1:1 representation and casualties

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Thanks for the update

that sounds good

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Even if we simulated guys being wounded, dragged to safety, and then treated by Medics... we would still randomize the wounds based on certain realism parameters. It simply isn't worth the CPU power to figure things out more than that.

All that should be important to the player is if a Soldier is:

Fully functional

Partially functional

Temporarily Non-functional

Permanently Non-functional

The Temp status only matters if it is persistent (i.e. not just getting the wind knocked out) and only if for scoring purposes. For Campaigns it matters in terms of if you get the Soldier back for a later battle. The example of Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu is a good example. Next day few in that force were ready for combat, but most probably were within another day with even more the day after that.

Vehicles and what not aren't a part of this discussion

Steve

[Philippe]

Portraying the wounded is not that hard. Off the top of my head you show a heavily bandanged prone figure with an IV drip. That should get the message across. The medic can have an armband and a stethoscope, or something.

And then maybe we should rename this CMx2 Mash: The Sims...

[Battlefront.com]

The graphical representation is brain dead simple. All of the things that come from that representation are what is potentially terrible for us to deal with.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

brain dead

Don't use that term. Charles may hear you.

[Zalgiris 1410]

The 1:1 representation ought to mean IMO that WIA are not just going to vanish, esp while the dead bodies pile up. It wont make sence and it will spoil the depiction of casualty events for me at least.

I think that casualties, that is both WIA and KIA ought to be represented in the game, even at least as the same dropped body icon, while the CPU decides at the end for the AAR to assign the ratios.

Blokes get knocked as casualty icons period, incapacitated but alive or just dead. The players don't know between the different states until the arbitrary ratio is worked out at the end, fair enough.

That is the least bothersome solution for now I think. Having the WIA distinct from the dead creates more trouble than it's worth judging by the posts in this thread.

[ September 13, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

The 1:1 representation ought to mean IMO that WIA are not just going to vanish, esp while the dead bodies pile up. It wont make sence and it will spoil the depiction of casualty events for me at least.

I think that casualties, that is both WIA and KIA ought to be represented in the game, even at least as the same dropped body icon, while the CPU decides at the end for the AAR to assign the ratios.

Blokes get knocked as casualty icons period, incapacitated but alive or just dead. The players don't know between the different states until the arbitrary ratio is worked out at the end, fair enough.

That is the least bothersome solution for now I think. Having the WIA distinct from the dead creates more trouble than it's worth judging by the posts in this thread.

I think that's the best solution too.

[Peter Cairns]

Having advocated that the AI handles casualty behaviour and that walking wounded look after incapacitated, though it's still my prefered option, i'd happily go along with Zalgiris and other and have a "uniform" dropped body icon, as a start.

Peter.

[vincere]

The impression I'm getting from some posts here is that two broad for vs agianst severe wound representation camps are emerging.

The for group, have highlighted the emersive game feel factor, and the realism of wounded impacting on the fire and movement of war and wargames. Also how odd it may be to have pixel troops disappear.

The camp against have highlighted that it'd be difficult to implement. And may screw with gameplay and flow. I've noticed a marked inconsistency in this camp. Many other threads turn on interpretations on what is historically accurate, or realistic. Not here: many appear to be rejecting that because it might affect how squads are pushed about on the map. The polemic positions of "it must either be simulated to absolute accuracy or nothing" raises my suspicion. Other posts that create a straw man of "people wanting a MASH/medic simulater" to deride contributions in this area raise suspicions further.

I should imagine that most recognise that realism must often sacrifice to gameplay. But some of the polemics and derision in this post leads me to suspect that some might be posting out of concern to preserve how they personally play CMx1 rather than how the title could be moved forward.

There have been many who have made reasonable and creative contributions to the thread, to those I am gratefull. Steve has patiently restated the postion: that movement is out, and representation undecided. Personally, I'd like to see some of the balanced suggestions implemented. eg. severe wounded left on ground much the same as KIA, and the affects of pinned units abstracting a pause for first aid.

How casualtie are dealt with in combat is in many ways an intregal part of it, hence the interest in the first post. I read somewhere that the devs aim was a complete tactical simulation. If that's true I would imagine this issue to come up again in the future.

[ September 14, 2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[aka_tom_w]

I'm sorry

but if you would like to use the word Ptolemaic,

(that is what word you want correct? )

at least spell it correctly, please...

Ptolemaic:

adj 1: of or relating to the astronomer Ptolemy [syn: Ptolemaic] 2: of or relating to the geocentric Ptolemaic system; "in the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion the earth is fixed as the center of the universe with the sun and moon and planets revolving around it" [syn: Ptolemaic]

[aka_tom_w]

I should imagine that most recognise that realism must often sacrifice to gameplay. But some of the polemics and derision in this post leads me to suspect that some might be posting out of concern to preserve how they personally play CMx1 rather than how the title could be moved forward.

I am not exactly sure this is the case BUT I would say it is a very interesting observation and as I re-read this thread and these posts I will now be looking at them from the possibility of this perspective or observation.

Thanks

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by vincere:

The impression I'm getting from some posts here is that two broad for vs agianst severe wound representation camps are emerging.

The for group, have highlighted the emersive game feel factor, and the realism of wounded impacting on the fire and movement of war and wargames. Also how odd it may be to have pixel troops disappear.

The camp against have highlighted that it'd be difficult to implement. And may screw with gameplay and flow. I've noticed a marked inconsistency in this camp. Many other threads turn on interpretations on what is historically accurate, or realistic. Not here: many appear to be rejecting that because it might affect how squads are pushed about on the map. The polemeic positions of "it must either be simulated to absolute accuracy or nothing" raises my suspicion.

You've not interpreted the opposite camp completely accurately. In addition to your points, there is also the component that feels spending a lot of time modelling casualties

a) will increase development time for little gain

be rather unnecessary, since they can point to no other wargame, FPS, or simulation that models casualty treatment in any significant way

c) does not realistically represent the burden of a real life company commander, whose role the CM player assumes

[ September 14, 2005, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Other Means]

Here's what I'd like, and is I think a middle ground between the 2 camps:

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.

[c3k]

Gents,

I'm fine with an approach of "drop the WIA where they fall", with a visual depiction of a WIA soldier.

I think a thoughtful approach to WIA will lead to a better game engine.

The example someone here posted of Task Force Ranger (of "Black Hawk Down" fame) being immobilized due to the number of casualties was quite interesting. It was an elite light infantry force whose tactical abilities were significantly affected by WIA concerns.

Whereas I'd hate for CMx2 to be significantly delayed for WIA development, I'd hope that BF.C starts to wrestle with some solutions.

In the meantime, for whatever it's worth, I'm fine with the WIA/KIA split being determined at the end of the battle.

Regards,

Ken

[aka_tom_w]

Other means!

I like it

If it was not too hard to code it sounds like a good middle ground.

BUT I suspect Steve is somewhat hardline about NOT moving the seriously WIA in any way. (But maybe I am wrong about that)

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

worth repeating?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

KIAs... we are probably going to leave them on the map. The primary reason we did NOT do this in CMx1 was performance. We could not afford to "spawn" figures since it meant significant polygon usage. Plus, with a unit representing individuals abstractly it made no logical sense to have the KIAs represented directly. Bad mix things.

Now, in CMx2 we have soldiers represented 1:1. This means there is no abstraction and therefore having a guy animated or a guy lying on the ground means no increase in polygons. So both of the CMx1 issues are solved. That means it is probable that we will leave bodies on the map where they fall in combat. If we do that they will likely remain there by default (perhaps we can have an option to fade them out). The question remains about WIA vs. KIA.

Dropping KIA bodies on the map is almost a no-brainer (see above comments). Dropping WIA bodies on the map is quite problematic. In this case it might make sense to drop an abstracted icon, like a cross, to show where the guy fell but not confuse people about the ability to do anything about it. If there were an actual wounded soldier figure people would be screaming at us "why can't I move the guy to safety!" and from the immature idjits we always have in these discussions "why can't I put a cap in that guy's head?". Since we aren't going to allow either, then it doesn't make sense to do the 1:1 representation of WIA.

That's our current thinking.

Steve

[Zalgiris 1410]

I'd like to add that may be there could simply be a two stage iconography for casualties. I mean by this, lets say have during the movie-turn phase or else based on x number of seconds for there first to be a writhing casualty icon figure and then they all develope into a totally incapacitaited and immobile 'dead man' figure.

Thus in CMx2 all casualties would be on the map and still be of no concern of the players to do anything about, since they will handled in the AAR at the end of the game as with CMx1. This would satisfy the eye-candy needs for WIA being depicted to the minimal degree as well as be the best minimal realistic solution.

[Other Means]

I think Steve has hardline about the player moving his own wounded, or developing the expectation that he could do so. With the idea I'm suggesting, it's halfway between the "fading into the ground" idea and the "moving to the aid station" idea plus the already existing prisoner taking.

I think in playing you don't want to be bothered moving cas to the rear, or at least I don't. But you do want some form of penalty for abandoning your WIA. Setting a time limit before automatic evac means you need to hold the ground to enable it, but don't have to actually do it. The evac icon could also fade out over time.

I think it would add info that the CO would have available IRL and add a dynamic to the game, encouraging staged withdrawls etc, without adversely impacting gameplay.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think in order for it to be "realistic" though you would need able bodied troops disappearing also, representing the ones "helping the wounded".

If nothing else, it might slow down gameplay some tto a more realistic level but would suck from a "gamey" standpoint.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

BFC already said gameplay would be slower. Lets not ask BFC to get their customers into a comatose state, shall we?

There can be too much realism.

[vincere]

Michael Dorish

You've not interpreted the opposite camp completely accurately. In addition to your points, there is also the component that feels spending a lot of time modelling casualties

a) will increase development time for little gain

be rather unnecessary, since they can point to no other wargame, FPS, or simulation that models casualty treatment in any significant way

c) does not realistically represent the burden of a real life company commander, whose role the CM player assumes

a)fair point. Implementation could even hinder gampeplay and unbalance realism.

'don't do because no other game does it logic' appears false to me as it could have equally applied to aspects of CM that make CM stand out. Also Wartime Command is planning to model medics, and another wego game Alfa Anti Terror has wounded soldiers. I thought close combat traced wounded soldiers too?

c)I think CM may accurately be referred to as comany level; not so much company commander. Strictly speaking a company commander commands one, not several companies. Also much of CM is not what a company commander would get involved in.

Incidently do you happen to have an accurate timespan of what leaving wounded pixel soldiers on the map will require? How much longer than writing code to make them disappear?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by vincere:

Michael Dorish </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> You've not interpreted the opposite camp completely accurately. In addition to your points, there is also the component that feels spending a lot of time modelling casualties

a) will increase development time for little gain

be rather unnecessary, since they can point to no other wargame, FPS, or simulation that models casualty treatment in any significant way

c) does not realistically represent the burden of a real life company commander, whose role the CM player assumes

a)fair point. Implementation could even hinder gampeplay and unbalance realism.

'don't do because no other game does it logic' appears false to me as it could have equally applied to aspects of CM that make CM stand out. Also Wartime Command is planning to model medics, and another wego game Alfa Anti Terror has wounded soldiers. I thought close combat traced wounded soldiers too?

c)I think CM may accurately be referred to as comany level; not so much company commander. Strictly speaking a company commander commands one, not several companies. Also much of CM is not what a company commander would get involved in.

Incidently do you happen to have an accurate timespan of what leaving wounded pixel soldiers on the map will require? How much longer than writing code to make them disappear? </font>

[vincere]

Michael Dorosh: Thanks for the clarification. Comparing it with morale states has helped me see the whole hog or nothing rationale. Yes, I can definately remember many games with too many features with poor implementation. And games that appeared to loose sight of their objective.

I guess the devs and testers will see what's the optimal solution when the time comes.

[Brent Pollock]

I'm not sure why his knickers would get twisted over this: I don't expect to be able to control my troops that are sufferring from a morale effect like Panick/Broken/Routed so I'd have no problem with a simplification that wounded means "severely" so, and they will, at best, start crawling back about like a broken unit. I do see that modelling how able-bodied guys trying to help them would be a tricky bit.

I think that what might cause more of a design problem is direct targetting of the wounded and what effect this should have on morale. Think of ASLs "No Quarter" rule here and the effect it has on ELR Level loss/gain. Minimally, I would like them tracked so they can be killed as a bystander (for instance, they shouldn't get a free evac in the middle of a barrage or when surrounded in an open field) or captured.

Originally posted by Other Means:

I think Steve has hardline about the player moving his own wounded, or developing the expectation that he could do so. [snipped]

P.S. VG's AMBUSH series distinguished between KIA, INCAP & Lt WND (IIRC), and had rules for moving them about. They even gave you a jeep in one mission that was supposed to be used for EVAC.

[vincere]

I think Lock n Load did similar?

[Michael Dorosh]

AMBUSH had 8 man squads for the US with a bazooka and a BAR for every man if you wanted, the ability to blow up tanks with grenades, and an armour penetration model of L, M, H ...great fun to play. Not something I'd bring up in polite company when discussing the next Combat mission.