[Consim-l] Damage models

[Bruce Probst]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:26:30 -0500, pzlehr130 at aol.com wrote:

>Should a unit in a game take a traditional "hit" and not have any of 
>its combat factors reduced?   On the face of things, that doesn't seem logical
>to me, but that may depend on what the "hit" actually represents.

The SPI "Central Front" series ("Fifth Corps", "Hof Gap" and "BAOR") used what
was called a "Friction Point" system.  Friction points were accumulated by
units for "doing stuff" (moving, fighting, etc.) and were also inflicted on
units as combat results.  A unit could accumulate up to 5 FP and be otherwise
unaffected, but the 6th one destroyed it.  (Certain smaller units were
destroyed with fewer FPs.)  The design rationale was that front-line
casualties and organisational distruptions were "repaired" on an ongoing basis
from the unit's inherent reserve and support structure; the 6th FP represented
a total breakdown of the unit's ability to maintain cohesion.  FPs were
"healed" by the unit spending time doing nothing.  Thus the normal combat
strength of each unit did not reflect the *total* combat potential of the unit
but rather only a certain percentage of it with the rest assumed to always be
in reserve (in some fashion).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst at netspace.net.au
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759
"If he straps on a rubber glove I'm leaving."