pritzl Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I must say that I'm looking forward to this new game. I know that in the past when CM I was being developed that there were very long discussions about showing casualties. I think that BFC found a really good solution. However, with shock force showing everying individual soldier, this may need to change somehow. I searched for some information, but didn't find anything too current. I'm sorry if I've missed something. I suppose the first question is what sort of conflict intensity is BFC planning for the backstory of the campaign. Are the stryker brigades the tip end of a very big spear, where all out war has been declared against syria (and possible neighbor countries or even nations outside the region) that will result in many casualties and much destruction on all sides, or is it more of a confined regional conflict that will remain relatively low intensity? I think this has a potentially significant impact on how casualties should be treated in the game. In a high intensity conflict, casualties are written off as the fortunes of war. For example, the complete decimation of an entire platoon in World War II probably wouldn't even be reported as significant information above regimental level. WWII was to say the least a high intensity conflict. Very bad things happended to very many people, and this was not really unexpected. In a low intensity conflict such as Iraq, the death of a single individual is often reported on the national news. The destruction of a platoon in a firefight or ambush would be reported in detail for weeks and depending on the circumstances involve relieving a number of high ranking individuals possibly up to divisional level of thier command due to poor planning, etc. It could even lead to congressional hearings and pentagon reports on tactical changes, pullout timetables, etc. In a low intensity fight like that, every single soldier needs to be accounted for. The death or especially the capture of a man can have far reaching consequences. For example, if a platoon in Irag were conducting a sweep and managed to get several guys killed and a number captured, that would be seen as a huge insurgent victory, especially for propaganda purposes. It really wouldn't matter if, in the sweep, 15 insurgents were killed and another 30 captured along with bomb making materials and weapons. It's very assymetrical in terms of mission goals and what constitutes a battlefield or propaganda victory. If shock force simulates a more low intensity conflict, the loss of a single squad should all but assure the syrian side a victory, and leaving a single casualty behind enemy lines should involve massive penalties to the American side. How will this be dealt with? In simulating modern combat, this is a very real consequence of fighting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 On a related note, how many casualties were expected in Gulf Wars I and II and how many actually occurred? I'm pretty sure that the low level of Coalition losses was a welcome surprise rather than planned for, and that they would have stayed on course and proceeded with the mission even if they had been 5 or 10 times higher. Once you commit forces to something as monumental as overthrowing a state, as in Gulf War II and CM:SF's hypothetical invasion of Syria, I think you have to be prepared to take heavy losses and stay on course or you shouldn't commence combat operations at all. I doubt that Bush would have called off the invasion of Iraq if they had had some heavy losses early on. So, for CM:SF, I think you could easily make a case for a high intensity war with mass casualties on both sides if that is what you want to simulate as a scenario designer. Perhaps there is some sort of terrible WMD attack in the first few days that kills several hundred US troops, making future combat operations much more intense. I could see it going either way - low intensity or high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Definetely scenario designers can tweak this so as not to make the game so loss-phobic. It's kind of a hyperbole in a strategic situation like an all out invasion that a handful of casualties can mean the loss of a battle. Asymmetrical yes but not to the extreme I hope. I trust BFC will find the ideal balance of all these things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Gulf War I casualties is a touchy subject. Depending on whether or not you believe the recent Brtish report on Gulf War Syndrome causes (blames nerve gas residue) combat casualties were either very low or in the 10s of thousands! About CMSF. I believe Moon said there were going to be more types of victory parameter than simply 'capture the flag'. That could mean one man's victory condition might be minimal losses while his opponent might be gaining territory no matter what. That should muddy the waters considerably. As to following Army doctrine on minimal casualties, let's not forget our poor soldiers are going to be commanded by US! Talk about a fate worse than death, I wouldn't wish that on a dog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Mikey - why is your profile so obscure?? Dammit man the great unwatched demand answers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: On a related note, how many casualties were expected in Gulf Wars I and II and how many actually occurred? IIRC, in GWI the casualty estimates for the first wave troops crossing into Kuwait was expected to be very high. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 In CMSF, the victory conditions for each side can be totally unique... and totally asymmetrical. One side might have to get from A to B no matter what, while the other side might have an entirely different goal or goals... like killing unit Z, while keeping their casualties to less than 20%, for example. The time of simple flag-based objectives from CMx1 is definitely over. The amount of combinations of the different types of objectives is HUGE, and since the two forces can have different objectives (known or not known to one, the other, or both), it opens the possibility for some really cool scenarios. Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 "Mikey - why is your profile so obscure??" Hah! To say posting my group profile never entered my mind would be an understatement. Just for you Londoner, I've updated my profile - I've even included a picture :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 In CMSF, the victory conditions for each side can be totally unique... and totally asymmetrical.While victory conditions have been mentioned a lot, one thing I don't think I have heard is how will these many different types of victory conditions work in quick battles. Will each map have set conditions or will they be alterable before the map? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Haha you're most kind sir, and what a handsome young man you are!! 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.