DEAD BODIES --IN!

[SGTRock]

Ok, ok, now I didn't make this tread to steal someones fire on the topic, but rather to address this issue as a whole.

For those of you who don't know about it the discussion started in Sprites vs Polygons.
Reason being that it is argued wether or not casualties will be present in the game.

Polygons of course take up a lot of memory from what I remember in the posting ( I don't revere myself as a computer programming guru ) and sprites take up less..

I thing BTS has already said they won't be in
but, I think many of us should want them to be in, why you ask?

For the sake of the Veterans that went before Us and sacrificed what they had so that we could all live free...

I think to take casualties out of the picture totally distorts the reality of war..
Don't get me wrong this isn't a lesson on New Age peace crud, I think war is enevitable for mankind, and that it is fun and educational to learn and implament stategies and tactics. But the reason I think that the dead are important in a game is that they bring us closer to history! Fionn you should side with me on this, being the historical one! By leaving the dead in we can begin to understand the realness of battle get a small glimpse (And I'm sure it is minute) of the environment those guys were in.
The effect of realism would be vaulted sky high the effect of the environment of the game would change drastically when you do a full frontal assault then turn the camera around to see that you lost over half your units to take your objectives..

Now from a programmers perspective I understand you can't have everything, but I do think sprites or 2d characters are an option or timming out the sprites.. etc...

But I do think it's important, rather than just being concerned by other things...

I think it's a tribute, not just a game.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I sure am thankfull, and I want all you former and present military guys to know that too..Thanks!

D.Calyn AKA
SGTROCK.

[K L Sparrow]

Yeah I think that dead bodies should be represented somehow and if it will bog down current hardware or lower FPS, why dont you go for just little grave-crosses where casualties have been taken? Just a thought. But I agree that one is abstracting the realities of war by not including the 'dead'.
Steve, maybe give it some more thought on how you could do it?

Kevin

------------------
Road to Moscow:
http://www.wargamer.com/rtm

[Bil Hardenberger]

Being one of those "former" military guys you mention, I could care less if there were dead bodies in or not. I am interested in recreating WW2 tactics, thats all. The amount of blood spilled on the snow isn't really relevant.

Like has been said before, the player will know exactly where he lost troops to an ambush, etc. He will not need a reminder such as a dead body. I don't think of CM as a tribute to veterans so much as I think of it as a... well, a game http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Moon]

Casualties are not "out of the picture", SgtRock. Every time you click on one of your units, you see the hard truth "2 active, 10 dead". Everytime you see some of your guys jerk back after they have been hit, or see one of your squads "vanish" and hear the "ARGH!", you know EXACTLY what happened. And it gives you much more valuable information as to what happened and what it means for the future turns than some dead bodies lying around somewhere.

CM doesn't show individual men in a squad when they're alive. There is even less reason IMO to show them when they're dead. If putting dead bodies in means leaving another cool tank out, I would be VERY angry http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Mattias]

Bil,

Thank you for a most refreshing reply. Dead on target, no pun intended http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

M.

[buddy]

I look at casualties the same way I do the large plumes of
smoke from blown up vehicles/burning buildings - they
give you an overall picture of what has happened. If you
are the Ivan the Terrible type you can look back at the end
of a battle and revell in the destruction. I think that all of us
(doesn't matter if you are a vet or not) with any common
sense knows that this is just a game and that war completely
sucks. Still, the game involves the destruction of the 'enemy' -
the planning and the strategy are fun - but the creation of this
game and the attention to detail graphically in it reflects,
in my opinion, the reason casualties should be in the game.
They graphically represent what has happened.

[Justin Hoerter]

I think I'm with Bil and Moon here. While the idea of having corpses line the battlefield to show where some of the heavier fighting occured is interesting. I'd rather see the computer's limited resources focused on creating a good vehicle for demonstrating WWII tactics (good and bad). A good argument could be made for corpses when making the game more visceral. But, as a gamer, I'd like to see what's represented on screen be more informational in this case. I suppose the pile of bodies in front of the ambush site might be a good reminder, but somehow I believe I'll remember on my own http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif .

Just my thoughts,
Justin Hoerter

[Ben Galanti]

I really wouldn't think they would be necessary either. The only real need would be to help you see kill zones, but I don't think that is all that difficult to do. I know I just started up a CC2 campaign (hey, I gotta do something until the beta demo comes out http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif ) and I've found myself always turning off the bodies, they just clutter the game and don't really add anything. In CM, there is both an audio and a visual cue when a unit is getting hit (from what I understand at least), and that gives you as much info as a body, I would think...

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 09-22-99).]

[Harold Jones]

I don't think having corpses littering the field of battle will add one iota to the realism or playability of the game. A case might be made that they would add to the atmosphere but not enough to justify the time and resources it would take to implement. Real battlefields are messy chaotic places replete with undescribable sounds, sights and smells. No computer game will ever come close to recreating that atmospere no matter how many cartoon bodies are strewn about and how many gallons of red pixels are splashed on the screen.

[sage]

It seems to me that there are people with strong opinions on both sides of the bodies vs. nobodies debate. At this point in time it may be too late to have this feature included; regardless, I believe it *should* eventually be included as an optional feature. Turn it on, turn it off, as you will. This keeps both sides happy.

Sage

[Mike D]

I've said it once, I'll say it again. Forget about portraying dead bodies. It is not worth the precious 3d computing resources to do this and really serves little, if any, purpose to show them in terms of game play, realism, etc. Yes casualties are a reality of war, but this is a game about tactics and combat, not about collecting wounded and burying the dead. So why show them? Much easier in terms of computational power and 3d display to just let them disappear. Not to mention "wasting" BTS's programming resources for something that buys us all very little. Their talents could be much better utilized to address items on their "list" vs. messing w/ this IMHO. If they want to do this in CM2, and it isn't going to affect frame rates, 3d performance, etc., fine. Make it an optional, turn it on, turn it off, thing. For now, just plain forget about it and let these guys get on w/ releasing this game. I know I for one would not want to see this game delayed further in order to have these kind of menial features added.

Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 09-22-99).]

[Fred]

I agree with Bil. This is a tactical wargame, and its going to be the #1 top notch wargame. I played tactical wargames for nearly 20 yrs now (board, miniatures, computer) and I never missed dead bodies.
And as Moon said, if only 1 vehicle is not in the game because of the coding time for "body pile sprites", he is not the only one getting angry ;)
As I mentioned in the other thread, Great Batttles of Ceasar has dead bodies, but after 2 or three turns of melee I usually turn them off.
And please, no "little grave crosses"...

Fred

[Big Time Software]

This is getting REALLY old. I don't know how many times I have to say this...

Bodies do NOT yeild any significant increase in game information

Bodies DO add a hit to the framerate

Bodies portrayed 1:1 is a pipe dream

Bodies done iasn sprites WON'T WORK

If you don't feel pulled into the game with the hundreds of other details in CM, then bodies WILL NOT make any difference

Having bodies will NOT MAKE CM more realistic in game or realism terms (unless we are going to have body parts, headless men, etc...)

As for the respect for vets, we think this argument is BS. It has been tried on us before, and with the same result. Same goes for the "show them blood so they will know that war is horrible" argumet. Try "portraying death in a cartoonish graphical way, without spattering actual blood and guts on the player (as well as giving him a good dose of smells) is just going to desensitize an already very numb audience". If you think a few polygons with some red puddles under it is going to make people think that war is horrible, you are very mistaken.

Now, if you still want to ignore EVERYTHING stated above, fine. You are entitled to your opion, as we are ours. No bodies is ours.

Steve

[Pixman]

Well Steve, that's certainly about as strong as I have heard you come out on ANY subject, lol!! I'm sure glad I did not get you that heated up about White Phosphorous (did I say white phosphorous? -- well slap my face http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif).

Seriously, I agree with you and the other antibodies out there. And you took the words right out of my mouth. After seeing Saving Private Ryan, "body parts" is more appropriate. Thanks, but no thanks for me as far as that goes.

I said this a while ago when people were asking for trash cans and ammo boxes and God knows what other window dressing -- BTS is making a wargame, NOT a movie. Movies require dead bodies and realistic sets, wargames require simulation of military assets and elements that affect the behavior of those assets. Historically, dead bodies were no longer military assets, nor did they affect the surviving assets. How many accounts have we all read of American, Russian and German tank commanders driving over their own fallen breathren in order to continue on their tactical objective? This is a gruesome reality of war that I just do not need to see -- sorry.

My uncle showed me pictures from concentration camps he liberated. A childhood friend's dad fought at Iwo Jima and had a whole photo album of black and whites of the carnage he witnessed there -- American and Japanese. I can still recall some of those cave images vividly if I close my eyes and it has been 25 years since I saw them. I just really do not need to see it represented on my PC screen.

Please -- no dead bodies.

Pixman

------------------
The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[KwazyDog]

I do agree Pixman, 100%. Its not something that we need to see or will alter the play of the game in any way. If you want to see where your men fell you can watch the entire playback at the end of the game and take all this in.

Besides this point, there is another BIG point that people should keep in mind. All these things take time. Charles and Steve could put in the fallen, no problems, but would it be worth the loss of say 3 vehicle types from the game?? Id say this is the sort of tradeoff it would be (though just a guess http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif).

For me, and Im sure most people here, we want this to be a wargame first and foremost. The prettier it looks the better, but I want the technical data, game play accuracy, and large variation of unit types first http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif


(Ooops, just noticed Martin made this point earlier http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif) Tis a very velid point though

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-23-99).]

[SGTRock]

Hey, Gents don't get bent out of shape I didn't put this post here to cause a war (no pun intended) but just to think about this history. Maybe some of you guys think I'm sprouting off a bunch of sentimental BS, well hey your entitled to your opinions too, just don't go bitch about them to me!

Well I understand, like you that CM is going to be; if not already is truely the best combat game put out I would think it could serve to make us think about the reality more and therefore bring about a stronger gaming experience.. so you don't share that opinion, so what? So post something else

No grudges held here http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif



------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[SGTRock]

And Yes I agree with the fact that little crosses is a little much...(I think that was sarcasm, but I maybe wrong) :p

Don't make it a habit to post twice, but my roomy came in and wanted to use the computer so I had to come back later and just say;
" Hey it's just a game, but it looks like thea game we've all been waiting for "

And BTS understand I'm not Bitchin only making suggestions (food for thought) and I think you guys understand that. As is CM is in a class all it's own, and I regonize that you guys have put in a lot of time and effort into this game, and that doesn't go without gratitude, as we all; including myself have shown to y'all.

My point is that it's part of history it's part of war. Besides the tactics I don't think it's wrong to look for that kind of realism (although I realize that this truely will be the most realistic WG ever released)

" I don't think of CM as a tribute to veterans so much as I think of it as a... well, a game "

Well Bill, your right it is a game and while I realize that a couple of pixles on the screen can't compare to the horror that was seen by many a GI, I still don't think it's wrong to try and do an accurate portrayal of a battlefield casualties.

But enough!
BTS has made up there minds (PS Thanks for the info MOON.) and there will be no bodies... if it was only like that in real war... (Had to get that last plug in) http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Go Nuts guys keep up the good work BTS.

Rock

[R Cunningham]

I support the presence of dead soldiers being represented. AND before I catch a HEAT round from the hardware police, I understand the hardware limitations as previously expressed by those against such "frills." I also understand the argument about the cost to implement versus the perceived benefit. I would happily sacrifice three beautiful vehicles for a battlefield that doesn't look like Mr. Clean's kitchen. Especially if those vehicles are a sherman Calliope, a Flammhetzer and a Kubelwagen. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Contrary to what some of the others have posted, I do not accept the idea that I will "know exactly" what happened after playing a battle for many turns, turns that can take quite some time to play through. Bodies would clarify the situation, I know it does in the CC series. It irks me that after all of the vaunted capability of the computer for producing games that are infinitely more realistic than their old board game counterparts that we are still stuck with the Squad Leader "rendered lost for the duration of the scenario" methodology.

Aside from the dead, I consider the wounded to be a far more pressing concern. The dead don't scream. The wounded do. It would seem to me that the presence of wounded would have a more dramatic affect on the performance of a unit than the dead. The wounded are still around and can be wounded again or killed. Has there been any info posted about how wounded are handled? In the AARs of Fionn's and Martin's battle, I have only read vague references to soldiers being hit and wounded. Do they soldier on until they get wounded to a certain level at which point they vanish from the squad/section? Someone posted that the interface will give you a status of the unit expressed as numbers and states (2 active, 10 dead). But I would prefer to see a visual representation ala CC2 & 3 where there is a little head for each soldier and it is colored based on states. Lightly wounded is yellow, severely wounded is orange and dead is red. It gives you immediate info as to the state of the squad and to me it has much more impact to see that there are only two "active" and at the same time to be able to see what the unit was like before the action.

And the idea of wounded ties in to replacements. Do wounded soldiers return to their units after set periods of time?
Has there been any info posted on how replacements work for the campaign game?

[KwazyDog]

Hay, whats wrong with the Kubelwagen http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif Hehe. Quite a nifty little vehicle it is, I imagine it was very useful in giving allied tankers the same feeling as a King Tiger tanker had when he came across a Sherman platoon. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Anyways, personally for me 3 vehicles, even of an odd variety, are much more important than dead soldiers whom are out of the fight for good. I guess its each to their own on this one. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif I must admit I dont mind the idea about displaying soldiers with little symbols, would be good for a quick visual of squad strength.....


[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-23-99).]

[L Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Has there been any info posted about how wounded are handled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been assuming that the "killed" counts in the AARs really signify "combat ineffective." And I think given the proposed timescale of the game (the longest campaign lasting at most what, two days and a night?) it's unlikely that any wounded would return to the ranks. So from a gameplay standpoint it probably doesn't matter much.

L. Tankersley

[Fionn]

Guys,

Firstly I should say that I was very much pro-bodies being implemented and that I fired off emails to Steve asking for bodies/markers for place of death to be implemented quite often both before and during the discussions on the boards about bodies until recently. Now I think that they shouldn’t go in in the present iteration of Combat Mission.

Now, none of what I’m going to say is “official” or anything. This is just from my perspective as a wargamer so whatever I say is just MY opinion. Since this is a bit of a contentious issue I just want that to be really clear.


Let’s look at the main ways that have been discussed in which bodies could be implemented:

Actual 3D dead bodies lying on the ground. Problem: Forget battalion-sized battles if you want a 1:1 representation of casualties to bodies.. You’d be stuck down to platoon level with a game with low. The impact of having 1 body per casualty would be to make large-scale battles unfeasible.


Sprites in a 1:1 representation of dead bodies. Well, I know it isn’t obvious to everyone else but they will just look plain stupid. Also, I don’t like the idea of mixing sprites with 3D models. I won’t name names but I’ve seen it attempted before and IMO it hasn’t worked. In CM you will often be using camera view 1 (soldier’s eye view) or 2 (a few metres above the ground) and at that range the sprites WILL look very poor and will destroy immersion IMO.


3D bodies lying in the field for every 3rd casualty… Well, if the whole idea is to try to gain some EXTRA sensation of where casualties occurred this would very much defeat the purpose for any units which have moved. In my current game there are numerous occasions in which units have taken a few casualties, moved up to 200 metres and then taken another. Where would the figure be placed? I personally don’t like that system and don’t think it would work half as well as others think.


Crosses. Same as above. Crosses take polygons again. Also, what would the bigot-grogs (a subsection of grogs http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif ) say if crosses suddenly appeared where troops were? They’d pull out manuals and start discussing the average amount of time it took for graves registration groups to bury troops killed in combat. Sure that’s a bit over the top but they would complain about crosses.


Red splotches on the ground… Again, they are sprites BUT most importantly the red splotches would be blood and showing blood in games is illegal in Germany. Hell, many games don’t ship with Waffen SS units because they usually give SS units combat bonuses and in Germany this falls somewhat close to “glorifying” the nazi era and its special units and skates close to what is illegal. MANY games have run into trouble for this before.


Basically, I think every method brought up has problems. I was a big private proponent of the “red patches on the ground” solution BUT with Germany being close to half of the market for many wargames any banning or trouble there would be disastrous IMO.

Also, there was a discussion before about flamethrowers and some people wanting to see charred corpses and perhaps burning figures running around the map screaming ( yes, that was actually proposed in various posts). Once you start putting corpses down to be “realistic” then you really get into simulating the moans of dying soldiers, the necessity of actually being able to see separated arms lying in the grass (since artillery fire CAN blow troops apart you should be able to see troops blown apart so you can “remember” where the artillery hit), the importance of having 4 or 5 separate “dead infantry” models to illustrate the effects of tanks crushing various parts of the soldier’s anatomy, the importance of showing burning and charred crewmen hanging out of vehicle hatches so that you could tell, at a glance, if you’ve killed any of the enemy crew as the vehicle brewed up, the importance of showing floating bodies on rivers so that you would remember that those men were killed when their assault boats were holed, the importance of showing soldiers with ONLY their feet blown off so you’d remember where the mines were, the importance of showing soldiers with their heads blown off to simulate the precision fire of a sharpshooter so you would remember that a sharpshooter is firing. My point is that, whilst these might seem extreme cases several of them have already been asked for and ONCE bodies go in people WILL most definitely start asking for “differentials in death”.

If dead bodies are put in then everyone must realise that it will become necessary to go the whole way (or face condemnation about areality). Personally I don’t much care if the game goes the whole way or not since I’ve seen far worse injuries than I’ve mentioned above in real life as part of my medical career and seen a car crash victim hurled head first out of his car and impaled on a railed fence with his spine sticking out of his backs who, unfortunately, lived long enough for the shock to wear off and the pain to hit and myriad other grisly deaths and injuries. I think CM needs to abstract in some areas and I’m quite prepared to let it abstract the myriad modes of death as I think no truly useful purpose will be served by seeing them. No-one wants to see the above car crash victim (or worse yet hear him). My point is that in its own little way putting in bodies (and the attendant rush to “differential deaths” which I foresee) is putting in something which isn’t absolutely necessary and which would play its own small part in furthering some regrettable desensitisations.

Also, I think everyone should remember that there are young people following this board who will buy the game (its always good to see the next generation of wargamers surfacing http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif ) and who don’t need to be desensitised even more than they currently are. Showing them little bodies on a screen isn’t going to make them suddenly realise how horrible war is. To understand that they need to see real bodies and have explained how pointlessly and painlessly they died. A game, unless its photo-realistic won't do this and it is NOT the place of a game to try.

As it is CM has both audio and visual cues when units are hit. I’ve been testing a scenario as the Americans seeking to balance it and as the Germans advance over a nice open grainfield into a heavy weapons platoon’s sights the cries of “Ich bin verwundert” carry loud and clear over even 200 metres. It’s quite a massacre but its their only way forward (I can be a nasty scenario designer I’ve found http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif .)

One other concept is what would happen when a unit has taken losses but this isn’t known to the enemy? Should the enemy be able to see exactly how many losses have occurred at all times? No, of course not. But where would you draw the line between seeing dead bodies and accurately calculating the number of infantry still fighting in the position? Remember that FOW would be impacted by implementing these “dead bodies” in a way that I could foresee creating some play imbalances.


Harold Jones said: I don't think having corpses littering the field of battle will add one iota to the realism or playability of the game.

Harold is quite right. There will be no increase in realism, no increase in playability and most definitely a decrease in system resources available for important things like AI. Not altogether a good swap IMO.

Sage said: At this point in time it may be too late to have this feature included; regardless, I believe it *should* eventually be included as an optional feature. Turn it on, turn it off, as you will. This keeps both sides happy.

Aye, except for the cost to BTS in terms of time and money. If it could be done in 3 or 4 days then the release will either be pushed back 3 to 4 days or some vehicle models mightn’t make it in. Also, it is my firm belief that once dead bodies go in many people (I don’t know who they might be) will want to get “differential deaths” in. At some later stage when we’re sitting pretty with our 1500 Mhz CPUs and 256 Mb graphics cards then maybe it can be done but at the moment it can’t be done justice.


Rock said: Well Bill, your right it is a game and while I realize that a couple of pixles on the screen can't compare to the horror that was seen by many a GI, I still don't think it's wrong to try and do an accurate portrayal of a battlefield casualties.

Not wrong but not productive or a good use of time IMO.


Also, I see Harold’s post has just appeared and he’s now going into the wounded issue. Yes, once dead are added then we need to differentiate between them and wounded men screaming for help as they lie abandoned. Let’s be sure that we use the “Ghoul”Tm body damage system in use in Soldiers of Fortune to ensure we get realistic reactions to injuries in various body parts. Let’s also be absolutely sure that realism is carried forward by allowing the shooting of prisoners. It happened in war and would certainly enrich the “environment” of the game by adding an emotional frisson when one beats a prisoner-shooting opponent. I think we would have to have a special death figurine then which would depict how a kneeling soldier who was shot through the back of the head would fall to the ground as well as showing how his face was removed by the bullet. Why would the face removal be necessary? Well, since prisoner shootings might take place out of sight of friendly units it would be necessary to ensure that if friendly units stumbled upon the bodies that you, the player, would be able to tell, at a glance, if they had been shot whilst prisoner.

A line has to be drawn somewhere IMO and drawing it here at a REAL technical and CPU-based boundary is better than going down that long road. FWIW I truly do think that people will feel that if dead go in then wounded must go in and will lobby for them to be included. And then it will progress farther http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif.


Anyways, it’s the beginning of a long slippery slope which would end up going places most of us wouldn’t truly like and I think the line should be drawn here for a whole variety of reasons.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Big Time Software]

SgtRock, no offense intended. However, this subject has been kicking around, with the same arguments (including the veteran one) for over a year now. A minority want it in, want to side step technical and resource issues, and keep at us about it. So I wanted to try and make this a bit more of a final answer.

NO.

R Cunningham, with all respects we are playing the game and find no problem figuring out what happened were. This includes Fionn and Martin's game that has lasted weeks (a totally bloated time due to AARs). As for the battlefield looking like "Mr. Clean's kitchen", look at the AAR pictures. I am sure that Mr Clean didn't have craters and burned out vehicles and houses everwhere http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif It isn't as antiseptic as you paint it.

Ironically, you bring up another good point about why bodies are not going to add realism to the game. Casualties are anything from KIA to crying for momma. So piling up crumpled bodies is misleading as the majority would be either wounded or otherwise ineffective, not dead. At CM's scale anybody not fit for combat is not part of the game, and therefore we don't display this information.

CM is NOT CC, and we are not going to be displaying every man on the battlefield as an individual. On average you will have about 800 men (max around 1500) under your command. If you really think you are going to care about each one like you do in CC, we beg to differ. To include this stuff would simply clutter the interface, add information that is largely window dressing, and bog down the game in processing terms.

And no matter what we do with casualites in the future (if anything), we will NEVER have screaming wounded or shell shocked mumbling figures on the battlefield. I'm not saying that anybody here is in favor of this, but if someone is they should see a shrink. This is a game, not a morbid depiction of human suffering. Yes, suffering is is a part of war, but to make that into a game serves no purpose other than making a Beavis and Butthead "coooooool" environment or appealing to the kind of person that enjoyed pulling legs off of insects when they were a child.

Steve

[Dar]

Steve:

You convinced me a long time ago about the complexity, hardware demands, and design constraints that make representing individual soldiers prohibitive, so I'm not going to be harping about that here.

However, I do have a question about tracking infantry casualties using the three man system: Since larger weapons' projectiles are tracked individually, does the complement of a squad have a direct influence on the size of target it presents? Is there some invisible target area represented by the three-man squad that shrinks as casualties are incurred, or does a slug actually need to impact one of the figures?

It got me to thinking after someone just posted about grazing fire--If several full-complement squads are crossing a field and get caught in a crossfire between two MGs, what do the MGs need to hit? The center of the squads? Some invisible man-sized target representing each man but stored internally?

Thanks,

Dar Steckelberg

[Pak40]

Funny thing... Steel Panthers, although a very different game, had roughly the same scale battles. Maybe it had a little bigger maps with a few more units, but the unit command was the same scale (individual squads and tanks).

Yet, I've never heard anyone bitch about the fact that little dead bodies arn't littered all over the ballefield. It's just clutter at that scale and at Combat Mission's scale. It was perfect for CC but that's a much smaller scale battle. It's a waste of programming time and processor power at this stage in the game. Maybe little crosses could be used in CM2 but I'm ready for CM1, SO EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT THIS SILLY FREEKIN' SUBJECT AND LET STEVE & CO. DELIVER THIS GAME ON TIME!!!!

Enough said.

[Big Time Software]

Dar, the chance of getting a hit on a squad is lowered in proportion to its headcount. Same is true for a team weapon, but obviously they are supposed to be packed in tighter so the chance is not reduced in the same way. The figures have nothing to do with how hits are determined in any case. They just show where the unit is in an abstract sense.

Pak40, you know... I kept meaning to bring that SP thing up in this discussion http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif In fact, its scale is slightly higher than CM's. Thanks for the reminder!

Steve

[Ken Talley]

I am pro-casualties but I conceded a few weeks back that it just isn't going to be in there. Although I could never quite understand why as one figure is removed, a casualty couldn't be placed. Apparantly it can be done technically w/o a major performance hit. But I can understand not including casualties if it will prevent access to a major wargaming market such as Germany or if it has a major delay on the release of the game.

I have seen this situation before in which a group of players strongly "want a feature" and another group "couldn't care less" on the Talonsoft board. The arguments against by those that "couldn't care less" have always been interesting-especially some of the "straw man" presentations.

PAK, I believe your response was "tongue in cheek" but the argument that it wasn't included in another game (SP) is not a valid argument. There are many things in CM not included in SP. I addition, both CC and Sid Meier's Gettysburg used a casualty figure in exchange for removing a figure but at different scales compatible with their own particular scales (CC=1 man/SMG=60 men). But PAK, I definitely have to agree with your statement about seeing this game come out. I am ready as well < http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif> I also agree that this subject is dead.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-23-99).]

[Kevin Peltz]

I don't want anything extraneous in the game that will cause the system requirements to go up, as I am just able to meet the minimums as it is. I have played a number of games that show KIA, and I really never noticed them all that much, in truth.

[SGTRock]

Fionn:

I think your post was amazing! Were you in PR before you got involved in this stuff http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

In anycase, Like the rest of you guys I am just as anxious for CM to come out and keep counting the days till our beloved Beta is set free.

Fionn says it right, it'd be nice, but it aint happening...(I thought the cross thing was a joke.. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif sorry)

Like I said before I was only trying to pick your brains, not start a war...come on wait for the game! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

BTS maybe later when the 1gig chip comes out for CM3 you could think about it some more http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Had no idea about the blood in Germany thing, moon that's gotta be a bummer for you guys.



------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[SGTRock]

Had no idea I posted so many bloody happys..

Sorry to make 2 in a row (again) but Dar makes a good point about tracking casualties.
Now, I'm not talking dead graphics on the field here, but what about totaling loses. For instance would you get a roster later of the names of and which units have been KIA?

Hope this isn't a rehtorical question...



------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[guachi]

I found wounded to get in the way when playing CC2. But perhaps it's because the view is topdown and the soldiers are so small. I'd really only turn casualities on when there wasn't much going on.

And I say no to crosses.
Not everyone is a Christian, you know...

Jason

[Big Time Software]

Ken, I actually think all the "straw men" arguments have been coming from the "pro body" camp. I also think that the "con body" camp hasn't been passive "I don't really have an opinion" about this issue. As I have strongly argued for over a year, it ISN'T important to the game, and since it DOES present many problems (only one of which is CPU related), they will NOT be included. I hardly think this is a wishy washy position.

The only argument for bodies that can hold water is the "see where the action happened". But as we said over and over again, this is not a concern for CM. And Pak40's comments were that SP doesn't have the feature and NOBODY complained about it for 4 years means something. It means that it really isn't the big game play issue some people have tried to turn it into (straw man http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif).

I also agree with Jason, I almost always played with casualties off in CC as I found them distracting. This is one of the primary reasons we aren't going through the trouble of putting in casualties. Let the user choose you say, well, that would be fine if we didn't have to do any work to make there be a choice. But we don't have little elves writing code while we sleep, so that ain't going to happen http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Steve

P.S. Yes, the horse has been beat to death. I'll keep it open for a bit longer but then it gets locked up as it is really a moot argument at this point.

[Fionn]

Nah SGT Rock, no PR experience for me BUT I am Irish so the Blarney stone effect is present http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

As we say here I could "talk the hind legs off a donkey" (or more colourfully.. "talk the ass off an ass http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif ).



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Colin]

I'm only 14 and I'm sure nobody will really care what I say but I'm on the no bodies "side". Originally I was pro bodies but Fionn's great post made me think otherwise. I don't want to see crappy looking sprites or have the game slow down when ever I'm looking at a major kill zone. If you want to see that type of carnage go out and rent 'Apocolypse Now' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. I don't by me games so I can see people cut in half by an MG42.

Just my opinion.

------------------
"The object of war is not
to die for your country,
but to make the other
bastard die for his"
George Pat

[SGTRock]

Whooo ya don't say Fionn? 'Where's me lucky charms, oh there they are in me trousers' hehehe

Don't mean to be rehtorrical (: but, my last question was about totaling losses?
After the battle would you..
"For instance would you get a roster later of the names of and which units have been KIA, or wounded?"






------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[Fionn]

Rock,

Oops I missed that question. Answer. Yes, yes you do. The results screen showing friendly and enemy casualties also includes the total killed so that differentiation is there.

A casualty in CM is, I am presuming, anyone who is combat ineffective due to injury or death which is a reasonable abstraction at this level.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SGTRock]

Fionn:

Thanks, but how much detail does it go into, for instance does it say Names of Units or Leaders etc...

?





------------------
Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun "

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

You guys get the last word on the casualty issue. < http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif>

It is interesting about the "straw man" arguments. It seems very common throughout all internet forum discussions. Much more than in real life. Sometimes I think it is used unintentionally or is a misunderstanding of a previous post. Sometimes I think it is a reflection of impatience to get a response out. Other times I am sure it is intentional because it is much more effective in a forum than in normal communication. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine that really gets me going. I probably reminds me too much of lawyers trying to obsure an issue. Regardless I knew the moment I wrote it down that it could be misinterpreted and that I should delete it. But I left it in anyway. < http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif> Although I was not directing those comments at anyone in particular. It was more of a general rant.

Yours,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-23-99).]

[Fionn]

No, just a list of how many casualties, how many dead, how many guns destroyed or captured, how many vehicles destroyed. How many POWs.

There's a few others too which I can't remember right now.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[R Cunningham]

Re: casualties in CC series.

I understand that the CC scale was different and that the dogma is that this kind of casualty display is not appropriate to the scale of Combat Mission.

I find it odd though that some found the casualties in CC were "distracting." They are an integral part of the game. Since CC is geared to individual soldiers, the fates of those soldiers are important. To me they tell the story of the battle. PFC Jones was killed here. Feldwebel Gottlob was severlely wounded there. Beyond the information about the status of your troops and those of the enemy, it has visible effects on your troops' performance. If you send fresh troops to a location where another unit was wiped out, the presence of those casualties will negatively affect the morale of the new unit. If you turn them off, then you can't see this effect and you may have units panicking unnecessarily. There is also a scoring effect in that incapacitated soldiers can be lost or recovered based on the control of territory and the end of a battle. Fleeing the battlefield means the loss of those soldiers and a better score for
the enemy.


[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-24-99).]

[Big Time Software]

Ken, no prob. I just felt that some people were ignoring the fact that there are multiple problems with showing dead bodies. UI is one of largest concerns for example.

R. Cunninghamn, personally I turned them off because of the user interface problems. A pile of bodies, from multiple units, in a house with one or two active guys was hard to see and click on.

Personally, I never got into the whole individuals thing in CC. Even though they limited headcount individual battles it didn't generally matter who was who. In campaigns there were too many battles and passing faces. I know others found the game to do things for them on the solider level, but I personally didn't get attached to my men for the most part.

Sgt.Rock, there is no roster of casualties beyond statistics. Too many guys and see my comments above about CC. With CM they are times about 10 or more since the scale is sooooo much larger in terms of headcount (Fionn and Martin had about 200 men each).

Steve

P.S. Closing this thread up.