Wounded soldiers

[Georgi Stomana]

So the idea is, during war soldiers can be wounded as well as killed in battle. If some soldiers are wounded then they are automatically transfered to your Hospitals, where they can be healed in a few days and then return as soldiers. Each hospital could take a few thousand wounded soldiers at a time. If you don't have any Hospitals, or don't have any room left in your existing ones, the soldiers just die.

[Morgan]

So the idea is, during war soldiers can be wounded as well as killed in battle. If some soldiers are wounded then they are automatically transfered to your Hospitals, where they can be healed in a few days and then return as soldiers. Each hospital could take a few thousand wounded soldiers at a time. If you don't have any Hospitals, or don't have any room left in your existing ones, the soldiers just die.

I think this could be a good idea. 

[naTia]

As an idea, I like the addition to hospitals in terms of usefulness and a fair way to add to warfare without just getting more barracks or something.

 

In terms of mechanics, this is fairly different and makes me hesitant to want to add it to the game.

 

Edit: looking back on it, I think a few thousand soldiers is way too many. Max like 1k per hospital. Maybe even down to the hundreds.

Edited December 1, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Dusty Bottoms]

I support the idea in theory, but I want to see numbers before it is implemented.

[Fox Fire]

So the idea is, during war soldiers can be wounded as well as killed in battle. If some soldiers are wounded then they are automatically transfered to your Hospitals, where they can be healed in a few days and then return as soldiers. Each hospital could take a few thousand wounded soldiers at a time. If you don't have any Hospitals, or don't have any room left in your existing ones, the soldiers just die.

This is a unique idea that has potential.

 

I support the idea in theory, but I want to see numbers before it is implemented.

[Greene]

Maybe instead of this changing the mechanics too much, hospitals could simply reduce the overall casualty rates calculated in a particular attack without altering the win/loss calculation? So say I have 10k soldiers, 2 hospitals, and I lose the war. Again, for purposes of discussion, lets say my current casualties would be 2k. Yikes. Now since I have 2 hospitals, even though I've lost that war, maybe I get to save, I don't know, maybe an extra 10% of casualties per hospital, so 400 soldiers saved? I've still lost the war, but instead of ultimately having 2000 casualties, I only have 1600. That would greatly reduce the impact on gameplay while also allowing hospitals to be useful.

[Morgan]

Maybe instead of this changing the mechanics too much, hospitals could simply reduce the overall casualty rates calculated in a particular attack without altering the win/loss calculation? So say I have 10k soldiers, 2 hospitals, and I lose the war. Again, for purposes of discussion, lets say my current casualties would be 2k. Yikes. Now since I have 2 hospitals, even though I've lost that war, maybe I get to save, I don't know, maybe an extra 10% of casualties per hospital, so 400 soldiers saved? I've still lost the war, but instead of ultimately having 2000 casualties, I only have 1600. That would greatly reduce the impact on gameplay while also allowing hospitals to be useful.

 

In addition to this, the rates of casualties should depend on how successful the soldiers attack is or how successful they are defending against an attack. 

Edited December 1, 2014 by Morgan

[SAI-40]

So, would this mean that you couldn't replace soldiers in barracks until they've healed? I can see that quickly turning into a disadvantage to the losing side.

[Reagan]

I support the idea of hospitals reducing troop casualties by a small percentage per hospital.  However, I think it's getting a little too complex for a game like this to begin factoring in time off of the battlefield, etc.

[Grillick]

It's actually a very neat idea. If I understand what he's saying, it would essentially increase the number of soldiers you could recruit per day starting a couple days after the first casualties, by essentially providing free recruitment that doesn't count against the cap.

[Titus]

You could, just to make it more complicated introduce disease rate, so soldiers die in hospital if the disease rate is too high. Although then you could also allow air strikes or missile strikes against hospitals containing soldiers as they are viewed as important to the war effort.

[WISD0MTREE]

air strikes or missile strikes against hospitals 

If there is a "war crime" penalty involved... 

[Titus]

If there is a "war crime" penalty involved... 

Well if it's being used to house primarily to house soldiers, is it?

[Morgan]

Has Sheepy had any feedback on this idea?

[Georgi Stomana]

To be honest now that I see the criticism I don't think the idea is that great, as it would either give a large advantage to the defender (if they can replace wounded troops with more troops bypassing the barracks allowance) or give an advantage to the nation who is already winning the war.

[Morgan]

To be honest now that I see the criticism I don't think the idea is that great, as it would either give a large advantage to the defender (if they can replace wounded troops with more troops bypassing the barracks allowance) or give an advantage to the nation who is already winning the war.

I suppose you're right. It's still an interesting idea though. Maybe there can still be a wounded statistic added and you would need to heal your soldiers after the war and a general certain percentage would live and die. Thoughts?