ASL Combat Results v Real Life

[Mr Incredible]

Have to say right up front I've never had any combat experience.

So, with the various results in the game, what do they represent in the real life battlefield?

Pin
Break
Failed ELR
CR
KIA
Berserk

Do the current range of ASL results fully cover the typical battlefield effects for a squad of infantry?

Is there anything that ASL does not necessarily model?

Just wondering and interested in other's views.

 

[Vinnie]

Like you I have no experience but for me:

Pin. Go to ground as they feel the shots coming in.
Break. Go to ground and redeploy out if the area.
ELR. The spirit of the group gets lessened with long term effects on whether they are willing to risk their lives .
K/ CR. Actual casualties. Maybe one or two guys hit so others are required to evacuate the casualties. In a rally attempt, this could be she'll shock or realising the small wounds are great than thought so need more treatment.
KIA. Significant casualties to more than 3 of the group.
Berserk,. Significant personal going mad and bringing the others with them. Often it would only be one or two who charge forwards but this can have an inspirational effect on the others.

 

[Robin Reeve]

Pin generated by a sniper may mean a guy was shot and the others are huddling onto the ground.
Break can also mean wounded or dead indivuduals, creating panick among their pals.
Etc.
I would venture that some results overlap when it comes to casualties.
And mixed results (half men go to ground, others have a nervous breakdown) are not depicted...
As usual ASL is impressionist in its rendering of "reality".
I never went up front and never will - at least with a weapon.

 

[xenovin]

John Hill in the design section of original Squad Leader cites a combat example if an officer loved by his unit that completely fell apart when he was killed by a sniper. That is how he built the game (and it is a game BTW).

 

[Tuomo]

Funny - I didn't think this thread would be worth reading until Jon had chimed in

Part of the fascination is seeing the nationality differences as well. I'd guess that, to a certain extent, every human being in a combat situation reacts in similar ways, but there are definite military-cultural differences that are part of the game's color. Certain societies and military doctrines seemed to have less emphasis on personal initiative, and it's interesting to see what happens when those norms are literally brought under fire.

I also suspect that, as the war went on, those differences may have lessened, as the units whose outmoded styles couldn't match up to modern methods basically died. You either come up to standard or you die.

Tom

 

[TomK]

I’ve got a little combat experience as a grunt with the 82nd. I can’t speak for WWII but here’s how it is in the wars since the 80’s.
Pin: “F%@K!”
Break: “I’m gettin’ the F%@K outa here!”
ELR: “Where the F%@K did (insert name of respected squad member) go?”
K/CR: “Ah, mutha F%@K!”
KIA: “Aaahh F%@K, F$@K, F%@K!!!”
Berserk: “F%@K it, let’s go!”

 

[zgrose]

I don’t think it is easy enough to score a Pin effect, but I think the only effect missing would have to be related to fog-of-war/out-of-command/confusion. But I accept the Borg consciousness because it keeps the game moving along nicely.

 

[lightspeed]

John Hill in the design section of original Squad Leader cites a combat example if an officer loved by his unit that completely fell apart when he was killed by a sniper. That is how he built the game (and it is a game BTW).

I think Hill took a quote from Craig's "Enemy at the Gates."

I've heard that Craig fictionalised some parts. It's still an entertaining read.

Indy

 

[TopT]

I think Hill took a quote from Craig's "Enemy at the Gates."

I've heard that Craig fictionalised some parts. It's still an entertaining read.

Indy

Yes it is.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Like you I have no experience but for me:

Pin. Go to ground as they feel the shots coming in.

The immediate action for taking effective enemy fire is to go to ground. It was was taught (to the British, anyway) as a battle drill - and we are still doing variations on those battle drills today. (Indeed, the 1982 infantry manual I was taught from looked like it had been taken in the main from the 1944 version). As we were taught it, you then crawled left or right in case the enemy was watching you hit the dirt, then took a look to see where the enemy is, and fired back. Down, Crawl, Observe, Fire was the 'meme' taught.

A Pin would represent, I suppose, an instance where a unit went to cover but was unable to either locate whomever was shooting at it, was unwilling to advance further (or return fire), or etc.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Certain societies and military doctrines seemed to have less emphasis on personal initiative,

By 1943 or 44 this wasn't true at the individual soldier level. The Allies were variously criticized (particularly by the Germans) for not advancing or seizing opportunities, and it is probably unit-dependent, but it wasn't all bad. Guy Simonds, who firmly put his stamp on II Canadian Corps in NW Europe, hammered into all commanders the need to not just stop on the objective, but take at least another bound, if for no other reason than the Germans always pre-registered their own lines to maximize casualties among those who arrived on the objective. There were some units that had good initiative - my own regiment's CO was awarded the DSO for an imaginative night assault at Clair Tizon - but I think all the armies had good, and bad, leaders to the point it is not worth generalizing.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I also suspect that, as the war went on, those differences may have lessened, as the units whose outmoded styles couldn't match up to modern methods basically died. You either come up to standard or you die.

This presupposes there was a recognition during the Second World War that battles were won and lost at the section level. I think that had been demonstrated on the Somme (literally) and is why small unit leadership in the British Army had become so ingrained by 1917-18. And the British were well behind the French (which is why those who think they are funny by scoffing at French military valour are fools) and the Germans who had learned their own hard lessons about small-unit tactics and were already implementing their own fixes.

By 1939, all modern armies had devolved tactical unit leadership down to the squad and platoon level, or in other words, they had already arrived at the 'state of the art' by the start of the war, even if some armies weren't very good at it.

 

[Danno]

Have to say right up front I've never had any combat experience.

So, with the various results in the game, what do they represent in the real life battlefield?

Pin
Break
Failed ELR
CR
KIA
Berserk

Do the current range of ASL results fully cover the typical battlefield effects for a squad of infantry?

Is there anything that ASL does not necessarily model?

Just wondering and interested in other's views.

You forgot Battle Hardening and Hero Creation. Not to mention Surrender.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Do the current range of ASL results fully cover the typical battlefield effects for a squad of infantry?

I'd say yes, but it's very much done in the realm of presenting a game, not a simulation. If you visit the Squad Leader Academy site there is a listing and some copies of good designer's interviews, particularly with John Hill, which I recommend. The 2 Half Squads also did a great interview with him - I posted a link to a transcript recently if you don't want to listen to the podcast. Jeff and Dave did a terrific job of drawing him out on some of the basic history behind the design.

Is there anything that ASL does not necessarily model?

Not an effect per se, but the limitations of command and control are not directly modelled. Though you can argue that they are in the design indirectly, or that is to say in Hill's words, "designed for effect." The loss of key leaders will be detrimental to any typical scenario order of battle, as they were in life, though perhaps for different reasons. Stuff like radio problems (think A Bridge Too Far), the death of a runner, etc., are not directly simulated, but again, can be portrayed by the robust SSR system or by juggling the various parameters - I am sure Pete Shelling could write a book on something like that if there wasn't already too many scenario design books on the market.

 

[Mr Incredible]

All great responses, thanks.

I guess the only real thing missing is C&C, but to implement something in the game like in SASL would slow the game down. The current range of effects probably does a good job at modelling C&C. You have to remember, ou are the battlefield commander and sometimes you will fail your PMC and do stupid things or just surrender.

Another layer of the C&C is Battlefield Integrity. The more losses your troops take the more likely they are to start failing their ELR and degrade in combat effectiveness quicker. I always thought it was a double handicap system. You are losing a scenario badly, but you get handicapped with a lower ELR so you troops melt away quicker.

 

[Paul M. Weir]

If C&C were to be introduced as in SASL, then I think you would need to drastically increase the number of leaders. I'm not thinking about more "-1" or "-2", but many "-0" or "+1"s. Simply to provide a cascading chain to pass on your commands. I'm thinking more on the lines of AP's Panzergrenadier where you try to activate a good leader that in turn activates a series of lower leaders that gets your battalion or regiment into action. Under the current scheme, those intermediary "leaders" are invisible and you just move your GO squad to where you want without an explicit command chain.

It can be done but I feel that ASL, with all the MC and Pin mechanisms does not really need it in terms of limiting control.

 

[djohannsen]

Is there anything that ASL does not necessarily model?

As a noob to ASL, I'll comment that I've felt that there is absolutely no modeling of supression. All of modern tactics is built on the concept of fire and manuever. One gains fire superiority (make the enemy hunker down and stay down) with a base of fire and then maneuvers against him. There is absolutely no mechanic like this in ASL (though smoking the enemy location is a fair representation of this effect). The mantra in the real world is: "Fire without maneuver is seldom decisive. Maneuver without fire is suicide."

 

[zgrose]

Suppression is in there, it’s just too hard to get, IMO.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The mantra in the real world is: "Fire without maneuver is seldom decisive. Maneuver without fire is suicide."

I'd qualify the latter to indicate maneuver in sight of the enemy.

Infiltration is a form of maneuver without fire.

I was on exercise this weekend, playing OPFOR, and one of the platoon attacks against our position involved a smoke screen to mask the approach. Seemed effective and it put them in a good position relative to us.

So it is possible to maneuver without fire, but generally not when the enemy can see you.

 

[Eagle4ty]

As a noob to ASL, I'll comment that I've felt that there is absolutely no modeling of supression. All of modern tactics is built on the concept of fire and manuever. One gains fire superiority (make the enemy hunker down and stay down) with a base of fire and then maneuvers against him. There is absolutely no mechanic like this in ASL (though smoking the enemy location is a fair representation of this effect). The mantra in the real world is: "Fire without maneuver is seldom decisive. Maneuver without fire is suicide."

I believe the cumulative effects of PIN, Breaks, Freezes, cowering, limited visibility (i.,e. SMOKE) et. al. pretty much equates to suppression. For if you look at what "suppression" is intended to do in a tactical sense, it is to reduce the enemy's ability to interfere or interdict your maneuver and reduce his firepower capabilities in a given sector. I think this is one of the cornerstones of SL/ASL as the infantry game clearly demonstrates this concept. Overall I believe ASL still validates the four "F's", Find 'em, Fix 'em, Flank 'em, F 'em (probably fight 'em?) and suppression of the enemy is inherent in this process. Now if you're talking about operational suppression, well that's out of my pervue as I was only a ground pounding gravel agitator. YMMV