David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: Begging your pardon but you were NOT misunderstood. That's me & Michael's point.Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this: The graphic representation you describe is unnecessary for game play Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halberdiers Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Justification of my posts: I see Combat Mission totally different from Chess Mission(with aseptical combat), but why?: (1) In the WWII Mediterranean and European theaters, the average incidence of combat fatigue casualties was one case requiring medical holding and treatment for every four wounded in action (WIA) (a 1:4 ratio). In really intense or prolonged fighting, the ratio rose to 1:2. On the Gothic line in Italy, the 1st Armored Division suffered 137 combat exhaustion casualties for 250 WIA (a 1:1.8 ratio). Overall, with the correct treatment, 50 to 70 percent of combat exhaustion casualties returned to combat within 3 days, and most of the remainder returned to useful duty within a few weeks. (2) During WWII the 6th Marine Division was involved in the Battle of Okinawa. They fought day after day and were up against a determined, dug-in Japanese resistance, rain and mud, and heavy artillery. The division suffered 2,662 WIA and had 1,289 combat fatigue casualties (a ratio to WIA of 1:2). Many of the combat exhaustion cases were evacuated to Navy ships offshore and few of those cases ever returned to duty. (3) In the Pacific theater in WWII, there was about one combat fatigue casualty evacuated from the theater for every one WIA (a 1:1 ratio). [ January 31, 2005, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 reply moved to new thread. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Ahem... for those who don't know.... the forum might crash with over 300 posts in one thread. That's why the wafflers and pengers start new threads on a regular basis. New posts for this thread go here Gruß Joachim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted January 31, 2005 Author Share Posted January 31, 2005 Originally posted by Admiral Kahn: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A good thing to portray from a game-play point of view. And now that 1:1 is being represented, it makes sense, IMO, to show it.A game-play point of view? How so?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I have to close up this thread due to its size. Feel free to start up another one. However, keep in mind that we (Battlefront) need to design something that is pleasing to both the eye and the grog. We'll be torn to pieces if the 1:1 representation looks silly or woefully incomplete, even if eveything is neato mosquito under the hood. Likewise, grogs will tear us a new one if the important 1:1 simulation aspects aren't done well enough. In other words... there is no one right answer to this debate you guys are having. We need to have a balance between the two, and that balance is in part determined by how easy/hard it is to program and/or how well it functions from a performance standpoint (eye candy and underlying sim stuff BOTH!). Not even we have the answers to all these questions at this point, so I might suggest that both sides of this debate keep that in mind. NOTHING is decided except for the fact that we are seeking a balance, which inherently means some grog stuff and some eye candy wish list items won't be happening. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts