Hidden and Dangerous .net Forums

Hi,

What do you do when you lose a soldier (or more) under your command in action? Do you load the previously saved game or do you finish the mission despite the casualties? I hate war casualties by nature and I consider it a total failure of the mission if I lose a soldier so I load the mission again and do my best to keep them alive. In fact I have never accepted a single casualty and I will keep it that way. In H&D 1 and FFF though I think I did the same but not with such dedication. I think I lost 2 or 3 men overall. This makes the game a lot more difficult but keeps your conscience clear. You can say, I am a good commander and care for the lives of my men! All that theoretically of course By the way, do you feel any kind of attachment or sympathy for your men? I do, especially since I can see their faces and their decorations and medals!

geosouv wrote:What do you do when you lose a soldier (or more) under your command in action? Do you load the previously saved game or do you finish the mission despite the casualties?

It depends on my mind set. Am I doing it at the time for pleasure or accuracy. The game is already slightly forgiving if a commando with 10 thumbs can still heal himself to full health if they have enough health kits.

geosouv wrote:I have never accepted a single casualty and I will keep it that way. ... This makes the game a lot more difficult but keeps your conscience clear. You can say, I am a good commander and care for the lives of my men! All that theoretically of course

Unfortunately, no matter what you do, casualties sometimes cannot be avoided. Your conscience can be clear by knowing you did everything possible to ensure your people were properly trained and lead. In games, you can reload a save, this is not the case in real life. The H&D series are not run and guns ... stealth and proper tactics being your allies.

geosouv wrote:By the way, do you feel any kind of attachment or sympathy for your men?

Its always unfortunate to lose a well-trained individual but you can't dwell on it ... especially if the mission isn't over. You lose your edge once you start second guessing yourself.

geosouv wrote: I do, especially since I can see their faces and their decorations and medals!

Many games put names to faces so you don't use them as cannon fodder. That is a basis of putting stories behind that face, etc. The original Ghost Recon also had faces, decorations, etc but only the specialists had full bios. You'll see deep character association once you start into Road to Hill 30 which you mentioned in another post.

As for character development and training, I felt H&D2 was more realistic because, as in real life, they gained experience on what they actually did; whereas Ghost Recon let you assign the points.

When I played through the original H&D games I never left a man behind, back to the last save game I went. With H&D2 I don't think I have left a man behind but playing on the highest difficulty... maybe I did but I doubt it. With H&D2 there is a greater incentive to keeping your men alive because of the skills that increase. I never add any extras to my team that I deem expendible, I like them to all be top notch. It can be frustrating to restart but keeping my men all alive is more important - luckily it's just a game

Duke0196 wrote: You'll see deep character association once you start into Road to Hill 30 which you mentioned in another post.

That's one of the two reasons I bought BIA. The first reason was that it is a tactical shooter. I am kind of tired of conventional First Person Shooters. The second reason is that it is emotional and it creates a bond between you and your men. I bought it for 5 €, so even if it is a mediocre game it doesn't matter. Which of the BIA series have you played? What do you think of them? I have read the reviews of gamespot and it says the first and last games were really good, especially the last one, which had great emotional load. The second one was very similar to the first one according to gamespot. But I want to hear your opinion since you are a user.

Jason, it seems we have a lot in common Well, I can understand that on the highest difficulty ("war is hell") it is very hard not to miss a single soldier. Congratulations for playing the game on the highest difficulty. You are a real veteran. I wouldn't dare to do so myself and I don't think I could survive. I tried playing Call of Duty: United Offensive on "hardened" but I couldn't even finish the first campaign (the American one) So I started a new game on the "regular" difficulty and I am having trouble with one very long mission in the American campaign, but I will make it provided I have slept well and eaten well. The brain doesn't work otherwise! United offensive was considered by critics a hard game compared to the original Call of Duty, which I was able to finish on "hardened" difficulty level.

geosouv wrote:Which of the BIA series have you played? What do you think of them? I have read the reviews of gamespot and it says the first and last games were really good, especially the last one, which had great emotional load. The second one was very similar to the first one according to gamespot. But I want to hear your opinion since you are a user.

Questions, questions, questions ... so don't blame me if my replies are lengthy.
First off, I will assume you are talking about the Main Series and not the spin-offs like the recent Brothers in Arms Spurious Four (actually the name is Furious Four).
- The main series consists of Road to Hill 30, Earned in Blood, and Hell's Highway. The first two are during Normandy while HH takes place during Operation Market Garden. You are SGT Matt Baker in the RTH30 & HH and CPL (later SGT) Red Hartsock in EIB. Since the main series is based on actual events of the 101st (just like the mini-series Band of Brothers) ... the next and possibly last release of the main series should be during the Battle of the Bulge.
- RTH30 and EIB are probably very similar since it also takes place in Normandy and they games were released within months of each other. The main difference is the game focuses on Baker's 3rd Squad in RTH30 or Hartsock's 2nd Squad in EIB. Events in the first game intermingle in the second and again you can see things from a different viewpoint. Events, however, mentioned in the first two are brought up in HH so its important to do the series in order to get a better appreciation of the storyline.
- You'll need to change the way you think since you are always Baker or Hartsock. You don't jump into the skins of the other soldiers so your tactics and strategy will either keep your troops safe and take the objective or they'll get shot up in trying.
- Another thing, BIA is not an open battleground like H&D2. Its linear though not as bad as the early Call of Duty or Medal of Honor stuff.
- Personally, I like BIA's main series. I eagerly await the next release just like I eagerly await H&D3. After all, they finally released Duke Nukem Forever ... so ... it could happen.

Yeah I don't think I played through the original COD games on anything higher than the "normal" difficulty (whatever it's called). I only just finished United Offensive and COD2 last year actually. COD UO was definitely a lot harder (and more frustrating) than COD1 and COD2.

I have BIA Road to Hill 30 and Earn in Blood in a pack, sitting on the shelf yet to be played. Only played the tutorial level. Seemed like a fun game. Probably a bit easier than H&D by the looks of it - correct me if I am wrong Duke

I was quite sure you played all of your games on hard difficulty! Yes I think UO is a great game, very intense and has improved weapons but the levels are not that well designed as in COD 1. Keep in mind that these two were not made by the same developer. But gamespot said it is a truly excellent expansion and I believe that. Call of Duty 1 received a score of 9.0 while UO received a score of 8.9. Not much difference is there? Oh boy, speaking about games that collect dust in shelves! I have 4 games in total that I own and haven't played yet. I used to play one game at a time in the past but now the prices are so low, I keep buying more and more games. I don't think that is the right thing to do though, because, as you collect games, some of them you may never actually play . Right now I am playing: Half-Life 2, Soldier of Fortune 2, Call of Duty United Offensive and Top Spin (1). But some of them I have quit playing because I need to play them again in a different difficulty level. There is no way you can change the difficulty level once you start a game unfortunately

Jason wrote:Yeah I don't think I played through the original COD games on anything higher than the "normal" difficulty (whatever it's called). I only just finished United Offensive and COD2 last year actually. COD UO was definitely a lot harder (and more frustrating) than COD1 and COD2.

COD UO? Isn't that the one that starts out with the Battle of the Bulge? Bloody hell. I can't recall how long it took me to get out of there and make the jeep ride back to HQ.
Funny, I only finished COD2 this year. You might remember I asked you about it. I didn't get it for the campaigns but because I wanted to play a COD2 Mod about the Spanish Civil War (that was the Spanish forum I gave you the link too).
I did, however, like COD5 ... or at least the Pacific War campaign. Ta for the recommendation.

Jason wrote:I have BIA Road to Hill 30 and Earn in Blood in a pack, sitting on the shelf yet to be played. Only played the tutorial level. Seemed like a fun game. Probably a bit easier than H&D by the looks of it - correct me if I am wrong Duke

That's true Jason. RTH30 and EIB are a bit more forgiving. Because of the linear story and scripted kills ... your guys won't die unless they are supposed to. They'll just be wounded and unavailable to you for the time being. Reload after the next checkpoint and there they are fresh as a daisy ... unless they were killed during the cut-scene.