Ken Talley Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 I am pro-casualties but I conceded a few weeks back that it just isn't going to be in there. Although I could never quite understand why as one figure is removed, a casualty couldn't be placed. Apparantly it can be done technically w/o a major performance hit. But I can understand not including casualties if it will prevent access to a major wargaming market such as Germany or if it has a major delay on the release of the game. I have seen this situation before in which a group of players strongly "want a feature" and another group "couldn't care less" on the Talonsoft board. The arguments against by those that "couldn't care less" have always been interesting-especially some of the "straw man" presentations. PAK, I believe your response was "tongue in cheek" but the argument that it wasn't included in another game (SP) is not a valid argument. There are many things in CM not included in SP. I addition, both CC and Sid Meier's Gettysburg used a casualty figure in exchange for removing a figure but at different scales compatible with their own particular scales (CC=1 man/SMG=60 men). But PAK, I definitely have to agree with your statement about seeing this game come out. I am ready as well < > I also agree that this subject is dead. Ken [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-23-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 I don't want anything extraneous in the game that will cause the system requirements to go up, as I am just able to meet the minimums as it is. I have played a number of games that show KIA, and I really never noticed them all that much, in truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 23, 1999 Author Share Posted September 23, 1999 Fionn: I think your post was amazing! Were you in PR before you got involved in this stuff In anycase, Like the rest of you guys I am just as anxious for CM to come out and keep counting the days till our beloved Beta is set free. Fionn says it right, it'd be nice, but it aint happening...(I thought the cross thing was a joke.. sorry) Like I said before I was only trying to pick your brains, not start a war...come on wait for the game! BTS maybe later when the 1gig chip comes out for CM3 you could think about it some more Had no idea about the blood in Germany thing, moon that's gotta be a bummer for you guys. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 23, 1999 Author Share Posted September 23, 1999 Had no idea I posted so many bloody happys.. Sorry to make 2 in a row (again) but Dar makes a good point about tracking casualties. Now, I'm not talking dead graphics on the field here, but what about totaling loses. For instance would you get a roster later of the names of and which units have been KIA? Hope this isn't a rehtorical question... ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 I found wounded to get in the way when playing CC2. But perhaps it's because the view is topdown and the soldiers are so small. I'd really only turn casualities on when there wasn't much going on. And I say no to crosses. Not everyone is a Christian, you know... Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 Ken, I actually think all the "straw men" arguments have been coming from the "pro body" camp. I also think that the "con body" camp hasn't been passive "I don't really have an opinion" about this issue. As I have strongly argued for over a year, it ISN'T important to the game, and since it DOES present many problems (only one of which is CPU related), they will NOT be included. I hardly think this is a wishy washy position. The only argument for bodies that can hold water is the "see where the action happened". But as we said over and over again, this is not a concern for CM. And Pak40's comments were that SP doesn't have the feature and NOBODY complained about it for 4 years means something. It means that it really isn't the big game play issue some people have tried to turn it into (straw man ). I also agree with Jason, I almost always played with casualties off in CC as I found them distracting. This is one of the primary reasons we aren't going through the trouble of putting in casualties. Let the user choose you say, well, that would be fine if we didn't have to do any work to make there be a choice. But we don't have little elves writing code while we sleep, so that ain't going to happen Steve P.S. Yes, the horse has been beat to death. I'll keep it open for a bit longer but then it gets locked up as it is really a moot argument at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 23, 1999 Share Posted September 23, 1999 Nah SGT Rock, no PR experience for me BUT I am Irish so the Blarney stone effect is present As we say here I could "talk the hind legs off a donkey" (or more colourfully.. "talk the ass off an ass ). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I'm only 14 and I'm sure nobody will really care what I say but I'm on the no bodies "side". Originally I was pro bodies but Fionn's great post made me think otherwise. I don't want to see crappy looking sprites or have the game slow down when ever I'm looking at a major kill zone. If you want to see that type of carnage go out and rent 'Apocolypse Now' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. I don't by me games so I can see people cut in half by an MG42. Just my opinion. ------------------ "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" George Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 24, 1999 Author Share Posted September 24, 1999 Whooo ya don't say Fionn? 'Where's me lucky charms, oh there they are in me trousers' hehehe Don't mean to be rehtorrical (: but, my last question was about totaling losses? After the battle would you.. "For instance would you get a roster later of the names of and which units have been KIA, or wounded?" ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Rock, Oops I missed that question. Answer. Yes, yes you do. The results screen showing friendly and enemy casualties also includes the total killed so that differentiation is there. A casualty in CM is, I am presuming, anyone who is combat ineffective due to injury or death which is a reasonable abstraction at this level. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 24, 1999 Author Share Posted September 24, 1999 Fionn: Thanks, but how much detail does it go into, for instance does it say Names of Units or Leaders etc... ? ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Hi Steve, You guys get the last word on the casualty issue. < > It is interesting about the "straw man" arguments. It seems very common throughout all internet forum discussions. Much more than in real life. Sometimes I think it is used unintentionally or is a misunderstanding of a previous post. Sometimes I think it is a reflection of impatience to get a response out. Other times I am sure it is intentional because it is much more effective in a forum than in normal communication. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine that really gets me going. I probably reminds me too much of lawyers trying to obsure an issue. Regardless I knew the moment I wrote it down that it could be misinterpreted and that I should delete it. But I left it in anyway. < > Although I was not directing those comments at anyone in particular. It was more of a general rant. Yours, Ken [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-23-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 No, just a list of how many casualties, how many dead, how many guns destroyed or captured, how many vehicles destroyed. How many POWs. There's a few others too which I can't remember right now. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Re: casualties in CC series. I understand that the CC scale was different and that the dogma is that this kind of casualty display is not appropriate to the scale of Combat Mission. I find it odd though that some found the casualties in CC were "distracting." They are an integral part of the game. Since CC is geared to individual soldiers, the fates of those soldiers are important. To me they tell the story of the battle. PFC Jones was killed here. Feldwebel Gottlob was severlely wounded there. Beyond the information about the status of your troops and those of the enemy, it has visible effects on your troops' performance. If you send fresh troops to a location where another unit was wiped out, the presence of those casualties will negatively affect the morale of the new unit. If you turn them off, then you can't see this effect and you may have units panicking unnecessarily. There is also a scoring effect in that incapacitated soldiers can be lost or recovered based on the control of territory and the end of a battle. Fleeing the battlefield means the loss of those soldiers and a better score for the enemy. [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Ken, no prob. I just felt that some people were ignoring the fact that there are multiple problems with showing dead bodies. UI is one of largest concerns for example. R. Cunninghamn, personally I turned them off because of the user interface problems. A pile of bodies, from multiple units, in a house with one or two active guys was hard to see and click on. Personally, I never got into the whole individuals thing in CC. Even though they limited headcount individual battles it didn't generally matter who was who. In campaigns there were too many battles and passing faces. I know others found the game to do things for them on the solider level, but I personally didn't get attached to my men for the most part. Sgt.Rock, there is no roster of casualties beyond statistics. Too many guys and see my comments above about CC. With CM they are times about 10 or more since the scale is sooooo much larger in terms of headcount (Fionn and Martin had about 200 men each). Steve P.S. Closing this thread up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts