over. One of the kids I gamed with, they did not even realize he had been hit until they found him out in the street some distance from the start of the fight. From them, I get the impression that many if not most of the casualties occur after the fight is won and as one side is running away. So it may well be that the losing side has more casualties but that is not the reason they lost. And no I dont have 30 storys from them. They moight have 30 storys between them, but we never sat down to do an AAR on, more like an exorcisim. Owen |
McLaddie | 27 Sep 2015 10:07 a.m. PST |
And no I dont have 30 storys from them. They moight have 30 storys between them, but we never sat down to do an AAR on, more like an exorcisim. I can understand that. Such 'stories' don't have to be from just one source. The periods I am interested in also find the combatants unaware of actual casualties. It is more along the lines of 'light, medium and heavy' casualties when they take a visual estimation at some point. Often it is more of an cohesion or emotional estimation concerning their command. However, IF you want to create a probabilistic model of real combat, the best you can do [and only meaningful measure] is create a statistical model based on real events… a minimum of 30 for something statistically similar to the actual expectations. |
Rick Don Burnette | 28 Sep 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
People Unless you are doing close combat in wars with three or less sides 30 isn't enough Consider WW2 with at least 7 sides, and with radicaly different attitudes about close combat, not to mention the subsets, such as paratroopers fanatics, Hiwis, partisans, etc As to data collection, well theres the problem that some participants didn't write about close combat, either in English or at all Still have this reticence problem with Napoleonics, few soldier stories from Russians, Prussians, Spanish And, what is close combat? Hand grenade duels, infantry up close and personal with tanks, bunkers, melee of groups, cavalry, fighting in mud, mountains, sand, swamp, buildings Using swords, bayonets, furniture, dirt,helmets Fraser Quartered Safe out Here and the more petition tactical of SLAMS works are starters for the UK. US. |
Mithmee | 28 Sep 2015 5:28 p.m. PST |
True just look at some of the Banzai Charges that happen in WWII. Saipan had one where the end results were over 4000 dead Japanese but basically destroyed two US Battalions (US had over 2000 dead and wounded). Real Hand to Hand fighting (I.E. Close Combat) is nasty business. The Victors are usually the ones who are still alive after it finishes. They are also completely spent as well. Most rule systems don't do Close Combat right. But it not an easy thing to do in the first place. |
Martin Rapier | 29 Sep 2015 6:44 a.m. PST |
As noted above, Brains and Bullets does look at all this stuff, including a definition of 'close combat'. A lot of it is a synthesis of earlier operations research, with the aim of putting actual numbers on tactical factors influencing the outcomes. Of use to both professional soldiers (they don't teach this stuff at Sandhurst) as well as wargames designers. I would also commend 'Bayonets and Blobsticks' for an extremely in-depth look at the realities of close combat in WW1, or more strictly, hand-hand, with bayonets, knives, spades, clubs etc. For earlier periods, Ardent du Picqs 'Battle Studies' is well worth a read. He did it for real and he has much to say on the bayonet and close combat in general, sadly he was killed in the opening stages of the FPW. Available for free on Kindle. |