Sorry to harp on about casualties again, but...

[Cpl Steiner]

A while ago I started a thread on 1:1 representation of casualties. Most thought this was a bad idea, as it wasn' the company commander's job to worry about casualty evac in the middle of a battle.

However, now that we know the setting of the first game, namely near-future US operations in a middle-eastern country, casualty evac must be much more important than anyone originally thought.

I would like to see wounded US soldiers appear during a battle, who can subsequently fall into enemy hands and be paraded on TV!

Seriously though, avoidance of capture of US wounded must now figure very highly in the US player's mind in such a setting, or it isn't a true simulation.

[imported_Captain_Wacky]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

A while ago I started a thread on 1:1 representation of casualties. Most thought this was a bad idea, as it wasn' the company commander's job to worry about casualty evac in the middle of a battle.

However, now that we know the setting of the first game, namely near-future US operations in a middle-eastern country, casualty evac must be much more important than anyone originally thought.

I would like to see wounded US soldiers appear during a battle, who can subsequently fall into enemy hands and be paraded on TV!

Seriously though, avoidance of capture of US wounded must now figure very highly in the US player's mind in such a setting, or it isn't a true simulation.

How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?

[Cpl Steiner]

How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?

Your tactics will change if you have to worry about wounded becoming prisoners. I would have thought that was obvious.

[Drusus]

I would think that leaving dead soldiers behind would be almoust as bad. But many weapons aim to only injure the enemy, land mine for example. Soldier who is wounded so badly he can never fight again is actually worse for your mission than a dead one. Takes a lot of resources. That is in the same way as a injured driver in a car accident is worse for the insurance company than the same driver dead.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?

Your tactics will change if you have to worry about wounded becoming prisoners. I would have thought that was obvious. </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

I would think that leaving dead soldiers behind would be almoust as bad. But many weapons aim to only injure the enemy, land mine for example. Soldier who is wounded so badly he can never fight again is actually worse for your mission than a dead one. Takes a lot of resources. That is in the same way as a injured driver in a car accident is worse for the insurance company than the same driver dead.

Exactly. I hadn't thought about the dead but you are correct, as the US player, you would want to secure every friendly casualty before your forces moved on, living or dead. This is contrary to standard war fighting procedures in which the casualties are left behind for follow on forces to deal with. Try doing that in a modern MOUT setting!

[imported_Captain_Wacky]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How in the world is this relevant to the outcome of tactical battles?

Your tactics will change if you have to worry about wounded becoming prisoners. I would have thought that was obvious. </font>

[Zemke]

I hate to tell you this, but if necessary wounded are left behind to accomplish the mission. The mission always has priority over everything else, seldom is that extreme necessary however. The goal is not to get shot, or wounded, the goal is to accomplish the stated mission period.

[Drusus]

From the AAR thread:

"CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out."

If it is in scope of the squad level tactics, I think it is in the cope of CM's tactical scale.

[Cpl Steiner]

It's still well outside the scope of CM's tactical scale and focus.

I'm continuing this in my original thread if you would like to post there, as someone just bumped it.

[imported_Captain_Wacky]

Originally posted by Drusus:

From the AAR thread:

"CASUALTIES MUST NEVER BE LEFT BEHIND! The squad leader must ensure that every Marine moves with a buddy. Each buddy is responsible for pulling the other out of the fight if he goes down. The squad leader and fire team leaders must have accountability for all their Marines at all times. There is no excuse for Marines being left behind in a building while the squad pulls out."

If it is in scope of the squad level tactics, I think it is in the cope of CM's tactical scale.

Read the selection again. When does a CM player ever command a unit within another as small as a buddy team? Never. Read the whole AAR again, it also has a whole bunch of other things individual Marines are responsible for that are outside the scope of the CM player-commander. Unless you want to personally supervise each of your little pixel soldiers crimping their blasting caps and prepping their C4...or you can just let the game abstract it and the AI handle it, which is probably what is going to happen.

[aka_tom_w]

come on! Any body who has ever watched Toy Story knows:

"A good soldier never leaves a man behind!"

-Army Soldier Commander in Toy Story

Sorry couldn't help it.

-tom w

[Midnight Warrior]

Based on the AAR stressing the importance of not leaving wounded behind to be captured one would think that there might be a compromise win/win solution as to dealing with wounded that would be both easy toprogram and partially satisfy the need to deal with the issue. It is my understanding that CMX2 will have status for each man in a squad. Perhaps wounded could be treated as a special case of pinned satus. There may be two levels of wounded immobile but can shoot and immobile and can't shoot. If a sqaud is given an order to move with one or more wounded then the wounded would be left behind subject to capture using something akin to the surrender rules in CM1. If the player selects an "evaculate wounded" command the wounded man (men) and his(their) partner(s) instantly disappear from the unit (with no fancy animation graphics.. in fact even any abandoned wounded men need not have any graphics other than an icon similar to a sound contact icon. Nor does the game consider whether the wounded man could be successfully evacated or not. Thus the player can decide whether to evacuate his wounded man/men at the expense of loosing another soldier or not. If he elects to leave his wounded behind and the wounded man is captured then that would show up as a big hit on his final score. If he has secured the area so that the risk of the wounded man surrendering is low he can leave the wounded guy assuming that he will be picked up. Perhaps the computer can roll the dice and a certain percent of the wounded die from their wounds where evacualted wounded have a better chance of surviving than those left behind. Something along these lines shouldn't be too hard to program in that the evacuation itself is abstratced and the wounded men are just icons left behind when the owning unit moves.

[aka_tom_w]

Please recall that Steve said they would consider this suggestion:

(I don't know if we can seriously expect any more than that?)

Other Means

Member

Member # 11780

posted September 15, 2005 12:07 PM

Steve, can I reiterate my suggestion, which is abstracted enough to be do-able (IMHO and ready to be corrected) while enough to add the WIA/POW dynamic people seem to want?

State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player.

They are in this state for X time, say 3 mins. If they are still within command radius after this they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered.

Recovered will mean they have Z chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle.

State 2) If after X time they are outside of command radius but within Y distance of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear. Or possibly change them to a captured icon.

State 3) If after X time they are out of command radius but are not within Y of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death vs recovery in the AAR/next battle.

ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature.

Can I add that when the WIA becomes captured by the enemy, the player still sees only the evac icon, thereby keeping FOW for hidden enemies. In the AAR the evac icon will show "captured".

-Other Means

Reply:

-----------------

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted September 15, 2005 04:34 PM

It's not a heated argument from my side. You just have to keep clear that new possibilities exist but so do limitations. Hardware, programming, art, other design issues, etc. all have to be taken into consideration. So in theory what you are picturing is possible, it just isn't practical. That's all. Tons of things are not practical though possible, and perhaps even desirable, so don't feel bad

And to make sure I was understood... the abstracted suggestion by Other Means is being considered. No telling what kinds of problems Charles will discover with it

Steve

[Midnight Warrior]

Looks like this idea has already been thought of. I guess this is a case of great minds thinging alike.

On a slightly different topic I was thinking that it might be interesting to have non linear casualty cost. Say the first man killed in a squad cost X points but each addition man cost slightly more where the last man killed may be 3X to 5X. This would be a disincentive for a player to let a unit get totally wiped out. Thus, it would be cheaper to lose 1 man in ten units than 10 men in one unit. This would simulate the effect of the squad leader's reluctance to loose his whole command. This might inhibit gamey tactics such as using units that are down to one or two men as suicide units. Also, I have read that most units become combat ineffective once they losse a certain percentage of their force (I don't recall just what the number is). This in part could be simulated by smaller units being more likly to panic. But having nonlinear casialty cost could also make the human player more careful notto loose a entire unit too. On the other hand loosing a maryter unit may be just the oppoiste and the losing player could gain points. Just a thought.

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Heil3451:

Read the selection again. When does a CM player ever command a unit within another as small as a buddy team? Never. Read the whole AAR again, it also has a whole bunch of other things individual Marines are responsible for that are outside the scope of the CM player-commander. Unless you want to personally supervise each of your little pixel soldiers crimping their blasting caps and prepping their C4...or you can just let the game abstract it and the AI handle it, which is probably what is going to happen.

It is enough for me that the AI will handle it. I just hope that the casualties are modelled somehow. It is highly unrealistic that a squad gets 3 wounded and just goes on fighthig like nothing has happened. Would you say modelling panzerfausts is out of the scope of CM just because you don't give commands regarding its use?

[General Bolt]

The treatment of wounded can also vary by the type of scenario.

In a convoy type scenrio with an ambush strike. The squads would not go chase the IED users and leave a wounded man behind. However in a general push (think Falluja) a wounded soldier could be left behind, as any unrepresented follow-up forces or medics would be just behind the forward echelon to provide care.

[aka_tom_w]

It is highly unrealistic that a squad gets 3 wounded and just goes on fighthig like nothing has happened.

I am guessing they have thought of that.

But the solution is bound to be abstracted in "easy" way to make the game still fun and playable.

(I hope)

-tom w

[ng cavscout]

As a fire team/crew leader currently serving on convoy escort missions in the ITO, I can emphatically confirm that ensuring no Coalition wounded or dead are left behind on the battlefield is of the Highest priority to US commanders, down to the squad and fire team levels. It is unconceivable for an US military unit to fall back or evacuate an area without 100% accountability of all personnel. There has been only one MIA confirmed captured by insurgent forces in Iraq and that was SPC Ken Maupin, who is still listed as MIA, although many believe him to have been executed by his captors. Any commander who allowed his unit to leave a combat area without one of its soldiers, living or dead, would be cashiered. Unless there was a catastrophic breakdown in the support channels, and there was an actual over running of US positions by insurgent forces, it would never happen.

I have just discussed this with my fellow team leaders, and they agree, that it would, realistically, never happen in this conflict.

In an actual "stand up" fight against regular Syrian forces, it would be slightly more conceivable, but it still would be incredibly rare. This would also be affected by the level of professionalism exhibited by Syrian troops, but from the Army's experience with Third World militaries, and especially in the mid-east, we don't expect the enemy to treat our soldiers with humanity, so we do our utmost to ensure that they don't have the opportunity to decapitate our troops on Al-Jazeera, or to mutilate and desecrate the bodies of our dead.

Just my .02$

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Drusus:

That's a pretty broad paintbrush you're using there fella... I can think of quite a few situations where the men would keep on fighting like nothing has happened simply because their very life depends on it.

[aka_tom_w]

I can emphatically confirm that ensuring no Coalition wounded or dead are left behind on the battlefield is of the Highest priority to US commanders, down to the squad and fire team levels. It is unconceivable for an US military unit to fall back or evacuate an area without 100% accountability of all personnel.

This comment and the serious nature of the consquences as stated by NG cavscout should absolutely be considered in the game design and development process and somehow reflected in the gameplay IMO.

-tom w

[ October 13, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Pandur]

hmm if we talk about wounded, its ok to make their rescue/evacuation a priority. hes still a comrade, wounded but a comrade. he can fight another day.

but the dead ones...

they are no comrades any more, they are the dead remains of that what was your comrade bevor. (i cant censore this one, iam atheist(understandable?) and dont care how i will look like after my death and where i will be left, so i dont care about the oters too)

and if (censored) want their son buried at home and dont want his corps rotting in the streets, (censored), (better i censore this too). hes dead!(matter of fact)

dead one should be stripped of anything usefull and left.(historically tested)

the only reason why i would see to remove corpses from the scene(especially in such media wars) is to, not show the enemy their sucsess, and to avoind pictures (censored passage->of even more cruality).

this would be no good for the home press and for all the soldirs parents at home.

in fact i dont think that dead are removed from the scene becouse it was their so well loved comrade...they just dont like such pictures mentioned above.

and wounded soldirs as prisoners shouldnt be No.1 news eiter.

[ October 13, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[aka_tom_w]

Pandur I have to tell you that is one of THE most blatently offensive posts I have ever read on this board.

I would humbly request you censure your self and edit that post before someone else does if for you.

If you catch my drift!

:mad:

-tom w

[Pandur]

Pandur I have to tell you that is one of THE most blatently offensive posts I have ever read on this board

ohhh, iam deeply sorry! i thought it isnt that bad, and lights the scene from a real point of view :confused:

i will try to edit it so that the original massage still stands.

hm macabre(spelling?) jokes about the dead ones are ok??? but to say a side of the truth, without filters isnt???

double moral all the way

EDIT: by the way, the tragedy is REAL!

EDIT2: so iam done, is it better for you now?

EDIT3: are you some kind of conservative?? you arent a verry tolerant person

[ October 13, 2005, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

As a fire team/crew leader currently serving on convoy escort missions in the ITO, I can emphatically confirm that ensuring no Coalition wounded or dead are left behind on the battlefield is of the Highest priority to US commanders, down to the squad and fire team levels.

Thanks for your support, and for confirming what I felt I knew already, i.e. that tactics must change in a modern media war compared to the old fashioned WWII highly censored variety.

It is no good people, Battlefront in particular, saying this is beyond the scope of the game and too hard to model, and so can be left out. Battlefront chose the setting and now have to live with the consequences, namely a much better handling of casualties, living or dead, in the new game.

However, I do realise that we can only have so much, otherwise the game will be unworkable. I only call for the 1:1 casualty issue to be given a higher priority than perhaps was the case when we all thought the game would be WWII again.

I dislike the abstraction idea mentioned above, in which the wounded just disappear after so many minutes, to be considered magically evacuated. My reason is that in a fluid mobile battle, when things can change from minute to minute, a safe area can easily become a danger area, and so previously evacuated wounded may be put at risk again. Also, what about missions in which you have to exit the map in a vehicle?

My ideal solution would be as follows. Each US unit in the game (which we know will be about fire-team sized rather than a full squad) will only number about 4 or 5 men, so it is easily possible for an entire unit to be out of action because of 1 or more casualties, either killed or wounded. To simulate this, I would suggest that any casualty must be carried, dragged, or otherwise taken care of by a "buddy". It doesn't need a lot of animation. You could just remove the wounded man and put a medic marker over the buddy to show that he is responsible for a casualty. Once so designated, his mobility and firepower are severely restricted. This will inevitably slow down the rest of the unit, so their combat effectiveness as a whole will now be much reduced. It is now quite realisic to say their main responsibility is to get out of the line of fire for the rest of the battle. The player should move the unit to a suitable safe place and keep it there, if necessary moving the unit to suitable transport if the mission is to exit the map.

To avoid too much attrition, adjacent units should be able to swap a wounded man for a healthy man from the other unit, thereby concentrating the wounded in fewer units. After a battle you might end up with half your units at the rear with wounded markers associated with them, but that's how war is these days.

In a truly horrific incident in which a whole team became casualties, the map would show the location of these casualties and it would be possible for them to be captured by the enemy. To prevent this, the US player would be able to move a healthy team to the area and pick up the casualties, marking which man was responsible for each casualty. You might even have to use a couple of teams to do this if there were many casualties.

The ability to exchange wounded between units would now mean you could have follow on units to replace losses and take responsibility for the evacuation of casualties. They wouldn't necessarily be designated as medic units, but would have a dual medic and replacement role simply by the nature of their use. Now it would be worth while keeping part of your company in reserve.

The changes I suggest would not force you to evac wounded but it would give a strong incentive due to the debilitating effects casualties would have on firepower, mobility, and probably unit morale as well.

And, far from being boring, as many have suggested, I think this aspect of the game might be as interesting as the actual fighting. I accept that I may be in the minority in voicing this opinion, but others may feel the same way, especially when one considers that we will now have a true dynamic campaign system in the game to make us worry about the fate of our soldiers.