"infantry combat expected results" Topic

Part real part actual. What was the result you wanted to end up with. Based on Ww2/modern. These thought experiments though artificial validate what you expect as a base before other factors are included,

When writing our rules we had some set points to aim at.

Assume for test purposes standard squads on both sides.

One vs one in same cover standard. Result . Stalemate both parties pinned down no realistic chance of one taking the other out. Slow deterioration of both sides.

Two vs one in soft cover. Just about possible to take the position at high cost.

Three vs one in fighting positions. Possible at high cost. The three between them suppress the trench. Two enough to keep it suppresses and the third takes it by assault. From the front the assaulting unit will suffer significant depredations. The defenders will be forced to retreat heavily mauled.

This result expected at least 50% of the time, severe excursions either side at the 5% level.
In all cases no engineering in the form of wire or mines has been assumed.

what were your set points.

Can't really disagree with that but (and isn't there always a but) the problem comes when you want to include factors outside the basic situations you describe. What mechanism that you apply to give the basic results can also cope with additional affectors in an appropriate way and at an appropriate level ? Most existing systems have too simplistic a mechanism to allow deviations from the norms to have a small but significant effect on the outcome.

GildasFacet, we had a leap of faith at the start. My son is also a rabid RPG player. They have gone D20. We took it on faith that it was the right thing to do. Certainly we are now convinced that was the right thing to do. 5% seems a good figure for resolution. Not sure how you would quantify much tighter than this. It's not as fine as you might think but it allows us to cover what we consider significant. But of course opinions do differ. Level of scatter of results is one such issue. If you are desperate you can get an approximation of a normal distribution. We have something resembling that for our assault resolution. Not every bodies ideal but we wanted a model that gave consistent (as far as possible) results so strategy and tactics dominates. This is not to the liking of some players who prefer to gamble more heavily. There is a thread on do you encourage risk taking.

It really depends on the experience of each side. If one side is much better than the other than they will win handily in all these instances. If they are equal then I would give the following.

Inexperienced. Results are variable for 1 to 1 or 2 to 1, most likely a victory for attacker at 3 to 1 with moderate casualties. Inexperienced troops may break and run right away or the attackers may botch the assault and end up dead – no way to really know.

Experienced or better – Likely as you wrote down but casualties at 3 to 1 may be moderate to light for attacker, being pinned down 2 to 1 while a 3rd force flanks you is bad news.

That is interesting in that it is a significantly different view. I would not have assumed the results would be more variable depending on troop standard. I.e whether both sides were inexperienced or veteran. That is interesting and will bear more scruteny.

Now as to 3 to 1. This assumes the defenders are in a fighting position. We assume that this is more difficult to suppress, they may not perceive as many near misses. In any case if you can outflank the opponent casualties would be less. My bad for not making it clear it was a frontal assault, the flank not being viable for one reason or another.

The answers are always interesting thanks.

Frontal assault – that is going to be ugly even at 3 to 1

As we are playing games, I tend to give players a slight chance that even the most silly move could succeed, even if that is about 1%!
As to frontal assaults, there are know examples where outnumbered attackers still win (EG in the Falklands!)

Herkybird,
To be fair many of the Argentinians were conscipts and not always that well supplied vs some of the best UK professional soldiers. In that case its not that surprising the attacker's succeeded as training and motivation are key factors. That is outside the scope of this thought experiment.

The 1% issue is always entertaining. It's gamble vs chess. I hate games that have the "silly move" effect personally, I think it ruins the game. But each to their own.

One vs one in same cover standard. Result . Stalemate both parties pinned down no realistic chance of one taking the other out. Slow deterioration of both sides.

I can work that way. However, if that is true for a 1:1 force, then when does the scale up end that equation…or does it?

I think to make that your set point leaves out too many variables that make that equation less than informative.

McLaddie, it's infinite in scale up. However it's a firepower set point. The trick in military tactics is concentration in time and space. If you were a company, or more proably a corps, or army, the trick is to dig in lots of your troops so you can defend with economy, then concentrate in one area and break through.

This was just a thought experiment to check the basic building blocks. If the experiment had different values say like herkybird then the tactics could be different as the results are less predictable with inexperienced troops. You may need to attack at at 4 to one and hope at 1 to one the gods of luck are on your side.

UshCha:

I was thinking of something I read in Murray's Brains and Bullets

In it the author relates how two companies of British commandos during the Falkland war were attacking uphill against two companies of Argentine infantry. The skill and experience of the companies of both sides were from the same battalions.

One attack, British company against Argentine company was a slugfest with serious casualties. Next to them, the other British company met similar fire but outflanked the Argentine company, resulting in low casualties on both sides because the Argentine retreated after some flank fire from the British.

Point being, the thought experiment requires that both companies go head on with zero tactical finesse.