Berlichtingen Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wouldn't this "morale effect" require programing? Must admit that I didn't like CC1 (never went beyond that), but where did they come up with the idea that seeing dead enemy bodies would boost morale? There is nothing about the sight of a dead body (I don't care whose uniform is on it) that would inspire anyone sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Well, a dead body is a bad thing, but it means some of your enemies are dead and you're actually doing something. One of tha cons of VietNam war was that they mostly didn't find the VCs they killed, so most G.Is thought it was worthless (well, it WAS worthless anyway) The morale effect would surely need programming, but it's a bit late for that. Not for having dead bodies as 'casualty markers' as other people want, though. And the fact they can be disabled would men there's absolutely NOTHING bad about adding them (a change you can discard at will can only make things better, you know) ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Dear Reverendo ! Please consider that the moment you drop one of the (three, e.g.) soldiers representing the squad to the ground it becomes a separate entity and has to be considered separately in the line-of-sight checks to prevent you from seeing the results of firing blind ! This is even worse in the case of a death marker for EVERY dead soldier. And totally impossible for things like thread marks, foot prints etc. Please consider that the number of required line-of-sight checks would be too high ! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 DO the craters count as LOS inhibitors? if not hten wouldnt the idea suggested above have some validity addressing this concern? Personally I dont like the guys dissapeering because i cant always tell if they are dead or not sometimes it seems went into hide mode. SS_PanzerLeader..out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Not to extend this debate (which has already been decided on anyway...) But Panzerleader, what do you mean by 'hide mode'? The only reason a unit will disappear is if it's killed. If you loose sight of an enemy unit, you will see a symbol, it won't just disappear (unless it was only a sound contact). There really isn't a hide mode where units will canish as far as I know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I've seen units turun into the little star/cross and then vanish whilst engaging them. I thoght everyone had seen this- have I found something new? SS_PanzerLeader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 If you see a star/cross/whatever disappear, it just means that your units can see that spot, and that the enemy unit is no longer there. I think that the symbols also fade over several turns if you don't see anything new. The symbols just mean that is the last place that you saw the unit, not that there is actually a unit there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Chill, everyone Everyone and their mother has ways of getting dead bodies in. Most ways would contravene some (IMO stupid) laws in Germany. Others take up mucho polygons, others lead to FOW issues etc etc. Only BTS has the full view on this issue insofar as they can consider all technical, legal and game-play issues. They've made their decision. I would strongly advise everyone to simply wait a bit, play the full game and gold demo some and then argue about this for CM2. Please? Ps, Ben is right, those stars etc are "last sighted locations" ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Eridani wrote: 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 Well, the military records of my grandfather's brother and his nine mates seem to contradict this statement. They all end with a simple statement: "Missing in Action 13.2.1940 at Summa". Nothing more is known of their fates. (They were in a sapper company that was sent to front lines in an effort to hold a Soviet breakthrough). Reverendo wrote: Well, a dead body is a bad thing, but it means some of your enemies are dead and you're actually doing something. One of tha cons of VietNam war was that they mostly didn't find the VCs they killed, so most G.Is thought it was worthless (well, it WAS worthless anyway) A couple of days ago I once again read a book that was compiled from interviews of Soviet Winter War veterans. Many said that their morale sinked _heavily_ because all they saw was huge piles of friendly casualties but not a single dead Finn. (It has always been Finnish policy to retrieve all dead bodies even when withdrawing, if possible). They started to feel that Finns were invincible and invulnerable. However, I think that this kind of morale loss would not happen during a single combat but between them. -Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I think that making game limitations based on German laws about violence displayed in games is dubious. There is no law that bans blood in games. The law requires any game that is REFERRED to the BPjS (Federal Test Center for Publications harmful to youth) by a local youth agency be evaluated (the BPjS cannot go shopping and select games to test). The worst result of such an evaluation is being indexed or listed on the magic list of games the kids are dying to have. Games that have blood do frequently get listed. But the games are not banned. They can still be sold in stores, they can be purchased by adults and played without a care. They can't be advertised openly or sold to minors. Magazines are not allowed to publish reviews or ads for the games. The most common result of imminent indexing is making a sterile version where the soldiers are actually machines and the blood (now black) is oil. The hardcore get the indexed US version anyway. I doubt that CM would ever get tested by the BPjS because it by its very nature is not very appealing to the kids the BPjS is trying to protect. It is not sold in stores so indexing has no limitations on the sale of CM. Unless BTS was planning on running ads in the major mags, I think only the dedicated wargamers would learn of it on the net. The only real legal issue facing CM in Germany is the use of Swastikas on the VL flags. That is illegal in Germany and anyone ordering the game is accepting risk BUT BTS has already made plans to ship to Germany using "safe" .bmps to spare the Germans the worry. I am actually curious about the number of preorders received from Germany. Wargames are not very popular here and regardless of quality tend to get panned in the reviews and consequently do very poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erich Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Tommi: Your accounts of The Winter War are really interesting. I'd really like to learn more about it. Can you recommend any books on the subject? Preferably with at least some English, but even if in Finnish. I'm sure some will have been translated. Thanks. Eric Hansen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 I think you underestimate the appeal of wargames in Germany. A few months ago I was talking with someone in a position of authority in SSI (who hates being mentioned in public for some reason hence the "position of authority" workaround ) who told me that Germany was reckoned to be as important, if not more so than the US for their hard-core wargames. He specifically mentioned one of his games which sold more in Germany than it did in the whole of the US. Just food for thought, I have been led to believe by several people who have sold games in Germany and the US that the wargame market in germany is large, much larger than is commonly thought. ------------------ ___________ 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 December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hmm. What games might those be? I can't recall any hard core wargames from SSI in the recent past. I don't consider Panzer Commander or Luftwaffe Commander to be hard core wargames. I would expect both of those games to have more appeal than CM, EF, WF, etc. Judging markets is tricky stuff and I'll be the first to admit that I am far from being an expert. Would CM generate more sales if it were available on the shelf? Almost surely, but that involves deals with the devil and a correspondingly lower return on each sale. Since CM is a game with a relatively narrow appeal to begin with, banking on increased sales from shelf space is erroneous and BTS have already acknowledged this. So back to my point, regardless of the gore quotient present in CM, the sales methodology is unchanged in the German Market. Boards like this one and reviews of other titles that mention it in passing are what generates the interest. I don't think BTS/BF have the resources to mount a big PR campaign anyway. Here's an analogy from a popular FPS. Half-life was sterilzed for the German market. Soldiers are replaced with robots and it avoided being indexed. However, once you own the regular, approved half-life you can acquire the patches that include Team Fortress and it includes all the gore you could want. I play regularly on German servers and everyone sees the same details regardless of version. I can imagine the BPjS having a stroke if they ever saw TFC, but I can't see what they can do since it is available on the net. Now, there is a Game of the Year edition that includes TFC on the CD, but AFAIK it hasn't been indexed because it is still on display in the big chains. Either the BPjS doesn't care or (as I suspect) hasn't been notifed that the GOTY edition is much more..um, colorful than the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Normally I would be locking up a "bodies" thread at this point, because they usually turn nasty after this many posts I want to thank everybody for keeping it calm and productive, and because of that I am leaving this thread open. SS Pzleader... craters only affect LOS if a unit is in one, just like with foxholes. Therefore, no substantial hit to the CPU. Tracking morale for body locations would require constant LOS checks all the time, and worse... in ever increasing quantities as casualties mount. This is asking too much of the CPU for too little gain. Fionn is right about Germany. It is a huge market for wargames, even though they are socially unacceptable there from what I know. Basically lots of people own them, but nobody plays them But don't worry, we are not designing CM based on one country's laws. We just need to keep them in mind. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Brittz Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 It also bugs me that enemy killed simply disappear. It forces me to replay countless times while watching every enemy squad (if I'm lucky 2 or 3 at a time) to see who jerks in order to ascertain which squads are taking casualties - quite important since the german squads seems to lose their fausts after losing x no of men. In other words the lack of realism is affecting my gameplay. Ha this ended up sounding a lot more serious that I intended, but I would like to add my voice to the ones asking for some sort of symbol (personally I would prefer to see each body there, but I know there are various constraints) And I know its for later. Not too important, but it would make gaming easier (and more realistic?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 If the squad you are firing at is not at the 'full' identification level I don't think your troops would be able to see and identify the bodies of the dead/wounded. How could you tell, at 200 meters, whether the guy that is prone is dead, wounded, reloading his weapon, or firing at you? If you can't get an accurate count of the functioning members of a squad, you shouldn't get an accurate count of the wounded/dead ones. At most you might be able to note the difference between a small group of men (say, 4) and a larger group (a full 12 man US squad). On the other hand, if your units are close enough to fully identify the enemy squads they should also be able to spot the dead/wounded. Then again, if a guy has his hand blown off by an artillery shell and then is subsequently bandaged he is no longer capable of fighting but he is certainly capable of moving and keeping up with his squad. How does this situation get modelled? If I remember correctly, BTS is adding or modifying enemy spotting by adding an interim between the three figure graphic and full identification. You will be able to see one, two, or three men to give you an idea of how many casualties you have caused. I care more about whether the enemy is firing at me and what state he is in than what strength he is at. If you are not taking a lot of casualties or incoming fire, assume you are doing something right. I would much rather be facing a Green squad that has taken no casualties but constantly has its face in the dirt than an elite squad at half strength that is merrily blazing away at my men. The unit icons convey all the information you need. Concentrate your attention on the 'kneeling' units. They are far more of a threat to you than the enemy that is hugging the ground. I'm playing a PBEM game of Chance Enconter. AFter ten turns I had only taken 6 infantry casualties in intense eschanges of fire. I didn't bother checking to see how many of the enemy units had jerked back. I had all the information I needed from how many casualties I had taken and how many of his units were pinned/suppressed. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Just a tiny question... I don't mean to keep arguing about what has already been solved . But some of you said having one of the three soldiers prone would be bad for LOS and FOW. Well, we have those crosses/stars meaning 'last sight'. This is nice for tanks and men that actually move. But I don't really think a casualty is going anywhere... I see no reason for shooting at it either. So, what's the problem with FOW/LOS? Who cares about the dead body in order to make battle decissions? Just leave it there... Would it be a pain for CM's engine to track it anyway? P.S: thanks Steve, let's all try to make this place even friendlier (hey, smileys DO help!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Reverendo, Boy, we've tread this ground so many times.. here comes an old, old argument . You want a polygon figure for casualties right? Do you want them for every casualty etc? if so then the computer slows right on down.. It all gets terribly messy. Do a search Reverendo, this has been gone into in HUGE detail many times and any questions you ask will already have been asked and the answers given . Honestly, people should just read a bit more carefully and interpret .. I will say it again . "Have a little faith, this has been dealt with." ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would it be a pain for CM's engine to track it anyway?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you mean each body as it falls? Yes, this would have a HUGE impact on the code and game performance. If the "body" is a figure, then it is also a massive hit to the framerate. If it is just a symbol, not so bad but the other two problems (code and CPU hits) apply. If you don't care about the morale tracking or figures, and would be happy with only a symbol, then it is just a coding issue. Although if you check out the other threads you will see that even this isn't as simple as it seems As Fionn said, we have heard the arguments pro and con. While we are not going to make any more changes to the system, we will revisit total body, morale, etc. stuff in the future. We could keep this thread going, but at this late stage of development (and with several nearly identical threads you can Search through) so there really isn't much more to say on this subject. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Brittz Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Thanx Jason - the 1;2;3 enemy figures will solve the Faust problem, but you also say that you have all the information re how many casualties you have caused ((CORRECTION just reread your post & saw you were talking about your own casualties)) - where do you get that from? I've checked my own units kill/casualty? box (whatever it's called), but got the feeling that they don't always reflect all the hits (or am I wrong?). BTW - does anyone know how many men the german (8) men squads have to lose before they lose their fausts - or is it random? [This message has been edited by Johan Brittz (edited 12-15-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Johan, I think your question was already answered? except for the bit about how many men before you lose a PF. The answer is that it is somewhat random. I say somewhat, because we do weight the chance based on the number of men left to simulate someone picking it up. So you could, in theory, lose only one man and and still lose a PF. Or you might have only two men left in the whole squad, but both armed with PFs. Both are highly unlikely, as about 50% casualties is where you start to see a significant chance of losing a PF (BTW, satchles and LMGs work the same way). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TZEENCH Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 All right i cant resist anymore i have to put in a word or two (he he) CON In defence of BTS doing 3d modeling for dead bodys is a waste of time and effort that they could be modeling new tanks esc... All games have to track whats is going on and where its going. Try seting 10 aliens on fire in AvP during a multiplayer game, that caused systems to freeze really bad. The game as of right now in the demo, the speed of the playback and the graphics are smooth and you dont really need any major system to run it, even though i have a ubercomputer most people cant optain hardware to compete that way. I would like to see a fully fluid game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Reverendo, regarding the LOS/FOW thing: Pretend that markers for casualties were implemented. Then say you tagetted an forest with artilley because you suspected that there were bad guys in there. Further suppose you were right, and actually inflicted some casualties. Now, what do we do about those casualties? You can't see the unit that suffered them with any of your units (no LOS), so to lay down the casualty icons in the forest would be a breach of FOW since there is no way you'd know they were there. If you were to do a LOS check from each of your units to each of the enemy units each time they suffered a casualty that would require a large hit in processing. But say that was implemented. In the case above, none of your units can see the enemy taking casualties when they occured, so no icons would be laid down. But, your units will move, and each time they move there is a chance that they will now be able to see the bodies lying in the forest. More LOS checks. In fact, WAY more LOS checks since it would be necessary to do it each time any of your units moved. At all. And it would be further necessary to do it to all the locations where casualties had been inflicted. So the number of LOS checks needed to model dead bodies accurately without breaching FOW would rapidly become very large. Very, very large. I too thought that dead bodies might be useful, but now feel that they wouldn't be useful enough to make the processing hit worth it. Regards Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samppa Posted December 16, 1999 Author Share Posted December 16, 1999 I think that the LOS problem would not be as bad as JonS says. It would involve only casualties resulting from indirect fire. Every casualty from direct fire could be safely put on the map, because if the troops were able to see the target, they would be able to see the casualty too. Most of the casualties (at least in the demo scenarios) are caused by direct fire, so this would not cause almost no extra work for the CPU. Another thing is that once the casualty from indirect fire is detected, it would stay on the map permanently, because it doesn't move. So, as the bodies pile up and the units move, the CPU requiremnet would not become unbearable except in some rare cases (a lot of artillery in a thick forest terrain). The problem with the current system is that you hear the shout: "ich bin verwundet", and thus know that they took a casualty, but without any markers you have to keep track of every casualty in your mind or on paper. You also have to watch the movie several times from several spots, if you want to detect every casualty that you caused. With some markers (I would prefer dead body sprites, but small crosses that someone suggested would do as well) it would make playing a lot less tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Oddly enough (please don't think it will always be THAT easy) I AGREE with an argument! JonS' opinion seems damned right to me. Thanks Fionn and Steve too. I was able to find the Dead Bodies threads, but everything is far more clear in this one. Ok, we'll perhaps see them in CM2, but I'm happy right now... One more question, not about dead bodies this time: I posted a thread called 'CombatMission meets Carmageddon' about tank collisions. Some people told me there's already an old thread about the issue, but I just can't find it no matter how hard I try the search function. Anybody knows where the thread is? ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts