Buddy Aid?

[Crinius]

Hi, Iam currently engaged in a PBEM game and Iam discussing the usefullness of Buddy Aid.

Is Buddy Aid usefull for anything else beside collecting weapons and ammo?

I was always under the impression that it has an moraleffect on other troops if you take care of your wounded.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Is Buddy Aid usefull for anything else beside collecting weapons and ammo?

Not that I'm aware of. It makes it more likely that the soldier will be listed as wounded instead of killed, but your opponent gets the same number of points for it either way.

[Baneman]

Is Buddy Aid usefull for anything else beside collecting weapons and ammo?

Sometimes not even this

I had a team of 3 recon guys, with 1 MP40, 1 Stg44 and 1 rifle.

The Stg44 guy was shot, but the enemy cleared out of the area.

So, with my usual cunning plan in place, I sent them back to buddy-aid the guy.

And the guy with the MP40 swaps his MP40 for the Stg44 while his commander shouts impotently at the screen "No you idiots, the man with the rifle picks up the ... ah balls !" lol.

So now they have 300 rounds of 9mm ammo they can't use and a new gun with about 30 rounds of ammo. The Muppet-armee strikes again.

[Childress]

Not that I'm aware of. It makes it more likely that the soldier will be listed as wounded instead of killed, but your opponent gets the same number of points for it either way.

Are you sure about that? I find the battle results screen rather opaque with regard to casualties. The player gets totals for Killed, Wounded and Missing but I'll be damned if I can deconstruct the points distribution. For example in a recent battle the enemy suffered 11 wounded and 7 dead for a debit of 37 points. Huh? Algebra anyone?

It seems logical that a wounded trooper would have more long term value than a dead or missing (captured) one. So if casualties are all lumped together I'd count this as a game flaw.

[Rake]

Are you sure about that? I find the battle results screen rather opaque with regard to casualties. The player gets totals for Killed, Wounded and Missing but I'll be damned if I can deconstruct the points distribution. For example in a recent battle the enemy suffered 11 wounded and 7 dead for a debit of 37 points. Huh? Algebra anyone?

The only numbers that work out close are 1.5 points for WIA and 3 each for KIA... and that would mean fractions rounded down. Wonder if there's a distinction between minor and serious wounds? Are slightly wounded truppen even counted at all?

I just finished a game against the AI where the only damage done to my side was an immobilized TD. The final screen indicated one WIA at a cost of three points. None of my troops were shown in yellow when I reviewed the map, nor were did I see any any with the red cross, so the points had to have been for immobilizing the jagdpanther. Still, I'd have thought that damage to be worth a bit more than three points???

It seems logical that a wounded trooper would have more long term value than a dead or missing (captured) one. So if casualties are all lumped together I'd count this as a game flaw.

I have to agree. Seems to me that captured should be worth more than KIA and KIA more than serious wounds. My guess is that points are awarded for different types of casualties on a percentage basis of the total number of casualty points assigned by the scenario creator.

Who knows, but... does it really even matter? The day this game becomes one of counting individual casualties to verify point totals will be the one that I stop playing.

[Agua]

I have to agree. Seems to me that captured should be worth more than KIA and KIA more than serious wounds. My guess is that points are awarded for different types of casualties on a percentage basis of the total number of casualty points assigned by the scenario creator.

That has been my guess as well as I can discern no consistent numerical value assigned to each casualty.

[dpabrams]

[Childress]

My guess is that points are awarded for different types of casualties on a percentage basis of the total number of casualty points assigned by the scenario creator.

It appears the only parameters the designer are allowed to set are awarding, or deducting, points for the Casualty Threshold, remaining ammo and the final 'Force Condition'. He can't make a distinction between wounded and killed. Unless the latter is hard coded by the game.

Or I'm missing something....

[RockinHarry]

It appears the only parameters the designer are allowed to set are awarding, or deducting, points for the Casualty Threshold, remaining ammo and the final 'Force Condition'. He can't make a distinction between wounded and killed. Unless the latter is hard coded by the game.

Or I'm missing something....

My guess would be a quality (crack, veteran, green ect.) factor involved maybe, like it was in CMX1?

[RockinHarry]

lol :D

[Rake]

It appears the only parameters the designer are allowed to set are awarding, or deducting, points for the Casualty Threshold, remaining ammo and the final 'Force Condition'. He can't make a distinction between wounded and killed. Unless the latter is hard coded by the game.

Or I'm missing something....

I don't think you're missing anything. My supposition is that casualty points are based on (hard-coded) percentages... for example, POW's are worth 2x the amount for KIA's, WIA worth 0.5x KIA's and, perhaps, lightly wounded worth something less. The actual points allotted for each in a scenario would be dependent upon the number of soldiers and the total casualty points as set by the designer.

Or, maybe not.

[PaulMG]

In a perfect world, BFC would just tell us...

[Crushingleeek]

I think in past discussions they said wounded, KIA, MIA are casualties. and for scoring purporses casualties are casualties. no difference between any of them.

it'd be great if wounded soldiers devolve into KIA without buddy aid, and you could allot scoring thresholds for KIA's only. Then there'd be a points incentive to help the wounded.

[Bradley Dick]

I think in past discussions they said wounded, KIA, MIA are casualties. and for scoring purporses casualties are casualties. no difference between any of them.

it'd be great if wounded soldiers devolve into KIA without buddy aid, and you could allot scoring thresholds for KIA's only. Then there'd be a points incentive to help the wounded.

At first, I thought there isn't much difference between an incapacitated soldier and a killed soldier from a tactical perspective. However, the fact that you need to evacuate a wounded soldier and the fact that a wounded soldier would be a smaller morale hit to his buddies than a dead soldier definitely argues in favor of a point variance.

Is there a way to lower the morale of your soldiers during a campaign mission if you take too many casualties? That would be interesting. Instead of a Victory or Defeat, you could have troops that aren't as motivated when you pile up the bodies.

For instance, if 15% casualties then the next mission has lowered morale for all non-officers or troops of a certain experience level.

[Crushingleeek]

Is there a way to lower the morale of your soldiers during a campaign mission if you take too many casualties?

Unfortunately not, but that'd be nice.

The way it is, you can offer one side points for casualties inflicted above a threshold, keeping your own casualties below a threshold, enemy ammo spent above a threshold, friendly ammo preserved below a threshold, and deteriorating the enemy's condition and preserving own threshold.

one could manually offer branching missions in a campaign based on the # of casualties sustained in a previous mission (i've thought of doing this), but its a lot of extra work and can get confusing to design.

[Shorker]

95% of all my CMBN games are PBEM battles and I also do not really understand the counting at the end.

I agree with those who say that Prisoners should count the most, then KIA and at last the wounded.

And the idea is great that heavily wounded soldiers can die if being left without first aid.

But apart from the aspects of "counting", "ammo collecting" and "game results" it is every soldier's duty to help wounded comrades.

Every player is different, of course, but I for one always feel with my little pixel-soldiers and I want my wounded to be saved.

And this brings me to a very important point: For the sake of a better atmosphere and more playing fun on the CMBN battlefields we need medics!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

And this brings me to a very important point: For the sake of a better atmosphere and more playing fun on the CMBN battlefields we need medics!

That is a Shorker of an idea!

Regards

KR

[Bradley Dick]

How about simulated medics? Or maybe, they already are? The WIA's are given a math boost based on mission and opportunity for first-aid. Are they?

[Crinius]

95% of all my CMBN games are PBEM battles and I also do not really understand the counting at the end.

I agree with those who say that Prisoners should count the most, then KIA and at last the wounded.

And the idea is great that heavily wounded soldiers can die if being left without first aid.

But apart from the aspects of "counting", "ammo collecting" and "game results" it is every soldier's duty to help wounded comrades.

Every player is different, of course, but I for one always feel with my little pixel-soldiers and I want my wounded to be saved.

And this brings me to a very important point: For the sake of a better atmosphere and more playing fun on the CMBN battlefields we need medics!

I totaly agree. Medics would be great. Iam also trying to care for every wounded that I suffer and in my opinion this should be somehow rewarded e.g. getting extra points. I mean whats the point of buddy aid if its only for collecting ammo. So if my ammo stock is plenty filled I could let my soldiers die a miserable death. That just doesnt feel right.

[womble]

Medics wouldn't make a fat lot of difference, at historical establishment strengths. ISTR from previous threads on the subject that there were a whole 2 medics per Battalion. There are already enough spare bodies sloshing around the TO that they're there somewhere...

[Erwin]

Been many threads re using the otherwise mostly useless XO's and Support HQ's and 2IC teams as medics.

Since medics are far more used than the above HQ units (I don't recall ever seeing an XO take over command of a leaderless platoon in any of my games), it may have been better to have them designated as medics.

[womble]

Been many threads re using the otherwise mostly useless XO's and Support HQ's and 2IC teams as medics.

Since medics are far more used than the above HQ units (I don't recall ever seeing an XO take over command of a leaderless platoon in any of my games), it may have been better to have them designated as medics.

Until my current game, I've had XOs take over from their dead CO quite consistently. Mostly played as US though. Wonder if it's to do with some national difference.

[Erwin]

What about dead platoon HQ's? Are XO's and 2IC's able to provide C2 and bonuses, or is it only the Co HQ (unless he's KIA)?

[womble]

What about dead platoon HQ's? Are XO's and 2IC's able to provide C2 and bonuses, or is it only the Co HQ (unless he's KIA)?

My (woolly) recollection is that Plt XOs have functioned okay. Though I think I somehow manage to lose more Captains than Lieutenants. None of this applies for successive battles in a Campaign mode though, more's the pity (current game, lost Bttn, 1-Coy 1/1-Pltn leaders in the first scenario, so 1-Bttn will be out of C&C above the Pltn level for the rest of the Campaign...).

[Crushingleeek]

I think in past discussions they said wounded, KIA, MIA are casualties. and for scoring purporses casualties are casualties. no difference between any of them.

My mistake. Figured out yesterday that, at least as far as parameters go for dolling out victory points, wounded men are not included as casualties. That's great because this way, buddy aid can be important for victory. (Wounded men who are not attended to by the end of the battle have a chance to become KIA's after the last turn.)