Dead bodies

[Samppa]

I understand the reasons for not showing 10 or 12 soldier squads, and I am not much bothered by it. What I don't like is that the dead soldiers disappear completely. So, it is possible for a MG team to kill 100 enemies in the open, but it still looks like a nice place for a picnic.

Placing dead bodies on the ground at the same time as the squads are being butchered would help the player to follow the action too. Sometimes, you haven't spotted the enemy so well that you would be able to know how many soldiers there are. The only way of knowing if your fire is effective is to listen carefully for the cries for help etc. If you could see dead bodies falling down, you would know that your fire is effective. Now, it can happen that the enemy rushes towards your position, your troops open fire, but it seems that nothing happens until they reach your position and you see that there are only three soldiers out of 12 alive.

If the graphics is the problem (requires a 1 GHz machine), why not making the bodies very simple bumbs in the ground ? Or make them as simple as the shell holes are now. They don't need to move and can be "permanently painted" on the ground.

[Guest JonS]

I'll field this one ...

S E A R C H

Good luck (its in the top right corner )

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[guachi]

Dead bodies. The topic that keeps on giving and giving.

This topic has been discussed to death. (pun intended) If you do on search on this topic you will likely find well over 100 posts about this. There are a bunch of arguments pro and con. But the answer from BTS is 'no dead bodies'

Jason

Beaten to the punch by Jon!!

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 12-14-99).]

[Guest R Cunningham]

Summon the Inquisition! Another Heretic has been found!

Oh where o where is mighty Saint Fionn to crush the foes of the One Church?

[Fionn]

You'd be surprised.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fionn]

You'd be surprised Cunningham.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SySShockeD]

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition! (sorry, haven't had time to learn some proper HTML)

[Samppa]

Ok, I did a search and found a very long posting by Fionn Kelly about all the bad things that happen when dead bodies are modelled. However, the only thing he (and BTS guys) said about the sprites was that "sprites look ugly". Well, aren't the craters and trees sprites ? Why don't they look ugly ?

I can understand that 12 sprites marching accross the field look uglier than 3 polygons, but I still don't understand why a bloody body painted on the ground would look any uglier than a shellhole.

Another point that was raised was that CM could not be sold in Germany, if there were blood (or whatever). Is this really true ? Isn't CC sold there ?

Third point that was mentioned was that it would be difficult to pick a squad with a mouse among the dead bodies. Why would it be difficult ? It isn't difficult to pick a squad among craters.

Fourth point that was mentioned was that they would not add anything to the game. I disagree strongly. CM claims to be a very realistic wargame. Has anyone seen a war where there are no dead people lying around ? In my search I found a message where Fionn Kelly argues strongly that leaving out prisoners would be very unrealistic. How on earth leaving out prisoners would make game unrealistic but dead and wounded are of no value of realism ?

I also found that in the future, BTS will concentrate on refining the details in the units that are in the game already (tanks, soldiers) instead of putting in the dead bodies. I find this odd considering how well done they are at the moment.

If the next in the series is situated in the east front, I would much rather see hordes of simple soldiers running and shouting "uraa, pobieda" instead of extremely good looking troops, each representing 5, doing the same. Ok, this did not involve the dead bodies, but it is closely related to it.

[Los]

Guys do your self a favor and save on the heartache of another dead body debate, juss si back and relax...

Los

[Guest R Cunningham]

A Miracle!

Saint Fionn is arisen!

Death to infidel defilers!

Smite them with the Holy Mace of St. Fionn!

Show No Mercy!

[Schrodi]

Hmmm, all of the concerns that I’ve had are said to be addressed in the final version, but I think Samppa has a point. It might be hard to model, but I think it would also be fun if they modeled the wounded and you could rescue (or spontaneously “hero” now and again?) the wounded for a few moral points? I don’t know, to many bad films have me wanting a glorious rescue of comrades I suppose.

[Reverendo]

'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'

A pretty good piece of Monty Python, isn't it, SySShockeD?

Anyway, I feel like sinning now, but it would be a minor sin (so it may just cause me to be darned to heck for 15 minutes)

It is true that the last 'dead bodies' threads are there, but they're locked. And when I came to this BBS, they were ALREADY locked, so I couldn't say a word... I actually have an idea that wouldn't offend any player, that wouldn't be hard to program anyway, and that wouldn't hurt framerate in any way. But I'm yet to be heard, just because some people got angry while debating this topic, therefore making BTS angry too.

I think every thread may have another chance if it is well driven...

And hell, I'm a peaceful lad, I just want to talk...

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

Regards

Reverendo

[Fionn]

Guys,

My advice is to simply let sleeping dogs lie. I can guarantee you that no changes are going to be made in the programme as regards "dead bodies" at this stage.

As Oddball would say "Have a little faith."

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Lokesa]

Reverendo, I dont think it had so much to do with the debate being heated but rather that it's been discussed over and over and over. Especially since the new board it seems to come up at least once a month and no one has thought of anything new to contribute. It's really just the same arguments again and again. I believe steve has stated that if you had a good argument that had new idea's regarding the topic discusiion would resume.

Being that release is upon us though, I think we should let BTS rest and save our arguments for the next round, CM2.

[Reverendo]

Quite right, Lokesa, quite right. I agree with you 100%...

My position was agnostic, as usual

Which means I didn't really give any special reasons to add them, but just replied to the reasons against them. So putting them in or not wasn't a technical problem, neither an ethical one. But now, putting them in or not is a question of time, and may the Devil feed with my soul if I do not want to see CM released right now.

I prefer it to be released soon than to wait for a 'dead bodied' CM.

P.S: hey, my 'way of solving it' didn't even require new graphics! Not even sprites.

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

Regards

Reverendo

[Guest Lokesa]

ok, I'll bite, what is your idea ?

[Major Tom]

Even though I know that this has already been looked at, I did not see the response, nor can I find that post again. Here I go.. Is there going to be anything to denote where a squad/Unit was destroyed? Like where they were down to just one man and bit the bullet? It has happened to me where a unit suddenly disappeared a few turns ago, or, one of my really good units got annihilated. I would like to see something, like a little cross, or a gun with a helmet on it, just to mark where the unit died. This is to show certain information, mostly just for the end of the game. I know that someone mentioned this before, and I don't mean to reiterate, but, what was the end result?

[Guest Captain Foobar]

The end result was no dead bodies. Although I would favor some sort of representation of casualties, I think BTS has some valid reasons not to. I don't think its even a coding, or a time constraint reason. I think (and I am only speculating) that it's a matter of execution. Casualties data on the field involves alot of DIFFERENT types of information. Here are a couple of factors I thought of:

- Wounded or Killed, do we show two different kinds of markers?

- Do we mark every spot on the map that a soldier goes down. (might involve 7 different markers for just one squad)

The amount of data, by the time you are viewing the map at the end, would become incomprehensible. So then the decision comes down to what do we filter out to make the data useful? By the time you filter the data down to something you can use on the map, you'll have people arguing "hey, how come you left this out? That's unrealistic." It appears to me that they have avoided the entire debate by leaving out dead bodies.

Add to that the issue of death, blood, and gore (see fionn's post) and it becomes something noone wants to get anywhere near, because it just doesnt seem do-able, to everyone's satisfaction.

Personally, I would want the markers just "because". I would be able to say "so THATS where they saw me from" or something.

But I don't think the markers would help at all during the actual play. I know who's dead when I click on them.

Many people who have posted raise valid arguments, but I haven't yet heard a proposal that tells HOW to do it cleanly, and in a useful way.

[Eridani]

With All Due Respect to BTS and your amazing creation, I have to agree with the idea that there be SOME kinda of death marker, if not for the realism, then for gameplay (a little cross would do fine)... I am currently involved in a pbem game where I would have REALLY liked to know where a few of my guys fell, but unfortunately I was occupied at the time and forgot to look during that turn, and alas totally missed what happened to this squad.

In combat, if someone dies, his commander would at least radio that he is down and the location he fell. He would also leave a tell-tail sign of where he fell for his comrads to find (i.e, his body)... Either way, there would be some way for his people to know where he was down, and possible where to rescue him. Death markers would be much more realistic.

It seems that the majority opinion on this board is that some sort of death marker would help the game significantly. I personally do not care if that marker is a 3d dead person lying on the ground or a simple cross (or even a little x).

I'm not presuming at all to design your game for you, I have little Idea of how hard it would be (I'm a student programmer)... all I ask is that you listen to what seems to be the majority consensus and give us something, anything to let us know where our men fell.

Thank You

-Scott

[Guest Mikeman]

OK Reverendo, we're waiting to hear your dead body idea. This thread already has 18 posts to it. What's one more? Tell us your idea.

Mikeman out.

[Eridani]

I missed the previous post while I was writing mine.

I propose a simple cross or marker like that to appear when a SQUAD dies (not each individual man, that is easy to see when you check the unit status).

I don't think that would clutter the end screen at all. Maybe when you clicked on the cross it would give you unit name and time of death, but even that would be unnescessary. The markers could be the same type of marks used when a vehical or person goes out of site (the little crosses and stars).

I personally think that it would help my play to know where my men fell (in a charge for instance, to try to determine where the person that killed them, this is especially important in situations where a squad was surprised in the woods, there have been several times I sent a squad into the woods, checked back on it a turn later at it was just simply gone, it would have been very nice to know WHERE it died (and of course it had died the turn before and I had been busy elsewhere))

either way, please at least re-consider

-thanks

[Guest Lokesa]

eridani I disagree with your your suggestion that,

"In combat, if someone dies, his commander would at least radio that he is down and the location he fell. He would also leave a tell-tail sign of where he fell for his comrads to find (i.e, his body)... Either way, there would be some way for his people to know where he was down, and possible where to rescue him. Death markers would be much more realistic."

I think that in combat information as to what is happening gets confusing. It seems realistic to have situations where you would not know what happened to your men other than that they're are gone.

[Guest Big Time Software]

If everybody knew where everybody died, there would be no MIAs Truth is that all sorts of stuff happens, and pinpointing where x and y guy died is not the top priority in a firefight.

All I will say on this topic is that we have heard (more than once ) all the arguments for and against. There are good ones on BOTH sides, but as stated before, we have made our decisions and there will be no changes made. HOWEVER, we will take another look at it later on. Right now we are satisfied with the way things are and there are other things that we feel need our attention. So since we are so late in the development cycle, we need to spend our remaining time wisely.

Steve

[Guest Captain Foobar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I propose a simple cross or marker like that to appear when a SQUAD dies (not each individual man, that is easy to see when you check the unit status).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion, a marker showing where the last squad-member fell might not be as much use to you as you think. By the time a squad has fallen to 1 man, or even 3 men, it is pretty much useless in a head-on firefight. Can you see where I'm coming from? Although it would be nice, that information might not help too much when the squad is hurt that bad.

And as you said, checking a squad is easy to do to obtain its current strength. I don't know how many times through you have played the scenarios, but gradually you get a "feel" for what is happening to your men. It now takes me about 2 times watching the video to get the info I want, at least on maps this size.My first time, I watched it like 10 times.

Another encouraging detail from BTS (so I hear) is that the squad "flinch" when they suffer a casualty will be more pronounced in the GOLD version, so I think that will help too.

[Reverendo]

Ok then. My idea is fairly stupid, but here it goes...

We've got to agree that blood ponds and/or stains would be totally tasteless. And it is true that we can't add a dead body for each casualty, since our best computers would go nuts. Ok then... The simple 'prone soldier' is a fairly good death marker. It is already modelled, so BTS would not need to spend more time.

If every little soldier the computer draws represents five soldiers, then add a dead body only every five soldiers! This wouldn't hurt framerate at all, since if you start with 40 'alive soldiers' and you end up with 40 'dead soldiers', the amount of actual 'soldiers' will still be the same.

And finally, we have seen Hotkeys that hide AFVs. Then make (this is the only 'programming part') a hot key to hide dead bodies. This way, those who don't want to see them will not have to see them.

In short, no blood, no extra programming or drawing time, and even an option to take it out.

The main reason that moved me to ask for dead bodies is something CloseCombat modelled: the fact that walking over your comrade's dead bodies reduces morale, while walking over the enemy's may increase it.

The only problem I find to my theory is that you only get to see a corpse for every 4/5 soldiers, so you don't get to know EXACTLY where ALL of your men die... Just where the 4th/5th did. But hey, 1 soldier is better than none...