Campaign attrition

[Baphomet69]

Have any of you ever run a campaign with linked battles? I'm thinking about a campaign covering the cold war going hot (using MSH). I'm looking for some system or formula for handling the loss/replacement of units between battles.

Since in MSH each model represents a platoon, not all casualties/removed models will be straight kills. Between battles there will be replacements and/or reconstituted units made up of survivors. How do you guys handle this? Straight percentage, or...?

Are there already guidelines for this out there somehwere?

[piersyf]

Seeing as nobody has replied yet, I'm assuming that nobody has a direct answer for you, so I'll offer an option. I hadn't replied before this because;

1) I play ww2 a lot more than modern
2) I play campaigns with repair and supply systems, not just a random return method.
3) I play 1:1 and have no experience at all with 1 fig = 1 platoon.
4) I am not familiar with the rules you wish to use.

So my answer... if a player holds the ground at the end of the game (the board is 'theirs') then they get back 30% of their losses for the next battle. If they 'lose' the field, they get back 10%.

For me, I have the repair and maintenance units and the supply units and the signals units. I have a 'repair rate' for the R&M units that can be supported as long as they get their supplies. I use general supply tonnages to support units in the campaign and so so long as I have the 'lift' capacity in my transport elements and the units have open lines of supply, there is no need for book keeping. That only starts when a unit is cut off, and I usually assume that unit starts with a normal battle load and 'keep book' from there until resupplied.

Why do I do this? I have played US WW2 for the last 30+ years, and got sick of going 1:1 against units of Panthers and King Tigers with my poor Shermans. In a campaign I can out maneuver my opponents and attack their repair, supply, artillery and command elements, then leave the big tanks to rot...

[Baphomet69]

Thanks for the reply!

I'll probably end up doing some form of the percentages. Your way sounds cool but much more complicated than I want to get into (even figuring out the supply units, etc.).

Definite food for thought though.

[chrisswim]

We have run a campaign.
NATO vs. Warsaw Pact
We used Tac-Air board [and as I recall the Tac-Air rules] for the strategic game and whatever hex the meeting took place, we tried to replicate that type of terrain. We used Combined Arms [CA] for the tactical engagements.

In CA, each figure represents a platoon. The common manuveaur unit is a battalion, usually three companies. It could be confined into one hex [perhaps more than one in a hex] or spread-out over three. Each hex we determined would be 60 inches [or centimeters] across, which represented about 2 miles, which is the maxium gun/missle range if on the same level.

A GM, managed the strategic game and usually managed the tactical games. It ran for several weeks, perhaps two months. We did not finish it. The NATO[my side] would have lost had we continued.

Supply was handled in this manner: if your unit could draw a line, regardless how it turn or sort of terrain, you were considered in good supply. If surrounded, then each strategic day, you hed degregaded effectiveness. This way, it does not become a logistics games, and as one WW2 general said, I dont know what those logistics are, but I was a lot of them.

The GM had a map as did each side. A strategic game turn was either a day or 1/3 of a day. Several engagements happend during the same strategic turn. After all completed, then strat decisions for movement would take place.

Another NATO/Warsaw strategic game that I was told about, and gamed with one of the participants was where if you owned it, you could use it. He was Russian and had more missle/rocket launchers and Arty than you could shake a stick at. He also then went for cheaper stuff to get more[ amazing how behavior is affected by the rules]. He did have some maneuver units.

ACW
Used Johnny Reb II rule[as we call them] for the tactical game, and we had a map with three north south axis of movement. Do not recall the strategic rules, small chance that we developed our own. The Strat movements would determine when a battle took place. There was a point allocation system. Infantry: 20 figures, average, with rifled musket had a value. 15 men, smoothbore musket, green, poor, elite, repeaters, etc each affected the point value of your unit.

For your game, have 10 NATO companies and 30 Russian companies, etc for 1 to 1 game.
Hope that provides a high level view of what we did and some ideas. If you have more questions now or in the future, let me know.

[battlewagon]

For an extended campaign setup, you could also set up a rotation in advance for both sides, indicating what reinforcements are available from what location on what dates and what units if any would be rotated out. I'm thinking back to the old Avalon Hill games with regards to the reinforcements.

[ltcconard]

You also have attrition without battles. Sickness, auto accidents, AWOLs, etc.. Somewhere I read that it was higher than the battle casualties. Just think abput the VD rate in North Africa in WW2 in the US Army.

[Luca]

I can't remember the source, but I think it was a 'combat institute series' production of the US. Army, early '50s. It was a research on the planning and execution of the firsr two years of operation barbarossa. It stressed very much on logistical issues. The data's I've collected are astonishing in terms of losses of equipment and combat force just for the first 6 moths after the begining of the campaingn. The datas focus on the german side.

for example: 'After 1 month of combat the infantry divisions lost the 20% of combat strenght. The Pz and Mot Divisions lost nearly 50%' (I think that for combat strenght the autor means a value including personnell, material, and supply capability wich includes trucks and horses)

'by early september the operational trucks were the 77% of the initial trucks (total on June the 20th 1941 were 600.000 including armoured cars). The operationl prime movers were the 67,9% (tot. artillery 7.184). The operational tanks were the 70% (tot 3350). The horses at the beginnig of the campaign were 625.000, the soldiers 3.050.000'.

'By August the 8th, the 2nd PzGroup needed 300 Tank engines'.

'By August the 31st, the personnell lost was 410.000 men, replaced with 317.000, with an avarage loss of 11%'.

'by the beginning of November, the Infantry Div had -35% combat strenght, the motorized between -40 and -50%, the Tank div between -65 and -75%'

'Between January and February 1942 is reached the millionth casualty. By April the 30th 1942 have been counted 1.167.835 casualties replaced with 1.100.000 men. Anyway, by the beginning of the '42 summer campaign, the Infantry divisions in the south theater were just at the 50% of their official strenght, while the Infanty div in the north and in the center were only at 35% strenght. Only the Pz and Motorised division in the south were at full strengh'.

'By May 1942 75.000 vehicles have been lost, being replaced with only 7500'.

'During the winter died 180.000 horses, with only 20.000 replacements (it's interesting the higher rate of horse replacements compared with the trucks). 109.000 have been transferred from other units, 118.000 have been requisitioned'.

'The divisions in the south during the summer of 1942 were at the 85% of their official transportation. Northern and Central divisions had the transport stripped to the bare minimum'.

'By the end of 1942 the personnel shortages becomes critical. On November the 1st the army is short of 720.000 men'.


I found part of these other information on feldgrau.com:

'by the end of September 1941, 10.000 miles out of 15.000 of russian railways under german control were converted to standard gauge'.

'a work battalion of 1500 men was capable of converting some 20 km of railway a day'.

'on avarage, a train could load 300 tons of supply and materiel (wich are approximatly 30 wagons). Exceptionally 450 tons trains could be dispatched, like the first that reached Minsk and Smolensk after the railway lines were opened and secured'. During the war was standardized a class of 'war wagons' the Kriegsbaurt. Look for the wiki page, and you'll find also a good website (in german), with pictures of the wagons.

To understand how many goods a division needed, I took as case studies the encircled divisions at Demiansk and Stalingrad. At Demiansk there were some 100.000 troops trapped, wich needed 270 T/day. At Stalingrad the soldiers were 300.000, and needed 800 T/day. But that was the minimum amount of supply need, and there were very few armoured vehicles in both the pockets, so in case of an armoured offensive the daily supply would exceed enourmously these values.

What really impressed me about those values, was the extrmely high rate of consuption of forces, caused by the ferocity of the fightings with the russians, and by the natural attrition of a campaign. The number of the personnel deficit on November the 1st 1942 was drammatic. Simply Germany couldn't afford to field enough troops for such a titanic clash.

My advice for a campaign game played with the germans would be to give them an higher attrition rate than for the allies.

[groundlber]

According to the Osprey Book on the Napoleanic Bavarian Army, the Bavarian Corps in the 1812 campaign lost about ten percent of it's strength before it fought it's first battle.
Another factoid in my memory is that the First World War was the first major conflict in which the American Army lost as many men in combat as it did to non-combat causes. The same source had (if I remember correctly) the Americans loosing five times the casulties to disease as they did to enemy combat during the Spanish American War.

[TAMMY]

This is true but was mainly due to the "Spanish flue" (I am not sure it is the right name in English) which originated in the States in 1917 and was carried to Europe by the American troops.

Its diffusion was so high that in the middle of 1918 it was thought to block the transfer to Europe as the crowding on the ships increased the diffusion of this highly lethal flue.

Keep in mind that from a military point of view losses are not only deads buit also those resulting unable to service or requiring a long period to recover.

Moreover wounds and illness have much more heavy effects on logistics (and morale) than death, as they need assistance, transportation, etc.

[groundlber]

TAMMY -Yes, the disease was popularly known as 'The Spanish Flu'. There could be an entire discussion on the effects of disease on history. I think the main point of this discussion is there are many more ways to loose troops than the enemy shooting or stabbing them. In a short campaign non combat losses shouldn't be a major concern, but at the same time, the only replacements would be the survivors of shot up units, and lightly wounded troops returned to duty. Over a long period of time, the other factors would have to be taken into account. Still, it's supposed to be a game, not an accounting exercise.
Groundlber

[TAMMY]

groundlber if you decide to include losses and replacementys in your games you need at least a minimum of accounting.

How much depends from your taste, the rules you use, the period and the scale of the game and the timing and size of the campaign.

In general a small table may be enough. This will give a percentage increase according to the passing of time. This will take in account also the reinforcement coming from a replacement pool. This table will be different for the various historical periocd.

A further step will be adding the source of supply and new forces (It depends on the size and the historical period of the campaign)

If you want to be even morre realistic you may first divide your losses in the game in definitive and recoverable, establish a timing scale for recover and establish a replacement pool from which to draw reinforcements and supplies. This obviously apply both to men and machines.

The presence of maintenance, supply, medical units may add further variables to this choice but also further accounting and so on as you add details.

It is up to you. In any case consider that for the higher level of details you may adapt existing systems taking them from some boardgame

[WargameHub]

This is what I'm going to be using for a campaign with the GHQ rules.

Each stand gets a D10 roll after the game, results vary by what happened during the game.

Destroyed Units
1-3 = Unit is dispersed as reinforcements to other platoons and is gone for the remainder of the campaign.
4-9 = Unit is still disorganzed/damaged and available for games
10 = Unit returns at full strength

Disorganized/Damaged Units
1 = Unit is dispersed as reinforcements to other platoons and is gone for the remainder of the campaign.
2-7 = Unit is still disorganzed/damaged and available for games
8-10 = Unit returns at full strength

Undamaged Units
1 = Unit becomes disorganzed/damaged and available for games
2-10 = Unit returns at full strength

All units get rolled for between games. Each battle a unit is left out of the fight it gets a +1 to the D10 roll.

So the battle after it's damaged would be a straight D10 roll and if you leave it out for a full game the the second roll is D10+1, the second fight it's left out would be D10+2 etc.

It's simple but would work with most rule systems.

[TAMMY]

It appears a good system for game in scale 1 = platoon.

I suppose you forgot a "un" in the intermediate results, that is it should be "unavailable for games".

[WargameHub]

Nope, I mean that damaged units can be sent back into batte. Makes them a lot more fragile and is fairly realistic. So if you need them you can use them....... You just don't have to......

[voltigeur]

I have never seen a campaign really work. Takes too long to play out and players don't stick around get interested in other periods etc etc etc.

The latest thoughts our group has had is to run the campaign in the background. All miniature games are stand alone and the casualties from each game are recorded on Unit Data sheets in Excel.

So if you are doing WARSAW Pact vs NATO and you are doing Hof Gap. You would have a sheet for 2nd ACR 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry and the Soviet units in that sector. After each game record the casualties / Logistics for the unit that was involved on the table game.

The computer allows you to keep the records over many many games. If players drop out it doesn't matter, as long as there are players.

Anyway just some thoughts.