Victory Points: KIA vs. WIA

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi,

When playing as the Americans I spend a lot of time making sure that all my seriously wounded (red status) troops are looked after. I try to get healthy units to them immediately to give first aid, in the hopes this will keep the ratio of KIA to WIA as low as possible.

However, having thought about this, I've realised that I actually don't know if this makes any difference to the game. I mean, in the scenario editor you can award victory points to a side for keeping casualties below a certain percentage, but this includes both KIA and WIA. So my question is simple. Does it make any difference to the VPs awarded if I take a lot of KIA compared to WIA?

Oh, and before anyone suggests lightly wounded (yellow status) troops are involved in this discussion, they're not. They count towards the "Condition" percentage of the unit, so fall under a different set of victory point criteria.

[Thomm]

If I read page 102 of the manual correctly, then severely wounded and dead soldiers both are counted as casualties (as you indicated).

I conclude, that treating the wounded does not have any influence on the VPs, although I find this a little bit hard to believe now that you made me think about it!

Either way, I shall always take care of my "red" guys!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[MarkEzra]

Casualties as points is under control of the designer as a %. If the designer does not give points for enemy/friendly casualties they are not counted.

I am not certain, either, about treating the wounded effecting the casualty pts. A good question for BFC. Like You guys...I try to treat my wounded like they were REALLY my responsibility

[Cpl Steiner]

Thanks for your responses so far.

I am pretty convinced now that the ratio of KIA to WIA has absolutely no impact on victory or defeat. If you like to treat your wounded then it may give you some positives such as acquiring their weapons and ammo but that's about all.

This, to my mind, just makes no sense. I don't want "buddy" aid to be just fluff. I want it to mean something. Even the CMx1 games made a distinction between KIA and WIA, awarding less points for WIA, if I remember correctly.

There is also the issue of enemy capture of wounded to think about. This is one of the prime reasons the US would never abandon a wounded colleague but it isn't simulated in the game.

To rectify the situation, perhaps BFC should implement some additional Victory Point parameters, called "Enemy KIA vs. WIA" and "Friendly KIA vs. WIA", both of which could take a value between 0 and 100.

Example:

-------------------------Percent----------VPs

Enemy Casualties:-------50------------200

Enemy KIA vs. WIA:------0---------------0

Friendly Casualties:-----20-------------100

Friendly KIA vs. WIA:---33------------100

In this example, the player would get 100 points for taking fewer than 20% casualties, and another 100 points if a third or less of all casualties were KIA. They would get 200 points for inflicting 50% enemy casualties, regardless of whether they were KIA or WIA.

I think this would be a better system and make more sense.

[ March 27, 2008, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Thomm]

Care has to be taken that shooting wounded enemy soldiers with area fire does not suddenly become a way to acquire additional points! That would be nasty!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Care has to be taken that shooting wounded enemy soldiers with area fire does not suddenly become a way to acquire additional points! That would be nasty!

Best regards,

Thomm

Perhaps the Enemy KIA vs. WIA ratio should work such that it is good for you if you wound an enemy soldier rather than kill him. This is because they are more trouble for the enemy to look after.

Example:

Enemy Casualties: 50% 100 VP

Enemy KIA vs. WIA: 33% 100 VP

100 points for causing 50% or more enemy casualties.

100 points if less than 33% of enemy casualties are KIA.

This would solve the problem of area firing against casualties to inflict more kills.

However, I concede that such a solution may give odd results, as the Syrian/Uncon side should really see enemy KIAs as worth more than enemy WIAs, and against an Uncon side the US probably would want kills rather than WIA too.

[Webwing]

That's an interesting topic.

An idea:

Why not get rid of casualties altogether!

Why not only KIA and WIA. Since casualties is the sum of the two anyway.

You get points for KIA and WIA separately.

They show up in the final screen separately but it seems the points are awarded to the sum, KIA + WIA. At least in the mission editor you have only casualties but not KIA and WIA separately. So I don't think the game makes any distinction.

For instance:

-> 30 WIA and 1 KIA

-> 20 WIA and 11 KIA

Right now this is the same. IMO KIA should be worth more than WIA.

That would make treating the wounded worth the while.

I've no idea how complex that would be to code though. Just tossing some ideas around.

-

[ March 27, 2008, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Webwing:

IMO KIA should be worth more than WIA. That would make treating the wounded worth the while.

Again: this may also make it desireable to kill the enemy WIA for more points!! Very slippery ground!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

IMO KIA should be worth more than WIA. That would make treating the wounded worth the while.

Again: this may also make it desireable to kill the enemy WIA for more points!! Very slippery ground!

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[birdstrike]

In my last scenarios I didn't use the casualties/condition parameters at all, because I noticed the "destroy" unit objectives are capable for a much more detailed VP allocation, depending on the tactical value of a specific unit in the scenario.

For example red gets 1000 points for all US infantry casualties, 1000 points for destroying all Bradleys, 500 points for taking out the single Abrams.

Depending on the number of soldiers/vehicles, this can sum up to, let's say 10 points for every soldier if there are 100 soldiers in the scenario, 200 pts for every bradley, if there are 5 of them in the scenario, and, of course, 500 pts for the Abrams.

This could even be more detailed, for example by putting command units in their own group and assign them points to make them worth 20 or 50 points per soldier.

This way, every single dead soldier counts and taking care of the wounded is rewarded.

Same thing for the enemy:

For example: the US player gets 500 points for destroying the enemy core units at the main objective, 100 for their leader, 200 points for any other enemies in the scenario.

A nice little side effect fo this is that the player gets rewarded for focusing on the objective, while he gets less points (still some) for engaging enemies (and endangering his men) anywhere else on the map. The intention behind it is to have the player stay true to his orders and react to any threats outside of the mission in a defensive way, instead of actively seeking them, just to get some points.

If there is a difference in total Victory points between blue and red, this can easily be balanced out with terrain objectives and such, but it can also be used to penalize casualties for one side more than for the other.

--

On the second issue, could someone confirm that wounded soldiers are affected by area fire and can be killed even if they already have a red circle? I might be wrong, but I think I was always able to treat a wounded soldier, the only thing keeping me from this was enemy fire or time. This would make it seem that you cannot kill a soldier instantly and only soldiers who are not treated (and removed from the map) are considered KIA in the end.

EDIT: Nope, I realized red also counts as WIA. I'm perplexed I have never noticed that before.

[ March 27, 2008, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]

[Cpl Steiner]

birdstrike,

Interesting idea. Can you please clarify one point? If I give Red 1000 VPs for destroying all of Blue's infantry, then a percentage of that 1000 will be allocated depending on how many men Blue loses. However, does "lose" only mean "KIA"? Similarly, if I give Red 1000 VPs for damaging Blue's infantry, would that include WIA?

[birdstrike]

EDIT: sorry, the post made no sense.

"destroy all" gives points if all the units are destroyed, "destroy" gives points for every part of the unit which is destroyed.

However, a quick test revealed, treating wounded doesn not change the points allocated. It seems as soon as a unit gets hit the opponent gets the points, regardless of the unit's status in the end.

I think I was totally wrong in my assumptions concerning WIA and KIA.

I guess I wanted to see more than there actually was to it.

[ March 27, 2008, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]

[Cpl Steiner]

birdstrike,

Pity. Back to the drawing board then.

I'm amazed no-one has raised this before because it's a pretty serious omission in the game's design if buddy aid helps saves the lives of your troops but there is absolutely no point to saving their lives other than the feel-good factor.

[birdstrike]

Yes, sort of like a mass hypnosis which really worked well - we all believed it was making a difference.

[Cpl Steiner]

Thinking about my suggestion of an extra parameter, I'm now doubtful it would be very realistic because the percentage KIA vs. WIA does not care about how many are KIA, just the ratio. This could probably cause funny results, such as a player losing a scenario with very low casualties but a high proportion of KIA when another player wins with a lot of casualties but a low proportion of KIA.

A better solution would be to adjust the Casualties parameter functionality as follows:

1) I will gain 100 points if I keep casualties below 20%.

2) I have 100 men, so I need to lose less than 20 men.

3) KIA count as 2 casualties.

Example 1: I take 6 KIA and 9 WIA. Total casualties for points purposes is 6 x 2 = 12, + 9 = 21, so I don't get the 100 VPs.

Example 2: I take 2 KIA and 15 WIA. Total casualties for points purposes is 2 x 2 = 4, + 15 = 19, so I do get the 100 VPs.

I'm not sure about Unit objectives though. Perhaps these should be left as they are.

[LarsS]

It seems as soon as a unit gets hit the opponent gets the points, regardless of the unit's status in the end.

Well, you need to either kill or seriously wound(red status) the unit for it to count as destroyed and get the VPs for it. Merely hitting them and getting them lightly wounded (yellow) is not enough.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

IMO KIA should be worth more than WIA. That would make treating the wounded worth the while.

Again: this may also make it desireable to kill the enemy WIA for more points!! Very slippery ground!

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[LarsS]

It's probably way too complicated to implement, but I would like to see some sort of option in the ScenEd to penalize the player for letting the critically wounded bleed out and die due to the time constraint. This way the enemy wouldn't gain anything by killing already WIA casualties, but the player would be forced to do all in his power not to leave any wounded behind.

(And then we just need snipers to be able to intentionally wound enemy soldiers so that he then can wing the would-be rescuers, and then their rescuers...)

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by LarsS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It seems as soon as a unit gets hit the opponent gets the points, regardless of the unit's status in the end.

Well, you need to either kill or seriously wound(red status) the unit for it to count as destroyed and get the VPs for it. Merely hitting them and getting them lightly wounded (yellow) is not enough. </font>

[LarsS]

I just did a test with 1- and 2-man squads, all being destroy targets worth 10 VPs. And it seems that for 1-man squads it's all or nothing: you need to kill or critically wound to get any VPs. Yellow condition awards no pts.

For 2-man squads you get 0 points if one man is KIA/red and one is unhurt. You get 4 pts if one is KIA/red and the other is yellow. And

(obviously) the full 10 for 2 men KIA/red.

[Omenowl]

Perhaps there should be a friendly condition added so you don't get points if so many people are killed. This is in addition to the regular friendly condition of friendly casualties. It would promote having your troops sit tight until their buddies are treated.

I do not favor giving the enemy any extra points for inflicting KIAS vs. WIAs. It only encourages complete barbarity and unrealistic scenarios where the enemy will start killing every man.

As much as I say this I still stop and treat everyman. The system also encourages this by having them pick up the casualties ammo. I don't need points to encourage myself to do it.

If you do want a mechanic how about morale is sapped more if men are left untreated. The closer to the unit is in command structure the more morale is sapped during the scenario. IE squad, platoon, company, battalion.

[birdstrike]

Introducing some sort of morale effect seems a good idea. Leaving behind a wounded buddy, or having to watch him lying in the open without being able to help him is perhaps worse than if he were killed instantly.

His squad would probably refuse to move on, unless they know he's taken care of or they are under direct enemy threat. But I think this is just too hard to implement.

[JohnO]

So having played CM:SF allot, there isn't a way to move the wounded soldier out from under enemy fire?

How about when my squad gets hit and I have to keep moving can another squad come up from behind and give buddy aid.

[Cpl Steiner]

Whilst I concede that leaving WIA to die should cost morale, it would be a bit complicated to implement. How would you determine which units are affected? Would they need to have LOS to the casualty or be in a certain range?

I know that above I discussed the possibility of WIA being worth more than KIA in certain situations but I think in most cases enemy KIA should be worth more VPs than enemy WIA, and friendly KIA should cost more VPs than friendly WIA.

To tie it all together, here's how I'd do it if I was designing CM:SF.

1) For Blue and Red parameters, you specify the percentage casualty threshold for the force and the associated VP award. This threshold is the number of KIA as a percentage of the whole force.

2) Whenever a soldier suffers anything more than a light injury, he becomes a "red" casualty and is given a "bleed out" time of zero or more minutes (zero meaning he's already KIA).

3) Buddy aid administered before the bleed out time is reached means the casualty is treated as being WIA at the end of the game. If a casualty's bleed out time is zero when buddy aid is started it takes much less time than normal, i.e. it is basically just confirming someone is KIA.

4) Further fire of any type against the area the casualty is in has no effect on the casualty. This is to avoid gamey tactics such as mortaring a pile of casualties to get a better kill ratio.

5) At the end of the game, KIA are totted up to decide if a threshold has been reached. For this purpose, WIA count as half a KIA.

This might have an effect on the results of existing scenarios, requiring some rebalancing, but I still think it would be a good idea.

[ March 28, 2008, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by JohnO:

How about when my squad gets hit and I have to keep moving can another squad come up from behind and give buddy aid.

Yes.