Strength Points (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Campaign Series: Vietnam



Message


Ekaton -> Strength Points (2/4/2022 11:14:33 PM)

I guess that’s the oddest thing for me about CS series of games. I’m used to JTS games and Steel Panthers, both of which have actual soldier counts. You know what losing one or ten soldiers means. With CS it’s hard for me to picture combat losses if a unit uses a strength point system. How does it translate when my platoon loses a point? Is 1/6 of the men wounded/killed? I guess it won’t translate well with varying scale between scenarios but I have a really hard time wrapping my head around this.




Ekaton -> RE: Strength Points (2/4/2022 11:15:46 PM)

Double post




berto -> RE: Strength Points (2/5/2022 12:21:41 AM)


In Campaign Series, 1 SP equals a half squad, as described and rationalized here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=5128332

quote:

The game still follows the legacy design where 1 Strength Point (SP) represents a half squad, where a squad is generally 4-10 men, more or less.

The "more or less" is key. In actual battle, in actual historical engagements, squads could be understrength, with fewer than 4 men, could be overstrength, with a dozen men or more.

A distinguishing facet of the Campaign Series is, even in just a single game, the wide eras it covers. The initial release of Campaign Series: Vietnam covers the years 1948-1967, for instance. Later DLC(s) will cover 1968-1989. (The planned Korean War DLC will cover 1950-1953.) That's over 40 years!

So many years, so many nations, so many different battles! Hopeless to research and pinpoint the exact number of men in this or that or the other squad at a particular battle in a particular year. Hard-core gamers and other grognards are sure to dispute if, say, we specify 18 men in <name that platoon>. "No, no, no! Everybody knows <name that platoon> was under- [or over-] strength in this engagement [or in this campaign], that the 18 should be 15 [or whatever]."

It is in part to avoid such disputes -- also to retain our sanity as we research and design OOBs and scenarios across so many years, nations, engagements -- that we employ the general "half squad" to signify a single SP. (1 SP will always signify a single vehicle, or helicopter, etc., however.)

And: If it ain't broke -- "it" being the legacy game, in this one aspect -- don't fix it.

Not saying you are one, but some grognards will be unhappy that we don't represent non-vehicular unit strengths down to the individual man. Sorry about that, but we do have our good reasons for retaining the convention that "1 Strength Point represents a [general] half squad".




Ekaton -> RE: Strength Points (2/5/2022 12:43:36 AM)

Thank you so much! Makes perfect sense now.




Jason Petho -> RE: Strength Points (2/5/2022 1:08:45 AM)

With the Strength Point counts for heavy weapons and vehicles. They are on a one to one basis.

Lose 1 SP of M48's, then you lose 1 tank in your platoon.

Lose 1 SP of HMG's, then lose 1 HMG in the platoon.

But yes, infantry is 1/2 a squad per SP.




berto -> RE: Strength Points (2/5/2022 1:09:18 AM)


I might add that the abstraction of losing a, vaguely defined, single Strength Point deals in a rough sort of way with the question: What is a loss? Is it, does it represent

  • a KIA?
  • a serious, incapacitating wound?
  • the two stretcher bearers carrying the seriously wounded soldier back to the aid station?
  • a superficial (or possibly self-inflicted) wound ginned up to justify inaction?
  • hiding off to the side, or running away in fear?
  • "getting lost" along the way, lurking?
  • and so on

    Not to mention

  • seriously wounded soldiers who fight on regardless
  • runaways who, on second thought, return to the fray (think The Red Badge of Courage)
  • and so on

    To this day, historians cannot agree on the "losses" in many battles, some of them well known, carefully documented, and deeply studied.

    It is understandable wanting to know battle losses (and unit strengths) "exactly" in numbers of men. But when depicting the chaos of battle, that has always seemed to me to be faux, unattainable precision.

    You can think of the Strength Point abstraction to be an average of "losses", whatever that means, over a (also vaguely defined) period of time. It gets the job done.




  • devoncop -> RE: Strength Points (2/5/2022 6:35:59 AM)

    The point about the unreliability of losses estimates is very well made.

    I am reading about Tet at the moment and the VC and US/ARVN losses claimed by the VC and the US are so ludicrously different as to be totally meaningless.





    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    1.405273