Guest Captain Foobar Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 First of all, I would like to see them referred to as "casualty markers", and not "dead bodies". It is more accurate, and it makes the discussion much more clear. Casualty markers are more respectful than no acknowledgement at all. Just my opinion. I take what we're simulaing more seriously now, after seeing them lying on the field. The fun should be tempered slightly by the grim reality of what we are playing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Going to Harold and mine own defences, we were merely arguing in response to what other people have posted. People posted stuff like "A little gore is ok, as it happened historically" basing the fact that they think the purpose for having dead bodies is to merely represent the kool "Bevis and Butthead" (sorry for stealing your like Steve) smashing of skulls. Now that we have been assured that their implementation is solely due to retrieving information about lost units it makes a lot more sense. And knowing that people won't be desecrating this game with gore mods makes it just fine with me. Of course, someone could always make a "Night of the living Dead" mod, where everyone is a corpse to begin with... As Fionn also said, he was against dead bodies until he played it. I am totally sure that they way Steve and Charles designed the game that it was tastefully done. You can't really see too much in the current screenshots anyway. I was just afraid that CM might slip down the Doom44 slope. Now, enough with mocking poor Harold and myself, go pick on an old lady trying to cross the street or something more constructive like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Gazzumped by Foobar, exactly what I was about to post. It's not only Harold who hasn't been paying attention when reading this thread. The supine figure represents an eliminated unit which may not have suffered any fatal casualties and therefore it is unrealistic to refer to them as "dead bodies". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOBRUK Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 I hope no-one is mocking Harold or Major Tom. I, for one, and I am sure many others, applaud their point of view, and I'm glad they made the stand they did. kudos. I also have been against bodies and gore, and have said so in other early threads. I am surprised that BTS has included something like this at this late date. If the current scenarios are representitive of the full game, then I must say that I have never had trouble keeping track of what happens to every squad, and don't need 'markers.' I acceed, however, to Steve's reasons for it, and I trust to BTS's good taste. I assume that their word is good, and that 'gore' will never be a part of a good strategy game like CM. Thanks for listening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Actually, I believe its been said elsewhere here that this feature has been in since November, its just been kept quite I origionally didnt see the need for them myself, but after having them in I personally wouldnt want to go back. There is no need for gore in a wargame, but really the 3D symbol used to represent an elimated squad is not offensive in any way. Honestly, I think anyone that is offended by it would have to be in a pretty delicate state. The information they give you vastly outways anything. At the end of a battle you can still click on your units, even if they are eliminated, and see just how well they fought by viewing the kills. Just my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 We certainly understand the concern. Hell, we have always argued against ANYBODY that has asked for even a few red pixels. There is just no need for it and the only justification is purely for "entertainment value". Since we find that term to be an oxymoron, such reasoning doesn't impress us. As Dan said, the feature has actually been in since November. Also, as Dan said, I don't think *any* of our Beta testers would go back to the old way (sans bodies), yet four have publicly stated in this thread that they were initially against the idea. And if you include me, that makes five So there must be a lot of value if we have all solidly changed our minds to the point of not wanting them to be removed. I also want to agree with what Simon and Cpt. Foobar pointed out. I have always tried to use the words "casualty", "hit", "loss", etc. to describe losing a man to enemy fire. Just looking at the end data and it is clear why this is far more accurate to do than say "killed", "wasted", "dead", etc. since only about 20% are actually listed as KIA. Unfortunately, it is hard to do this all the time. Especially here in the US, words that describe death are common parts of our everyday language and popular expressions. Go figure Having said that, I will most likely refer to them as "bodies" and not "casualty markers" or even "markers". The former is too long, the latter too general. "Bodies" is not technically incorrect (the word does not actually comment on state of health), and it is a lot more direct and understood from the get go. And I will say this quite strongly. If some hacker figures out a way to get blood and gore into CM (except for a Battle of the Living Dead ) we will actually spend the time figuring out a way to get it back out. This is our creation, and the purchase price of $45 does not give people a right to desecrate it. This is just our opinion, of course, but since we have been working on this for so long I think we have the right to express such an opinion. Oh, and being the ones with the source code doesn't hurt either Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Two questions: (1) Is there a specific reason why you did not let all three soldiers become body markers in succession, thus tracing the path of the unit? Interface problems? (2) If an enemy body is spotted, and LOS is broken afterwards, will the body remain a body, become a marker (German cross or US star), or vanish? Thanks, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 This is almost the energizer bunny of CM Topics. It keeps going and going... Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Steve, I see you have posted several times to this thread. Yet, no one has answered my simple yes / no question. Do the casualty markers, or bodies, etc carry over between battles of an operation? Or is this one of the secrets that can't be given out? Thanks CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Crapgame, As I understand it the answer to your question is NO. Now you have to figure out which of your questions above I answered. Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! And if it's NOT on CMHQ then its just GOT to be on CMHQ-ANNEX... CMHQ http://combathq.thegamers.net CMHQ-Annex http://cmhq.tzo.com [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 05-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Curses!!! Foiled Again!!! CrapGame out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 BTS: Thanks for putting the "casualty markers" in the game. I love the beta demos and the only real objection I had was the lack of casualty representation. It just didn't seem logical for a game that was so bent on realistic representation of units, vehicles, etc., not to show casualties. And it was also a problem trying to figure out what happened to those units that just "disappeared." I know I'm not saying anything new here, but just wanted to let you know your efforts are appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Zamo, It is the idea that cartoon blood and gore can somehow make a game "realistic" or more accurate that I object to. I do not need to see little cartoon corpses bleeding little cartoon corpuscles to know that war is hell and battles have a cost. You bring up a good point about the burning vehicles. I have a deep and personal understanding of what exactly is in those burning hulks. I know what armored vehicles look, smell and sound like when they burn, but a burning cartoon tank does not offend me in the slightest. The closest I can come to an explanation is that the burning vehicles represent a thing and not a person, the people inside are an abstraction. Bodies on the screen, although you can make the point that they too are an abstraction are not enough of an abstraction to suit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 My Gosh! What is wrong with some of you guys? This is a wargame. Its about killing. Its about destroying the enemy. This is not Chess, or Risk. It's a wargame. What do you think happens when a tank fires into a squad? Or a machine gun chatters on men caught in the open. If you don't want death, why play a wargame? What is the purpose. Go play Monopoly! For the life of me, I can't understand this nit-picking afraid to see reality. You want real tanks, completely authentic. You want troops that fight like real troops. But no evidence of the fighting? There are no guts, no body parts, just a marker where a unit ended its career! And what do you think the smoking hulk of a tank represents? What do you think is inside of it? Because you can't see it, its not there? You guys are far too dainty to be playing a wargame. Men fought and died on the battlefield. That is what this game is about. Tactics and strategy are important, but there is an unavoidable element of violence, plain and simple. Honestly, out of all the arguments I've seen on this forum, this one without a doubt is the most ridiculous to date. And now I've jumped into it. Oh well, it had to be said. Now you can leave my body in a crumpled heap on this forum battlefield. You can be certainly be vicious enough here. I don't mean to deride those who oppose this aspect of the game. I just don't see the logic of your arguments. I won't convince you, I am sure. And I KNOW you won't convince me, so we'll leave it at an impasse. But I like the feature. I think it should be in the game. I vote for it. (Breathing hard, he steps down from the podium) WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net billw@thegamers.net http://wbr.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 lol Bill I couldnt have said it better myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
przy Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Very solid points Wild Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwcanuck Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Good point Wild Bill..this question was talked about in great lengths on the Close Combat forums when CC1 and CC2 came out a few years ago showing blood on those dead soldiers in the game. A number of people objected at first to Atomic for putting in the blood but now with CC3 & CC4 the question is no longer raised and the blood associated with the dead bodies is a normal part of the game and a non-issue as it should be. The dead body markers (with or without blood) in Combat Mission for sure is a great addition to the game. RW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 Wild Bill said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I won't convince you, I am sure. And I KNOW you won't convince me, so we'll leave it at an impasse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 will it be possible to start the game with casualties? I mean, create a scenario with a bunch of bodies in the middle of the map, and a force's job is to get to those casualties within a certain length of time in order to rescue/assist them -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tom w Posted May 3, 2000 Share Posted May 3, 2000 I think that is the most creative, positive and inspirational thing anyone as said about those "bodies" so far. I think that is a GREAT idea... I have NO idea if the scenario designer was coded with the concept of rescueing the wounded in mind? I suspect that some other "live" unit, with casulties would have to be used if you want to resuce them as those bodies, as I understand it, only represent the elimination of what used to be an active unit. I suggest that your rescue idea is a very good one but I think you will find that you have to rescue a "live" (perhaps shot up if that can be arranged in the scenario editor) unit, perhaps other bodies or dead units could be placed around the live (shot-up) to-be rescued unit.... (if the scenario editor will permit) Great question! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eridani: will it be possible to start the game with casualties? I mean, create a scenario with a bunch of bodies in the middle of the map, and a force's job is to get to those casualties within a certain length of time in order to rescue/assist them -EridanMan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by tom w (edited 05-03-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Actually, CM does model dead bodies. You know there are dead bodies when you no longer see 3 little guys running around the map. But Steve and Charles are going to model it the way they see fit! Hell, up until now everyone has trusted their decisions on modeling and design decisions, so why not just let them handle the way it is portrayed. I believe that they will do what they think is a good comprimise to keep this game good and also be able to run on some of you lower end systems. Everyone can sit here and complain and demand things that they want in the game, but I am sure that most of you in reality wont care by the end of the month when CM comes in your mailbox. And if we are talking about realism, if there are dead bodies, why not add gore. Why not have a platoon get splattered all over the map with thier arms and legs blown 20 meters in all directions by some evil 88. Wild Bill, you are right, this is a wargame, but showing dead bodies will have no impact on what you do during the course of the game relating to strategic planning or execution. It is eye candy, and as most of you have said, that is the least important factor in a wargame. So if BTS does model it, that is fine, but hey....who cares, I am going to love it anyway. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 Well... I think this thread should be closed up now. All sides have had a chance to voice their opinions, and we have had a chance to state our philosophy and the reasons behind our design decisions. And that is about all that needs to be said Steve P.S. No, you can not start out any battle with already damaged/destroyed units of any type, soldier or vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts