Michael Dorosh Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC: ...I have incidentally read of the same phenomenon as early as the Boer war - read Churchill on Spion Kop, for instance. (On his way up he met many coming down, only half of them wounded. He passed others "in deep sleep" - in the middle of a firefight, but on a reverse slope). I believe it's called Spioen Kop, directly translated meaning "spy (as in I'm spying on you) knoll" Jason, still marveling at your typing skills though... As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 So you're saying that my name, in English, should now change to Charlize, just because? BTW, going to the above referenced lodge link in SA quotes the Drakensberg mountain series as Drakensburg, hardly the correct translation in Afrikaans, i.e. 2 completely different meanings: berg => mountain, which it is. [ August 23, 2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: So you're saying that my name, in English, should now change to Charlize, just because? Sorry, Chuck, were you talking to me? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I believe the mannequin has called, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore. This is the part I don't get. Why not? From a gameplay point of view, what's the difference between guys wandering off and guys getting killed? For the player, he's just losing men and the reason doesn't make a whole hoot's worth of difference, except that when the final score is tallied, he isn't penalized as many points for stragglers as he is for WIAs and KIAs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by WineCape: So you're saying that my name, in English, should now change to Charlize, just because?Say, Charley, I've been meaning to bring this up with you... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WineCape: As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore. This is the part I don't get. Why not? From a gameplay point of view, what's the difference between guys wandering off and guys getting killed? For the player, he's just losing men and the reason doesn't make a whole hoot's worth of difference, except that when the final score is tallied, he isn't penalized as many points for stragglers as he is for WIAs and KIAs. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WineCape: As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore. This is the part I don't get. Why not? From a gameplay point of view, what's the difference between guys wandering off and guys getting killed? For the player, he's just losing men and the reason doesn't make a whole hoot's worth of difference, except that when the final score is tallied, he isn't penalized as many points for stragglers as he is for WIAs and KIAs. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Yes, but as a player you could mitigate the effects by keeping them under control of a strong HQ, minimising their exposure to fire, and providing plenty of covering fire to maximise the effect on the enemy. You know, tactics stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: Yes, but as a player you could mitigate the effects by keeping them under control of a strong HQ, minimising their exposure to fire, and providing plenty of covering fire to maximise the effect on the enemy. You know, tactics stuff. But then some OstFront-o-phile will demand NKVD units to place near the back edge of the map, etc., etc.... -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Well if that's the case, why not just count the guys that leave Russian units as KIA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: But then some OstFront-o-phile will demand NKVD units to place near the back edge of the map, etc., etc.... I suggested that idea earlier in this thread, does that mean that I can count you as supporting this concept especially for some kind of penal battalion option? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WineCape: As stated above, if not optional, PLAYING won't be that much fun anymore. This is the part I don't get. Why not? From a gameplay point of view, what's the difference between guys wandering off and guys getting killed? For the player, he's just losing men and the reason doesn't make a whole hoot's worth of difference, except that when the final score is tallied, he isn't penalized as many points for stragglers as he is for WIAs and KIAs. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by Soddball: Probably because my idea of a good time is not wondering how many of A platoon have decided to run off to get ammo.You won't have to wonder if it says right on the unit data window, just like it always has with casualties. If you want to represent them being unwilling to fight, set them as green or conscript. Come on, that's not the same thing and I am confident you are not so lacking in imagination that you can't see the difference. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: But then some OstFront-o-phile will demand NKVD units to place near the back edge of the map, etc., etc....I say we round up all the OstFront-o-philes and shoot them. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I don't see how it would make the game any harder once you made the mental adjustment to what was going on. Of course, there are always a lot of people who find anything having to do with "mental" difficult and unappealing. But I'd just as soon remove them from the breeding pool anyway. Michael My only point is that some people would prefer to not have an extra casualty "source" to have to deal with. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 dalem - would you also prefer if all units were always at "OK" morale state, or fanatic? What is the specific difference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: Some people would argue that the game is already hard enough. And some would argue that it is already enough of a simulation. I wouldn't. But I think some would. -daleBe fair. Dale is playing devils advocate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: Some people would argue that the game is already hard enough. And some would argue that it is already enough of a simulation. I wouldn't. But I think some would. -daleBe fair. Dale is playing devils advocate. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by JasonC: dalem - would you also prefer if all units were always at "OK" morale state, or fanatic? What is the specific difference? Of course not. But as JonS points out above, I am merely raising the point for others who may feel that way. And "the difference" might be a concern about an abstraction layer being built in again. Seems to me that the BFC guys are trying to eliminate many current abstractions in the squad/unit mechanics. Random "drift" of guys away from squads might not be in line with the overall "feel" they want to convey to the player, even though it's perfectly realistic in some situations. Then again, it may be. I'm just offering opinion. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BremerWeltmeister Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I would say that this is a good idea, and that one more source of those additional casualties could be man to weakened to fight on, so like a uphill fight wtih attacks and counter-attacks, in low supply and very hot conditions could lead to more casualties by fainting than by fighting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 "concern about an abstraction layer" A man physically leaving his squad is more abstract that the nuance between "cautious" and "shaken" applied collectively to a dozen men? Makes no sense to me, as a claim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by JasonC: "concern about an abstraction layer" A man physically leaving his squad is more abstract that the nuance between "cautious" and "shaken" applied collectively to a dozen men? Makes no sense to me, as a claim. You're missing my point. Right now we have a certain number of abstractions to deal with, certainly including squad morale. From what I've read so far, BFC is trying to decrease the number of those abstractions. The reason I label your suggestion as an additional abstraction layer is that once your drift happens, we have to postulate an invisible group of soldiers on the battlefield, much like we currently "know" there are medics and runners and the like on our CMx1 battlefields. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC: "concern about an abstraction layer" A man physically leaving his squad is more abstract that the nuance between "cautious" and "shaken" applied collectively to a dozen men? Makes no sense to me, as a claim. You're missing my point. Right now we have a certain number of abstractions to deal with, certainly including squad morale. From what I've read so far, BFC is trying to decrease the number of those abstractions. The reason I label your suggestion as an additional abstraction layer is that once your drift happens, we have to postulate an invisible group of soldiers on the battlefield, much like we currently "know" there are medics and runners and the like on our CMx1 battlefields.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC: "concern about an abstraction layer" A man physically leaving his squad is more abstract that the nuance between "cautious" and "shaken" applied collectively to a dozen men? Makes no sense to me, as a claim. You're missing my point. Right now we have a certain number of abstractions to deal with, certainly including squad morale. From what I've read so far, BFC is trying to decrease the number of those abstractions. The reason I label your suggestion as an additional abstraction layer is that once your drift happens, we have to postulate an invisible group of soldiers on the battlefield, much like we currently "know" there are medics and runners and the like on our CMx1 battlefields. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.