How about Experience System?

Real time World War II combat simulation
Post Reply
Stonewolle
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:11 pm

How about Experience System?

Post by Stonewolle » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:15 pm

Hello,
is there a kind of experience system in development. It would be exciting to have the ability to use the living troops in following battles.
I think that the gameplay would be more interesting for many of us.

Best regards,

Stonewolle.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:39 pm

I've thought about that but there's such a high level of casualties that you wouldn't carry that many men over!

My goal is to try and make the game more realistic by decreasing the casualty rate. What I'd really like to see is commanders giving up on a mission as they are taking too many casualties or retreating because the situation is looking a little bad. The difficulty is giving a commander the incentive to think in that way. If they were real troops under your commander you'd be a lot more cautious but as it's just a game it's easy to be more reckless.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:19 am

i think the carrying troops over would be a damned good insentive to keep them out of the fight. problem as i can see it is to give the AI that insentive.

if this was implemented, i assume the points available for fresh troops in the next battle would be lower, but it would also open up the possibility of having multinational 'attached' units. i.e. youve just played an only infantry game as brits and the next one is mostly tanks, you get some french or american tanks given to you, no extra cost, but your stuck with what your given, having to use each type of tank creatively, rather than picking as many of the best ones as possible.

the FG grenaded bug would have to be sorted, else your constantly buying new FGs if you need them. bit of a change to the MG routines aswell - more ammo, but less trigger happy at the beginning??
________
cheap vaporizers
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:49 am

Sean O'Connor wrote:My goal is to try and make the game more realistic by decreasing the casualty rate.


I don't think you can do this without changing the game at a fundamental level. Any firefight (or, more generally, any wargame scenario) between relatively "balanced" forces is going to result in heavy casualties. That's a direct result of balanced situations where both side are determined to fight.

Firefight's casualties occur much faster than in "real life" but that's because, like all wargames, things happen much faster. There's no friction. In Firefight, the moment you take enemy fire from any given feature, you can manoeuvre against it. There's no need to wait around while the point section establishes exactly what it's up against, or while that information is passed to the platoon and then to the company commander or while orders are given.

(Try this. Next time you're playing Firefight and you've just made contact with the enemy, say out loud as if you're giving orders to your men exactly what you want each unit to do. Speak clearly and reasonably slowly - you don't want to be misunderstood! Time yourself.
Two or three minutes, for sure. No way would any wargamer waste that much time doing nothing!).

In Firefight, wounded men remain effective for longer than I think is realistic. This is primarily why Firefight battles tend to produce disproportionate numbers of dead to wounded. The wounded stay and fight 'til they're dead instead of dropping out of the line and moving back to the rear for treatment.

But overall casualty numbers are probably representative , given the balanced nature of the scenario. A Firefight game isn't some minor patrol action. It represents a major operation for the digital soldiers in the player's force.

If you're going to look at tweaking anything, there may be some mileage in looking at the morale thresholds for soldiers being suppressed, routing, surrendering etc. The trouble is that, if you raise the "suppressed" threshold (or the "reluctant to advance" threshold) to something realistic, a typical game will be lengthened considerably, perhaps to the point of boredom. You'd have to adjust rates-of-fire (or ammo loadouts) for sure.

At the moment, the tactical factors do seem to be in balance, even if the game is shorter than it should be and fatal casualties seem excessive.

IMHO, of course.

Cheers,

Andy

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:09 am

Thanks for your comments guys - very interesting. You're right that there's always got to be a balance between realism and enjoyable gameplay.

One thing I have been considering is making soldiers attend to their wounded friends. That would take them out of the fight while they are giving first aid or dragging their pals out of harms way. Maybe even escorting them to the edge of the board before returning to their units.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:41 am

Sean O'Connor wrote:One thing I have been considering is making soldiers attend to their wounded friends. That would take them out of the fight while they are giving first aid or dragging their pals out of harms way. Maybe even escorting them to the edge of the board before returning to their units.


That's probably overdoing it. What I think I'd recommend is that soldiers wounded more than very lightly (but not immobilised) make their way to the baseline in the same way that surrendered soldiers currently make their way to their opponent's baseline.

I've seen surrendered soldiers killed in furious firefights but I presume that was collateral and that, once a soldier has surrendered, he is no longer deliberately targetted by the opposition? If wounded troops were flagged in a similar way (say, with a red flag instead of a white one), that would probably do the trick (you don't simulate prisoner escorts so there's probably no reason to bother with stretcher bearers or medics or the actual application of first aid).

I think this would produce more realistic casualty figures with a minimum of work on your part although some rebalancing may be required.

Cheers,

Andy

Post Reply