Casaulties

[Ken Talley]

I know this issue has been discussed to death in the past, but I still don't quite understand why casualties are not displayed. In Sid Meier's Gettysberg, upon the loss of the 40 individual casualties, a loss figure is displayed. The casualties provide a graphic illustration of where battle occurred. Could something similiar be done with CM with losses displayed as a figure is removed. A figure is removed and then a casualty displayed. Is there a problem with memory that rules out this step or is it a philosophical decision? I am not particularly bloodthirsty but the battlefield seems empty as units disappear and there isn't a history of where battle occurred.

Thanks,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-11-99).]

[Fionn]

Ken,

If I understand it correctly (and this'll be the simple version since I simply can't handle computer techno talk) ever casualty representation would take a number of polygons.

If you want a fallen body to be placed wherever a man died what would simply happen is that as soon as a platoon of men had died (40 bodies) the game would be pushing the same polygonal load as if 4 companies were being represented.

Sure they could use fewer polygons for the dead but it would still end up DECREASING the maximum practical size of battle which could be modelled. Instead of battalion vs battalion we'd be stuck with a company vs a company.

Also, when playing the game you do NOT forget where you took losses. I can tell you exactly how many men I lost along each stretch of road and in many cases I can even tell you from memory which squad lost how many men to which enemy units.

I do take your point and if the technology allowed us to do it its something I'd like to see also but I don't think the technology does yet unfortunately.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn summed it up nicely, and it is why this idea will never happen for Combat Mission Western Front, no matter what its value. We are already pushing the limits of computer technology and do not have the horsepower to start exponentially increasing the number of polygons dedicated to soldiers.

We could, of course, take the figure that is removed after x casualties and drop it to the ground. This would mean no increase in polygons. However, we felt this was misleading. Say you have a 3x12 man squads. Each figure represents 4 men. You lose 3 men each squad from one artillery shell. You then move 100m away and each squad takes ONE hit each. The 3rd figure would fall to the ground there. Now, does that represent where the battle happened? Nope. It just represents where the last guy was nailed which knocked the unit down by 1/3. So no point.

As Fionn says, you KNOW where you lost guys. The shell craters and burned out vehicles also show what happened. There is no danger of forgetting. Take a look at the wall line where the knocked out Jumbo is. Now tell me what you think happened there, without rereading the AARs. I bet you could write a very lengthy post from memory. That is the difference with CM. It engages your sense so much that you don't need icons to remind you what happened where.

Steve

[Ken Talley]

Thanks for the responses. I know what you mean about remembering where things happen from other games. But at the same time, I remember SMG and Close Combat displayed casaulties and provided a continuity that I didn't receive from WF or SP. It sounds that replacing a removed figure with a fallen figure is technically feasible w/o a computational hit. I am having difficult understanding leaving them out at this scale unless there is a moral reason which I can certainly accept w/o necessarily agreeing with or other reason. Otherwise it seems the advantages outweigh the disadvantages to including casualties. The battlefield with only the living (and sometimes only the very few living) just doesn't quite feel right.

Thanks,

Ken

[Guest Big Time Software]

Since we can only arbitrarily leave a figure when some magic number of casualties is accumulated, this doesn't give you much usefull info, and none if you are playing with the 2 figure option. CC can give you useful info from the dead because it leaves a 1:1 body count (sprites do have some advantages). Since this is not feasible we feel it is better to leave it out altogether. Otherwise we are dumping a "body" just for the sake of it.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

Why would the dead guys need to be polygons? Couldn't there be a small splodge instead of a 3D figure, more or less the way craters are done?

I'm not big on the gore per se, so it doesn't have to be highly graphic, but being able to look at a battlefield and get a sense of where the fighting happened would be good.

[Herr Oberst]

Hmm, not having actually played CM yet (hint, hint ), I can't speak for Fionn's ability to recount the battle. Back with, dare I say it, the CC series, it was very informative to see the line of soldiers dropping when an off-screen MG42/etc let loose and wasted half of my platoon. Even if the gun was off screen, the line-up of bodies pointed like an arrow back to the gun.

Perhaps just bodies on the ground visible in a top view. A soldier gets knocked out of the battle, and there is a "pastie" stuck on the terrain where he fell.