Acceptable Losses?

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jun 05 2002

One of the things I'm worried about is the historical accuracy in displaying "acceptable losses," or more accurately, the effect of losing troops in battle. I'm wondering if some countries will be forced to do some actions (or have some sort of downside) for simply throwing their soldiers away (or even just losing staggering amounts of soldiers in a war). This can have a major effect on the war effort and I think it should accurately be represented on the "home front," as it's known. Anyone else care to comment?

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Jun 05 2002

I disagree it shouldn't be based on country, but moral. I mean it really doens't make sense for it be based on country

danc · Post by **danc** » Jun 06 2002

On 2002-06-05 18:50, Doc wrote:
I disagree it shouldn't be based on country, but moral. I mean it really doens't make sense for it be based on country

I disagree. The US has a very low tolerance for combat casualties. China, India, Pakistan could loose thousands before their citizens started to grumble enough for the politicians to listen. The US looses 18 in Somalia and it effects US foreign policy for 8 years.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 06 2002

We are including a consideration for "war weariness" and the effect of casualties on the morale and approval of the general population; the effect does differ by the type of government (it would be most acute in a democracy, least in a Communist or Dictatorship region).

There is also a consideration for the reason for war - defending against invasion is generally well received, whereas a surprise attack on a former ally is not so popular.

-- George.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Jun 06 2002

true but think of the losses we accured in World War II? I think that it all depends on what the puplic THINKS is happening.

danc · Post by **danc** » Jun 07 2002

On 2002-06-06 21:04, Doc wrote:
true but think of the losses we accured in World War II? I think that it all depends on what the puplic THINKS is happening.

OK, i am seeing your point. I also think the soccer moms and berkely students would stop complaining if they could see the dust clouds of the enemy armored columns on the horizon.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 07 2002

I would also think a bit of general propoganda and 'spin' would have an effect. I'm not sure exactly how it will play out in the game, but there will certainly be situations where the public will support the military action more strongly, and situations where they will not.

WWII had wide public support, while Vietnam did not; even Desert Storm and the 'War on Terrorism' have wide support in the US, though other nations tend to be a bit more cynical on the reasons for Desert Storm or the long-term goals of engagement in Afghanistan.

In SR2010, we'll certainly try to take into account the 'perception' of the enemy (so-called evil dictatorships are good targets in the mind of the public), as well as the successes of military actions (sadly the public tends to like a good romp over the other guy, a concept that dates back hundreds if not thousands of years).

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2002-06-07 16:25 ]</font>