SB Infantry WIA?

[KCB]

Could I suggest sending SB infantry to basic training ‘at least’? Yes you have heard this one a million times.

How about creating casualties? In reality there is normally a much higher number of WIA then KIA. Isn’t that the aim on the modern battlefield, bog the enemy down with casualties. Again this could be good to get the support element involved, were by the WIA need to be located by Med units with in a certain time frame or they become KIA and your side loses points etc. This again creates problems for commanders to work and plan for increasing the need for the use of CSS, and a lot more realistic then every one just dieing by the truck load. Maybe we might even care for them a little more, rather then just muttering “…yer…what ever” as they die like lemmings! If we had to get aid to them to sort their sorry asses out after the fact? Love the CSS in SB Pro at the moment. Or, could you not just make infantry harder to kill? This would make it more realistic, seeing firefights get dragged out a bit longer.

For SB2, considering its built more as a game and needs to appeal to the masses, are we going to see a change in the country’s represented in the game. At the moment SB seems to represent the world’s most peace loveable nations whose hardware will rust to dust before it ever fires a round in anger. Yes of cause your catering to a military market at the moment, but will we see a new range of nations with SB2? Those a little more involved in the worlds hot spots, the UK, Israel, India, Pakistan and the like. I understand that some of these nations like Israel don’t disclose a lot of open information about their units, but for the game version are you guys willing to make some concessions for the sake of game play?

Im using the Hind more as a recon asset for the BLUEFOR units then for the OPFOR. Is anyone thinking of introducing any air assets for the good guys in SB Pro…you can feel it…its time? Iv seen, somewhere, screen shots of the Australians using air assets, but I carnt find them again. Hay! Come on guys…you opened the box!

Ps. recommend court marshal for CO SB Infantry Basic Training depot...or just a dam fine spanking!

[Grenny]

...
...

Ps. recommend court marshal for CO SB Infantry Basic Training depot...or just a dam fine spanking!


Why?
They run for miles and never complain...And fight to the death(mostly their own) wherever you send them without question.
Hell, they'll even charge a dug in mech Bn without support end never back down ;-)

[ShotMagnet]

In reality there is normally a much higher number of WIA then KIA. Correct, but this sim cares more about modeling unit effectiveness than who's actually still breathing. In the main you can assume that the squad you've just blasted with a HEAT round (or MG fire, or whatever) isn't really dead as in shuffled-off-this-mortal-coil, but that the unit itself as a cohesive and functional entity has been neutralized. The guys are there, more or less, but they're no longer following orders for the damage the squad has taken.

The same sort of thing is modeled in Advanced Squad Leader, in that damage to the squad can eventually result in that squad 'going away' even though realistically a fair proportion of the unit is actually still intact, on an individual basis.


Shot

[NEpi]

Correct, but this sim cares more about modeling unit effectiveness than who's actually still breathing. In the main you can assume that the squad you've just blasted with a HEAT round (or MG fire, or whatever) isn't really dead as in shuffled-off-this-mortal-coil, but that the unit itself as a cohesive and functional entity has been neutralized. The guys are there, more or less, but they're no longer following orders for the damage the squad has taken.


but if those troops are yours, in a RL situation you'll probably try to evacuate them, since casualties score means a lot on a broader tactical and strategic level (and because you don't really want your subordinates to die if you can do anything about it). SB doesn't model it, and IMO it should.

[Ssnake]

On the other hand, casualties (especially of infantry) mount much faster and in much greater numbers in SB than in real life, it seems. Most of the modern battles about which I am reading these days involve "several hours of intense combat" with just a handful of casualties (e.g. Operation Anaconda lasted for about three days of intense bombardment, involved proably 1,000 soldiers and fighters of both US and al Qaida, and resulted in about 200 or 300 dead aQ fighters in total. That's an average rate of three or four dead per hour. Even if we take into account that the rate between KIA and WIA is 1:10 that still is just half a mech/infantry company per hour where many scenarios chew up an infantry battalion in just an hour or two.

To that extent the "Terminator mentality" of our infantry makes at least in part up for the fact that dismounts are at a severe and structural disadvantage in the kind of artificial enviroment that Steel Beasts uses. It's easier to spot dismounts than in real life because the terrain lacks the options for concealment, and grenades seem to be more lethal as well because the low terrain resolution offers less cover than real life as well.

Now, if we'd task the player in managing casualties as well - could happen at some point - this would require a counterbalance by reducing spotting abilities and ammo effectiveness.


We can't treat this issue as an isolated feature. It must be seen in the overall context.

[ShotMagnet]

...if we'd task the player in managing casualties as well - could happen at some point - this would require a counterbalance by reducing spotting abilities and ammo effectiveness.A player can already be tasked with managing casualties, if the designer of a scenario deems it fitting. Infantry losses can be counted as part of the scoring formula and influence the score (presumably negatively) as they mount.

Personally speaking, I don't have or see a problem with how infantry behave in -ProPE. They seem more effective than they had been, which is to say they are more likely to take a shot at a tank. With the -.273 patch they don't kill with every hit, but you still have to be careful around them, just as you would in reality.

Do they get chewed up very quickly? Yes, but I don't think that's unrealistic. Given what modern tanks can do, and given that infantry all by their lonesome against WWII-era AFV had a pretty hard time of it, I don't think otherwise can be expected even if infantry are positively bristling with hand-held AT weaponry.


Shot

[nimo]

To that extent the "Terminator mentality" of our infantry makes at least in part up for the fact that dismounts are at a severe and structural disadvantage in the kind of artificial enviroment that Steel Beasts uses. It's easier to spot dismounts than in real life because the terrain lacks the options for concealment, and grenades seem to be more lethal as well because the low terrain resolution offers less cover than real life as well.


ssnake, if i edit the soldier camo files and "sink" down the soldier image will it affect the concealment of the soldier? or it will only affect the look of the soldier? (is the gray area is a "no hit" and image area is a "hit")

and another idea - can you add a "terrain concealment" value that will make the soldier image looks submerge in the ground when laying down?
for example when a value of 40 cm is set only the head will be visible.

[Ssnake]

Our computer controlled units do not perform an image analysis of what they could see in their sights. That would be a total performance killer. Hence, changing the visuals (making the sprites larger/smaller/changing their colors) wouldn't change a bit in the way how they're being spotted by computer controlled forces.

Having said that, sinking units into the ground to improve concealment and cover is one of the elements on The List.