Victory Points: KIA vs. WIA

[stoat]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Even the CMx1 games made a distinction between KIA and WIA, awarding less points for WIA, if I remember correctly.

Not so much. Casualties are casualties, with a slightly varying percentage of the casualties being designated as KIA. The percentage of KIA vs total casualties is higher in operations, and has no bearing whatsoever on the points calculations.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, I think this is what is abstractly assumed is happening once buddy aid is done -- CMSF doesn't directly model units medics, stretcher teams, ambulances, etc. but they'd be there on the real battlefield, and that's exactly what they do - stablize casualties and get them out of the line of fire.

But yes, units other than a casualty's parent unit can administer buddy aid. A great use for crews of KOed vehicles, I might add.

[JohnO]

Now were talking about the game, I know what it is suppose to happen in real life I've done that. Maybe I should of ask it this way, I get my squad in hot water and received some casualty's and if I moved my squad back from the fire fight, will it drag or carry the wounded man back with them to a safe distance so that I can do buddy aid? Or do I lose them once when I moved the squad.

[Cpl Steiner]

JohnO,

I may be dense but I don't get what you mean. If you are talking about the game then moving men back will always leave the casualties behind where they fell. It would be nice if a comrade could grab hold of a casualty's webbing and drag him back to safety in the game but I doubt we'll ever see it!

I'm just looking for some acknowledgement from BFC that buddy aid is worth the while, other than for stealing weapons and ammo of the fallen like in the D-Day scene from "Saving Private Ryan". Even just a slight adjustment, like a KIA counts as 1.2 men and a WIA counts as 0.8 men for VP purposes, would be better than nothing.

[JohnO]

Yes Cpl Steiner thats what I mean, it would be nice to do that when I'm in a firefight and receive casualty's and have to pull back to be able to take my wounded guys with me instead of trying to do buddy aid in a firefight and getting more casualties.

[SlapHappy]

I think "Buddy Aid" is kind of a double-edged sword. It's supposed to penalize you by tying up manpower resources when you take casualties...along with the unavoidable risks associated with aid-givers becoming casualties themselves.

Now you can retrieve weapons and ammo, but that is only a "softener" as it would have been much better to have never taken the casualty in the first place.

As is, it simply serves as a somewhat realistic game variable....or "monkey in the wrench"......

[Cpl Steiner]

BFC,

I thought I'd bump this thread as I'd love to have some official comment on why KIA and WIA results apparently make no difference to overall victory or defeat. Surely 70 American dead and 10 wounded is worse than 10 American dead and 70 wounded? Conversely, maybe every casualty is equal because the game simulates combat operations and not counter-insurgency? Either way, I'd love to hear the official point of view.

[meade95]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

BFC,

I thought I'd bump this thread as I'd love to have some official comment on why KIA and WIA results apparently make no difference to overall victory or defeat. Surely 70 American dead and 10 wounded is worse than 10 American dead and 70 wounded? Conversely, maybe every casualty is equal because the game simulates combat operations and not counter-insurgency? Either way, I'd love to hear the official point of view.

Good point - Would like to hear the reasonsing behind this also - Or if it will be adjusted (hopefully so).

[ChrisND]

Is it just me, or do units cease to provide buddy aid once they maxed out on ammo?

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry for not getting to this one. I actually did write up a post yesterday when I noticed it, but it didn't take for some reason. So here it is again...

Casualties count, or don't count, based on the degree a scenario designer wants it to for a specific scenario. It can count for a lot, to the extreme of being the only thing that matters, or it can count for absolutely nothing. The choice is up to the designer based on "story" that he wants to go with the scenario.

By default the player is not informed about what it takes for his forces, or the enemy's (remember, the other side can have completely different goals), so that this knowledge doesn't color his decisions. To the extent the scenario designer wants them to color the decisions, tidbits are placed in the briefing text. Things like "you will defend this street to the death of every man if need be!" tells the player that casualties aren't something he needs to worry about, but holding terrain is.

All of this is exactly the opposite of CMx1 where the conditions were predictable within each game and from game to game. Not only were they symmetrical (both sides striving to achieve the same exact thing), but they were also very simplistic. It was either take/hold a flag, inflict/avoid casualties, inflict/avoid units breaking.

Now, as of right now there is no difference between WIA and KIA because WIA are only those casualties that are out of the fight for a prolonged amount of time. Meaning, as far as the battle for Syria goes they are "as good as dead". The lightly wounded soldiers (the ones in Yellow) are not considered casualties either during the game or in the post AAR. These are guys who are very lightly wounded and are not going to be out of the fight for long.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that during "Combat Operations", such as the initial invasion of Syria postulated by the game, the ratio of WIA to KIA would tend to average out over many operations according to historical trends and the exact ratio in any one given operation might not be so politically important.

However, in line with your stated aim of increasing the flexibility of victory conditions, would it not be possible in some future patch to allow the scenario designer to make a distinction between WIA and KIA per scenario?

One simple expedient would be to multiply each figure by a weight value, e.g. each dead soldier counts as 1.3 casualties and each wounded soldier (excluding "yellow" status") counts as 0.7 casualties. This would make KIA worth approximately twice as much for VP purposes as WIA but would have the negative effect of skewing the exact percentage casualty figure that achieves a given VP award from the simple predictable threshold used at the moment.

Perhaps a simple checkbox next to the relevant game parameters in the scenario editor would suffice, e.g. next to the "friendly casualties" threshold percentage and VP award input boxes would be a checkbox labelled "1 KIA = 2 WIA".

Alternatively, to be "super-flexible", have two more input boxes that together express the ratio described above. That way you could have ratios like 2 KIA = 3 WIA or even 3 WIA = 2 KIA if for some reason it is preferable to wound rather than kill. These two input boxes would be disabled if the ratio checkbox was not checked, and enabled if it was checked. The checkbox would then be called something like "Use KIA/WIA ratio" and the two new input boxes would have a literal "=" between them to indicate their meaning.

[EDIT]

Here is an even better UI suggestion. Instead of input boxes and a checkbox, just have a slider control (like a volume control) that expresses the relative importance of KIA vs. WIA in ALL calculations. If the slider tab is exactly in the middle of the control, there is no difference. If it is towards either end of the control, there is a difference, expresses as a weight applied to each type of casualty figure for VP purposes.

[ April 02, 2008, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, this discussion is getting Charles and I to rethink things. It might just be better to assign different point values for WIA, KIA, and MIA (with MIA perhaps being worse than KIA?) and have that just be game wide all the time.

Steve

[vincere]

Yes, this discussion is getting Charles and I to rethink things. It might just be better to assign different point values for WIA, KIA, and MIA (with MIA perhaps being worse than KIA?) and have that just be game wide all the time.

On the face of it I'd be very pleased to see that. It adds other tactical dilemas if my understanding is correct that in game buddy aid reduces the chance of WIA turning KIA.

[Cpl Steiner]

Glad to here that you and Charles are seriously giving thought to this. I look forward to seeing a solution in a future patch if your discussions bear fruit.

A simple point value for WIA, KIA and MIA across the board would be OK as long as people were prepared to accept that the percentage casualty threshold was from this point on only a rough guide. In other words, if a scenario asked you to keep losses below 25%, which worked out to 40 men, the VP award could be achieved for just over 40 casualties, or not achieved for just under 40 casualties, depending on whether there was a low or high proportion of KIA/MIA to WIA.

[Battlefront.com]

The benefit of Buddy Aid is that the soldier being attended to won't become a KIA because he is removed from the game and can not be harmed further. This is reflected in the tally at the end of the game.

Presently the effect of Buddy Aid is more "feel good" value than it should be, so we will change things so that there is a point difference between the categories. Probably something like 0.5 for WIA, 0.8 for WIA, 1.0 for KIA. This yields a system like Cpl Steiner is asking for without having to do any complicated recoding. And we like good ideas that don't take a month to implement

Dunno when Charles will stick this in, but it will go in sooner rather than later.

Thanks!

Steve

[SlowMotion]

"0.5 for WIA, 0.8 for WIA"

one of these should be MIA?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dunno when Charles will stick this in, but it will go in sooner rather than later.

Nice one!

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Probably something like 0.5 for WIA, 0.8 for WIA, 1.0 for KIA.

I think you meant 0.5 for WIA, 0.8 for KIA, 1.0 for MIA.

Before choosing these exact figures, please bear in mind that as lots of American casualties tend to be WIA it could make it difficult for OPFOR to achieve their casualty awards. A weighting system more along the lines of 0.75 WIA, 1.0 KIA, 1.5 MIA, or 0.8 WIA, 1.2 KIA, 1.6 MIA might not skew the results as badly. It probably needs some careful thought and testing to come up with the best weight values.

[vincere]

Before choosing these exact figures, please bear in mind that as lots of American casualties tend to be WIA it could make it difficult for OPFOR to achieve their casualty awards

Personally I was not thinking about game balance, but agree that balancing will be important. My thought was that some thought could be given to real world political value of casualties. That is more points for US KIA than Syrian because of the political capital in the strategic picture. I'm not asking for this because it's just a thought that occurred to me and I've not thought it through.