Zalgiris 1410 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Given my seniority, I will of course step in to assume the mantle of command. I have begun issuing ammunition. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by BremerWeltmeister: I would say that this is a good idea that one more source of those additional casualties could be weakened to fight on, so like a uphill fight with attacks and counter-attacks, in low supply and very hot conditions could lead to more casualties by fainting than by fighting. Interesting concept but I think that heat stroke would still have to be counted as a casualty case although CMx2 could have to differentiate between heat stroke and just plain old fainting or indeed heart attacks and minor strokes...etc. :confused: Michael perhaps I'll just refer to you from now on as Obergruppenfuehrer Friedrich Jeckeln Ostreich Hoehere SS und Polizei Fuehrer! (BTW he probably got some of my relatives.) [ August 24, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardem Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Personally i think the current casuality rate is extremely high, not because of the modeling but how we push out troops to absolute oblivion to win the map with no concept of after effects. So already with this high value, you could argue that some the causalities are infact deserters or malingers. If we reallt considered our troops as real people I don't think we would make some the decision we make in CM to win a match. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: Right now ... once 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.All that I know is that medics and runners, strecher-bearers, signalers and rangefinders etc, aren't on my CM maps at all. Actually I postulate that there are extra eyes and ears that allow for my overall camera views only, certainly would like to have ammo carries though at times to be sure, however they're not around as far as I can see! [ August 24, 2005, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 Originally posted by Ardem: Personally i think the current casuality rate is extremely high, not because of the modeling but how we push out troops to absolute oblivion to win the map with no concept of after effects. So already with this high value, you could argue that some the causalities are infact deserters or malingers. If we reallt considered our troops as real people I don't think we would make some the decision we make in CM to win a match. How would you expect your gameplay to be effected if you knew that if you pushed your troops too hard, they would begin to melt away and the combat effectiveness of your units would decline? Do you suppose you would react differently than you do now when they become casualties? I'm curious as to how this change, if it were effected, would register in players' minds. Michael 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.