CMX2 Casualties

[Cpl Steiner]

For CMX2, how about a better representation of casualties and their associated battlefield effects?

To explain further, at the moment the number of KIA compared to total casualties is just a statistic you see at the end of the game, but you have no idea which units those KIA came from. Why not actually show a man as KIA during play?

Secondly, what has happened to the wounded? Are they all assumed to have just been abandoned by their colleagues where they fell? I would prefer it if some wounded stay with a squad, reducing its firepower and mobility, and increasing the size of the unit for transport purposes. I think it is somewhat unrealistic that a unit that has taken heavy casualties can subsequently fit onto a vehicle it couldn't fit on before. Surely some of the wounded are being carried?

These may seem like minor points, but things like mines are designed to wound rather than kill precisely because of the adverse effects a wounded man places on a unit compared to a KIA. Adding this level of detail would reflect military thinking. Also, you could have evac missions in which wounded exited off a map edge would earn victory points.

[Brent Pollock]

I still have one of my first boardgames, GRUNT, that came in a S & T issue. In that game, US squads can't move after taking a casualty until a Medic has made it over and taken control of him.

[hoolaman]

This was discussed at length in the 1:1 representation thread, and generally deemed to be more trouble than it's worth.

HERE

[aka_tom_w]

thanks for posting that old 1:1 thread

it had some great bones and comments from Steve in it

-tom w

[tar]

I remember GRUNT. I also recall that it was one of the few tactical games that emphasized line of fire problems with friendly units getting in the way and limiting firing opportunities. If that makes it into CMX2 that will profoundly affect the tactics.

One would need to keep open fire lanes for support weapons like MGs and the overwatch groups. It will also make firing on a line of enemy units much more devastating.

[ June 19, 2005, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: tar ]

[aka_tom_w]

Old bone from Steve

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted January 23, 2005 12:37 AM

Don't worry... we're not going to do Combat Medic Mission However, dropping wounded in the spots where they were wounded is not realistic. You, the player, should not be able to spot a guy who should not be there. In other words, a lightly wounded or evacuated seriously wounded soldier would be moved SOMEWHERE other than out in an empty street, hanging out a window, in a wrecked vehicle, etc. So why should the player see such a soldier where he realistically wouldn't be?

Repetition of visuals is not a concern for us. It isn't like we are planning on having a 12 man squad stick to a static formation. Look at Gpig's drawings as they are pretty much spot on how things will look in CMx2. Even the very old (by computer standards) Close Combat had guys individually positioned, so it can obviously be done.

Steve

from Old 1:1 Representation thread now closed.

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, this is a bit of a thorny issue. Probably why almost all wargames ignore WIA/KIA issues. The few that do don't do a very realistic job of it. Full Spectrum Warrior, for example, only allows you to have one WIA at a time (or was it 2?) and if you leave your guy behind no enemy will bother him (since there is no enemy AI at work ). And I don't think having a WIA magically heal and back to the front is very realistic either!

The game Brent mentioned, GRUNT, at least makes a stab at it. However, the rule he described is also unrealistic. At least for current warfare. Depending on the severity of the wound several things might happen:

1. Unit stops to pull wounded back into cover.

2. Same as above, but administers some basic 1st Aid

3. Same as above, but moves on while WIA takes care of himself or one other soldier helps out.

4. Unit doesn't stop at all, no matter what. Instead, a follow up unit is specifically tasked with taking care of WIA/KIA.

In most cases it is a follow up unit that does most of the work. Even if the attacking unit hesitates for #1, 2, or 3 it doesn't remain there until a Medic shows up.

#4 is the most interesting from a tactical standpoint. Current SOP for intensive MOUT warfare recognizes that hesitation = death. That means an assualt force can NOT STOP even for WIA/KIA. A Platoon is instead task oriented so that 3 Squads are attacking while a 4th (made up of HQ and a few guys from the other Squads) handles things ranging from ammo bearing to blowing doors to handling WIA/KIAs. This ensures that momentum is focused on attacking and not on support tasks.

As I said earlier... we are not going to do "Combat Mission Field Medic - A WIA/KIA Simulator", but we are going to do our best to have some realistic ramfications for suffering WIA/KIAs.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1. Unit stops to pull wounded back into cover.

2. Same as above, but administers some basic 1st Aid

3. Same as above, but moves on while WIA takes care of himself or one other soldier helps out.

4. Unit doesn't stop at all, no matter what. Instead, a follow up unit is specifically tasked with taking care of WIA/KIA.

In most cases it is a follow up unit that does most of the work. Even if the attacking unit hesitates for #1, 2, or 3 it doesn't remain there until a Medic shows up.

Exactly. In the Commonwealth example, each infantry battalion had 20 Stretcher Bearers (never called them "medics" incidentally) who would give first aid and evacuate the injured soldiers. Generally AFTER the fighting has passed through the area. "Walking wounded" may have assisted their injured comrades to the rear. Again, the Company Sergeant Major and his storesmen may have assisted in moving wounded to the rear also, just as he helped get ammo forward (see the discussions on ammo modelling.)

So if you have 1:1 "medics" you would need a 1:1 CSM etc. No need for it, really, unless you have a very elegant simulation of these elements. "Medics" as described above would just be cheesy.

[Cpl Steiner]

Thanks to everyone for their replies.

The consensus seems to be that any sort of WIA/KIA handling in CMX2 would be more trouble than it was worth. Some comments in the old thread also seemed to suggest that, not only would it be trouble, but it would actually be in bad taste (screaming wounded spurting blood everywhere or something).

I agree about the problems and potential taste issues. However, if you think of war movies, most of them do portray wounded. I can't think of a war movie that didn't put a lot of time into showing men being helped by medics etc. It's almost a film cliche. The reason is, it is dramatic, and tragic. It makes us viewers feel for the soldiers, even though we know they are only actors. Completely ignoring these issues would be to miss out on a lot of potential drama for the player. PCs have the power these days for games to take on board a lot of film techniques designed to play on the emotions of the audience.

If going for the minimum of effort and the most workable system, I would be happy if a unit that had taken casualties dropped off an animated WIA guy (say one guy slumped against the wall that everyone else is firing over), and if maybe the nearest healthy guy knelt over him for 5-10 seconds doing some sort of first aid animation. Once that was done, you could just leave the guy there showing suitable distress whilst everyone else moves on. I also agree that the location WIA appear in should be sensible, i.e. not in the middle of a street, but at the point the unit is next in cover.

One more thing. Everyone seems to be talking about squads carrying out an assault, but ignoring the fact that squads do also defend in place from time to time. This has implications for how WIA/KIA are portrayed.

[hoolaman]

I agree the more interesting issue is the graphical representation of wounded in game.

With 1:1 representation and enhanced 3d character animation, I am thinking that a wounded man simply disappearing into the ether would seem to reduce the immersion factor (unless of course there are particle disruptor cannons or sumfink).

On the other hand, littering the battlefield with writhing bodies is probably not ideal either, as they would be attended by stretcher men or crawl out of danger.

Cpl Steiner's little description above sounds pretty cool, but like all 1:1 representation issues, you have to get it so that it gives realistic results in every situation, in animation terms and in game calculation terms.

As I have said before, I'm glad it's not me trying to nut out the 1:1 issues.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

However, if you think of war movies, most of them do portray wounded.

And we all know how realistic movies have been in the last 50 years...

In order to do wounded well there are way too many issues at stake to allow a 1:1 modelling

a) type of wounds; not all men "hit" are incapacitated, or incapacitated immediately. Fred Tilston, a company commander in the Essex Scottish, lost an eye and a leg during his VC exploits. But he was never evacuated during the fighting. Some seriously wounded men do refuse attention or evacuation - and succumb to their wounds later. (Recall General Johnston at Shiloh, wounded behind the knee and didn't realize it until he died of blood loss). So is every wounded man going to be incapacitated? Immediately? Will wound locations be tracked? The Sergeant Rock Shoulder Wound would result in a soldier still capable of firing his weapon and walking. Is this level of detail necessary? Would we be satisfied with an animation of a soldier clutching his leg, yelling "they got me" and having him incapacitated for a random amount of time? And consequently in a company attack seeing every man get hit in the leg and going down?

evacuation chain - as mentioned above, supply personnel (whom one would presume would not be modelled in 1:1 terms) were part of the evacuation chain. So do you model them and ignore their real purpose on the battlefield?

c) standing orders often required wounded men to be left where they fell. These orders were sometimes ignored, other times no such standing orders existed. Stretcher Bearers/Hilfskrankenträger/etc. were supposed to be on hand to assist wounded men back and render what aid they could. They were a battalion level asset. For a company level game, the designer would need to decide whether or not they would be available for any given action, and in what numbers.

I think Close Combat may have had the best answer in not really getting very specific about any of this.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve wrote,

“As I said earlier... we are not going to do "Combat Mission Field Medic - A WIA/KIA Simulator", but we are going to do our best to have some realistic ramifications for suffering WIA/KIAs.”

I agree, this is the best approach. Troops were meant to keep going anyway. Some sort of basic compromise would be best. Bit of hesitation them off the squad go leaving WIA.

But I do agree that with 1:1 representation KIA and WIA cannot just disappear. As someone said above that might break the spell and return players to reality. But there is no need for too much blood and mess either .

All the best,

Kip.

[Cpl Steiner]

As mentioned above, the most important thing is that casualties are at least visible. Given that the game will use 1:1 representation I imagine that this has already been factored in, as you can't have men just disappear. This alone will go a long way towards making the player feel a little more involved in the fate of his or her virtual soldiers, and will be a big change from CMX1

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

[QB] As mentioned above, the most important thing is that casualties are at least visible.

You and Kip keep saying this without really saying why. I don't think it is important at all; in fact, I think it would help the game immeasurably if exactly the opposite were true. If you want a movie, go rent one.

Given that the game will use 1:1 representation I imagine that this has already been factored in, as you can't have men just disappear.

If you're designing for "effect" you will do exactly that. Depending on the effect you want. If you want the effect of being a company commander, they will disappear, as the company commander was not part of the evacuation chain - he left that up to his company sergeant major/company first sergeant/Hauptfeldwebel/etc. If, however, the player is supposed to be merely a spectator, then by all means, leave them in.

This alone will go a long way towards making the player feel a little more involved in the fate of his or her virtual soldiers, and will be a big change from CMX1

I should have thought player involvement is a function of imagination. If one can play Strat-O-Matic Baseball and feel involved with the fate of men whose deeds are recreated solely through dice and statistical sheets, why would a Combat Mission where wounded men are accounted for, but dealt with invisibly, be any different? A game end analysis of how each man ended up would suffice.

[aka_tom_w]

In Cmbo there were bodies left behind to represent KIA

I am hoping both WIA and KIA bodies will be represented in CMX2

If I understand Dorosh's suggestion correctly he would have each soldier that is KIA or WIA just simple vanish? (like magic? Just dissappear??)

My guess is that this dissapearing soldier feature would not help sell this game in any way.

If we have 1:1 representation then I think it is not unrealistic to expect some form or 1:1 representation for WIA and KIA that would represent KIA bodies and WIA soldiers incapcitated in action.

Sorry, but the vanishing soldier trick (KIA or WIA) just doesn't cut it for me.

-tom w

[Gromit]

While it might be fun to debate the virtues of WIA/KIA representation in CMx2, it seems to me you guys are missing the most important point.

Will representing all these WIA/KIA clutter up the battlefield "screen" to the extent that it inhibits gameplay? Also, will representing the fallen invite a sizeable performance hit to the game- after all, it has to render all of these poor "useless" chaps, right?

You may disagree with me on this one, but I think there are more important considerations for BF than suspension of disbelief concerning WIA/KIA (as much as I might like to have it too).

Gromit

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Gromit:

Also, will representing the fallen invite a sizeable performance hit to the game- after all, it has to render all of these poor "useless" chaps, right?

If you consider that a moment ago the game had to model these chaps moving and shooting, it shouldn't cause a difference.

[aka_tom_w]

YES

if the decision is to for sure go with 1:1 representation of ALL men on the battlefield, then simply having one lie down on the ground in a "dead" posture for KIA should have NO effect on the cpu requirements (less in fact when not moving) or the gameplay because now it is just one less man to account for or keep track of for ammo and moral etc.

Now admitedly the WIA status of the soldier that is not KIA is a little more tricky to account for BUT if that man was already represented in the original 1:1 scale of the game, then making him WIA and sitting down should not be all that challenging.

.

.

.

.

-tom w

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gromit:

Also, will representing the fallen invite a sizeable performance hit to the game- after all, it has to render all of these poor "useless" chaps, right?

If you consider that a moment ago the game had to model these chaps moving and shooting, it shouldn't cause a difference. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

In Cmbo there were bodies left behind to represent KIA

Not really. There was one body left behind to depict where the last remaining man of the unit fell. It did not aid in tracking casualties in the least.

If I understand Dorosh's suggestion correctly he would have each soldier that is KIA or WIA just simple vanish? (like magic? Just dissappear??)

I have no problem with KIA staying on the map. You've obviously failed to grasp a single issue I raised. Yes, I would suggest that wounded soldiers disappear from the map because there is no way to realistically depict them without becoming cumbersome, and more importantly ADDING BURDENS TO THE PLAYER THAT A REAL LIFE COMPANY COMMANDER WOULD NOT HAVE. A real life Company Commander wouldn't, to be blunt, give a **** about the wounded troops being evacuated, as that wasn't part of his job. He'd worry about them afterwards, of course, and want to know how many men were down, but how they left the battlefield would - under normal circumstances - be left to the battalion's medical company and to his company's own senior NCO. If the game is to give the player the burden of command, then it should make those burdens realistic and in sync with what the commander would really be worried about. Wounded troops would not be one of them, again, in normal circumstances.

My guess is that this dissapearing soldier feature would not help sell this game in any way.

Gee, Tom, CMBO, CMBB and CMAK all lacked "wounded" soldiers and in fact lacked a campaign game, too. Seems to me they sold a copy or two. Do you use this Chicken Little defence every time one of your pet desires seems to be in danger? That's like me starting a thread and declaring that since Bren Gun Tripods are not modelled in CMX2, sales will suffer. It's an empty statement. Do yourself a favour and don't use them.

If we have 1:1 representation then I think it is not unrealistic to expect some form or 1:1 representation for WIA and KIA that would represent KIA bodies and WIA soldiers incapcitated in action.

It would be, for the reasons outlined above. Do you want a movie to watch or a realistic challenge based on the responsibilities and duties of a company/battalion commander in action?

Sorry, but the vanishing soldier trick (KIA or WIA) just doesn't cut it for me.

Put your money where your mouth is. Tell us that you'll refuse to buy a game where wounded soldiers aren't modelled in detail. Go on - put it in writing so you can prove your point about how sales will suffer. Are you willing to do that?

[Sirocco]

You have to represent casualties to some extent when using 1:1 representation. You can't just have squad members disappear when hit as if they were teleported from the battlefield. That works on an abstracted squad, but not with a more detailed representation. Imagine an ambush at close range; a squad might simply vanish within seconds. A visual representation of the wounding with the casualty being removed after a certain period might be the best compromise.

[Dave H]

What else, different graphic representations of all the possible wounds from a paper cut to a body blown apart by a 500 lb. bomb? If enemy units disappear (to be replaced by icons) when the line of sight is lost, what is so disconcerting about the dead and wounded disappearing?

Maybe I'm spoiled from how far CM took the suspension of disbelief factor from the previous miniatures, cardboard, and computer wargames I used to play. I'm from the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" school of thought. I think CM handles casualties just fine as is and I don't see any need to clutter up the map with noncombatant soldiers.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

A visual representation of the wounding with the casualty being removed after a certain period might be the best compromise.

Why? You are arguing asthetics. What effect would it have on gameplay? For "gameplay" read - decision making on the part of the player.

[stikkypixie]

None, but it keeps the people who wants casualties displayed happy, without affecting gameplay at all.

I personnaly would settle for how Close Combat did it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

None, but it keeps the people who wants casualties displayed happy, without affecting gameplay at all.

I think we're talking about different things here - some kind of animation showing a soldier getting wounded already exists to a degree in CM - you see men recoil when a squad or team loses a casualty. I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing that a detailed 1:1 modelling (not just depiction) of wounded soldiers is out of the scope of CM for the reasons indicated - which would affect gameplay.

For one example, would you be using wounded men to garrison strongpoints?