Infantry Thoughness values ?

[RecruitMonty]

I don't have any problems with infantry toughness. Perhaps there is something wrong with your PC or with your DL/CD of the game.

[Irinami]

Monty, I think you're trying to be too precise. Rembember, this is a simulation--more to the point, an abstraction. You have 4 casualties, and that's all you're told. You have to do a little Zen or Deconstructionism (a la Derrida) and figure out what you're not being told, for example:

You're not told if they're...
... dead.
... just wounded.
... wounded badly.
... grazed.
... left behind.
... brought along.
... able to fight.
... not able to fight.
... might be able to fight.
... etc.

When the end result is unsatisfactory, the the process of seeing if the reasoning has to be narrowed down can begin--note, not the process of narrowing down/specifying.

For example, I'm sure you've all heard of the Australian helicopter flight sim that accidentally armed Kangaroos with SAM's, since they were modelled/simulated as a sub-class of Infantry. Well, the result was desired: Pilots avoided Kangaroos. Roos will spook when a helo flies over, thus alerting people that a helo's around. So... there's no reason to "fix" it. That SAM may have spawned from the Roo, but it may as well have been fired by someone sneaking along with them. Just an analogy for ya.

[RecruitMonty]

Yeah fair enough but did the game developers or for that matter Don or anyone else say that? I always worked on the assumption that when men dissapeared they were gone for good. In my view it makes for a better game that way. Otherwise they would have to simulate bodies or wounded troops left behind.

[Marek_Tucan]

Yup, it is intended that the "casaulty" means soldier uncapable to fight anymore, be it from his head being just blown off or just from the shell shock.

[Mobhack]

Already answered:

message

Cheers
Andy