1:1 representation and casualties

[Cpl Steiner]

OK, so the idea of men carrying wounded doesn't seem to appeal to many. However, what I said earlier about weapon crews raises some interesting questions. Take a HMG team of 6 men. How will they be portrayed with 1:1 representatin. Will we see groups of men assembling and disassembling the weapon every time the team moves? Will the others be shown carrying ammo cases etc. The same goes for other multi-part weapons such as mortars. Just having one guy carry the whole weapon, as portrayed by CMx1 graphics, would not seem to cut it once we move to CMx2.

My point about the above was, if you have to do animations and other stuff to show men carrying equipment, is it that hard to also have them carry wounded men over their shoulder, staying with their unit if necessary so as to not confuse matters.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

My point about the above was, if you have to do animations and other stuff to show men carrying equipment, is it that hard to also have them carry wounded men over their shoulder, staying with their unit if necessary so as to not confuse matters.

The question I raised before, is, where exactly are they going to carry the wounded to? And all the issues raised previously. And the ones that Steve kind of admitted were too vexing to bother including WIA in-game because of.

You want wounded men to be carried along with the unit? Like, in the middle of a firefight, they're going to sling their wounded buddies and advance to contact and stuff? Cause that's how your last sentence reads.

[Battlefront.com]

My point about the above was, if you have to do animations and other stuff to show men carrying equipment, is it that hard to also have them carry wounded men over their shoulder, staying with their unit if necessary so as to not confuse matters.

Putting aside for a sec the coding that would be required to simulate the ramifications of carrying around the wounded (which is huge), yes... adding these extra animations is a big deal. While in theory we can add thousands of animations, there isn't aren't magical Animation Elves that do this work while we sleep The animations take a lot of artist time as well as programming time to hook them up and transition them smoothly from the plethora of possible states before and after. It can be done, of course, but we have to pick and choose which animations we do very carefully.

And I'll say this again, perhaps more clearly, that there is no such thing as adding a new feature that does not require it to be carefully designed into the rest of the game. Design = programming time. The amount of programming time depends on the feature being added. The more limited and predictable it is, and the less techically challening, the less programming time.

WIA treatment is massive in terms of the implications on the rest of the game. There is no "just do this" possibility other than "just abstract it at the most basic level". Which is why we must, and I mean MUST, go with the latter.

To illustrate why the carrying thing is a terrible thing to do... answer me these questions:

1. Do units in real life carry their wounded around for the rest of the battle?

2. Do soldiers carrying wounded get to use their weapons, or do they drop the wounded each time they see a target?

3. Should a soldier carry a wounded comrade away from potential aid, or should he carry him to that aid?

4. What if there is a medic unit, how should this play into things?

5. What if the wounded guy is 10m back from the rest of the unit? Does someone go back for him?

6. Can anybody cite some sorce that shows that a single soldier can carry another soldier for any significant length of time on his own?

7. What do you do if the unit comes under fire? Do you see if the wounded guy takes additional hits? If so, then wouldn't it have been better for the unit to have left the wounded guy behind where it was probably safer?

Oh the list goes on and on and on

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

You forgot to list item number 8: the defensive benefit of carrying a WIA in a fireman's carry across your shoulders - the WIA will absorb all small arm's fire which would've hit the back of your head, neck, and torso.

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I did forget that

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

And then adding in, as I mentioned, the question of where that potential aid Steve speaks of is located, does the AI pick the Aid Station location or does the player, if it is located off map then how can you take a wounded soldier off map and then have his unwounded buddy return to the map? That would be a new one for CM - off map units returning.

etc.

[Cpl Steiner]

1. Do units in real life carry their wounded around for the rest of the battle?

No, but neither do they just abandon their mates to certain death. I imagine they carry them a short distance out of direct line of sight of the enemy and slap a field dressing on them at the very least.

2. Do soldiers carrying wounded get to use their weapons, or do they drop the wounded each time they see a target?

I would suggest that they let the other men in the unit deal with any targets. Whether or not they can also sling their weapon, I don't know, but at a guess I'd say yes.

3. Should a soldier carry a wounded comrade away from potential aid, or should he carry him to that aid?

If the wounded man stays with his unit, the player will have control over where he ultimately goes, because he controls the parent unit.

4. What if there is a medic unit, how should this play into things?

The parent unit carries the casualty, under the player's control, and puts him down when it stops moving. A medic unit could then move to within a few metres of the parent unit and take over carrying the casualty, thus freeing up the unit to advance again.

5. What if the wounded guy is 10m back from the rest of the unit? Does someone go back for him?

OK, say the unit is moving and takes a casualty. He drops to the ground in the middle of a street or something. It would be unrealistic to expect someone to stop and pick him up. In these circumstances I think it would be acceptable to say the guy is always KIA rather than wounded.

6. Can anybody cite some sorce that shows that a single soldier can carry another soldier for any significant length of time on his own?

Common sense would dictate that he cannot. No problem, just have the guy acquire fatigue at a higher than normal rate. He will eventually tire and have to put the caualty down. Similar to becoming "exhausted" in CMx1. If he collapses under the weight whilst traversing open enemy observed terrain, that's the player's fault for not watching his fatigue.

7. What do you do if the unit comes under fire? Do you see if the wounded guy takes additional hits? If so, then wouldn't it have been better for the unit to have left the wounded guy behind where it was probably safer?

It might not be safer to leave him where he is. The fact that he got injured there would suggest that it is not a safe place to be. If the unit just drops a marker or something, will the game consider what happens to the man if the area comes under fire again? I would say casualties can receive extra damage, which can result in them becoming KIA. This might be a blessing in disguise if it means the unit can move faster.

P.S. I present these answers only because you asked for them. I know and expect you to do what you feel is right for the game regardless. I will be buying it anyway, and am eager to see how you have tackled all these issues, even if in the majority of cases it is through abstraction and simplification.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

1. Do units in real life carry their wounded around for the rest of the battle?

No, but neither do they just abandon their mates to certain death.

[Other Means]

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.

[aka_tom_w]

I like this because it looks like it is still an abstraction and maybe its doable.

Lets put some numbers in for X- Y and Z so Dorosh will have something to argue with us about

Proposal:

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 3 mins (Wounded posture graphic seperate and different then KIA) . If they are still within command radius after this 3 minutes they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered. (sounds good!)

Recovered will mean they have %10 chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle.

State 2) If after 5 mins they are still outside of command radius but within 25m of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear as captured walking wounded POW. Or possibly change them to a captured icon. (sounds good)

Proposal: There should be another state for captured at ANY time if the WIA are not in command radius AND within 25 meters of an enemy unit at any time.

State 3) If after 6 minutes they are out of command radius but are not within 25m of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death (% 25 chance) 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.

I LIKE IT!

-tom w

[ September 15, 2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Other Means]

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".

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1. Do units in real life carry their wounded around for the rest of the battle?

Propably not. They could detach men to carry them to a safer location or even the designated WIA collection point. Which could take for all intents and purposes the rest of the battle in CM universe.

2. Do soldiers carrying wounded get to use their weapons, or do they drop the wounded each time they see a target?

No and no. From what I have read the men in process of recovering the wounded would leave their weapons and they would be covered by the other members of the squad.

There is anecdotal evidence from the Western Front which would suggest both sides would stop firing when they see a recovery of the wounded is in progress and resume when the recovery is completed. Anecdotal evidence from the Eastern Front is quite the opposite, even to a point where wounding the enemy was desired so the WIA would attract recovery and the medic or other men doing the recovery would become casualties themselves.

3. Should a soldier carry a wounded comrade away from potential aid, or should he carry him to that aid?

Please ellaborate.

4. What if there is a medic unit, how should this play into things?

AFAIK there was some sort of designated medic in practically every platoon level formation.

Separate medic units would be field hospitals and WIA collection points. Stretcher bearers were more often higher level HQ pukes like cooks and bakers who were impressed to the task than actual medical troops.

5. What if the wounded guy is 10m back from the rest of the unit? Does someone go back for him?

Propably. The more cohesive the unit the more likely they are not to abandon their WIA.

In the case of the Finns they would even risk casualties to recover their fallen if at all practicable.

6. Can anybody cite some sorce that shows that a single soldier can carry another soldier for any significant length of time on his own?

What would you say is significant length of time ?

7. What do you do if the unit comes under fire? Do you see if the wounded guy takes additional hits? If so, then wouldn't it have been better for the unit to have left the wounded guy behind where it was probably safer?

This applies to retreating units. No advancing unit would take their WIA along. Retreating units would abandon equipment so they can carry the wounded with them. If they come under fire the rest of the unit would most propably cover the WIA and men carrying him while they make their way to safety.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

AFAIK there was some sort of designated medic in practically every platoon level formation.

Not as the CW goes. They had a medical platoon of 20 stretcher bearers, a medical officer, a medical sergeant, and some orderlies. No such thing as "medics". I presume the SBs got medical training, but I've not heard of them being assigned to platoons as in the US Army. Haven't read much about them though.

What if the wounded guy is 10m back from the rest of the unit? Does someone go back for him?

Propably. The more cohesive the unit the more likely they are not to abandon their WIA.

In the case of the Finns they would even risk casualties to recover their fallen if at all practicable.

Not during a running fight - I mean, the 30 minutes of shooting that makes up a typical CM battle. At least not during an assault - the better trained a unit is, the more likely they'll leave their wounded on the ground til after the shooting is over, or leave them for the medical personnel, which I believe was not unusual.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Other Means:

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.

This is workable, but don't forget No Quarter scenarios - Waffen SS on the Russian front, for example. I doubt many wounded prisoners were taken by or from Waffen SS units in the east. You'd need to code it differently dependent on force mix, or allow a "No Quarter" option for the scenario designer, to be automatically invoked in QBs with certain nationalities opposing each other.

From a gameplay standpoint, I would want the option of leaving enemy wounded on the ground - I don't want my men wasting their time carting off wounded enemy prisoners during a firefight. Shouldn't happen IRL, don't want my pretend troops doing it.

[Other Means]

snip.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This is workable, but don't forget No Quarter scenarios - Waffen SS on the Russian front, for example. I doubt many wounded prisoners were taken by or from Waffen SS units in the east. You'd need to code it differently dependent on force mix, or allow a "No Quarter" option for the scenario designer, to be automatically invoked in QBs with certain nationalities opposing each other.

From a gameplay standpoint, I would want the option of leaving enemy wounded on the ground - I don't want my men wasting their time carting off wounded enemy prisoners during a firefight. Shouldn't happen IRL, don't want my pretend troops doing it. [/QB]

No need to model SS etc as they would take them prisoner, if they do that by shooting them that's abstracted.

Your soldiers wouldn't take enemies to the rear as they'd do it themselves or become a POW icon.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Other Means:

No need to model SS etc as they would take them prisoner, if they do that by shooting them that's abstracted.

Your soldiers wouldn't take enemies to the rear as they'd do it themselves or become a POW icon.

Meaning your (on screen digital) soldiers would NOT take enemies to the rear as they'd do it themselves or become a POW icon.

No on screen digital soldier would do anything to the wounded at all.

the idea is just that depending on the battlefield circumstances the wounded might "auto med evac" and fade away to the rear of the friendly side or "auto heal" and get up and walk away as a WIA POW to the NOT so friendly side

ONLY the proximity of other units (friendly or enemy) would matter, but NONE of the other friendly or enemy units would actually DO anything to the WIA.

AND in this suggestion the player cannot move the WIA in any way, BUT keeping them in command radius and keeping the enemy off them or least X meters away for (say) 3 minutes will see them just fade away as they are then "theoretically auto med evac'd" to presumed safety in some virutal medical aid station, (Just use your imagination a little , OR think of M*A*S*H as their destination if you like OK? )

get it?

I think it might work

-tom w

[ September 15, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner... you are simply reinforcing my point... for every answer you come up with I have about a dozen PRACTICAL questions that arise from it. And that is just from the ones that you feel like you can answer. So please, take a step back and see how complicated and complex this thing is if we do it realistically in 1:1. Hundreds of issues, some small but a few of them mega huge. All involve programming time and implications for other parts of the game. So no... this is not practical. It has nothing to do with anything other than that. Answering hypothetica questions is easy as eating cake... implementing them without bogging down in a quagmire is a whole nother thing. You only think yuo have to worry about the questions, but if the game were delayed for a couple of months for this one feature you might rethink your stance.

Other Means... interesting ideas. Consider it considered

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Other Means... interesting ideas. Consider it considered

Steve

YES!!

Woo HOO!

Good going Other means!

I support your concept completely!

Chalk one up for the GOOD guys!

-tom w

[Other Means]

Oooo I'm all a-flutter.

I think the idea of a POW icon, which came up during this discussion could probably do with more investigation.

[Cpl Steiner]

I confess I may be letting my imagination run wild with the thoughts of what might be possible in CMx2. This is only because I have heard so many things about how the game is going to be much better than CMx1. I still think it will be good, but I must admit I am lowering my expectations a bit after some recent posts.

I will try my best to stop posting from now on until we get more hard facts about the game, as otherwise we seem to get into heated arguments about things that don't even exist yet. As soon as we have some screenshots or some more hard facts about the interface etc., I'm sure a lot of these wild imaginings will take back seat to reasonable expectation (hint hint).

[Battlefront.com]

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

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Thanks for that, and I don't feel bad at all. The trouble I have, I think, is that my mental image of the game is probably way off target compared to what we will actually get. I imagine all these virtual soldiers, rendered in thousands of polygons like those in "Band of Brothers" or "Full Spectrum Warrior", and I start to imagine the game as some sort of interactive war movie like "Saving Private Ryan" or something. I will have to keep telling myself that CMx2 will still, at the end of the day, be a "game", with all of the compromises and short-cuts that implies.

I look forward to some screenshots, and then you can expect to hear from me again. Hopefully I won't have long to wait.

[Battlefront.com]

Exactly, even with 4000 polygons and fluid animations for each Soldier... it is still just a game. If we had a room full of artists, another two programmers, and a couple million extra bucks... then we'd be able to do more with a lot of the eye candy stuff. For much of it, with today's hardware, the problems are more resource based than technologically based.

To give you an idea... we have 1 full time artist, 1 full time programmer. Even if you add up all the volunteer help we get (and of course we get a lot of it), we're still probably a team of no more than 10 full time people over the course of 3 years. Compare this to the size teams for the other games like this. 30 is now considered "quaint". Some teams have that many people just doing the art!

So for some things, we just can't compete. However, the important things (the GAME stuff), we feel we are way ahead

Steve

[Other Means]

The major point for me is; what's fun? Battlefront could simulate the medics, the hospitals, the kitchens, the whatever. But would it add anything to the fun of the game?

Steve - hope you don't mind the change of sig.

[Gpig]

*points at Other Means sig*

OOOooooooo