Cannon fodder or precious teammates?

[Brian Boru]

How do you view your combat resources?

I take it as a personal failing if any of my guys die. I won't send 10 guys charging into 6 enemies knowing I'll win with 5-6 still standing, I'll try and lure them onto mine so our fortified position can keep all of my guys alive—or decoy 3 of theirs so all mine can take them out with concentrated fire, and then heal efore finishing off the other 3.

If it's RTS I'll have 2 squads and pull one back to the garage or mechanic once its members take significant damage. In 4X I go for any flanking bonuses as soon as they're available.

I'll often make a mission goal not to lose a single troop, and restart if one falls.

How about you?

PS: not much surprise that my favorite unit ever is the Apocalypse Tank, one of many advances on the original excellent Mammoth Tank. Not only can it fight air, infantry and armor, it can pull back and slowly self-heal! Hmm… that's food for another thread.

 

[ZedClampet]

Well, in Total War games, you are sometimes forced to play with cannon fodder in the early game. Some factions like the Tomb Kings and Vampires have garbage for starting units, and sometimes you will have to rely on outnumbering your opponent with cheap units. Lizard men are only slightly better. I've gone into a battle with a couple thousand people and a stegosaurus and only come out with a stegosaurus. But this is a war game, so you lose people/creatures.

Tactical unit games are different. In Xcom 2 I scum saved my way to the end, not losing anyone. It's really nearly impossible to do that without scum saving, though I did come close on a second playthrough and only lost a couple of people.

Other than party-based cRPG's and Xcom-like games, I can't really think of any games where I've had a team, except for Rainbow 6: Las Vegas, and then we constantly killed them accidentally with C4.

I'd be interested in finding out about some good games where you control a tactical team.

 

[Johnway]

When it comes to RTS games, I expect units to be expendable. Don't get me wrong, i'll try and keep units alive as much as possible and i prefer siege warfare instead of banzai charges, but losses are expected and there will be a point that you have to do a unit rush. All i can do is just prep a sizeable force so that losses are neglectable or at the very least buy me enough time for a second wave.

That said, some factions and games expect you to throw expendable units. The zerg springs to mind. They're cheap, and expendable as you can build more in seconds and most units either come in masses or are massive bullet sponges and you have no choice but to throw them out. Honorable mention goes to supreme commander where vast armies can be churned out in minutes and be destroyed in seconds. Since they are just materialized out of thin air, there's very little strategy besides mass aerial formations or tank rushes. The only thing that matters are the colossal units all the smaller units are worthless as they blow up with one shot.


As for other games like Total war? meh, not really. I think its probably because i never really understood you could reinforce units easily in the older games and the only ones worth saving are your heirs and best units like heavy cav etc.

On the flip side, Xcom my characters are preserved at all costs. Not one soldier must die on my watch! in fact i can confidently say that if you're part of xcom odds of you surviving is guaranteed. So the tut where some of your units die irks me as i could have done better.

 

[Sarafan]

It depends on the game. In a pretty standard RTS I have no hesitations to loose units. These games were designed this way. It's hard to keep all units alive. Of course there's the resource cost calculation (however brutal that may sound ), so if I suffer heavy looses, I frequently load the game.

In games that propose a more tactical approach (XCOM or RTS games that don't involve base building) the losses are more painful and I try to avoid them. Let's take Original War as an example. Every soldier there has a unique name and personality. You can get attached to these characters. Losing them is definitely not cool, especially if you have them from the very beginning.

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

I am actually terrible at RTS games, so it's more of a "Whatever it takes to win" mentality, if that means sacrificing 200 x @Brian Boru units so that I can spank the enemy with my 50 x @WoodenSaucer then so be it.

I seem to find myself enjoying the gathering resources & building a base part of the game more than the battles. I've only had a few battles on occasions with friends that have lasted a couple of hours each and been incredible fun.

 

[Brian Boru]

spank the enemy

Your timber plates will disintegrate in the face of my flaming arrows!

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I have no good input. I don't like games like that. I'm a loner when it comes to gaming. I don't like controlling a group.

I am actually terrible at RTS games, so it's more of a "Whatever it takes to win" mentality, if that means sacrificing 200 x @Brian Boru units so that I can spank the enemy with my 50 x @WoodenSaucer then so be it.

Thanks for realizing and pointing out my superior status!

 

[Brian Boru]

I have no good input

You should've quit at that point, but no, you had to continue and prove it

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

Your timber plates will disintegrate in the face of my flaming arrows!

You becareful not to burn yourself, we only get one of you and you're precious!

I have no good input. I don't like games like that. I'm a loner when it comes to gaming. I don't like controlling a group.


Thanks for realizing and pointing out my superior status!

It's okay mate, I've got your back!

You should've quit at that point, but no, you had to continue and prove it

He's a legend in his own way. 😅

 

[mainer]

I realize that you're probably talking about strategy games here, but from a party-based RPG perspective, companions always come first. The problem with those games though, is that in the majority of combat situations, even if a companion (teammate) falls during combat, they get up at the end, so they never really die. There are certain missions (like the suicide mission in ME2), where teammates can die based on choices you made, but overall, it's rare for a teammate to actually die.

There are also some RPGs I've played recently, like Greedfall and Elex 2, where teammates can only get knocked down during combat, and after a short time period get back up and fight as good as new. But they tend to charge blindly into any combat situation anyway, so there's no real concern there.

Going back to games like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, the death of teammates was a real concern, because they could actually die permanently. In most cases (not disintegration) you could take them to a temple for resurrection, but that was never acceptable to me. While I don't normally go for Steam achievements, the one I really wanted for BG2 was (and got) was "Leave No Friend Behind":

The only strategy games I've played were the Myth real time strategy games from Bungie, as they felt very RPGish to me. Surviving unit types gained experience and became more powerful, and I was very protective of my archers and dwarves who could wreak havoc if gaining the high ground.

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

I realize that you're probably talking about strategy games here, but from a party-based RPG perspective, companions always come first. The problem with those games though, is that in the majority of combat situations, even if a companion (teammate) falls during combat, they get up at the end, so they never really die. There are certain missions (like the suicide mission in ME2), where teammates can die based on choices you made, but overall, it's rare for a teammate to actually die.

There are also some RPGs I've played recently, like Greedfall and Elex 2, where teammates can only get knocked down during combat, and after a short time period get back up and fight as good as new. But they tend to charge blindly into any combat situation anyway, so there's no real concern there.

Going back to games like Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, the death of teammates was a real concern, because they could actually die permanently. In most cases (not disintegration) you could take them to a temple for resurrection, but that was never acceptable to me. While I don't normally go for Steam achievements, the one I really wanted for BG2 was (and got) was "Leave No Friend Behind":

The only strategy games I've played were the Myth real time strategy games from Bungie, as they felt very RPGish to me. Surviving unit types gained experience and became more powerful, and I was very protective of my archers and dwarves who could wreak havoc if gaining the high ground.

On a side note, would you recommend BG2?

 

[Zloth]

Depends on the game. If I'm sending out a fleet of carriers with a bunch of fighters on each, I'm not going to insist that every fighter return! Maybe not even every carrier.

The point at which the game is can matter, too. This was a terrible result in Mechwarrior 5 - but I took it. It was the last mission in the campaign, so whatever. Roll the credits!

I realize that you're probably talking about strategy games here, but from a party-based RPG perspective, companions always come first.

Except Sten. He was a bad man and deserved to die. (Well, once anyway. I kinda got him killed a few dozen times.)

 

[Pifanjr]

It depends on whether I'll need those units later. In games where units level up or improve over time, keeping units alive matters more than in games where they don't. So it very much depends on the game on how much I'm willing to spend to keep anyone alive though. Though if my patience runs out, I'll gladly sacrifice one or more units just to be done with a quest/objective/level, as long as I think I can continue without them.

When I was playing XCOM in iron man mode, I've definitely sacrificed some low level grunts to make sure my high level units could escape, especially the snipers.

 

[mainer]

On a side note, would you recommend BG2?

Absolutely. One of the best RPG experiences I've ever had. I'd also recommend playing BG1 first, and then importing your character into BG2. It's not absolutely necessary of course, that's just how I play those games. Just be aware that even the enhanced editions will look a bit dated until you get used to them.

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

Absolutely. One of the best RPG experiences I've ever had. I'd also recommend playing BG1 first, and then importing your character into BG2. It's not absolutely necessary of course, that's just how I play those games. Just be aware that even the enhanced editions will look a bit dated until you get used to them.

That's fine, I look at @Brian Boru enough and he's dated..

I'll be sure to check them out then. I wish I played Witcher 2 to copy the story over, I do like the idea of carrying a character across.

 

[Brian Boru]

I do like the idea of carrying a character across

Me too. Ideally, a Viking back across the North Sea.

 

[HenrykForkbeard]

Me too. Ideally, a Viking back across the North Sea.

Ooooh now it's an immigration thing! lol.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Ooooh now it's an immigration thing! lol.

This is now relevant to the thread

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNhD0oS5pk

 

[Johnway]

Perhaps the key factor for most people is whether its a numbers game? As stalin once said: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."

So... if i have a couple of fleshed out squad mates (backstory, personality etc) that i know very well, i would do my utmost to keep them alive. But random load of nondescript soldiers (aka killbots)? Who cares if i lose a couple. The once concern is again number. if i have a limited number and little chance of reinforcements? Preserve as much as possible. But once i can build thousands of them and i have cash to burn? unless they're really experienced and not easily replaced, send them into a banzai attack.

of course it really depends on what kind of game it is really. SP i take my time but in MP games? i'll probably just send them out to die.

I remember in COH the last mission in the campaign and the AI allied army was just using units like they were expendable as it kept throwing out engineers with flamethrowesr to do the work . meanwhile i built up my forces creating choke points, reinforcing the allied AI when possible and just building one large army to stem the tide. Did make me wonder whether i was playing the game wrong. Then again, i wonder whether i was playing COH all wrong every time.

 

[Zimbaly]

They are precious teammates who are also meat for the grinder to get things done.

I've played a ton of war games through the years and sometimes ya need meat in the grinder to jam it up and get others through.

I have no problem sending my teammates to their virtual deaths knowing it will get stuff done. I'll just be there leading the way with em.

Remember we can always respawn in a game.