Is 1:1 cringeworthy or cool?

[[hirr]Leto]

I just saw the excellent video of the Brits module by George MC. There is a scene in the video where one of the british soldiers in a trenchline comes upon a wounded or hiding Syrian defender, and then packs him full of three bursts of fire. It was a brutal scene and was an epiphany moment for me... The 1:1 modeling of infantry makes CMSF quite personal, and in many ways, perhaps simulates war 'too well'.

How many of you have had these cringeworthy moments when you see men fall over and die? In CM 1, the abstraction component was there, so you knew you were dealing with game pieces, and not actual soldiers, but it is harder to abstract and dehumanize that element now.

This is in no way a critical swipe at BFC or CMSF (which I still think have produced some amazing stuff), but back to an earlier post of mine where I suggested that CM2 has become too much of a 'sim' and less of a(n) abstracted wargame surfaces in my thoughts again.

Is it perhaps that we civilians are just too complacent with the world, and we look upon these things differently than what one might call the "wolves" of our society (the men and women who actually take up arms to protect us, and in doing so, perhaps see warfare, bloodshed and violence in a different way).

I for one would like to get some respectful opinions from both sides of the fence: vets and civs, on the impact of 1:1 modeling and how you see the game / and how emotional it may get at times.

Cheers!

Leto

[Pvt. Ryan]

For me, it makes me care about my troops that much more and I go through greater efforts to avoid casualties. In CMBO a platoon could be under heavy artillery fire and I'd slowly see the squads go from three to two to one counter. That was hard enough. CM:N is going to be tough watching the individual soldiers get hit.

[YankeeDog]

Well, personally, I like the fact that 1:1 makes the human cost of war more visually apparent. For me, at least, seeing the human cost leads to more realistic tactics. It's interesting for me to play from mindset of an American commander, for whom keeping casualties, and especially fatalities, to minimum is a very high concern. Some casualties are inevitable, but I make every effort to give my pixel soldiers the opportunity to perform "buddy aid" and move WIAs off the battlefield, and I keep close track of how many KIAs I had in the final tally. I generally put my own assessment of my performance ahead of whatever the game says my "score" was, and I find it interesting to ask myself questions like, "Would it have been wiser to hold off, and wait for additional support and resupply, rather than accept the inevitable casualties from pushing to take that final objective before the time limit was up?"

And I find it very interesting to then switch and try playing as an insurgent leader for whom casualties are a more acceptable cost of war. I think it's very educational to play the game from the perspective of a commander who's willing to engage in tactics such as sending substantial numbers of his own men into certain death, in order to increase the chance of causing casualties amongst the enemy.

I'd actually love it if BFC was able take things once step further, and directly model civilians, and civilian casualties. I think it would be very interesting to play tactical scenarios where you had to keep civilian casualties below a certain threshold.

(I do recognize that whether or not BFC has the desire to directly civilians, the large amount of coding time this would take means it will probably never happen. Just saying I'd love it if the magic coding fairy swooped in and made it happen.)

But I'm sure not everyone wants to tackle stuff like this in their gameplay time; to each their own. There's plenty of less realistic strategy games out there for those who don't like to think too much about stuff like casualties.

Cheers,

YD

[Pandur]

well i think it makes a difference for sure when one compared CMx1 to CMx2. i dont care about single guys getting hit but i dont take my side getting whiped out lightly.

while in CMx1 your counters did vanish and the units left a trail of dead behind, it did not create the same effect as it does in CMx2.

cant wait to "feel" it in CM Normandy

[BlackMoria]

First off, I am former military, which colors my opinions on such matters.

I don't have an issue with the graphical depictions. It can be far worst - the depiction of men just hit with a 155mm round could show limbs and bodies blow apart.

Many games, primarily first person shooters, really dish out the visuals for violence. Shock Force is downright tame in comparison.

That said, I think it is good to have it shown, least we lose touch with the fact that war is a brutal, bloody, nightmarish pasttime. Other players have commented on how they try to preserve their pixeltruppen as much as possible and have guilt when a number of them fall. That is a good thing in my opinion. If our leaders who send men and women off the war had such sensibililtes, perhaps there would be less armed conflict in the world today.

But really, SF is downright tame in its depiction of violence. Just look at the video games and the movies for comparison.

[Holman]

When I hear "1:1," the first thing that occurs to me is the granularity of the simulation: individual soldier states, individual weapons, ammo tracking, high fidelity ballistic modeling, etc. It takes me a moment to connect that idea of 1:1 to the pixelated violence on screen.

This may be because I tend to play at a fairly zoomed-out level. I'm rarely close to the action when the graphics present serious violence. I do see the aftermath, of course (troops on the ground, men doing first aid, etc.), but that's not the same as seeing close-up hand to hand combat. (Does CMSF even model hand-to-hand combat?) Even seeing the aftermath, though, humanizes the action in ways that abstracted counters or even abstracted squad clusters does not.

FWIW, I'm thankful we don't have gibs.

[General Jack Ripper]

Here is the way I see it.

In the editor, you are given the option to rename your squads. I tend to name the squads after friends of mine. When I am out fighting the enemy, every time I hear someone yell out they have been hit, I zoom in to check their status. I tend to beat myself up over any stupid mistakes that lead to the squad leader getting hit. The game becomes very personal sometimes, as I feel that even though we have become seperated in real life, my friends are fighting beside me when I play. We used to play wargames all the time back home, so I see it as carrying on a tradition.

One time I made a big mistake. I was assaulting a building and two squads were killed by a bunch of Syrians who had been hiding on the upper floors. I had thought the building was empty, so I moved quick to get my squads in a position upstairs to cover some advancing troops. The Syrians opened fire, and within the 60 second turn, all but 2 men were killed/wounded. That really upset me, but I used that feeling to make sure I always double-check to make sure a building is empty before rushing inside.

I guess I take things too seriously sometimes. I even made up a notebook keeping track of my friends unit performance and stats from game to game. I post it on my blog so my buddies can check it out.

I have always prefered 1:1 simulation, going back to the Close Comabat series. I think it helps the all important immersion factor that I find essential in wargames. However, I guess if it gets to the point where you actually cry a bit when things go terribly wrong, you need to relax a bit.

I am a very strange person I guess.

[hcrof]

True that - It is hard seeing your men going down due to your own mistakes. It is thrilling too as your men try to clear a house and you see the enemy turning and aiming... :eek:.

On the other hand, when your sniper takes out a Javlin guy or a lucky artillery hit clears out a trench it is very satisfying to see the enemy going down!

I take better care of my men as well in CMSF because it is less like a board game than CMBB. It feels more real so that bailed out crew suddenly becomes frightened soldiers that I will attempt to assist rather than a slow and useless waste of 'points'. On that note I feel like I can also 'feel' how the battle is going better than in CMBB but that could just be due to the fact that I am better at Shock force.

[Falconander]

yeah, CM is by far not a graphical depiction of violence...

Yes, I am a "wolf" as you would describe and I have 'cubs' that I have trained to admire the honor, duty and camaraderie that are entwined in the military. One might focus on the bloodshed and find things liked Gears of War gruesome and uncivilized, the other however, will see the display of tactics ,teamwork and heroism.

Xs and Os is fine for Tic Tac Toe, but this is a depiction of war. As Artillery came down on some poor Syrians, my son muttered to himself hom unfair artillery is (even though he was the Marines). He told me that he hated artillery. I guess there was no honor in killing someone from afar... course he is much more of a sword on shield player.

You need violence in a war game or you are going to raise a bunch of kids who think its fun and games out there. When an artillery round hits, body parts fly. Depicting it any other way, would be an injustice to both the weapon and to the player.

As CM matures further, I hope the damage mods evolve for vehicles and soft targets alike.

[General Jack Ripper]

It feels more real so that bailed out crew suddenly becomes frightened soldiers that I will attempt to assist rather than a slow and useless waste of 'points'.

I sympathize with this bit, I have routinely risked tanks and other vehicles, and soldiers to rescue bailed out crew from dangerous situations. My feeling is 'leave no man behind'. If I take casualties, but the bailed out crew gets to safety, I consider the cost worth it.

[Chainsaw]

Intresting thread I have to say! as many other have stated also I care allot for my poor pixeltroops, and if I loose someone I always reacts on it, sometimes the soldier gets killed when he has like 5meter left to cover and I think "damn it, he was so close to safety".

I guess 1:1 representation really makes it all a bit more personal, seeing a soldier thats under your command go down is no fun at all, and its rare I think "well it was worth the cost".

On the other hand I feel its a good decision from BFC to NOT have blood and gore in the game, I feel that would change the feelings towards more gamey FPS feeling.

But agreed, its a nice satisfaction to see a whole enemy team get shot to pieces and see the bodys fall down

[Holman]

I sympathize with this bit, I have routinely risked tanks and other vehicles, and soldiers to rescue bailed out crew from dangerous situations. My feeling is 'leave no man behind'. If I take casualties, but the bailed out crew gets to safety, I consider the cost worth it.

I play this way as well, and I guess it is a direct consequence of 1:1 modeling. I always feel that I have failed in some way if I fail to give buddy aid to a wounded soldier. I even try to get to the ones that are dead. (The game treats this as recovering ammo and weapons, but I'm thinking of dog tags and treating the body with some dignity.)

1:1 does allow for some better role-playing possibilities.

[Ron]

For me it is only just a game - an abstraction, and while I 'care' about the survivability of my pixeltruppen in the game sense, I don't feel any more attached when 1=1 vs when 1=3.33. As others have pointed out, graphically CMSF is 'G' rated when viewed alongside various FPSs.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Let's frag Ron. He doesn't care about us.

[Falconander]

I'd still give Ron "Buddy-aid", he's just stating the facts...

[dan/california]

We could put him in a scout hummer. Recon by explosion is quick and effective.

[dan/california]

More seriously, the one to one representation is a good thing in the overall picture. There are occasional jarring moments when the animations are less than perfect. But on the overall it does a lot to enhance the game. And the bad bits have been whittled down steadily.

[GSX]

It all depends on what 1-1 brings to the game. Overall I feel that it enhances the game, you actually get a visual representation of any casualties etc, I have forgotten how many times in the past I used to try and assault something with a squad only containing one or two men in CM-1 games and so 1-1 gives you that instant appraisal of whats there.

However, at other times it can detract from the immersion as CMSF doesnt have proper infantry formations or IA drills for infantry and so I often find myself saying that 'trained soldiers just dont bunch up like that' or wishing I could programme in some basic ambush skills etc into my men.

As for violence, as already covered, its practically non existent really, guys get hit and go down.

Do I personally empathise with the little men on screen, well sometimes I do, most times I dont. Like real life I wont try and deliberately save lives if the mission calls for action and like real life sometimes not doing something to save lives may actually contribute to losing more lives. It is at the end of the day a game and Im in it to have some fun and SF has a time limit, something thats more often than not irrelevant in real life. Who wants to play 16 hour scenarios just to save a few cyber soldiers?

[dan/california]

I really do think that some decent squad level drills should be on of the things BFC focuses on next. The lack of them is the primary problem with 1-1 now. I realize that they are expensive in terms of programming time.

[Zatoichi]

1:1 has certainly added to the immersion factor along with the increased fidelity of the graphics. Although there are associated downsides noted elsewhere, I firmly believe the move to 1:1 has increased my enjoyment in CM.

I must admit I'm not looking forward to my first Brit casualties...

[kipanderson]

Hi,

We all have a personal take… for me the tactical realism of CM… within the limits of what is possible.. has always been the main selling point of the series and why it is the only game on my PC.

However… I still enjoy the full Band of Brothers movie action of 1 : 1 so am comfortable with all I have seen…

1 : 1 is cool….

All the best,

Kip.

PS.. seriously… I think they have the right balance been showing the gory bits and movie realism…

[Beardo1976]

I'm ok with the level of violence seen in the game. Not over the top but enough to make you feel bad when your troops drop. Really makes you think twice about Fast moving into that building!

[Battlefront.com]

(raises hand) Yeah, I also alter my plans in order to accommodate casualty reductions or rescuing. I did this far more unevenly in CMx1. Too often I would see Moe, Larry, and Curley jerk back and figure "well, the Three Stooges are still there, they can take some more punishment". I also was far less likely to "care", in the emotional sense, when I lost a unit when doing something stupid. On an individual level if was just one less bean for me to count at the end of the battle. Not a big deal. But through a combination of the setting, the Victory Conditions, and the 1:1 simulation I care a lot more about the soldiers and think of them as such instead of beans.

Not surprisingly, I have nearly the opposite reaction when I play as Red (at least the normal, run of the mill forces). I don't purposefully waste my guys, but when they get slaughtered I swear a bit from a tactical standpoint only. The loss of the virtual soldiers doesn't (usually) phase me. In fact, this is similar to my feelings when playing CMx1. Where things are different is that when one of my guys does something stupendous I am REALLY pleased. The reason is that, on an individual basis, my expectations are extremely low and that means good results are worthy of praise.

It's very interesting to see my emotional reaction to the different sides mirror the mindset of the real life commanders of such units. I'm just glad that the game doesn't convey the ramifications of such losses as a real life commander. That's a game I wouldn't want to play.

We feel that the 1:1 representation is important for various aspects of CM as both a game and as a simulation. Elements which we feel don't serve either purpose are not useful to the game. Specifically, blood and gore are not useful.

Obviously from a sim standpoint it's irrelevant because a soldier scattered over a 20m area is just as "out of action" from the systems' standpoint as a guy with an unfortunate hit to his jugular by a piece of chipped stone. Sure, the simulation could go into more detail and have different Morale hits based on what kinds of injuries are witnessed, but that's getting extremely low level and controversial from a quantifying standpoint.

From a game standpoint it can be argued that seeing blood and guts would further enhance a player's attachment to his individual soldiers. And that attachment will help influence player behavior to more closely mimic real life. Usually in ways that can't be imposed on the player through other game conventions. But we don't think it will. Or at least not enough to suffer through the criticism from (probably) the majority of players. Since Charles and I both fit into that group of players, we would also be forced to justify something we ourselves don't believe is good. We don't want to put ourselves in that sort of position

Steve

[Alan8325]

Not surprisingly, I have nearly the opposite reaction when I play as Red (at least the normal, run of the mill forces). I don't purposefully waste my guys, but when they get slaughtered I swear a bit from a tactical standpoint only. The loss of the virtual soldiers doesn't (usually) phase me.

Might this be because some of your guys are sitting behind the wheel of a taxi with a 2000lb bomb in the back seat?

I find the low level of gore in CM:SF just fine. Some of the FPSs show way more gore than is realistic anyway. The level of gore in the Company of Heroes RTS looks like it is depicted pretty realistically, but mostly due to the physics effects of the parts flying from explosions. Large, non-human pieces of random debris flying through the air would achieve the same visual effect in CM:SF.

BTW, do the KIA count more towards casualty points than WIA in CMx2 yet, or is it still "feel-good" motivation only for buddy aid?

[Battlefront.com]

Alan8325

Might this be because some of your guys are sitting behind the wheel of a taxi with a 2000lb bomb in the back seat?

Yeah, I only get cheezed about that guy's demise when he gets shot up BEFORE getting to his target

BTW, do the KIA count more towards casualty points than WIA in CMx2 yet, or is it still "feel-good" motivation only for buddy aid?

Fixed a while back. I don't remember which patch introduced this. Definitely oversight on our part the first time around.

Steve