1:1 representation and casualties

[Thomm]

Leaving dead bodies on the battlefield is a must, IMHO!

[vincere]

Cpl Steiner

It's only a movie, but it makes a valid point. In some situations, abandoning the wounded is not an option.

Have you read the book? The book is based upon first-hand accounts, and in my opinion for a Hollywood film it follows the book quite faithfully.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

[snip] There is nothing takes the eagerness away from troops quite like seeing bits of their comrades spread all over the place.

Classic line. Almost sig. material ... if you're into that sort of thing.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by vincere:

Michael Dorosh, I can understand your hostility to casualty representation, I think that we might agree that it could really screw with game play. But if realism is being aimed at then I would suggest that the severe wounded could impinge on a company commander's plans. Reminds me of the maxim 'that it's better to wound a guy than to kill, because it takes out more people to deal with him.'

Most of the infantry NCO's I've talked to in our army laugh at this and insist that logistics are someone else's problem, they just want to see the f***ers dead cause then they can't kill you in return!

But - you raise a valid point. I think those rare situations where you have to "save the wounded" may be rather like those rare situations where you land on a beach from the ocean, land in a field in a glider, or have to rescue prisoners from your own side - rare enough that they can't be reasonably modelled in a tactical game.

If it can be done sensibly enough, though, I'm all for it.

[Peter Cairns]

For me, I think this fits a bit three lvls idea, ie that the further you get from Coy commander, the more abstarct it needs to be to avoid bogging the game down, and complicating things.

In my thread about helicopters i thought they should be treated like artillery and targettted with the AI doing the "flying" because they are a couple of lvls above or removed from The Company commander.

Likewise I thought "Smoke grenades" should be treated as grenades are now, afeature where you could see them used, but not actually use them, as in Give a team a "Smoke ordef".

I think the idea of dead and casualties should be in for graphic purposes but with the AI dealing with them. My idea of wounded looking after other wounded is one way,

Another would be for static or none firing units to "Appear" to aid wounded near by, but these should be all outwith player control as they are not really decisions that a company commader would make in the sense that there job is to keep fight the battle not clean up the mess.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We haven't decided yet. The problem is one of consistency. If we show wounded then players are going to want to do things with wounded. To do that we have to implement a fairly significant bunch of features to simulate all of that. In theory we want to, but we're not sure if that is something we can bite off for the first release.

Steve

Remember Steve said:

"We haven't decided yet. The problem is one of consistency."

this is a fairly big challenge and it would be easier to do nothing then try to make the management of the wounded more realistic.

We ought not to expect too much for the first release.

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by vincere:

Cpl Steiner </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It's only a movie, but it makes a valid point. In some situations, abandoning the wounded is not an option.

Have you read the book? The book is based upon first-hand accounts, and in my opinion for a Hollywood film it follows the book quite faithfully. </font>

[vincere]

Yeh, I thought the book emphasised the confusion once serious contact was made.

I remembered the News highlights before watching the film. But thought the film a little Hollywood hype until I read the book and saw the documentary. It was a serious fight.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember that there are (roughly) 4 primary reasons why a foot unit becomes combat ineffective:

Lack of Men

Lack of Ammo

Lack of Will

Lack of Energy

In real life a good unit won't become combat ineffective unless one of these things is really bad. However, if each one is pretty bad, the sum total kills combat effectiveness. In Blackhawk Down it would appear that casualties caused a ripple effect. It obviously reduced the manpower, thus negatively affecting unit cohesion. The overall crappy situation they were in (all FUBAR) must have had some effect on the will to fight (interviews with surviving members indicate this, I think). Energy was certainly running down too since even though they stayed put they were in immediate danger of becoming a casualty and didn't have food with them IIRC. Ammo was also running a bit low since they only "packed" for a quick fight.

Note that I didn't even mention what the casualties themselves did to the unit's combat effectiveness. I am sure it had an impact, but the other factors were probably what really tripped them up. They went into combat with high expectations for success and low expectations for everything else. The only reason they weren't wiped out completely was probably due to the fact that they were excellently trained soldiers. And once the Alpha Team guys linked up with them it seemed to put a lot of oomph back into them.

Anyway... it is an interesting combat situation to study. Not so much because of the combat, but because of the factors that set the stage for it. It showed, quite clearly, that even the best US forces can be bloodied and, for all intents and purposes, defeated (or at least stalemated) at the tactical level. This should cause those who think that modern combat is a done deal victory for whomever is commanding the US forces to rethink their position.

Steve

[stoat]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And once the Alpha Team guys linked up with them it seemed to put a lot of oomph back into them.

Mr. T was in Mogadishu?

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve, thanks for your detailed analysis.

I would like to add that in the Mogadishu battle, US doctrine on casualties reached such importance that it effectively superceded the original mission objectives. A mission to capture some middle ranking enemy VIPs ended up as a mission to extract some downed helicopter crewmen. I would go as far as to say that the enemy the US was up against deliberately exploited US doctrine on casualties to cause this mission creep and ultimately suck in as many US soldiers as possible into an unwinnable battle.

It would be neat if this sort of thing could be simulated in CMx2, i.e. mission objectives and priorities changing mid battle due to doctrines such as casualty extraction. I realise the first release has to be pretty basic, but maybe in future releases we can see this sort of feature.

[Battlefront.com]

Haha... man, I have to get more sleep. No, Mr. T refused to go because all his chains wouldn't fit over the body armor he was instructed to wear. The DELTA TEAMS however don't have jewelry and therefore were moved over instead. Shame... I can just see T and Face doing wonders over there. The van certainly would have come in handy.

Yes, there were all sorts of issues surrounding the tragic events. Some long before, and some that are still (unfortunately) still dogging the US' ability to get things done. Politics and military actions never have mixed, nor are they ever really likely to.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

in the documentaries they are also refered to as the d-boys

-tom w

The Mr. T quotes ARE Funny

"Now come 'on over here BOY and let me ....."

(al a Eddie Murphy!)

(sorry)

[JonS]

This seems pertinent here.

*Warning for FF users: links direct to PDF*

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by JonS:

This seems pertinent here.

*Warning for FF users: links direct to PDF*

GREAT Link

I have read the book and seen the movie at least a dozen times and seen 2-3 documentaries about the incident several times....

BUT this article was VERY enlighteing

if you think you know what happened to Task Force Ranger you should take few minutes and read this PDF (as always the Arcobat reader is free from Adobe)

Preface

This paper will critically analyze the 1993 military defeat of Task Force RANGER

(TFR) in Mogadishu, Somalia while supporting the United Nations Operation in Somalia.

The military defeat of TFR provides a myriad of lessons that must be applied to future

military operations other than war if the US government and US military are to succeed in

such endeavors.

This research project is not an attempt to personally attack the civilian and military

leadership of the US, or discredit the heroic efforts of the personnel involved with TFR

whose skill, bravery, and fortitude in completing a dangerous mission is a testament to

America’s soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.

I would like to thank Major Ralph Millsap, Air Command and Staff College, for

sponsoring this research effort and giving his support and guidance throughout the 1997

academic school year. In addition, I would like to thank Major Scott W. Merkle, formerly

assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment, for his expert opinion and help with finding

participants of the TFR mission. These soldiers, whose identity will not be revealed,

provided essential information concerning key decisions that were made during the 3

October TFR mission.

sorry for the bad format

-tom w

[Aacooper]

I think it should out of the commander's hands.

In CMx1, imagine a shell landing, and a squad goes from 8 guys to 5 guys. CMx2 might have one wounded guy being carried away by 2 other guys for the duration of the scenario. However they want to code this, it's a bit of eye candy and immersion.

In Cmx1, a squad takes a casualty, then is broken. In CMx2, it might be that the casualty is wounded out in the open, and the squad is paralyzed while trying to deal with that.

Cmx1 obviously abstracts complicated things, and if they want to code the variety of responses to gun and shell fire (not to mention flamethrower fire!), that's okay. I would think gameplay wouldn't be too different. There shouldn't be a "ignore wounded" command right below "advance".

In Mogadishu, virtually every one of the Rangers was wounded. Though a relatively (relative to a battle in the Hurtgen Forest) small number were KIA, I think a CMx1 recreation of the battle would have the squads (abstractly) whittled down to very small numbers.

Please don't make Somalia the first CMx2 game -- it would be too small!

[JonS]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

This seems pertinent here.

*Warning for FF users: links direct to PDF*

GREAT Link

I have read the book and seen the movie at least a dozen times and seen 2-3 documentaries about the incident several times....

BUT this article was VERY enlighteing

if you think you know what happened to Task Force Ranger you should take few minutes and read this </font>

[GreenAsJade]

Leaving dead bodies on the battlefield is a must, IMHO!

Whenever I request that dead units be able to be switched off someone chimes in with a comment like this.

It's my assumption that dead units will remain on the battlefield because that's what happens today, and they haven't said they are changing it.

OF COURSE we want that possibility.

What I'm asking for is IN ADDITION to please have a hotkey to turn them off, so I can actually look at the overview of the battlefield and say "now, geez, what have I actually got to work with here?".

It's a playability aid that I'm asking for.

Anyone who has tackled "Loaded for Bear" as the Allies will know what I mean...

GaJ

[Migo441]

That was actually my second "want" when I first experienced CMBO. My first was "I want to see all the individual soldiers." so yay for CMX2!

8-)

But my second was "I wish dead and wounded guys were visisble." As I became more familar with the game(s) I got over these and onto more sophisticated wants which I think have all been highlighted on the Top Five Wants thread.

Anyway, for reality/immersion reasons, I DO hope that casualties are graphically represented. As GreenAsJade suggests, it would be sensible if they could be toggled like other display factors.

[Guest Mike]

Leaving dead bodies on the battlefield is a must, IMHO!

A must for what?

It won't do anything for gameplay AFAIK, gettign eth graphics right will probably take up more developer time, and then you'll also have to do something with wounded.

A must?

no - not at all.

Some people might see it as a nice-to-have - possibly they should get together with all the people who demanded blood graphics in Rome Total War.......

[Thomm]

IMHO stands for "In my humble opinion"!

The question is not "A must for what?", but "A must for whom?". Whom being me.

We are talking about a wargame here. Think of AARs detailing bloody assaults on entrenched enemys with screenshots showing a few shellholes and some bad dudes with their hands raised, surrounded by brave alpha force guys ! Very convincing.

If, however, the ground is littered with KIAs then the message is conveyed by the picture itself! One would not want to miss this opportunity of enhancing the atmosphere of the game.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Philippe]

One of my old gripes about CMx1 was that there weren't enough bodies on the ground after a battle.

But on reflection, and given the way CMx1 represented troops, maybe there were, they just weren't always in the right place.

If a squad of ten men is represented by three figures, when it gets wiped out that probably means two or three dead bodies and a bunch of wounded.

The wounded have magicially teleported back to their aid stations without benefit of bearers (really hope CMx2 does something about this -- you lose more than just the casualty for a short period of time), so three dead bodies translates to one figure on the ground.

The dead body rate shouldn't probably be more than about 20% of casualties, but some of the bodies on the ground are wounded waiting to be hauled away. In 1:3 representation a squad that gets wiped out probably shouldn't leave more than one body on the ground, it's just a question of where that body gets left. Dropping it at the last spot that it took losses was not a bad choice because that was probably the most exposed position the unit ended up in, and some of the bodies represented by that prone figure are still alive.

So even if you include pools of blood and the occasional soup of splattered brains in 1:1 (how about a realism/gore toggle?), you still aren't going to have that many people prone on the ground. We are probably talking three bodies on the ground per wiped out squad. It will never look like a Napoleonic battlefield in that respect. And certainly won't look like an FPS.

But I would dearly love to see units experience a temporary manpower hit and loss of effectiveness while the wounded are hauled back to the aid station. The physical presence of the wounded at the aid station wouldn't have to be modeled 1:1, though it would be nice.

And one side effect of using aid stations is that if a unit's morale is taking a beating, the guys who hauled the wounded casualty back to the aid station will become very concerned about the victim's health, and spend half an hour hanging around the aid station to make sure their buddy is getting the medical treatment he needs. Which means that when morale is low, three or four wounded can knock a squad completely out of action for a while. The only problem with this kind of modelling is that it might start to slow the pace of combat down to more realistic levels.

[c3k]

Gents,

You're all not trying to push the boundaries of what's possible: CMx2 is going to be all new. Therefore, the following WIA/KIA representations should be used.

KIA's should gradually "melt" into the ground, blending smoothly, leaving behind a skeleton. (Additional coolness would be possible by having the skeleton pointing at the unit which killed it.)

WIA's should be out of the players' control. They'd be represented by crawling torsos (no legs - this would make it obvious, at a glance, as to what that soldier's status is). Of course, these torsos would be crawling towards the nearest friendly edge. Obviously, crawling torsos would leave blood trails behind them, originating at the point of wounding in a large blood splash.

Regards,

Ken

[vincere]

qoute form WineCape's synopsis thread

Condition - This is simply a state of being. Right now we have 4 states, but that could change. The states are Healthy (including superficial wounds), Minor Wound (still functional, though less so), Major Wound (out of action), and KIA (completely out of action). This status has an effect on combat capabilities within the game, but it also has meaning for scoring and campaign play. Guys who end up with Minor Wounds might come back for the next battle, might not. Guys with Major Wounds will not, and could possibly be tallied up as KIA. KIA is obvious.

I think it's fair to say that a summary of this thread would be that many player would like 1:1 representation to continue when soldier is servere wounded or KIA. Some have expressed how odd it'd be in the envisioned game to have them disappear, or teleport somewhere.

From what I can make out the real issue is how severe wounded are treated in the game (assuming they'll continue to be represented on screen). Minor wounded can self-aid.

If, read big IF? this was simulated in CMx2 then how would it affect gameplay? Misguided implementation could screw with the flow. But what would happen in RL?

So I have two specific questions for the community

1. In some situations should AI troopers give first aid to severe wounded causing the squad to pause? and if not why not? (Peronally I think that this should probably not happen if assaulting or advancing as attacks and self preservation provide a certain amount of momentum)

2. Should Severe wounded be static or movable in CMx2?

[ September 13, 2005, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[Barrold]

KIA's should gradually "melt" into the ground, blending smoothly, leaving behind a skeleton. (Additional coolness would be possible by having the skeleton pointing at the unit which killed it.)

...and perhaps little ghosts that haunt the units that killed them during night turns?

If such an idea was even considered let alone implemented, I would be forced to drive to Maine, find Steve, and show him pictures of Dorosh in his underwear.

BDH