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

[aka_tom_w]

Hey Pander

Just see my signature line to see "what kind of a person" I am.

-tom w

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Heil3451:

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

Nope. It's a political problem, just as taking too many casualitys. Unit Leaders who can't get the job done without screwing either thing up are likely to be replaced.

Seems that a cap on the allowed amount of cas will be implemented as a way to make the fight more challenging for the US Commander in this game, so adding another challenge in the way of taking care of the wounded is a good idea.

AND the Stryker Company has it's own MedEvac Vehicle. Give the player a reason to use it.

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by 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.

From a strictly materialistic/cold blooded effectiveness stand point, you might have a point, but no army operates on just the physical realm. As Napoleon said (i paraphrase here) "the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1". (I think I got the gist of the quote). There is also the fact that no western nation, especially the U.S. will stand to see its soldiers executed on television, nor will they put up with watching the bodies desecrated by screaming hordes (the black hawk down syndrome). They will demand action, either revenge, or withdrawal. Military action dictated by emotion is seldom a good idea. This, combined with a soldiers love for his comrades leads to a understandable reluctance on the part of battlefield commanders to ensure the enemy doesn't get a chance to do these things.

I do feel that loss of allied POW's to Syrian or Insurgent forces should have a VP cost at least as great as that of KIA's.

[ October 13, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ]

[aka_tom_w]

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.

I could be wrong but I just don't think this is doable unless we are all prepared to wait another 18- 24 MONTHS for the game.

As it is now I don't we will see the game before next March or April. How much longer do we want to wait for them to get this WIA thing "right" ?

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I could be wrong but I just don't think this is doable unless we are all prepared to wait another 18- 24 MONTHS for the game.

As it is now I don't we will see the game before next March or April. How much longer do we want to wait for them to get this WIA thing "right" ?

Why is this so hard to code? Lets look at it logically. What steps do they need to implement?

1. The ability to remove a man and substitute him with a casualty marker over another man's head. Forget animation and stuff. Lets just keep it simple for now. The casualty isn't even designated as WIA at this stage, he's just a poor sod who got hit. He could be wounded or dead, but as has been pointed out already, he is still an evac priority.

2. The ability to downgrade a man's firepower and mobility, and possibly the unit as a whole's morale, due to the presence of the casualty marker over the guys head.

3. The ability to transfer casualty markers and/or men between adjacent units in the orders phase.

My point would be that it would add a lot to the game, especially considering the setting, and so should be worth a small delay.

[Tarquelne]

i thought it isnt that bad, and lights the scene from a real point of view :confused:

The game needs to reflect the soldier's point of view, which I gather is generally rather different.

I'm not a soldier.

However, it's my understanding that one of the reasons they're so good at going forward is that they know, come what may, that they'll be going back.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Cpl Steiner

I don't disagree with your desire to make this work right or your suggestions.

I was just trying to point out that Steve has already "ruled out" the possibility that players will be able to order units or men or squads OR teams to Move or evac or re-locate the wounded with in the scope of what they plan to do in this game.

If you are not prepared to live with that statement then feel free to continue to suggest alternatives or other options like your last suggestion.

But I think we will in fact see some form of highly abstracted way of dealing with the MIA in the game....

I too, hope it is as realistic as they can possibly make it!

thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

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

I could be wrong but I just don't think this is doable unless we are all prepared to wait another 18- 24 MONTHS for the game.

As it is now I don't we will see the game before next March or April. How much longer do we want to wait for them to get this WIA thing "right" ?

Why is this so hard to code? Lets look at it logically. What steps do they need to implement?

1. The ability to remove a man and substitute him with a casualty marker over another man's head. Forget animation and stuff. Lets just keep it simple for now. The casualty isn't even designated as WIA at this stage, he's just a poor sod who got hit. He could be wounded or dead, but as has been pointed out already, he is still an evac priority.

2. The ability to downgrade a man's firepower and mobility, and possibly the unit as a whole's morale, due to the presence of the casualty marker over the guys head.

3. The ability to transfer casualty markers and/or men between adjacent units in the orders phase.

My point would be that it would add a lot to the game, especially considering the setting, and so should be worth a small delay. </font>

[gunnergoz]

One possibility, if we are tracking casualties and degree of wounding, might be to automatically evacuate any wounded who is located within a certain radius of the nearest medic or of the company ambulance vehicle. Wounded in teams not brought within those radii by scenario end might be regarded as lost/abandoned or even KIA when everything is tallied. This will make unit commanders think about command radius and the location of the evac/treatment vehicle would matter...other than just being parked out of sight somewhere.

[Cpl Steiner]

aka_tom_w,

Thanks for your input.

As you say, Battefront are the ultimate arbiters of what goes in the game, and appear at this stage to have ruled out what I suggest. However, I am sure they are open-minded enough to change their opinions if a suggestion makes it past their critical eye of what is feasible in the new game. I don't suggest for a moment that I have the answer, but I respectfully reserve my right to make suggestions until the game is finished.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

aka_tom_w,

Thanks for your input.

As you say, Battefront are the ultimate arbiters of what goes in the game, and appear at this stage to have ruled out what I suggest. However, I am sure they are open-minded enough to change their opinions if a suggestion makes it past their critical eye of what is feasible in the new game. I don't suggest for a moment that I have the answer, but I respectfully reserve my right to make suggestions until the game is finished.

Absolutely

-tom w

[Pandur]

n 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.

i hope you mean that this guys have to be picked up by the enemy and moved away(no clue where, some "bring prisoners here" spot). this would be a verry good possibility to score point on the opfor side(and/or bring -points to the other side). i like your ideas verry much, but i could see problems with the AI of beeing capable of doing that

in a human vs. humand battle this things would have a giant impact on the play style. good idead, but again, meybe the AI cant do it... :confused:

-----

about my post bevor; it !think! i understand your napo quote.

but still i didnt want to miss, to bring light to this matter from an other side. and further, in these days of television and satelite stuff, meybe 3:1 isnt that correct anymore(can only be right if i understand your quote to 100%, iam not totaly sure what you ment with physical).

english isnt my mother language :-/ , as you can easylie see in my spelling and formulations...

anyways lets quit this thema, bevor anyone else gets offended, and stick to the "normal" discussion here...

i will try to hold myself back in the future...

[aka_tom_w]

Remember Steve said "Consider it Considered"....

This suggestion might be as good as it gets...

quote:

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

[Pandur]

However, it's my understanding that one of the reasons they're so good at going forward is that they know, come what may, that they'll be going back

hehe, verry good understanding, i would say.

BUT, thats not the type of soldier i would use in a "classical" conflict. on the other hand, a classical conflict isnt so imaginable today, but not impossible...

[vincere]

Link to a recent article about 90% of casualties surviving because of better aid being given in the first ten minutes, aka the 'platinum 10 minutes'.

casualty stuff

[akd]

Well, we seem to only be looking at this from the U.S. side, but casualties would have a significant, perhaps even equal, impact on the Syrian side. Likewise, there would be very real effects on the behaviors and actions of combatants at the tactical level. Religious reasons supercede the political in this case, but they are by no means a lesser catalyst to decisions on the battlefield. Many have remarked on the near supernatural disappearance of opposition bodies from the battlefield in Iraq (to be sure, this involves a civilian component), and the tenacity with which the opposition will sometimes fight to recover a body.

[Peter Cairns]

It's just odd how much things have changed since WW2, then we not only left the dead where the lay time and time again, and not just in actions like D-day, but we also in certain circumstances shot our own people.

True shooting wounded comrades tended to be in extreme situations quite literally to put them out of their misery, when there was no morphine or chance of help, but it happened.

I wonder if we are in real danger of finding ourselves in a situation where our concern for casualties will become a liability.

I remember seeing an interview with an ex Vietcong, who said they were trained to fire a single aimed shot and then switch to automatic. If you hit a GI with the first round by the time you switched there were three or four others around him, and with luck you could get two or three of them two.

Okay one buddy is better than two or three, but I think you should leave the guy down till the firer is taken out.

Peter.

[Colin]

If a officer has to leave a soldier behind, he better have a damn good reason. I know this is beaten into units.

I think the idea of increased casualty values makes a lot of sense.

I really think it's imperative that this wounded thing be simulated. It is absolutely not outside the scope of combat. In a tactical situation, if you have a man down, the mission is get him out, then complete the mission. If a grunt in the street has to deal with it on the short term (and they undeniably do) it should be simulated. What should not be simulated is how you get them out of the combat zone. Look at BHD, 2 men go down in a chopper and it becomes an absolute priority to get them out and make sure the equipment isn't compromised.

If a squad was wiped, there SHOULD be a huge penalty for not having another unit go over there to police the dead for bodies/ammo/tags/intel.

In a single casualty situation, it may not be worth simulating. Perhaps an increased command delay to simulate retrieving a WIA before they relocate. If a unit has a wounded man, perhaps it's immobile/impeded until a 'Evac Sercured' message is on all the wounded. A company commander isn't going to have the knowledge to say 'okay, we can't afford to lose the 4 minutes of time it takes to get these wounded out of the house, just keep going'. This is SOP. Casualties are dealt with on the battlefield.

[aka_tom_w]

This whole WIA/KIA/ wounded left behind or med evaced thing (?)and HOW to simulate it in the game is sure to be ONE MASSIVE head ache for the BFC boys.

I wish them the very best of luck sorting it out in the game....

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by vincere:

Link to a recent article about 90% of casualties surviving because of better aid being given in the first ten minutes, aka the 'platinum 10 minutes'.

casualty stuff

Great article

I thought it was worth posting here...

With respect to combat action within the Game, in Game time A LOT can happen in those Platinum 10 Minutes....

quote from the link above

World War II Gold Turns Into Platinum

November 28, 2005: The fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has brought about a major change in how the United States deals with combat casualties. The result is that over 90 percent of the troops wounded, survive their wounds. That’s the highest rate in history. There are several reasons for this. The main one is that medics, and the troops themselves, are being trained to deliver more complex, and effective first aid more quickly. Military doctors now talk of the “platinum 10 minutes,” meaning that if you can keep the wounded soldier, especially the ones who are hurt real bad, alive for ten minutes, their chances of survival go way up. Medics have been equipped and trained to perform procedures previously done only by physicians, while troops are trained to do some procedures previously handled only by medics. This skill upgrade is made possible by a number of factors.

First, over the last few decades, there has been continuous development in methods and equipment for “emergency medicine” (ambulance crews and staff in emergency rooms.) This stuff had slowly been coming over to the military, but with the fighting in Iraq, it has nearly all been adopted by military medical personnel.

Second, there’s the high intelligence and skill levels of the volunteer military. High enlistment standards have largely gone unnoticed by most people, but within the military, it’s meant that combat troops, who are much brighter than at any time in the past, can handle more complex equipment and techniques. Getting the combat troops to learn these techniques is no problem, because for them, it could be a matter of life and death.

Third, medical teams, capable of performing complex surgery, are closer to the combat. These teams, like the medics and troops, have more powerful tools and techniques. This includes things like “telemedicine,” where you do a videoconference with more expert doctors back in the U.S., to help save a patient.

The “platinum 10 minutes” is part of a century old trend. During World War II, the "golden hour" standard of getting wounded troops to an operating table, was developed. Antibiotics were also developed at about the same time, along with the helicopter (whose first combat mission, in 1945 Burma, was to recover injured troops). So these new developments are not anything exotic.

Finally, the military medical community has a track record of success that the troops know about. So everyone realizes that if they pitch in, chances of survival are good, and they are.