Stupid question regarding wounded.

[kch001]

Just a really dumb question, but here goes anyways. In the game it doesn't matter whether you pause to treat the wounded? I might have missed in the manual but it seems to me that it doesn't matter whether the medics are brought into play. 

 

Thanks for any explanations. 

[user1000]

They do it at will, if under fire they may not. You do have to move your troops next to them.

[kch001]

Thanks for the quick answer. Does it have any effect on the game? As far as I can see it doesn't matter whether you leave them wounded or whether you give them assistance. 

[IICptMillerII]

Performing buddy aid has practical purposes. Say the guy with the bazooka becomes a casualty. If he is buddy aided, then the bazooka and it's ammo will be recovered. Same can be said for engineers and sachel charges, and all other types of equipment you may want to hang on to. 

Otherwise, for QBs and regular scenarios it probably isn't all that important. However for campaigns it can be. Buddy aided casualties (wounded, not dead) are more likely to return to your units and replace losses. In a long campaign with minimal reinforcements, this becomes an important part of force preservation. 

[kch001]

Good to know. Looks like I am going to ha e to take better care. My poor paratroops are getting absolutely gutted in the road to maubourg (spelling). 

[Erwin]

I always attend to WIA and KIA, primarily as I think you lose less points for a WIA than a KIA, and the WIA are more likely to become KIA if you don't give em buddy aid.  Also, it's more "realistic" to rescue casualties and provide medical care.  It can be a fun mini-battle to clear away enemy from a position, just so one can get a medic to the wounded.

[Holman]

I consider buddy-aid a big part of the role-playing aspect of the game.  I make it a priority unless the situation (e.g. panicked retreat, relentless Russian assault) makes it impossible or inappropriate.

I'd like to see it have even more of an in-game effect.  For instance, buddy aid could soften the effects of damaged morale:  three untreated, wounded squadmates should affect morale more than three who've been treated.

[Bulletpoint]

I always try to aid the wounded, mostly because it feels like the right thing to do.

However, there's one extra benefit of sending in the medic that I haven't seen people discuss: It helps you keep your opponent in the dark, because casualties are removed from the game once they've had buddy aid.

In a recent game, I took quite a lot of casualties from an initial mortar barrage. My platoon leader went down, and I decided to evacuate that forward position before the enemy arrived, and let the stragglers from that platoon report to the company commander instead.

I managed to aid all the casualties before my opponent arrived, so he did not know that his barrage had been very succesful. Later, he capitulated at a point where it seemed to me he could still have won. I think it might be partially because he assumed his mortars had caused no damage, so he overestimated the number of troops I still had left.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Bulletpoint

[kch001]

Good point. I am still sometimes playing a bit too Rambo like. Rushing men forward without thinking of indirect fire, casualties or command and control. And ending up with massive casualties and pinned down

[IICptMillerII]

I agree with the points made, specifically the points @Erwin and @Holman made. I find it more realistic and immersive if I pay attention to casualties and make attempts to recover them, regardless of if they are dead or just wounded. 

On the real battlefield, casualties play a massive, if not dominating role in shaping the dynamic of a firefight/battle. Many times, firefights are started by a quick burst of fire that causes a casualty, and then are prolonged by one side trying to recover the casualty before breaking contact. 

Also as others have mentioned, if you're in it purely to win it via points in the scenario, I believe you suffer less of a hit to the points if you recover most of your casualties. I'm not sure about that though. 

[Combatintman]

Ultimately it is the right thing to do and as others have indicated there are positive benefits in campaigns for doing so because you will have more troops for subsequent missions. For scenarios the benefit in doing so will depend on how Victory Points are structured. If you open up your manual and plug in the word 'buddy' as a search term, you will find more information on the subject.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Combatintman

[A Canadian Cat]

20 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I believe you suffer less of a hit to the points if you recover most of your casualties. I'm not sure about that though. 

Yes, you do. At the end of the game some number of unattended wounded become dead - which negatively effects your score a bit. Not only that but unattended wounded can be killed in the normal course of fighting. If your squad takes a couple of wounded casulties and later comes under mortar fire those wounded can sustain further wounds and become dead just like anyone else in your squad. But if they had been buddy aided and therefore removed they can no longer become KIA on the battle field.

I think the score effect is pretty small but it is non zero. Combine that with the other great points about important resources, feel of the battle etc. It is important to how the game plays - for me at least.

[Freyberg]

I hate having red killed icons in my squads - it makes me feel like a bad commander. I try and perform buddy aid as quick as possible.
I feel like I've failed if the number of killed is higher than the number of wounded at the end.

Pixel men have pixel wives and pixel girlfriends they want to go home to!