Have a 1/10 chance that a bleeding soldier stabilizes.

[GizmoGomez]

Hello,

So, this is coming directly from my D&D experiences, in case people wondered.

I think that it would be a cool idea to have bleeding soldiers have a 1/10 chance (or whatever seems correct) to stop bleeding and stabilize. This would be "rolled" right before they would take damage for bleeding, and if they succeed on the "roll" they stop taking damage, and instead the notification says "<Soldier Name> has stabilized" or something along those lines. I think it'd be a good addition to the game.

What'do'ya think?

[raziel1981]

Would their CO be named "St. Lazarus"? I dont see how an injured soldier in the middle of combat spontaneously stabilizes.

Thumbs down on this suggestion

[erutan]

Blod clots. Given soldiers often have multiple 'wounds' this wouldn't make medikits useless.

[Commissar Pancakes]

Considering how aliens use Plasma weaponry, it can also be explained that the shot also cauterized the wound...though it feels like it would make the game a tad easier...

[GizmoGomez]

Well, make it a much smaller chance then. I mean, if there's a chance that a dead soldier is actually not dead, and is revived, why not a chance that a bleeding soldier is able to stop the bleeding, or the blood clots?

It'd make the game easier for some, yes, but how about when you've got a bleeding soldier pinned by enemy fire, and you have to decide whether or not to send a guy after him to save him? If there's no stabilization chance, then the only choice if you want to save him is to send a guy. If there's a chance, you can decide to send a guy and guarantee his survival (maybe, if the medic doesn't get shot first), or you can pray that he stabilizes and leave him. I think that the latter scenario is more tense, because you honestly don't know if he'll stabilize or not.

Perhaps the chance to stabilize can be effected by the hit points remaining, or something similar. So, the lower the hit points remaining, the lower the chance to stabilize. So, if you're barely bleeding and you've got enough HP left, you'd have an easier time stabilizing. If you're barely alive, then it's pretty much a no go on the stabilizing unless you get really really lucky.

[Gauddlike]

Personally if I was bleeding and there was no medic working on the wound I would apply a bit of pressure.

Probably only be possible if I wasn't running around much so the chance of stopping the bleeding would likely be dependent on how much AP I had spent (or reserved) on the previous turn perhaps?

[raziel1981]

fact is if a medic isn't around you and you're injured in combat to the point that you have a bleeding open wound, you're dead unless you have a really fast transport out of the battle field

[Gauddlike]

Another fact is that if you stop and control the bleeding it gives a medic more time to get to you.

Any old bit of cloth torn from your clothing will control bleeding to a degree.

Not as well as a medic with a proper field dressing of course.

A small bleeding leg wound could eventually incapacitate you if it not looked at.

Burns could be even worse but are covered under the same mechanic.

It doesn't need to be a spurting arterial bleed to be classed as a bleeding wound and slowly kill the soldier.

Yet another fact would be that if you are badly injured enough to need a medic that quickly you would likely not be continuing fighting anyway.

That is the state represented by your soldiers falling to the floor and taking no further part in the battle.

They may well die or they might pull through, a medic will make the latter more likely.

The suggestion is for the first part of this post.

If you have a bleeding wound (in game mechanic) then being able to control it before a medic can treat it, even if that just reduces the amount of HP lost per turn, would be useful.

[raziel1981]

point taken Gauldlike and agreed upon. Nevertheless, this does seem to me like another mile stone in the recent ideas that have been brought up (as well as designer choices) that are brought up to kill the challenge of the game.

[Gauddlike]

Depends how it is handled.

If it is an action that you have to decide to take, i.e. avoid moving or shooting on a turn in order to minimise bleeding, then there is a risk/reward balance.

You could fight on knowing that you are risking bleeding out or you could cower down and try to slow the bleeding until help can get to you.

That would be easier if the bleeding amount was tied to the amount of AP used in a turn thinking about it.

A set amount of damage plus an extra HP lost for every 10 AP used the previous turn, as an example.

[GizmoGomez]

Yeah, so that the more you do stuff, the more you bleed. This way, sitting still would be beneficial and would keep the wound from getting worse.

Interestingly enough, this idea mirrors D&D as well, somewhat. If you're at 0 HP, you're still stable, but if you do basically anything more than talking then you'll fall unconscious and begin to bleed to death, at a rate of -1 HP per round. Once you hit -10 HP you're dead. However, there's a chance, I'm pretty sure it's 1/10, every round that you'll stabilize due to luck, clotting, whatever. Any healing will stop you from bleeding to death, even if you're still in the negatives after the healing.

[raziel1981]

if their was a "move" to apply first aid to yourself, then yeah that would make it much more reasonable instead of another randomized condition pushed into the game.

[GizmoGomez]

I'd support that. I'd just like a way other than someone else's healing to stop bleeding.

[Frontspac]

That would be easier if the bleeding amount was tied to the amount of AP used in a turn thinking about it.

A set amount of damage plus an extra HP lost for every 10 AP used the previous turn, as an example.

I agree with this. Soldiers bleed a semi random amount based partially on their toughness. The minimum/maximum values for bleed-out are increased for a specific turn if they stand or move. This increase can stack up to a certain point of the soldier continually performs strenous activity in multiple consequtive turns.

The Minimumn/maximum values could also be reduced by having the solider crouched and stationary, with additional reductions to the bleedout range if they remained crouched up for sequential turns (up to a maximum, bleedout still happens regardless). This value (stack) is completely reset if the soldier moves or stands, which in turn starts increasing the bleed-out range again.

It would give an in-gameplay, player driven reason to have wounded soldiers moving slowly and taking turns to "rest", IE to prevent building up stacks of their maximum bleedout per turn.

[Gazz]

A small chance of [important event] is no good gameplay.

A perk/item that automatically prevents soldiers from bleeding to death or gives a soldier 2 "free turns" of bleeding - that's something that the player can work with.

But replacing a game mechanic with a random roll? Nah.

[ladlon]

Ya, I'm liking the 'stand still to prolong life' or 'use up Action Points to apply pressure (and prolong life)'. Gives the situation a nice bit of decision making and tension (make a run for the building or lay here in the bush, applying pressure for a while?). I support anything that adds tense/strategic decisions and/or a bit of drama/adventure to a situation. I've had moments in Arma2 like that which were pure gold... almost like a dramatic movie sequence.

[GizmoGomez]

Okay, lets just make a mechanic to spend TUs to decrease bleeding, then. I just hate to have my guys bleeding out when they can still be fighting, but no one with a medkit is nearby.