1:1 representation and casualties

[Barrold]

I dunno, that kind of sounds like at least a battalion-sized bong to me.

BFS5

[Abbott]

Originally posted by vincere:

Steve </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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. </font>

[RMC]

Forget about all the CASEVAC stuff. Just let us see their little souls ascending to heaven.

[Barrold]

Heh...already suggested on page 3, although it was Powermonger that I was thinking about when I typed it.

BDH

[aka_tom_w]

quote:

And in any event, we need to be leery of bogging the game down in too many fine details. You can't put everything from WW II into it and still have it playable, either by the player or his machine.

This is a serious concern of ours. Not only the hardware hit to have potentially more guys as individual panicked "units" as regular combat units. Remember, whether talking about a tank, a Squad of 8 men, a Squad of 12 men, or a single guy in Panic mode... there is a certain amount of overhead that is identical. Same basic book keeping hit, same implication for spotting, identical needs in terms of LOF calculations, and probably even MORE need of TacAI and pathfinding. The latter all on their own could be devistating to hardware performance because the little panicked guys will be constantly hitting that stuff whereas the player controlled stuff only needs it periodically. On top of that, lots of CPU cycles and RAM will be needed to manage the behavior of all those fleeing guys.

So... we are still toying with some concepts, but there are some serious limitations as to what we can realistically do right now. As time goes on, and hardware gets better, the choices increase.

Steve

Any body know on what day or in What thread Steve said this?

I have lost the reference to where he said it...

thanks

-tom w

[U8led]

That post is in on the second page of 'squad footprint' thread.

U8led

[Ardem]

Image - Populus??? If so not seen that game in years loved it.

A lot of people are modeling the idea on how American model the way they do in infantry casualties, as noted the CW way of doing things was totally different and where the man laid and droped was the responisiblity of the strecher bearers. If you were lucky you would get from a squad mate, stiff upper lip mate you be alright, here have a ciggie while you wait. LOL ok I am being a bit sarcastic.

The germans didn't have medics either, and most times on the personal accounts I have read they worried about the wounded after the battle not during.

So with the options your provided your definately modelling it on the American model of each platoon/squad looks after it own casualties. Not what happened with the rest of the forces in World War II.

Perhaps this is the reason why american only get a 6 morale in Squad leader, with all the constant hold ups of wounded.

[ September 18, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[aka_tom_w]

This suggestion is STILL a good idea....

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.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by RMC:

Forget about all the CASEVAC stuff. Just let us see their little souls ascending to heaven.

Oh my god. I'm not the only one who's played Powermonger. Oh my god.

I hated that game... Honestly, I really did. Although I was overwhelmed by the quality of the graphics.

[Stirling]

What I hated about Powermonger (Sega Genesis version) were those 2000-digit codes you needed to enter everytime you restarted it. :mad:

[Ardem]

Powermonger that was it, I knew it from somewhere Amiga, one of my first amiga games.

Populus had a very similar concept but was never as good.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Powermonger that was it, I knew it from somewhere Amiga, one of my first amiga games.

Populus had a very similar concept but was never as good.

Huh? :confused: Are you mad? Populous was a classic. Powermonger was an unplayable piece of crap that proves that Peter Moluneaux had lost it years before Black & White or even Dungeon Keeper. Still quite impressive at its time, though. You could check the stats of individual sheep, if you wanted (but who would have wanted???).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

You could check the stats of individual sheep, if you wanted (but who would have wanted???).

How long have you been infecting this Forum, and you can't think of at least one response to this question? For shame.

[Ardem]

haha Well i enjoyed Black and White as well so I guess I am a bit of a crazy person myself. I didn't enjoy populus played it a couple of times but for some reason never got into it, maybe cause I got my hands on a game called Armorgeddon, one of the first multi-vehicle combat simulators, you could fly planes, helicopters or tanks. Was even multiplayer but never had any ability to try it out.

[vincere]

Steve, I think that this thread has a bearing on the new title for two reasons.

1. The ARR that you posted made several references to the tactical impact of casualties.

2. The TOE diagrams being posted are showing platoon/company level medic Strykers with 2 medics and one surgeon/specialist.

So my question is: are you likely to look at modeling casualties in more depth in the future?

[aka_tom_w]

good points

-tom w

Originally posted by vincere:

Steve, I think that this thread has a bearing on the new title for two reasons.

1. The ARR that you posted made several references to the tactical impact of casualties.

2. The TOE diagrams being posted are showing platoon/company level medic Strykers with 2 medics and one surgeon/specialist.

So my question is: are you likely to look at modeling casualties in more depth in the future?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Powermonger that was it, I knew it from somewhere Amiga, one of my first amiga games.

Populus had a very similar concept but was never as good.

Huh? :confused: Are you mad? Populous was a classic. Powermonger was an unplayable piece of crap that proves that Peter Moluneaux had lost it years before Black & White or even Dungeon Keeper. Still quite impressive at its time, though. You could check the stats of individual sheep, if you wanted (but who would have wanted???). </font>

[hellfish]

Originally posted by vincere:

Steve, I think that this thread has a bearing on the new title for two reasons.

1. The ARR that you posted made several references to the tactical impact of casualties.

2. The TOE diagrams being posted are showing platoon/company level medic Strykers with 2 medics and one surgeon/specialist.

So my question is: are you likely to look at modeling casualties in more depth in the future?

There are also platoon-level medics and often riflemen are trained as combat lifesavers.

Either way, I think casualties are an important part of the battlefield and a critical consideration for company-level commanders.

[hellfish]

So I'm having a lightbulb go off over my head. Hear me out.

We've got 1-to-1 representation and a good idea for how to handle casualties (pending approval from Charles).

Has anyone talked about 1-to-1 representation and individual soldier skills? Similar to how officers have special leadership bonuses, would it be at all possible (or worthwhile) to model Pvt Fuzz and Sgt Snuffy?

My idea is thusly:

Each soldier has a chance for a skill set. Ideally, the better trained/motivated the soldier (conscript, green, regular, veteran, crack, elite) the more likely the soldier will be to have a skill bonus.

Conscripts: No bonus

Green: 25% chance for one bonus per soldier

Regular: 50% chance for one bonus per soldier

Veteran: 1 bonus skill per soldier

Crack: 2 bonus skills per soldier

Elite: 3 bonus skills per soldier

My thoughts for bonus skills could be the following:

1. Marksman (the guy who always qualifies expert - accuracy bonus to weapons)

2. Endurance (the PT stud, doesn't tire easily)

3. Leadership (the Ranger - command delay bonus)

4. Medic (the combat lifesaver - trained/experienced to provide first aid)

5. Spotting (the scout - bonus to spotting)

Is this too gamey? Too reminiscent of BF2? I onyl suggest since there will be something like 1-to-1 combat is addition to the individual representation. It adds a factor to the commander's decisions - if A Team, 2nd squad is made up of mostly marksmen, it might be adviseable to use them as a support fire team, while B team, with a good mix of skills, is the assault team.

Just thoughts.

[aka_tom_w]

I think Steve said somewhere in this thread they would take a look at this:

quote:

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.

[Peter Cairns]

The skills thing is a bit gamey for me, it's CM not D&D.

Peter.

[Cpl Steiner]

The game could use some sort of D&D like stats just to make each man different but only use it for game effects. I.e. the player wouldn't know that one soldier was particularly strong, or another a good shot. He would just notices some differences. Might add some variety.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

Just for fun since Steiner started a new thread for this issue.

-tom w

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

bump

Just for fun since Steiner started a new thread for this issue.

-tom w

Thanks aka_tom_w.

As I said in the other post, we should have to worry a lot more about casualties now that we know the setting is near-future middle-east.

I for one would be disappointed if a US squad takes a load of casualties and then just carries on after a minute or two pinned as if nothing has happened. The sticky AAR indicates that casualties must be retrieved at all times when engaged in MOUT operations. We need to see those casualties and see how they are being retrieved, or at least abstract it so that it is a severe limitation on US mobility.

[aka_tom_w]

I for one would be disappointed if a US squad takes a load of casualties and then just carries on after a minute or two pinned as if nothing has happened. The sticky AAR indicates that casualties must be retrieved at all times when engaged in MOUT operations. We need to see those casualties and see how they are being retrieved, or at least abstract it so that it is a severe limitation on US mobility.

Well I agree for realism sake casualties "should" slow things down a LOT!

However, the game will become REALLY boring and perhaps border on unplayable if the player must med-evac all WIA's.

I think somewhere in this thread Steve said the player would absolutely NOT be able to move or kill or med-evac any WIA's and that it would "somehow" (insert BFC Magic Bullet here) be abstracted, otherwise the game would fall apart right there.

I am sure Steve was aware of the theatre of operations and the near future time frame when he posted to this thread with the black and white edict that WIA's won't NOT ever be moved by the player. (If I understood that correctly).

Perhaps I should review this thread, (BUT its a BIG one!)

-tom w