An idea for a new class of units - medical unit types

[Warhorse]

Hey Guys, look up under his mod in the hosted area, I'm going to host the file on my Dropbox, I already had it in there for another group of folks anyway!!

[Panther]

Thank you Mike!

[Warhorse]

You are welcome!!

[Skryabin]

I may be missing the point, but what I can't get is why those medical units are going to affect moral? Are they psychiatrists? If loses of a platoon SP include not only killed, but also wounded, I would expect medical unit to have some chance of increasing one Strength Point to an infantry platoon that carried heavy SP loses. Like helping wounded and getting them back in fight. A small chance, but still. And NO LOS for those medical units for sure. This way it would work for me...

[K K Rossokolski]

"I may be missing the point, but what I can't get is why those medical units are going to affect moral? Are they psychiatrists?"

[John Given]

Glad to see the comments are still coming. Ok, I'll answer a few more for the road...

Posted by Herr Straßen Läufer - Monday, February 4th, 2013 06:52 AM Sending ideas to Jason to have them dumped into the game is how we got things like bomber bases, extreme assault, variable visibility, heavy bridge construction engineers (that can theoretically build a bridge that armor can cross in six minutes), subs that cannot "sub"merge, on board aircraft that occupy a hex space and can change victory hexes, etc..
None of these "added" to the game. Some have gone as far as fracturing the CS community.

I agree to a point here Ed - I would agree that 'unrealistic' units might have a damaging effect on our hobby. They certainly have caused some bitter arguments. BUT...

a. This is why I created this thread. I want people to talk about their arguments for or against such an addition as medical units.

b. How many scenarios are there, really, that have the above units you mentioned? A handful at most...out of what - over 1,500 scenarios between all the CS games (mods included)? These 'bad' units you mentioned don't effect me at all, because I never see them (I realize that's not your point, but try to look at it from my point of view for a sec).

c. I am most certainly not the person or persons who advocated adding these units (the grounded bombers etc) to the game. That's not what you're implying, is it?

d. In the past, I have sent lists of 'missing' vehicles to Jason that should have been in the game oob, but were not. (I suspect several of us have, actually) One example - the Flakpanzer I. (About 50 were made, they mostly served on the East Front. Pz I chassis, open topped, 20mm AA gun). He said these absent vehicles will be added in a later patch.

And he is quick to correct me when I mention vehicles to be added that turn out to be already in the oob. So Jason is very aware of what is actually missing and what simply has a narrow date range / availability in the oob. He's very thorough.

Another example - defense factors for soft (motorized) vehicles - they should all be raised to 2, for the sake of continuity. Jason agreed and said it will be corrected in the next patch. (IMO, part of our 'duty' as gamers to watch out for and help to correct oversights like this, right?)

e. ANYTHING not "oversight or absent unit" related, like this topic, I take it to the forums. That's out of respect for my fellow hobbyists. Remember my "armor thickness / defense factor formula" thread? I felt that was important enough to bounce off everyone - even though it would have altered the defense factors of only a handful of armored units.

Posted by Herr Straßen Läufer - Monday, February 4th, 2013 06:52 AM As far as medics affecting only the hex they are in? Isn't that already factored into the morale of individual units?

If you want the unit included in the game as "chrome" I'm all for it. Scenario designers can use them at their wish.

As to your first sentence - yes. That function is already covered by officers, but i would like to remind you of an earlier snippet I pointed out in an earlier post of mine -

a. that officers are often few and far between;

b. They often won't affect (boost) all the units in a hex);

c. I tend to keep mine with the HQ's to boost supply range;

d. And, they tend to be valuable - I always loose my officers to lucky shots or artillery. I don't like to risk them.

That's FOUR reasons!

As far as them being 'chrome' as you say - yes, that's one way to put it. Medical units like this will not affect the game much.

Posted by Skryabin - Yesterday 10:32 PM
I may be missing the point, but what I can't get is why those medical units are going to affect moral? Are they psychiatrists? If loses of a platoon SP include not only killed, but also wounded, I would expect medical unit to have some chance of increasing one Strength Point to an infantry platoon that carried heavy SP loses. Like helping wounded and getting them back in fight. A small chance, but still. And NO LOS for those medical units for sure. This way it would work for me...

Ok, some good points here.

a. These proposed medical units are affect morale because there is no real way to simulate 'healing' within the confines of the game engine. Higher morale represents men becoming ready to fight more quickly - the removal of the disrupted status. As we all know, as units loose morale, it becomes harder and harder to recover - in many cases might mean the unit will NEVER recover from this status before the scenario ends, effectively removing that unit from effective combat operations.

b. As far as medics recovering strength points - as far as I'm aware, that's beyond the limitations of the game engine. Nice idea, though.

c. No LOS for medical units - an excellent idea! And I agree completely - this is a 'must have.'

And here's a few ideas of my own -

1. that medics should only be able morale-boost / heal infantry type units only? Just throwing that out there.

2. Ambulance-type medical units having a cargo capacity - infantry type only, but no more than one strength point for the ambulance...this means that only really shot-up units could be given transport (presumably to a MASH hospital, or at least into safer territory). However, while riding inside, I'm not sure if the morale boost function would be enabled - that might be a game engine limitation. Might have to unload to 'heal.'

Well, I've seen a lot of positives lately. Not all that many negatives. I'm still waiting for a 'make or break' argument. Trying not to step on any toes. In retrospect, I probably should have created a poll instead - and put this to an actual vote. :whis:

[K K Rossokolski]

"1. that medics should only be able morale-boost / heal infantry type units only? Just throwing that out there."

I for one am not aware of any civilised military force that instructs the medical branch to heal only one branch of the service. But I do agree that the "throw it out" is appropriate......... for the whole idea.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Glad to see the comments are still coming. Ok, I'll answer a few more for the road...

I'm sorry you feel the burden of defending your positions.
My comments about suggestions for new units was not directed specifically toward you.
Your ambulance/medic was just another idea in the bucket of other ideas (from other players) that have been put into the game.
I've seen it in the past. "Hey, I got a coooool idear here to help make the game more realistic/better/easier/harder/bigger/smaller/whatever that got dumped into the game without regard to scale or impact.
Yes, I know it may be a far few scenarios that have them. The "effect" will be minimal overall. But, it does not dispense the notion that they are not going to be good for the game. If you have them made and can put them into your scenarios for you to play with, that is fine by me. To force them upon every one else because they "exist" is not.
That scenarios did not have enough leader units is a designer issue. The lack of them could be either laziness or an effort to balance the game.

I applaud you for all the good that you do for the game. Especially with existing units and missing units. I just do not want or need medics to be added to the game.
One poster already changed the parameters of you medic's effect upon the game. He wants strength points added to units that have them. I guess if they throw on a bandage and give a shot of morphine they can get guys back to fighting ... in six minutes?

You have not seen that many negatives?
The medical unit itself is a negative. Pandora's box comes to mind.



HSL

---

"1. that medics should only be able morale-boost / heal infantry type units only? Just throwing that out there."

I for one am not aware of any civilised military force that instructs the medical branch to heal only one branch of the service. But I do agree that the "throw it out" is appropriate......... for the whole idea.

That would bring about an interesting dilemma?
A medical unit gets "captured" and increases the strength and morale of the enemy units?
Pandora is watching!



HSL

[PawelM]

In my view there is no need for more morale boosting units in CS. No matter medics, chaplains etc. I think that leaders, command control and the starting level of morale of the unit selected by the scenario designer capture this aspect of the battle well enough for CS scale. Personally more purely morale boosting units would just increase the clutter on the battlefields as the trucks can do.
As for voices about too small number of leaders prompting the need for morale boost units: leaders in my view represent extremely skilled commanders who could make the difference in the battle. Not every commander had this skill hence not many of them in the scenarios. Other commanders are not worthe including and are better off omitted ( what is the point of leader with 0 command which does not make any difference) and merged into the first platoon as command control does.

Also I prefer that unit morale is set accordinly for the scenario ( high or low) based on the overall presence of the morale boosting units. This would be enough to capture the effect rather than adding 'not much doing ' units and extending the morale asapect more than it already is. So in my view it is more of a question: do we want to enhance morale effects and boosting decreasing capabilities?

Then the queation is how a bout capturing cowardly and poor leaders w ith negative morale impact? I am sure nobody would stack them with their units if they had negative command coefficient :)

---

As for healing- weird idea given the game scale. What happens the with the poits? If I kill 1sp of an units and get points for it, then what happens to my points after they have been healed? Do I keep the points or the healing process reverts it? If I keep the points and the kill the same unit again after healing I can get doubole triple point for repeatedly killing the units?

if the people can be healed, then how about disbled tanks? Surely the tracks can be fixed healed and the tank can come back to action. You can apply this to any vehicle..

I think this healing bussiness is even more dangerous than morale boosting

[Kool Kat]

That function is already covered by officers, but i would like to remind you of an earlier snippet I pointed out in an earlier post of mine -

a. that officers are often few and far between;

b. They often won't affect (boost) all the units in a hex);

c. I tend to keep mine with the HQ's to boost supply range;

d. And, they tend to be valuable - I always loose my officers to lucky shots or artillery. I don't like to risk them.

That's FOUR reasons!

As far as them being 'chrome' as you say - yes, that's one way to put it. Medical units like this will not affect the game much.

Hey John:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the morale function is already performed by the CS commander units. Why introduce a "lesser officer" unit that only boosts morale?

But, your stated reasons for introducing a medic unit can be summarized as; (1.) Scenario design (2.) Game style.

Scenario design: It "may" be poor scenario design to have a lack of commander units in a game... or as stated by other posters, it may be an attempt to add balance or to keep an unwanted function (e.g. Banzai) out of a scenario. In any case, the "solution" would be for designers to create better scenarios with adequate commander units or, in the case of RS, remove the unrealistic Banzai function.

But, I don't understand the need for introducing a new unit to "correct" a poor scenario design? Should that burden not fall to the scenario designer?

Game style: Three of your four stated reasons for introducing a medic unit are game style.

Units, in the same command chain as their officer, will have their morale boosted when stacked with their officer. This function encourages players to keep units in the same command chain, close together, to simulate unit cohesiveness, command / control, and improve morale. But, it does not force players to deploy their troops in this manner. So, if players choose to stack units operating from different command chains, than there will be no morale boost for these units. It's the players' choice.

Players have a choice on how to deploy and utilize their commander units. They may stack these units with front line troops to boost morale for either offensive or defensive actions. Or, in your game style John, you stack the officers with rear HQ to boost supply range and don't risk the commander units on the front lines. Again, it's a player's choice how commander units are deployed.

So, I don't understand the need to introduce a new unit to "correct" a player's choice or game style? Isn't it up to the player to decide how to utilize commander units... and to live by the consequences of that decision?

Scenario design and play style are elements that can be corrected now with a combination of better scenario designs... and players who use superior game styles to adopt and over come what gets thrown at them on the virtual battlefield.

IMO, the introduction of a new medic unit will not accomplish what you are striving to correct with your proposal John.