Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think buddy aid is way too easy and highly unrealistic.

Why not make it more realistic?

Instead of current behaviour I think a two stage procedure could improve realism a lot. Instead that buddy aid is finished with one unit, a second unit should be needed to complete the task. The first one does buddy aid, the second one simulates a route for transporting away.

 

More realism: The number of the needed headcount of the second unit could be set double as high as the number of wounded to transport.

 

Example:

Two wounded.

Phase 1: Buddy aid conducted like it is now but after finishing the casualties do not magically disappear, but stay where they are (in the UI the status could be marked differently, for example showing a strechter).

Phase 2: Since there are two casualties four different heads would be needed to move up to the casualties to make them disappear from the battlefield after some time.

 

Even more realism:

Time could be taken into account. The longer it takes to finish Phase 1 and 2, the higher the chance of a fatality.

Edited by CarlWAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has always been said that medics and litter bearers are presumed to be present on the CM battlefield, but they are invisibly abstracted.  BTS didn't want to impose a probably tedious "minigame" involving the transport of casualties.

 

Buddy aid for a wounded soldier doesn't necessarily represent actual binding of wounds; it can simply be the time required to contact an actual medic and get them to the location.  Obviously this isn't always what's going on (buddy aid for surrounded soldiers, for instance), but it's a decent approximation.

Edited by Holman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the initial round of buddy aid, my standing orders are for my wounded to drag themselves back on their own so they don't become a burden on my assaulters. They honor me by doing exactly that, and are happy that I am pleased.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me buddy aid is exactly that.. in the Army we were taught buddy aid for our fellow squad mates.. "buddy, buddy, are you okay?" help them bind wounds, apply tourniquets, mark the dead, take special weapons to help with the mission, etc. then leave them and move on with the assigned task.  I think this is all that's going on here.  That they are removed from the map at this point only indicates they've been dealt with, nothing more.  Nor IMO should there be more in this game for casualty extraction, that is usually done after a fire fight I believe in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people required for providing aid would, no doubt, depend upon the severity of the injuries.  There is no reason that a single individual couldn't dress or stabilize a fellow soldier's wounds until a fully trained medic can take over.  Buddy Aid in the US military is something that is administered by only one soldier, at least that is how it is taught from what I remember.  Since there aren't any medic units in game there doesn't seem to be a need for multiple soldiers providing aid to a single wounded soldier.  Perhaps if actual medic units were included?  As it is now if someone is so badly wounded that they require more than one soldier to administer immediate aid then it is probably safe to just assume that the soldier is either counted amongst the dead already or that the soldier providing aid is simply stabilizing the wounded soldier until trained medical personnel arrive and evacuate the soldier (he disappears in game terms).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like it the way it is, i try to buddy aid where possible and it does slow down an advance which seems quite realistic.  Adding more micromanagement would not really add anything to the gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like it the way it is, i try to buddy aid where possible and it does slow down an advance which seems quite realistic.  Adding more micromanagement would not really add anything to the gameplay. 

 +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like it the way it is, i try to buddy aid where possible and it does slow down an advance which seems quite realistic.  Adding more micromanagement would not really add anything to the gameplay. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the main idea behind the suggestion has not been understood. The need to use a second unit means that an isolated unit with wounded cannot help itself but another unit needs access to it - which would be a much better implied reflection of medics with access.

Edited by CarlWAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed that was not communicated clearly.  But I think the point has been made that what you are proposing would not be remotely realistic but instead be strange and cause extra work.  If we want to up the realism then we need to be talking about adding medics and ambulances into the game which are currently abstracted by the casualties disappearing.  I have to say that medivac is one thing that I am very happy to have abstracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people required for providing aid would, no doubt, depend upon the severity of the injuries.  There is no reason that a single individual couldn't dress or stabilize a fellow soldier's wounds until a fully trained medic can take over.  Buddy Aid in the US military is something that is administered by only one soldier, at least that is how it is taught from what I remember.  Since there aren't any medic units in game there doesn't seem to be a need for multiple soldiers providing aid to a single wounded soldier.  Perhaps if actual medic units were included?  As it is now if someone is so badly wounded that they require more than one soldier to administer immediate aid then it is probably safe to just assume that the soldier is either counted amongst the dead already or that the soldier providing aid is simply stabilizing the wounded soldier until trained medical personnel arrive and evacuate the soldier (he disappears in game terms).

 

Correct, buddy aid was and still is taught as a single-person skill. As a former combat medic myself, I am happy with the way BF has chosen to model this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think designating CCPs and having AI automatically drag wounded to it would be tedious. It would almost be entirely handled by th AI.

Any troops unable to reach the CCP would obviously have a lower chance of survival.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think designating CCPs and having AI automatically drag wounded to it would be tedious. It would almost be entirely handled by th AI.

Any troops unable to reach the CCP would obviously have a lower chance of survival.

 

may want to think that out a bit more.  What pathing would the TAC AI use for that?  Shortest path, easiest path, path with no known enemy units, what happens once it spots or gets shot at? TAC AI behavior is easily the most complicated factor of the game, to assume that anything that involves the TAC AI is simplistic is not very realistic.  The next question for BF is what do they get for all that TAC AI configuration?  Essentially not very much in the game.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing more in this aspect of the game (heck I have gone so far as to create medics - only problem is getting one unit to buddy aid is a helluva lot harder than having a team do it.), but I'd rather I have control and not turn it completely over to an AI routine.  If we are gonna do that then I'd say leave it as is, too little return for the effort involved.

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That and how is the AI going to designate and place a CCP?  Someone has to design AI plans and a designer trying to designate a CCP would probably have to place it somewhere several hundred meters from the areas of conflict or risk placing it somewhere that the enemy occupies since the scenario designer has no idea where the player will be at any given time.  If the AI is to designate the CCP on it's own then who knows what the result would be.  The reason all of this coding effort is being expended?  In order to have medics physically evacuate casualties from the battlefield and that doesn't actually have any impact on the outcome of the battle itself. :P   Yeah, I don't see any value in altering the way casualties are handled right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point about the AI having to place CCPs. :) I'm guessing it would have to be hand picked by the scenario designer for each mision which would probably be tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing i found a little upset with Buddy aid is when my men keep doing it whereas they are shoot on...

 

I mean one wounded in a little wood, all my men go prone, a one get up to make Buddy aid, only to be hit ?

Edited by kendar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing i found a little upset with Buddy aid is when my men keep doing it whereas they are shoot on...

 

I mean one wounded in a little wood, all my men go prone, a one get up to make Buddy aid, only to be hit ?

 

That wouldnt be the first time in an armed conflict someone trying to help ot a wounded end up a casualty themselfs.

 

I rather like the abstract system we have now for simulating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×