Snipers and Crews close assualting

[David]

Anyone else have a problem this?

Anyway I thought I would go to the OOB files and edit snipers and crews, removing any weapon that could be used to close assualt. Would this stop them from close assualting? Would me altering my OOB files in such a manner have and adverse effect on me being able to play via email or TCP/IP? If our OOB files do not match, would this prevent us from playing?

[Grumble]

Actually I don't, assuming these units pass a morale check before attacking. Tanks were destroyed/disabled by single folks, and small units throwing grenades or blocking treads with rocks/logs. Happened all the time in the Winter War.

[BA Evans]

Keep friendly infantry near your tanks. They will take care of those pesky crews.

Combined Arms?

BA Evans

[JKG]

Originally posted by Grumble:
Tanks were destroyed/disabled by single folks, and small units throwing grenades or blocking treads with rocks/logs. Happened all the time in the Winter War.

I tend to agree with David's original post that crews seem to be force modifiers outside of what one would historically expect.

Crews leave a tank for a reason..usually b/c they've suffered damage from hostile fire and risk sure death if they remain in their MBT. If they don't have a reasonable chance to survive behind thick metal armor their chances must be even smaller outside the tank unless they seek shelter/run away from whatever just toasted them.

The moral loss for a crew to abandon their tank and a fellow crewmembers who have been brutally killed or maimed must be high. Much higher than what is modeled. Instead, crews almost immediately take seemingly foolish orders such as the following: "Seargeant, you've just lost your tank and two of your crew to a Panther. I want you and your gunner to take this last remaining grenade and colt45 run up the treeline to the north about a hundred yards. Lay low. Once the Panzer Company appears over the crest of the hill drop the grenade in the first open hatch you see and shoot the accompanying infantry with the 45. I will be taking our remaining platoon back to the rally point. Try to make your way back after taking out that tank." "Yessir, brilliant plan sir. That's why you're an officer."

I can appreciate the detail that the addition of bailed crews to the game. It seems to make sense, but just doesn't have the flavor of truth during the game.

1) Crews are not infantry and should not be good AT teams
2) Crews are valuable b/c they can operate a MBT. Every effort would be made to recover a trained crew. That means not putting them in harms way.
3)Crews would not take the orders we issue to them (go recon ahead and attack any tanks and infantry you find)
4)B/C of the God like view of the battlefied we have, crews provide too much info to us as commanders.

IMHO crews should be treated abstractly (in order to represent salvaging crews instead of losing them automatically if a MBT is lost). If a tank gets brewed there is a die roll that a certain number of the crew will survive then a second die roll to see if that crew is able to escape back to enemy lines.

Crews as treated now are inappropriately powerful as infantry and recon.

[Paul Vebber]

IF crews are a big threat than you are simply using poor tactics. If you fire at them every other turn they can only move ONE HEX A TURN - hardly efficient recon. They often bail from the tank with no "official weapons" but heck human beings are resourceful so if you don't use combined arms tactics properly, then you get what you get

The C3 in the game is "Borg fighting each other with WW2 weapons" that isn't going to change. Its been said repeatedly the game gives you far more situational awareness than is realistic, and we have had to adjust things (artillery in particular) to account for that.

IF you are going to leave out crews, then you have to leave out snipers, and basically anybody that doesn't have a radio and you rapidly get to a game consisting of a blank screen with sounds of men screeming and every so often a "Blair Witch PRoject" glipse of what is going on.

Within the context of the game, proper tactics prevent crews from being an issue. Keep infnatry near your tanks and crews will dry up and blow away in the wind.

As to altered OOBs an TCIP, No altering your OOBs will not prevent your game from playing - but a message will be sent to the other players that you don't have teh same OOBs as whoever is hosting the game. So be prepared to explain

[JKG]

Ahhh Paul thanks for firing me up with your response. What follows is not a flame b/c I really enjoy playing and think you and your team have done a great job and what's more you're still hanging around responding to snipers and arm chair quarterbacks.

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
IF crews are a big threat than you are simply using poor tactics.

First off, I never said they were a big threat to me. I think my opponents will agree that I have a reasonably good grasp of tactics. I just don't see the added value with the way crews are treated now.

If you fire at them every other turn they can only move ONE HEX A TURN

And why would I want to fire at them every other turn? I want my AFVs to keep driving towards the arty and ammo dump. How does that advance my enjoyment of the game?

- hardly efficient recon.

I disagree. In meeting engagements it is often a good tactic to make an armored thrust deep into the enemy. If the crews of the AFVs I've engaged and destroyed hang around and spot my movement,next direction of attack, and who I'm bringing in behind the armor it is a great boon to my opponent. How many of us hide abandoned crews in rough hexes so we can spy on what is happening after our MLR is broken. I would say most of us including me. I think that penalizes uneccessarily the player who successfully destroys the enemy and escapes to his rear.

They often bail from the tank with no "official weapons" but heck human beings are resourceful

Yes they are, but mainly so when fighting for their survival, not when issued foolish orders to attack approaching tanks without appropriate weapons.

so if you don't use combined arms tactics properly, then you get what you get

Again, back to tactics. Crews themselves are a minor annoyance and not showstoppers. But what value do they add to gameplay once their AFV is destroyed. I agree that crews frequently survived to fight another day, but as crewman not infantry. That is the value in modeling crews..the long campaign not in PBEM scenarios.


Again The C3 in the game is "Borg fighting each other with WW2 weapons" that isn't going to change. Its been said repeatedly the game gives you far more situational awareness than is realistic, and we have had to adjust things (artillery in particular) to account for that.

Sure. I think we all understand that but why add to this "problem" with recon crews. If a player wants recon let them plan for that when they purchase and deploy units, not by giving them crews just b/c their AFV just got wasted.

IF you are going to leave out crews, then you have to leave out snipers, and basically anybody that doesn't have a radio and you rapidly get to a game consisting of a blank screen with sounds of men screeming and every so often a "Blair Witch PRoject" glipse of what is going on.

I disagree. Purchasing recon at the beginning of a scenario or PBEM is a choice b/c the player values recon. Sure snipers and other small units didn't have great ability to contact AO to give him great situational awarness, but I would say that is OK in the game b/c really when we purchase recon units we understand the abstraction we are making and the limitations of the game engine.

Within the context of the game, proper tactics prevent crews from being an issue. Keep infnatry near your tanks and crews will dry up and blow away in the wind.

Historically, it was not always appropriate for infantry to accompany tanks nor was it feasible. One historical use of tanks was the breakthrough of enemy lines and disruption of his rear. Infantry simply could not follow immediately(either lack of mobility or vulnerability of their carrier).

Not fighting this battle from an emotional standpoint. Just sharpening my teeth and giving another side of the story.

My final thoughts for Paul..

1) In your opinion, what is the advantage to having crews modeled after loss of their AFV? What would be missing from gameplay if crews of AFVs were absent on the battlefield but had some chance of surviving to the next scenario in campaigns?

[David]

My thoughts were simply that it is not realistic for crews or snipers to act the way they do in this game.

One of the things that makes this game great is the ability to change certain things. This ability allows the game to be played as I think it should.

I did not ask for a lesson in combined arms tactics. Never mentioned that I felt crews and snipers were a serious threat. I just wanted to know how my changing the OOB would affect my PBEM and online game. Thanks for the answer Paul.

[Nikademus]

an interesting debate. Previous opinion (my own included) was that it was 'prefered' to have control over one's valuable crews (in order to get them to safety) vs the older method of having them more or less in permament rout whereby they would more often than not retreat into harms way.

However i may have to change that opinion if the use of these crews as "recon" and "spys" is as prevalent as is being stated here in this thread.

I would agree, that overall, bailed crews are going to be too concerned with extracting themselves from danger vs continuing on as pseudo-special ops forces.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rules, but they are just that....exceptions. No one ever disputed that human beings were resourceful and capable of incredible acts of bravery and cleverness (especially in war)

Perhaps one might be able to institute some sort of 'suppresion' penalty for advancing crews towards the enemy objectives vs retreating towards your own start lines? Suppressed units have far less ability to spot other units.

this suppression penalty could also accumilate even if the crew sits tight eventually causing a 'retreat'

[Epicurius]

Great idea Nicka

[Grumble]

I guess I was naive in that I thought anyone would use Snipers for their primary function and bailed-out crews for theirs. My take is that as part of their PRIMARY job, snipers-shooting folks; crews-escaping to the rear, they should be able to close assault vehicles that would threaten completion of that mission. My Weltanschauung can't envision using crews for non-historical purposes ie infantry, and OPs.
Silly me.

[Panther]

You guys think that close assaults are bad. I just lost a BA20 to a sniper fireing at 400 yards. Well it did take him 3 shots.

[Mac_MatrixForum]

I don't have a problem with snipers, they're elite guys, IMO.

Crews? Well, why not make them cost a significant portion of the cost of the vehicle and the players will consider twice using them for lowly tasks like scouting... imagine a 100pt crew...

------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu

"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5

[Epicurius]

<<<My Weltanschauung can't envision using crews for non-historical purposes ie infantry, and OPs.>>>

I have not heard weltanschauung in a long time! I had a history prof @ A&M who drilled us on it everyday. "What is your weltanshchauung on this subject?" He would say.

I am not sure if you used it correctly in this particular instance, Heck I may have not been using it right all these years.

I am going to lean toward the heavy suppression model on this issue. I have had MANY tanks killed and was still able to do some cool stuff with their crews. In one game in PBEM, I had a total of 7 crews with a total of about 26 men assault a hill that my opponent had taken and was now defending with infantry.

Did they take it? Yes
Was it a-historical? Yes
Was it in the confines of the game? Yes
Was it a hell of a lot of fun rubbing
my friend's nose in the fact that a
bunch of crewmen took his hill? Yes
Should it be addressed in 3.0? Yes

[JKG]

Originally posted by Mac:
Crews? Well, why not make them cost a significant portion of the cost of the vehicle and the players will consider twice using them for lowly tasks like scouting... imagine a 100pt crew...

Good idea Mac!! A 100 point crew would make a person wary of putting them in harms way. It would be a way value the importance of trained crews. One side would have a decided reason to find and eliminate them (and get full credit for the AFV kill) and the other to get them the heck out of Dodge. It might be an idea to get the crews back to an exit hex (essentially catching up with a formed element of their side to get them back where they belong).

[Epicurius]

It seems that all you guys are talking about crews in a campaign game. There are not that many campaigns in the game. There a lot more scenarios. This causes the player to not worry about the cost of crews because when this scenario is over, you will get a different set in the next game.

[Panther]

But if a high point value is assigned for the kill of a crew then it can make a differece if you have win or draw even in scenerios.
Panther

[Joe]

One suggestion:
Crews are only able to move towards retreat hex. It would be like setting an objective to a crew automatically without giving them orders.
The only way a crew could move forward is, if a frendly unit is allready in the hex where the crew is trying to advance. This way you could not use them as reacon, you could only leave them as kind of backup or you could load crews on tanks and use them as scouts for tanks. IMHO a crew that just got his tank shut to peaces would only think two things: 1. Mama. : ]
2. Stay with someone who can protect us.

Maybe the A0 unit would be the only one who could give them "suicide" objectives. "Take that hill, NOW!!" : )

Please, don't flame me right away.



------------------
- Joe

[Mac_MatrixForum]

Originally posted by JKG:
Good idea Mac!! A 100 point crew would make a person wary of putting them in harms way. It would be a way value the importance of trained crews. One side would have a decided reason to find and eliminate them (and get full credit for the AFV kill)

I would rather put this IN ADDITION to the value of the AFV as players should definitely get the points for killing them (also when crews manually bail out). Killing the crews is a double kill because there wont be any experiences people to drive the replacement AFV.

and the other to get them the heck out of Dodge. It might be an idea to get the crews back to an exit hex (essentially catching up with a formed element of their side to get them back where they belong).

Well as the ver 3 is going to have the exit victory type I don't think it would be a major code to make crews exit when they enter the retreat hex, for example. This isn't required though, as it could be fun to try to hunt the crews too when the other side is protecting them.

This is mostly intended to human vs. human games where I too think that the crews as scouts (suicide scouts in particular) are a bit out of place.

The current system is fine but could be better... I'm really glad we don't have more important complaints.

------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu

"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5

[Desert Fox]

Oh come on guys, lets think about this for a second.
Most of the debates on this forum have been about the historical/realistic/doctrinal use of units compared to how we can actually use them in the game. Now as much as I hate losing tanks to crews or snipers or FOs, I also know that it is possible, and even realistic. I also believe that the steel panthers games are so good because you can do what-ifs and why-nots.
So the Germans only had 2 Maus tanks. Should I be limited to only buying 2 in a scenario or campaign? I don't think so. If you want to be historical about it, then yes, limit yourself to 2 Maus tanks.
If one of them gets destroyed, then why shouldn't you be allowed to use the crews as recon? Well if its ahistorical, then again, you must limit yourself to getting the crews to safety.
If you don't care about realism or historicity, then use crews however you want. Buy as many Maus tanks as you can afford. Make the US and German forces work together to fight off French aggressors.
But that is the fun of this game. We don't have to stick to history or realism or our force's doctrine. If you want to stick to those, then you have to put forth the effort for yourself.
If you don't want to stick to that, then lets hope that you are able to make your own doctrine which could state that every crew that has abandoned their tank must push forward and disrupt enemy movement or at least observe it.
The whole point is that it is up to you, the player how crews are handled.
The AI is a whole other story, but then again, we know the AI's tactics after a while, and can develop our own to counteract them. And besides, its crews don't live on to fight another battle.

[Tommy]

Desert Fox,

You touched on my problem at the end. I have no problem controlling my urges to give crews the "Superman" assignments. It's the damned AI who keeps Banzai charging his crews. They always make a beeline for my AFVs. When I'm in the woods fighting in-line with my infantry in front of the AFVs, the AI crews jump me from behind and always seem to get the kill.

Tom