NCrawler Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Now, I realize that BTS has already made a statement as to adding dead bodies and the hit to the frame rate that they would cause if done in 3D, but could we at least have SOMETHING to show that our troops died in a particular area? How about a 2D, bilboarded cross or tombstone? Not for each individual soldier mind you, just to show that one or more troops have died in a certain grid. I love the demo and pre-ordered about a month ago, so whether or not BTS decides to add something like this or not will not change my view of the game. Just a suggestion... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Ahhhhh, the issue that just keeps on giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving, and giving... And, well, you get the point. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 BTS has already stated that there will be no dead bodies. Also they have stated that no crosses or tombstones will be placed, Why you ask. It is cheesy, lame, and gamey (BTS did not actually state that part). Also, when you lose men they are not necessarily dead. Just combat ineffective. At the end of a scenario the status display will tell you how many men you lost and how many where actually KIA. In a campaign setting; men that are not KIA or Captured have a chance to return to service. Also please use search function BEFORE posting. thank you. ------------------ "Armchair Generals never lose any men"-Darstand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 One could also state that "It is cheesy, lame and gamey" that nothing appears for bodies, as well. NCrawler is just doing his part for this issue. :=) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I have yet to hear a convincing reason to have dead bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 The only 'sane' reason was to have an indication of enemy fields of fire. However, after playing the demo, I can clearly seen lanes of fire with the tracer fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I can think of three 'insane" reasons off the top of my head-feedback, continuity, and reality. Of course, this issue has been discussed to death. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCrawler Posted November 4, 1999 Author Share Posted November 4, 1999 Darstand> It is cheesy, lame, and gamey Hahaha, sounds like something my 11-year-old would say. Harold Jones> I have yet to hear a convincing reason to have dead bodies. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why not to have some indication of where I've lost troops, especially for campaigns. I would think that Graves Registration would come in after a battle and mark locations in some fashion. Everyone is correct in that it has no gameplay value showing where you have lost troops, it is just something that I would like to see, and I suspect would not be too difficult to implement. You can take a screenshot and say, "This is where my infantry charged the enemy head on in a last ditch effort to uproot him." Of course, at the moment all you would have is a clear, green field with maybe a few craters... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Ok the "Cheesy, lame and gamey" part was perhaps juvenile. I retract the statement. However I will still stand by "Also, when you lose men they are not necessarily dead. Just combat ineffective. At the end of a scenario the status display will tell you how many men you lost and how many where actually KIA. In a campaign setting; men that are not KIA or Captured have a chance to return to service." Mabey we could have a "Man Lost" label as a compromise. That way people who want info can have it and those of us who like it just the way it is can leave the labels off" a nice win-win situation. ------------------ "Armchair Generals never lose any men"-Darstand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 This topic has been discussed to death. If you haven't made a search on the topic, let me take you by the hand: See: http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/wwwboard/messages/2674.html From there you can surf to see various opinions, however here was BTS' resonse which most people accepted; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS refuses to put gratuitous violence in its games. There is no need for this kind of representation in our games, as it adds nothing of value. In reality, graphic violence can not accurately be conveyed to the end user, and therefore it should not be included at all. Half-assed depictions only further desensitize the horror of REAL violence by portraying it as "cool" or "fun". If CM could actually convey all the piss-in-your-pants fears, smells of death, stresses of killing, and other massive physical and psychological effects of war, then PERHAPS gratuitous violence would have a place in wargames. Of course, nobody would play such a "game" for very long, since they would be too busy puking their guts out or staying curled up in a little ball in the corner. At the very least there would be many nights of crying themselves to sleep for years afterwards. Unlike other genres, wargames, by their very nature, must portray human violence to some degree. The problem is where to draw the line. If we had flaming people running around screaming, why not have dismembered bodies when an artillery shell lands near by? Or how about body parts stuck to tank treads? What about a guy trying to shovel his intestines back into his chest, only to die a few seconds later? Or guys running around without a foot thanks to a land mine? Showing this sort of extreme suffering and treating it as a "game" to be enjoyed (!) is not only sick but extremely disrespectful to the men who fought these battles and died there. Do you see the slippery slope here? That is why all "deaths" in CM are treated abstractly and in the same manner regardless of type. We want to simulate battles because they are interesting tactically and historically, but we do not intend to revel in human agony. Gratuitous violence is unnecessary for wargame to be serious or accurate. CM will be, without a doubt, the most realistic and intellectually enjoyable wargame ever developed, but WITHOUT graphic violence. If you want ultraviolence for "fun", play Doom or a game of that ilk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The topic was discussed, lets move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCrawler Posted November 4, 1999 Author Share Posted November 4, 1999 John Maragoudakis> This topic has been discussed to death. If you haven't made a search on the topic, let me take you by the hand: No need to take me by the hand. Perhaps if the search function would return the information in a fashion just a bit easier to find, more people would use it. Sorry for even bringing the f***ing subject up. Out... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Thier response convinced me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can think of three 'insane" reasons off the top of my head-feedback, continuity, and reality. Of course, this issue has been discussed to death."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Feedback, you already get feedback about the state of your troops. So littering the field with markers representing casualties just clutters everything up. Knowing that a squad is at 2/3 strength is way more important than knowing where the guys died. 2. Continuity, please explain what is meant by this. 3. Realism, it would also be realistic to display chewed up ground where tanks have driven, dead animals and dead or fleeing civilians, but none of that would add much to the game. BTS is engaged in a delicate balancing act and they have to weigh every graphical change against how it affects both the look of the game and the way it plays. I'm pretty sure that if BTS felt that casualty markers (corpses, crosses or whatever) added enough to be worth the time it took to code them, they would be in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I primarily responsed to a snipe above otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. A search of the topics "continuity" and "feedback" should reveal the pros of including casualties. Reality is self evident as a pro. This issue has been discussed thoroughly and my understanding is that it will be reconsidered in the future. For me, I feel it is a waste of time to discuss it further now. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Jon Johnson re :take you by the hand Ok I tried the search engine and it looks like the old forum can't be reach from here. Sorry I was sounding condescending. There are topics coming up over and over again but this obviously was not your fault. However, with my post ,now there is a link to the old forum so that future searches on this subject should give access to this info. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-04-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Harold and John, here is Steve's original response to the suggestion of naming squads: "We understand why people would rather have "Schultz's Squad" instead of 3rd Sqd, 2nd Plt, 9th Co, 2nd Bat. The problem here is one of scale. If you have an average force of 3 companies plus support units, you are talking about 100 units under your command. That means we have to come up witha minimum of 150 unique names to allow for variation and greater unit counts. Then we have to do this for 6 different nationalities (Ger, US, UK, Pol, Cnd, and Fr). 900 names MINIMUM is a pretty huge number. Question is, where do you want us to spend our time? Coming up with names, or putting in more varied formation types? Unfortunately, we don't have endless time and resources, so somethings are just going to have to wait for future releases. This is one such feature." I also remember when there weren't going to be multilevel deployable buildings (like CC) or tanks with hull down capability. Unlike some other companies, they will listen and evaluate customer comments/thoughts. They can be swayed from one stance to another by rationale which makes sense. When we on this forum start slamming people for their suggestions, less people are going to make suggestions and we all lose out. Ken [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-04-99).] [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-04-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 BTS, Is it possible to get access to the very beginning of the old forum? Could be a fun read. It's time to open the long lost holy books. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-04-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 Ken, in all fairness, the main reason we put in the names was because people sent them to us As for the other two examples, we didn't necessarily know how we were going to do hull down, but it was very much something we wanted to do from day one. Multistory buildings have been in since the prototype, so I am very confused why you think they weren't going to go in. As for the bodies, we *still* have no intention of putting them in. The thing that is funny about this discussion (in a not humorous way) is that there hasn't been any new take on the matter since the very first time it was brought up over a year ago. None. So the 10 times it has cropped up since then have done nothing more than rehash the original arguments. Notice that we generally change our minds when someone can show us something new to considder. That has not happened with this discussion. So here is the point -> yes, we do listen, and because of that we sometimes change our minds. But when we feel that on balance, after debate and reflection (and/or experimenting with code in some cases), we are making the right decision we require new lines of argument/evidence to change our minds. That is the case here with dead bodies. So if someone comes up with something new to argue, fine. Otherwise the subject is basically closed. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Well, I don't quite ken what to say... The thing is that Doom has a high level of blood and guts. And Close Combat also does. The main difference is that if you remove blood from Close Combat you get a bloodless strategy game, while removing blood from Doom leaves you with nothing. Blood is often some game's core. Sometimes it's even some game's whole. And I don't feel attracted by such 'games'. Ok, fair enough. The concept of Combat Mission is also good enough to sustain without blood and animated violence. I would even dare to say that if you made the game as bloody as war actually is, I wouldn't buy it, since it would spoil the whole game. Violence is NOT what I'm buying the game for. But removing EVERY kind of violence would be quite like making rifles sound 'pop' and explosions litter the ground with flowers. Well, it WOULDN'T quite be the same, but I guess you understand what I mean. I'm not talking about making soldiers blow up as they did in 'Saving private Ryan'. Actually, if you did, I would cancel my order. I don't want men to burn, I don't even want men to bleed. Anyway, the computer handles OK when all of my army is pinned down by enemy fire. So it IS able to handle prone soldiers, lots of them. If you just were to make combat incapable soldiers to look like prone soldiers, it would increase both feedback and confusion, therefore adding, in my opinion, realism, and respecting both framerate and real-life soldiers. When we played with toy soldiers long ago, we left some soldiers lying to represent casualties. And we're not maniacs or serial killers today. I want to say that doing the same thing in CM (using normal soldier graphics but making then lie on the ground) wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings, at least not mine, and assigning it a hotkey so you can hide them would just fix the whole problem. It is a humble opinion. P.S: if you want to remove violence, then edit the detailed unit info so it says 'hits' instead of 'kills'. I think writing 'This MG fellow just killed 4 men' displays far more violence than drawing 4 lying men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alhazred Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Okay I'll shoot: It's a matter of continuity, immersion, suspension of disbelief, and most importantly _situational awareness_. As I understand it, the game will have scenarios much larger than Last Defense. yet as moderately sized as it is, I've found myself wondering just where the hell "that squad" or "that dang Bazooka" got off to... I've gone whole turns before realizing that X HQ was no longer in the building it used to be in. I've dealt with a troublesome MG over multiple turns only to wonder if it withdrew from suppression (and is now one of a couple German crosses or unidentified units in the woods) or has been eliminated -- after losing track of the worrisome MG when other situations commanded my attention. I've "written off" squads only to find them 5 turns later huddled (and well rested) in a batch of trees. This on a moderate map in a medium sized battle... I'm not obtuse, I'm a long time gamer, and have no problem for the most part maintaining situational awareness. However I'm also not prone to extreme micro management, and thus you wont catch me rewinding and re-playing the action phase, or counting my beans every turn. Further, watching a unit actually POP out of existence, as if by magic, is a jarring discontinuity; POOF "Statistic was here" =) Death and the accompanying imagery are a consequence of war, the lack of any visual feedback or "place holder" where battles took place, is disconcerting, and needlessly confusing. The idea of treating soldiers as numbers to be ticked off of counter arrays, is a far more "jading" (if that's a word) thing than approximations of violence, especially approximations that serve to provide the gamer with feedback. It's curious; you could use the "there's no good reason" argument to rationalize removing impact craters from the game, yet there they are, because they provide lasting "land marks" and like "evidence" of battle (not violent animation which is of no import to me personally) it serves to tell a story of what went before. Lastly I keep seeing the term "gamey" crop up, I'm a gamer, I hold no illusions that playing CM or CC or MOM or X-com etc. is anything but playing a game. There are of course more serious games, more or less realistic ones, but the term "Gamey" implies that more than just a game is at stake here no offense intended but I don't agree. ------------------ Simon Aka Alhazred http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Steve, I realize that it is totally up to you, but please feel ABSOUTELY free to lock this thread up at any time. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-05-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 This is what pools of blood *might* look like ... Decide for yourself ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 I think the above is the best argument against casualty markers I've seen so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 Harold, in what sense ? Too gory ? As a remark: of course this picture is taken from the AAR. It was used to demonstrate how a headquarter unit was blown away by the explosion and just vanished. This is why there are a lot of pools in the middle of the picture ... the remains of that unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted November 5, 1999 Share Posted November 5, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's curious; you could use the "there's no good reason" argument to rationalize removing impact craters from the game, yet there they are, because they provide lasting "land marks" and like "evidence" of battle (not violent animation which is of no import to me personally) it serves to tell a story of what went before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not trying to weigh in on one side or the other on this debate, but I just wanted to mention that craters do in fact play a role in the game. They are a specific terrain type, and units can hide in them and use them for cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts