1:1 representation and casualties

[imported_no_one]

Not sure if everyone can still chime in on this,and I apologize for the fact that I have not read the entire thread but here is my two cents on this.

I would much rather see other things in 1:1 done with more detail;like seeing engineers out prodding around with sticks to try and remove mines while under fire.All this dealing with the WIA is over-kill.The way I would like to see it done is that only a small percentage of the time will soldiers stop to tend to wounded.Even when they do,I would expect that they are disobeying orders to do it--kind of like a knee-jerk reaction to seeing their buddy get hit.I would like to see the one soldier drag the injured soldier to some kind of cover,tend to wounds(though not always),but most importantly summon a medic.When the medic arrives the non-injured soldier tries to get back in the fray.

IF you make people deal with the WIA(or whatever)in any more detail,then you had better attach some severe penalty to allowing WIA to get killed.Otherwise,I am just going to leave them where they fall and let the medics or whatever sort it out.No way am I wasting time micro-managing the wounded.

[Barrold]

When you reach into a pile of goo that used to be the face of your best friend...well you'll know what to do

BFS5

[c3k]

Ooooh, oooh, here's one: a simple wounded soldier representing the WIA, but a small victory flag sprouts from his location. Now you can fight over him?

Ken

[Other Means]

I've been thinking about this and I think it would work under one proviso;

The WIA turns into a evac'ed icon from the POV of his own side whether or not he's captured - otherwise you're breaking FOW.

I think maybe it also makes sense from the enemies POV is to turn him into a "POW" icon. Otherwise you've got situations where men are getting up with major wounds, being carried to the enemies rear etc. So you need abstraction there also.

However this 2 level abstraction does come with benefits, the chief among them being controllable units are not being spawned from other units (squads etc).

Originally posted by c3k:

Ooooh, oooh, here's one: a simple wounded soldier representing the WIA, but a small victory flag sprouts from his location. Now you can fight over him?

Ken

You've fighting over him by holding the ground for X mins.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It seems to me that system would tend to favor the attacker from a victory point perspective.

[aka_tom_w]

Depending on how they count point for casualties yes perhaps that is true..

BUT is that such a BAD thing?

(in the grand scheme of the things?)

I wonder...

-tom w

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

It seems to me that system would tend to favor the attacker from a victory point perspective.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree... there are better things to spend our limited resources on than WIA simulation in general. Same is true for 1:1 animations in particular.

The WIA discussion shows that showing 1:1 means simulating things 1:1. Abstraction is very difficult to do when you've got visual representations acting like they are doing things specific. However, it is very easy to do the reverse. You can have things simulated in great detail and abstract the 1:1 graphical representation. Think of CMx1... most everything related to soldiers was simulated with highly abstracted graphics, even when the details were being simulated very specifically.

If we had to choose we'd rather spend our art time adding 1:1 graphics for something that is already in the simulation rather than having to add simulation elements to support 1:1 graphics. An example of the latter is WIA, an example of the former is loading/firing a mortar.

Other Means, your sigline is fine

Steve

[ozi_digger]

Here's how casualties are handled in *my* version of CMx1.

A soldier in a section gets wounded. When I click on the section it shows, for example, 9 fit blokes, 1 WIA.

The Bn stretcher bearers, wearing their Red Cross © run out and pick him up and take him back to an aid station.

CM is an ideal world that follows the LOAC and no wounded guys get shot at again, nor do my stretcher bearers get shot at.

All of this suits me fine and it is done in my Imagination .

If I wanna simulate picking up casualties on a battlefield I'll go and get a copy of Chopper Rescue or sumfink.

The bottom line of this rather flippant post of mine is this: why do you want casualties modelled so accurately 1:1? Wouldn't you rather get on with stuff involving the pointy bit?

I have to agree with Steve's priorities - animations of a mortar crew would be the duck's guts. Animations of stretcher bearers, losing 2 additional men for every 1 casualty, having a clearing station etc just doesn't do it for me. Not to mention individuals in the section straying away from their 'container' and back again.

Why does it need to be so accurately modelled? :confused:

[JonS]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Why does it need to be so accurately modelled? :confused:

Fundamentally I basically agree with you. However, I think the 'need', if one can phrase it so strongly, is to better model the brittleness of sections to even light cas.

I think. Or maybe some sick sacks just wanna get woodies looking at all the dead and wounded, and buckets of lood, guts, and brains on their screen. shrug Dunno.

Regards

JonS

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by JonS:

Fundamentally I basically agree with you. However, I think the 'need', if one can phrase it so strongly, is to better model the brittleness of sections to even light cas.

See, this is another pet 'peeve' of mine. I think brittleness is already modelled accurately with the experience levels of sections. I know that some texts point to it happening, but some I've read (Oz WWII Official History for instance) mention some Bn/Coy/Plts taking 50%+ casualties and still being in the fight. I'd bet my bottom dollar you'd find it in some instances from all countries.

Basically conscripts will be brittle and veterans aren't. Why make things too complex?

[JonS]

I mean 'brittle' (in this instance) in terms of their ability to continue to contribute to the immediate battle, not in terms of the liklihood of up and running away. Taking care of the wounded can be a real soak on manpower, so it might make sense to model.

Still, one thing I haven't seen brought up, and which your last post kind of touches on, is when do people stop caring for the wounded and start looking after #1.

Say CMx2 has a rule wherein each cas is attended by 2 able bodied mates. Therefore, each cas actually sees a reduction in strength of 3 men. So, for a 12 man section, after 4 cas the section would completely disappear. So far so good. But ... when on defence, how likly is it that the whole section is just going to pack it in and go home (back to the aid station) leaving no one back on the line. Not very, I'd posit. And it sounds like a 'sploit waiting to happen.

Regards

JonS

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snip]to choose we'd rather spend our art time adding 1:1 graphics for something that is already in the simulation rather than having to add simulation elements to support 1:1 graphics. An example of the latter is WIA, an example of the former is loading/firing a mortar.

Steve

I guess this is a pretty good point. The only thing I am "worried about" is the abstracted representation being too, erm... abstracted.

I think as long as there is suspension of disbelief and nothing to make you say "gee that looks weird" I will be happy.

In CMx1 not enough animation happened with the graphical depiction of squads to ever jar you out of your illusion. The more graphics and animations there are the more risk of something odd happening.

On the other hand, swapping a pixel man for a marker look a little odd too.

[ozi_digger]

Jon, it seems to me we've just gone full circle. In my first post, we've already taken care of our casualties without losing pixeltruppen from the 'container'. Its done by the abstract, ephemeral non-pixel truppen.

Personally, I just wanna play the sharp end. Statistically we know that only a small % of troops actually would fire their weapons. Thats fine. But if you wanna take it to the nth degree - you purchase a company of blokes and only 1/3 bother turning up for the match? Where's the fun in that?

EDIT: I just had an afterthought about the fun factor. Equally unfun would be after the first odd angry shots are fired in an engagement and you click on a squad and it shows. 7 OK, 1 WIA, 5 MIA.

I like it when Steve just sorta says STOP! I'm sick of all yer book-learnin blokes coming in here with how we can make CMx2 more realistic, I mean its gotta be playable too!

[ September 15, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: ozi_digger ]

[JonS]

remember at the start, where I said I agreed with you ...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

On the other hand, swapping a pixel man for a marker look a little odd too.

Oh come on, they pulled it off well in CM with the spotted markers for sound contacts, the big grey tank for unidentified AFVs, etc. It's called willing suspension of disbelief, right? so just will it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

I mean 'brittle' (in this instance) in terms of their ability to continue to contribute to the immediate battle, not in terms of the liklihood of up and running away. Taking care of the wounded can be a real soak on manpower, so it might make sense to model.

Still, one thing I haven't seen brought up, and which your last post kind of touches on, is when do people stop caring for the wounded and start looking after #1.

Say CMx2 has a rule wherein each cas is attended by 2 able bodied mates. Therefore, each cas actually sees a reduction in strength of 3 men. So, for a 12 man section, after 4 cas the section would completely disappear. So far so good. But ... when on defence, how likly is it that the whole section is just going to pack it in and go home (back to the aid station) leaving no one back on the line. Not very, I'd posit. And it sounds like a 'sploit waiting to happen.

Regards

JonS

If you think that's bad, see JasonC's other thread (which you contributed to IIRC) about "other" disappearances in battle.

This is where I would say ozi has it mostly right; just keep it abstract. As Steve has been saying, any attempt to adress it opens multiple cans of worms. In your case, Jon, my question would be - why would each casualty be assumed automatically to need two able bodied men to carry him out? I know you are abstracting for the purposes of playability (or perhaps discussion) but that's the rub; make it too simplistic and it will please no one. I personally find abstraction easier to take than simplification of a complex topic (they are different), but that may be just me.

It's sort of like the assault boats in CMX1. They were implemented in a half-assed way that is eminently unsatisfying. The boats can't be used to ferry multiple trips, can't be portaged, can't be moved once beached, and the "driver" can't jump out and move with the infantry he just sits there like an idiot, and finally, they can't be controlled by the AI. Luckily they are a minor feature - WIA will not, so given the choice between abstraction and something haphazard....

[vincere]

Micheal Dorish

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.

Your clarifications have shown my suspiscion to probably be faulty reasoning. So all due retractions and apollogies.

I now see the all or nothing rationale along the lines of nothing is better than half baked poor implementation.

Also, I guess critical development time is better focussed on the core aspects of the game. Especially the potentially high impact developments of 1:1 representation and LOS stuff.

[Michael Dorosh]

vincere, all I know is the BFC did a pretty amazing job with CMX1 - I just know that whatever happenes with CMX2, we're going to be pretty damn impressed again. And we're all going to have our own pet peeves to nitpick, because they'll never be able to please everyone completely. I'm just glad enough people are this interested in the project to take it so seriously as to debate it heatedly on this forum. It helps the designers, and moreover, shows that the "community" is in no danger of fading.

I guess we'll all wait and see. I suspect all the other stuff we're not talking about - the 3D terrain, the colour pallette, the orders menus, all the stuff we take for granted right now, all that will be so eye and mind blowing that the little details we are quibbling about right now may well fade into insignificance.

For the first couple days, anyway.

[Vanir Ausf B]

My opinion at this point is that every casualty should result in a "dead guy" figure on the ground. That avoids any inconsistancy with regards to 1:1 representation.

No distinction should be made between WIA and KIA. At the end of the game the computer divvies up casualties into KIA and WIA semi-randomly, same as it does in CMx1. Any system of representing wounded on the field during the game seems certain to significantly affect gameplay as the wounded themselves become objectives, which tends to shift the game's focus. I don't think this would be wise.

[Kong]

BFC needs to require that every forum member, that wishes to give their 'input' on what CMX2 needs, take a Programming 101 course. There are countless Tutorials for HTML, Java, and VBA online and free development tools. By making this requirement it would eliminate the... "just add this feature/element it shouldn't be hard to do!!"

This is what aggravates me the most, when persons who have literally NO clue about coding/programming start speaking as if they understand. It is unbelievable that CM is written by ONE (1) person. It blows my mind. That in and of itself is a fantastic accomplishment. I wish BFC would at least hire one more coder..., maybe ya'll could just get a bigger jar and drop one more in?!?!

BTW, I have read the entire thread. My suggestion to differentiate the WIA from the KIA is have the WIA smokin' a cigg!!

[imported_no_one]

Perhaps what BF.C could do is to program in a mini version of Kong here.Whenever the end user of CMx2 would complain about some ommission(intentional,or non)up would pop mini-Kong.At first mini-Kong would just seem really annoyed,shaking his finger at you and setting you straight;however,if the complaining continued,he would grow larger and larger with each occurence.Eventually,he would get so big and angry that he would go about the destruction of all of your forces.I must also warn you that he would probably eventually end up stealing your token hot girl,climbing the tallest building,and there he would wait until the air force showed up.And we all remember how poorly implemented air forces were in CMx1.Er,wait...see,right there my mini-Kong would've gotten pissed.

I mean,after all,something like this shouldn't be all that difficult to add......should it?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

we'd rather spend our art time adding 1:1 graphics for something that is already in the simulation rather than having to add simulation elements to support 1:1 graphics. An example of the latter is WIA, an example of the former is loading/firing a mortar.

So Steve does that mean that we're gonna see real and good 1:1 graphics for the loading/firing of mortars and guns then? But seriously I firmly agree with you on the subject of not getting worried about all the WIA issues for CMx2.

I have just slightly re-aranged a quote from Hoolaman:

OTOH, swapping each man pixel for some kind of WIA abstracted marker will look more than a little too odd.

Bloody oath for sure, it would ruin CMx2 for me I think.

BTW JonS I think that I may be one sick sack that just wants to get my woodies looking at all the dead and wounded, and buckets of blood, guts, and brains on my screen. *shrugs* Dunno what my problem is, realism?

[Battlefront.com]

So Steve does that mean that we're gonna see real and good 1:1 graphics for the loading/firing of mortars and guns then?

Yes. For common types of team weapons we do expect to have at least the firing animations correct. Breaking down and setting up... probably not. At least not for the initial release. We are, however, simulating the different pieces of the weapon. Lose the guy with the baseplate and you got yourself a a guy lugging around a very heavy bong

Steve

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Lose the guy with the baseplate and you got yourself a a guy lugging around a very heavy bong

Steve

LOL, your killen' me! I almost choked.

[vincere]

Steve

We are, however, simulating the different pieces of the weapon. Lose the guy with the baseplate and you got yourself a a guy lugging around a very heavy bong

So WIA get abstraction; and drug abuse gets squad bongs modelled.