CMX2 Casualties

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

I would like to suggest re: this statement:

Dorosh writes:

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

I suspect that they will employ a good old fashioned abstraction here.

Some abstracted Black and white line in the game engine would differentiate between WIA in the fight and WIA that are combat ineffective. Black and White, the game would determine when a WIA soldier is out of the battle, once determined by the game to be WIA (#2 or #3) I would hope that soldier would be useless and become a burden or be left behind for the rest of the game.

So I say this because Steve tells us:

" 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"

meaning that WIA's would have some "realistic ramification" on the battlefield.

I would humbly suggest it is the intention of BFC to model WIA's somehow, and I would bet there will be an abstraction involved that will fit them into maybe 2-3 catagories. (Maybe just 2 WIA catagories: 1) WIA Wounded AND Combat ineffective and 2) NOT WIA (%100 healthy) and still in the fight? and of course there would be the KIA catagory)

or maybe 3 catagories (a little more complex abstraction):

1) Wounded AND combat Effective (very light wound, unit moral takes a hit, the soldier keeps fighting doing his combat "job" a little slower, tires more quickly etc.)

2) Critically Wounded and combat Ineffective (sitting, must be left behind or evacuated or attended to ? or something? )

3) Very critically wounded and dieing or unconscious (lieing down)

As Steve said this could ALL get very messy and hard to do so I suspect they will use abstractions and try to make a reasonable go of it and try to represent 1:1 WIA with men in a sitting (#2) or lieing down (#3) posture.

One thing I think we can all count on is that they won't use "health bars" to depict the health "state" of each man. At least I hope not!

But of course I have no idea what they really have in mind.

-tom w

[ June 21, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ace Pilot]

If wounded are not somehow depicted, does that mean that they cannot be taken prisoner?

[Gpig]

Excellent point, Ace Pilot.

Tank gets brewed up (2 KIA in the tank), but 3 WIA men manage to crawl out. They are surrounded by an enemy platoon and promptly surrender.

Or should they just vanish, once they are WIA? No possiblity of returning to friendly lines? Or taken captive? Or can crewmen never be WIA, only KIA?

As it stands now, a crew is usually gunned down as soon as they emerge from a wreck. It might remain that way.

But I've read a few accounts of WIA crewmen surrendering to enemy forces in the immediate vicinity.

Anyways, interesting discussion.

My position is that it would work fine as one level of WIA.

100% fine

WIA

KIA

Then you could have combat ineffective units (WIA) that you *might* be able to give MOVE and EMBARK (and HIDE?) orders to. Not much more. (Almost like when you've captured enemy forces yourself.)

I'd like to see the wounded depicted on the battlefield. In the minimum possible way.

Gpig

[Spanish Bombs]

Maybe this was mentioned before, but wouldn't this also need to be adopted for each side/nationality/era? I suppose this is theoretically possible within the 'module' concept as I understand it. But surely a Russian casualty in Stalingrad or even Berlin would be handled differently than an American casualty in 1945?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spanish Bombs:

Maybe this was mentioned before, but wouldn't this also need to be adopted for each side/nationality/era? I suppose this is theoretically possible within the 'module' concept as I understand it. But surely a Russian casualty in Stalingrad or even Berlin would be handled differently than an American casualty in 1945?

There are no blanket applications even within nationalities or eras. One battalion of a three battalion regiment might have a standing order than wounded men are to be left on the ground, another might have an understanding that unwounded riflemen are to assist seriously wounded men. There may be no standing orders whatsoever in the third battalion.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Gpig:

My position is that it would work fine as one level of WIA.

100% fine

WIA

KIA

Then you could have combat ineffective units (WIA) that you *might* be able to give MOVE and EMBARK (and HIDE?) orders to. Not much more. (Almost like when you've captured enemy forces yourself.)

I'd like to see the wounded depicted on the battlefield. In the minimum possible way.

Gpig

Yes...

It will likely be abstracted and Gpig's suggestion sounds fine to me.

"I'd like to see the wounded depicted on the battlefield.

In the minimum possible way."

me too

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

Ace Pilot made a very good point above about the dangers of too much abstraction. In the current series of CM games a surrender results in only the healthy personnel of the surrendering side becoming prisoners.

I have always disliked this. The wounded would surely become prisoners too. I would imagine that a large percentage of prisoners taken by a victorious side would be wounded in some way. Just as healthy men are either prisoners or not (two separate stats on the debriefing screen) wounded men should be prisoners or not as well.

And what about the problem that wounded place on the opposing side? In CM as it stands, if a unit clears a building, all enemy are elliminated from the game, even though we know that half of them are probably just wounded. The unit is then free to move on to the next objective as if nothing had happened. In reality, they would now have a large bag of wounded prisoners to deal with. What happens to these men, and how does this affect the flow of the battle? It must have an effect, and therefore it is part of the overall tactical and strategic equation that the player, as overall commander, must deal with.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Dealing with wounded prisoners makes for "messy" situation to model or simulate in the game as well.

"In reality, they would now have a large bag of wounded prisoners to deal with. What happens to these men, and how does this affect the flow of the battle? " :confused:

that is a good question

one over simplfied answer/suggestion:

Maybe the game engine works like this:

maybe all WIA are capable of walking (walking wounded?) otherwise the soldier is KIA, in which case all captured WIA could be given MOVE orders and they would just walk away from the battle like all other captured men. (Once again surely some form of abstraction would be required here so the game is still fun and playable without turning into Combat Med-Evac Mission )

It could be that simple IMHO

-tom w

[ June 21, 2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sergei]

You mean all WIA's can walk?

My grandfather walked into a mine. His legs were amputated. He wasn't really a KIA, but had he fallen POW, he'd most likely have died in lack of treatment. If WIA were defined to be able to walk, then 'WIA' would have to be redefined and the portion of WIA/KIA be recalculated.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Maybe the game engine works like this:

All WIA are capable of walking (walking wounded) otherwise the soldier is KIA, in which case all captured WIA could be given MOVE orders and they would just walk away from the battle like all other captured men.

it should be that simple IMHO

-tom w

But it can't be that simple, since this solution potentially entails giving orders to a single man (if only one man is wounded in a unit). And I understood Steve to say that a 1:1 level of control would probably not be present in CMx2.

Earlier, it was pointed out that depicting wounded should be no harder computationally since all men in the squad are depicted before any casualties are taken. However, before any casualties are taken, there is only a single unit for control purposes (two if we assume the squad can be split into two teams). If CMx2 gives us control over wounded, this could potentially turn a single 10-man squad into 10 wounded units, each awaiting the orders of the player. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would increase the computational power needed. As I don't think BFC intends to go down this path of 1:1 control, I expect they will come up with another solution.

[Cpl Steiner]

I like what aka_tom_w said above. It seems very workable.

In effect, those that appear KIA are in fact KIA plus seriously wounded. This could be resolved in the debriefing stage. If WIA and their side lost the engagement, they are also POW.

Those that are WIA (the guys slumpted against walls or something) become POW during the mission and can be ordered to move anywhere the capturing player likes. However, if they become unguarded, they may revert to the other side's control, as unarmed men.

There is also one more category: men who just surrendered without being wounded. These would probably be in the minority, unless the morale of the unit was very poor. They would just become POW with the rest, but animated so as to be healthy but dejected and cowed. Of course, you could simplify things by assuming that men only surrender when wounded, thus removing this extra category.

All this may seem like a distraction to some, but I personally would welcome anything that made the game look more like a war movie, or indeed news footage. I would be happy if these things were done in as simple a manner as possible. I am sure that, with a bit of thought, the correct balance could be achieved.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I understand your point and maybe it can't be that simple

My suggestion was an attempt to allow captured WIA to move under their own power so that WIA could be captured, without all the problems associated with medics and stretcher bearers and what have you, to move the captured WIA's.

Granted it was a massive abstraction.

Lets see what Steve has to say on this one.

the point was you should be able to capture WIA's

BUT then What??? (how do they move?)

:confused:

-tom w

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

Maybe the game engine works like this:

All WIA are capable of walking (walking wounded) otherwise the soldier is KIA, in which case all captured WIA could be given MOVE orders and they would just walk away from the battle like all other captured men.

it could be that simple IMHO

-tom w

But it can't be that simple, since this solution potentially entails giving orders to a single man (if only one man is wounded in a unit). And I understood Steve to say that a 1:1 level of control would probably not be present in CMx2.

Earlier, it was pointed out that depicting wounded should be no harder computationally since all men in the squad are depicted before any casualties are taken. However, before any casualties are taken, there is only a single unit for control purposes (two if we assume the squad can be split into two teams). If CMx2 gives us control over wounded, this could potentially turn a single 10-man squad into 10 wounded units, each awaiting the orders of the player. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would increase the computational power needed. As I don't think BFC intends to go down this path of 1:1 control, I expect they will come up with another solution. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

the point was you should be able to capture WIA's

BUT then What??? (how do they move?)

:confused:

-tom w

If I had the answer to that, I'd be getting a paycheck from BFC.

I'm just speculating, but the possibilities seem to include:

1. WIA disappear, as in CMx1. There is still the issue of not being able to capture them, but we lived with that in CMx1.

2. WIA are depicted and controlled by the player(s). Unlikely, I think because of the 1:1 control issues mentioned above.

3. WIA are depicted and controlled by the AI. The AI controls broken units in CMx1, so it may be able to do a decent job of controlling WIA in CMx2. It still leaves open the question of what happens when WIA are captured. A possible answer is that we will see the AI also control prisoners in CMx2, directing them to the rear or the nearest map edge.

4. Some combination of #2 and #3. The AI would still control WIA, but the player would have some influence by issuing general orders at the start of the battle (move wounded to rear immediately, leave in place, move to a designated rally point, etc). The AI would do its best to fulfill these orders. The same idea could be applied to AI-controlled prisoners (take to rear, hold in place, or even take NO prisoners).

Personally, I'm counting on BFC coming up with an even more innovative way of dealing with this issue.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

the point was you should be able to capture WIA's

BUT then What??? (how do they move?)

:confused:

-tom w

If I had the answer to that, I'd be getting a paycheck from BFC.

I'm just speculating, but the possibilities seem to include:

1. WIA disappear, as in CMx1. There is still the issue of not being able to capture them, but we lived with that in CMx1.

2. WIA are depicted and controlled by the player(s). Unlikely, I think because of the 1:1 control issues mentioned above.

3. WIA are depicted and controlled by the AI. The AI controls broken units in CMx1, so it may be able to do a decent job of controlling WIA in CMx2. It still leaves open the question of what happens when WIA are captured. A possible answer is that we will see the AI also control prisoners in CMx2, directing them to the rear or the nearest map edge.

4. Some combination of #2 and #3. The AI would still control WIA, but the player would have some influence by issuing general orders at the start of the battle (move wounded to rear immediately, leave in place, move to a designated rally point, etc). The AI would do its best to fulfill these orders. The same idea could be applied to AI-controlled prisoners (take to rear, hold in place, or even take NO prisoners).

Personally, I'm counting on BFC coming up with an even more innovative way of dealing with this issue. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Here ya go - lightly wounded troops continue on undesignated as such. Wounded troops disappear - whether or not they are captured is irrelevant, tactically speaking, since they can't be immediately interrogated. Meaning they are of little value to an attacking force.

Innovation.

Where's my paycheque?

If prisoners were of little value, then CMx1 would not award additional points for capturing them.

The abstraction of wounded soldiers disappearing from the battlefield denies the other side an opportunity to capture them, as well as relieving one or both sides of the obligation of policing them. That is hardly realistic. I think BFC recognizes this and will find a method that addresses it better than the CMx1 system.

[aka_tom_w]

"The abstraction of wounded soldiers disappearing from the battlefield denies the other side an opportunity to capture them, as well as relieving one or both sides of the obligation of policing them. That is hardly realistic. I think BFC recognizes this and will find a method that addresses it better than the CMx1 system."

Agreed

"I think BFC recognizes this and will find a method that addresses it better than the CMx1 system."

I think so too.

I wonder what Steve's thought's are on this issue, (in addition to what has been posted already that I am aware of.)

-tom w

[RMC]

Originally posted by Gpig:

My position is that it would work fine as one level of WIA.

100% fine

WIA

KIA

Close Combat was mentioned earlier in the thread. They had four levels. There was

healthy

hurt

incapacitated

KIA

The distinction between incapacitated and KIA was apparently made for the end of battle results. Incapacitated soldiers were left where they were when the squad moved on, but could be considered recovered if they were still in territory controlled by that player when the battle ended.

If a player elected to flee the battle, leaving the field to the enemy, those soldiers would be lost.

I'm not sure if that extra level of detail is appropriate to CM, but I've always been a fan of detail, even extraneous detail.

[aka_tom_w]

"The distinction between incapacitated and KIA was apparently made for the end of battle results. Incapacitated soldiers were left where they were when the squad moved on, but could be considered recovered if they were still in territory controlled by that player when the battle ended.

If a player elected to flee the battle, leaving the field to the enemy, those soldiers would be lost. "

OK

That sounds good to me

healthy

hurt (wounded but able to walk)

incapacitated (critically wounded and immobile)

KIA

That list looks like a good start to me.

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Close Combat, I will remind the congregation, rarely dealt with forces greater than platoons. In fact, players usually got an ahistorical mix of armour and infanty squads with unrealistically high numbers of support weapons teams. The burden on both a player, and of course a real life commander, would be (I can only hope) substantially different for a CMX2 player (which is being billed as basically a company level simulation) and a CC player.

If Close Combat is being used as the benchmark for realistic company-level simulations, I think we're in trouble...

[RMC]

Sure, the scope of the CC series games was always different than CM and will also be different than CMx2. But if CMx2 is a company level simulation, then the CC series isn't that far off. Ahistorical unit mixes aside, the later CC games broke down a player's units into 3 platoons plus support. That is a rough approximation of a company.

I'm not sure what additional burden accrues to a player of CMx2 if his units now show 4 states of squad members as opposed to the 2 of current CM. It's already been established that players are not going to have to set up casualty collection points, conduct triage and evacuation operations in the battlespace. It is just additional information that comes with the 1:1 modeling engine.

The questions that need to be answered are:

whether there is gameplay value in differentiating between killed and incapacitated soldiers.

how are the lightly wounded ("hurt") modeled compared to the healthy? Do they slow down the unit's movement rate? How much do they reduce firepower? Can a hurt gunner be rotated to assistant gunner (this comes close to touching the third rail of 1:1 control) by the player or will it be done by the AI or not at all?

what are the morale effects of casualties? Does a squad with 3 dead have lower morale than one with 3 incapacitated? In CM it didn't matter. Does it now?

[aka_tom_w]

RMC those are great questions!

1) How are the lightly wounded ("hurt") modeled compared to the healthy?

2) Do they slow down the unit's movement rate?

3 )How much do they reduce firepower?

4) Can a hurt gunner be rotated to assistant gunner (this comes close to touching the third rail of 1:1 control) by the player or will it be done by the AI or not at all?

5) What are the morale effects of casualties?

6) Does a squad with 3 dead have lower morale than one with 3 incapacitated? In CM it didn't matter. Does it now?

Add to that a few more...

7) how are immobile WIA's moved or transported?

8) what happens when WIA's are captured? (Can they be captured?)

9) if captured, how does the player move/transport WIA's?

Answers or comments from Steve sure would be timely right about now

(One can always hope )

-tom w

[ June 22, 2005, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The problem I see with having individual wounded figures able to be given move commands is the amount of stuffing around to actually do this. I for one would not be too interested in having to give a whole bunch of orders to the "walking wounded" when I really want to concentrate on the ones that can still fight.

Regards

Jim R.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

The problem I see with having individual wounded figures able to be given move commands is the amount of stuffing around to actually do this. I for one would not be too interested in having to give a whole bunch of orders to the "walking wounded" when I really want to concentrate on the ones that can still fight.

Regards

Jim R.

Exactly - and exactly something a company commander would never worry about. Which is why they shouldn't be included.

And given the comments about 1:1 modelling and how individual soldiers will not be under player control, hard to understand why people still think this should be an issue. Whether or not they are portrayed on the map, the player won't have control of them. Nor should they, for the reason you point out.

[Cpl Steiner]

Some people above have said that it would be too difficult to give orders to lots of individual wounded men, such as captured enemy wounded.

It all depends on the interface we are given with which to control them. Given the right interface, this should not present a problem. You could presumably just drag a box around the soldiers you want to move, or double click on a wounded man to select all wounded men on screen, or use the control or shift key to add more men to those already selected, or give groups of men different group ID numbers. RTS games have been doing this for years. I know none of us want the game to become an RTS, but borrowing a few tried and tested control techniques would be fine IMO.