Possible last minute idea: Casualty totals for wars?

[Roman]

Very good idea but unfortunately it probably comes too late.

[monkspider]

Just want to make sure at least someone at Firaxis gets the chance to read this.

[Andrew_Jay]

It really shouldn't be too hard, they already have somewhat 'abstract' numbers to represent your population based on the numbers of your cities (i.e. 1,2,3,4. . . etc.) I remember in SMAC, you could obliberate an enemy city after capturing it, and you would be told the death toll ("20,000 Hive citizens have been put to death", etc.). This really isn't too different. So how about it Firaxis , just give each unit a number. A legion could be a couple thousand, a rifle unit might be 20 - 30,000, modern aircraft could be a couple dozen, the Second World War bomber could be a couple hundred and so on. It probably wouldn't be to hard, just spit out some half random numbers off the top of your head. I could keep doing it but I've written enough.
Thanks to whoever thought of this

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by UberKruX
only 1,000 men Alf?

what kind of sissy war are you fighting!?

the Uber KruX "global purgings" kill no less than billions.

UberKrux, it is always interesting, if not a joy, to read your posts. Why change your pic? The other one suited your character on Apolyton much better.

[Executor]

Maybe they can include it in the expansion pack (along with multiplayer)

[tniem]

Maybe I am the only one, but I really don't think this is that good of an idea.

It adds nothing to the game in terms of gameplay. It doesn't even add a degree of historical authenticity or help bring you into the enviornment that they are trying to create. It is going to be so fake in the numbers and unimportant that you won't be able to help thinking why is this included in the game.

You can't base casualties on an equation of units lost because even victorious units with out very much damage will lose a few people. And you can't base the equation on total population of a nation because then you are no longer dealing with units. No matter the equation picked, you will find it unrealistic to the point of unbelievable.

Now even if you can make an equation that makes some sense, it does nothing for the game. If you have it take population away from the cities then that would make sense but it is not possible under the pop point system that is still going to be used in Civ3. If it is going to be used for city unhappiness that makes some sense but it has to work into a whole framework of nation size and other factors. Think about it, the U.S. lost 50,000 in Vietnam while we lost 300,000 in World War II. Yet the first war was unpopular while the second was very popular. So it seems that again casualty counts are going to have little impact on any element of the game.

So first it is going to be unrealistic in the amount killed at least by the equations that are being proposed. Second these unrealistic counts are going to make you wonder why this is being included in the game and take you out of the whole Tower of Babel theme that has been set up. And the final blow is that it doesn't add a single element to the gameplay. So if it were up to me I would vote no!

[monkspider]

Fair enough Tniem, It is simply something that I personally find would add a sense of history to the game. Being able to guage how large-scale a conflict is and such. Maybe you will harbor resentment against say the Russians because your civ lost a huge number of casualities in a war againist them earlier on, there are literally infinite scenarios that can occur with something like this in place . I really would enjoy situations such as that and I would wager that most other Civ players would enjoy a similar envirionment.
There are more complex things that can be done to this, perhaps in some cases high casualty counts could lead to unrest or even be involved in some kind of an equation that would reduce the population of some cities if fighting becomes bloody enough. But all I really am asking for here is a very basic, casualty counter for reference purposes. Something along the same vein as basic game demographics that are already calculated in the game. I'm sure these numbers are meaningless to some people (presumably, such as yourself tniem), but there are also a good number that would find this system's inclusion to enrich the game greatly.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by tniem

It adds nothing to the game in terms of gameplay. It doesn't even add a degree of historical authenticity or help bring you into the enviornment that they are trying to create. It is going to be so fake in the numbers and unimportant that you won't be able to help thinking why is this included in the game.

I say if it adds to the fun factor and takes away nothing put it in who cares about realism. This is a game it's not realistic but it's fun.

[tniem]

Originally posted by monkspider
Maybe you will harbor resentment against say the Russians because your civ lost a huge number of casualities in a war againist them earlier on, there are literally infinite scenarios that can occur with something like this in place . I really would enjoy situations such as that and I would wager that most other Civ players would enjoy a similar envirionment.

Now if something like that was going to be included then I would be all for this suggestion. I mean as long as it has some purpose and not just added weight to the game. Because this is going to be added weight that is not going to be realistic and decrease the fun factor. But if it has a purpose than I could see it being important and fun to deal with.

There are more complex things that can be done to this, perhaps in some cases high casualty counts could lead to unrest or even be involved in some kind of an equation that would reduce the population of some cities if fighting becomes bloody enough.

Oh there are tons of things that could be added that would increase complexity with this and other ideas but would it be worth it? It is hard to say but the more complexity the harder the game will be and in the end probably less fun as you are trying to micromanage and balance everything. Just not the game I am looking forward to.

Something along the same vein as basic game demographics that are already calculated in the game. I'm sure these numbers are meaningless to some people (presumably, such as yourself tniem), but there are also a good number that would find this system's inclusion to enrich the game greatly.

Well personally I have always like the Demographics screen, I just think that this type of screen with casualties following a war is going to be unrealistic and take you out of the flow of the game. There are so many problems with the screen. First just the idea of coming up with a formula for losses. Then what about medicine and hospitals saving those injured. Not to mention when does a war end or a battle for that matter. How do we know? It just seems to be a very hard number to come up with and one that is not going to add much to the game.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by tniem

Now if something like that was going to be included then I would be all for this suggestion. I mean as long as it has some purpose and not just added weight to the game. Because this is going to be added weight that is not going to be realistic and decrease the fun factor. But if it has a purpose than I could see it being important and fun to deal with.

[

I believe we are actually in agreement than Tniem , that is the type of thing I was advocating. My more complex examples of population decreases and so forth were just an attempt to show that maybe something more could be done with this, if it were implemented well. However, I typically belong to the same school of thought that you do, more complexity is generally a bad thing in this type of game. Yes there may be some issues regarding medicine and hospitals, but I think a simple equation could represent an abstract, and mostly realistic account of real life.
As for when a war ends and beings, from what I understand regarding war time economy and mobilizing, it has pretty much been hard-coded when your civ is in war and at peace (see the mobilization thread for details).

cheers

[Jaybe]

I think the casualty figures, when given in people killed or wounded, not in units destroyed, is not practical. Though fun.

• How many people make up a unit: For a phalanx (64?); fighter (is that a flight or a squadron?); battleship (1 ship or plus escorts?); armor (brigade or division?)
• I have always considered that when a battleship sinks a frigate that the miniscule damage the battleship takes is due more to 'expendables consumed' than to damage. Or wear and tear on aircraft rather than planes actually destroyed.
• In my wargaming days of olde (1970s), a combat unit might be 'destroyed': not when it loses its last (man, tank, plane or ship), but when it is finished as an effective unit. May include the effects of morale, command-and-control, etc.
• In ground combat, a unit may be destroyed, but many 'stragglers' make it back to your lines, perhaps to be put into the replacement pool.

Come up with solutions for these points, and I'll be quite pleased.

[Nemo]

Civ II had these stats...why wouldn't Civ III?

[jdd2007]

Civ II had these stats...why wouldn't Civ III?

it did? where? u mean the casualty total showing the number of units lost? thats not what we r talking about...

[Trifna]

Agreed

[Jason Beaudoin]

I like the idea!

We should have a poll going here!