Reverse movement command needed; German armor sections?

[Yoozername]

Again I throw out that Bounding units should also have this reaction phase reverse feature.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
The game appears to have a built-in "reverse" function. I'm not sure what triggers it. I never though to ask. Perhaps it's a failed morale check.

Yes, there is already a morale-based retreat for vehicle and infantry platoons. Vehicle will tend to withdraw for a shorter time, infantry may rout and retreat. This happens when a platoon suffers losses and fails its platoon morale check (separate from the individual squad morale checks).

Regards,

- Erik

[Bil H]

Erik, your arguments make sense to me.  I can climb on board with them... also, yes I agree, bounding units should also get this capability, basically anything that is movement expecting some sort of action, that would be bound, engage (move to contact), and defend.  The argument could probably be made for advance as well... 
 
Bil

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Why make that distinction? Any vehicle regardless of task can come under fire and will need to have some capability to react other than just firing back... also, I would like to see it on a per-vehicle basis.. not Platoon. Why reverse the entire Platoon when only one or two vehicles need the action? That just feels wrong to me.

Need to. Indeed. Can do. No.

Should it be limited in terms of distance moved?
I would perhaps only allow reverse movement during the reaction phase.. why restrict the distance when that will automatically be restricted by the 20 seconds of reaction time? I wouldn't even reduce the speed in reverse.. if this is indeed a reaction this vehicle is not going to be carefully picking its way backwards but will be going as fast as they can until they are under some sort of cover or at least out of the LOF of the enemy unit.

If we are going to talk about reality let's take a real look.
The maximum reverse speed of a Panther at 3000r.p.m. is 4.0 kph (3.4kph @ 2500rpm). Moving 40 full seconds in reverse will net it 44m in 40 seconds. From a standing stop it might get only 22-33m (at constant acceleration).
Now lets say the Panther is moving forward at full speed and then decides to stop and then reverse. It probably will take 20-30m to stop and 10-20 seconds. The remaining time it will be reversing. So it probably wouldn't even get back to the point where it began the turn.
That is why the reverse reaction should be limited to engage and defend.

If the game is going to include that much reversing a column for reverse speed should be added. I don't know if there's that much data out there for reverse speeds on all the tanks.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

A US TD unit, Battle of the Bulge....

I didn't see anyone; we didn't have any help from anybody. But anyway when we got into Waldbillig I had to go around and pick my gun positions. We usually had the Reconnaissance Company go in ahead and they'd tell you how many enemy were there, they'd say "put your guns over here, put your guns over there" and they would tell us what to do. But we got in there and our Reconnaissance Company - two of their platoons were with these people that had been sent up north and we had one platoon that was supposed to help us but they were in this little town back in Puchenau and they weren't any help to us. But see we still didn't know that we were in a battle, we saw some enemy but we didn't get too excited about the fact that we were chased out of Consdorf but anyway I had to go around and get these guns into position.
As my driver and I drove down this country road shells started landing behind us and man alive…I was an Artillery Officer and I knew what happens when shells start landing around you that somebody is directing the fire. The people that are shooting the guns, they don't see you but they are being guided by someone who does see you and so I said to my driver "if any shell lands in front of us, you stop and go backwards as fast as you can!" The very next shell lit right in front of us. Well it hit quite a ways from us otherwise we'd have been killed because they have about a 50 yard to 75 yard area that they kill everything within that area. Anyway this shell lands right in front of us and I didn't have to tell him to go back. He went back as fast as he could. Well the next shell landed right where we would have been so I'm one of the few people (I think) that have ever been chased by a German 88 and lived to tell about it. We got back and that was my first experience. That's the first time I had ever been shot at, that was the first time that I had ever been in a battle situation when I was going down this country road in Waldbillig when these shells started landing by me.

Same battle..

So you're in Waldbillig and row and row of infantry are coming at you?

They would come at us and so we would shoot directly at them. See that's our secondary role was to shoot at vehicles and their individuals and so those infantrymen as they came at us we were able to get them all because they were in line and the reason they were in line was (and why they kept coming) was because the Germans sent the infantrymen out ahead of their tanks. Hitler would not send out a tank that didn't have soldiers in front of it to protect the tank and so these infantrymen were preparing to protect the tanks so that the tanks could come. I didn't see a tank and I fought them for a week and I never saw a single tank because all we did was shoot infantrymen.

You were saying you had to use your main cannon on them?

On these Tank Destroyers they had a 50-caliber machine gun but they weren't close enough to use them, we used the tank on them and we killed or wounded everybody that came and I didn't see a single German in that town (any soldiers). We kept them out of that town and for three days we were there by ourselves and then the third day some infantry came up and they had dug in behind us. They thought we were going to get wiped out and instead of protecting us we were protecting the infantry. So that was the 4th Infantry Division that came in behind us.

This sounds like a fortuitous failure of a morale check. It didn't have to work out, BTW. The vehicle could have been targeted by another arty shell. It could have struck a mine or become mired in mud or debris. It could have backed over the batallion aid station. Panic moves don't have to succeed. As mentioned above, these are already included in PzC. Units bug-out in full reverse. Thank you, Koios.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Erik Rutins]

Thanks Mobius, good points there as well.

[Bil H]

Mobius I'm glad you are here to keep our feet on the ground  [;)]  ...just goes to show how one little thing can balloon once the statistics are examined. 
 
I must say though that the one thing I like the most about this game is that it has more abstractions... not as tight on the stats as CM is, which is good, seeing as I'm playing a Company CO in the game I don't really care about penetration angles, etc... nor do I care really about reverse speeds, an abstraction in this regard would work well for me.  Pick a percentage of the max speed and stick with that for all vehicles.
 
Is acceleration and deceleration even modelled in this game?  I would say no, not that I'm suggesting they should be (bigger fish to fry) I'm just curious based on your reply.
 
Bil 

[junk2drive]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

I must say though that the one thing I like the most about this game is that it has more abstractions... not as tight on the stats as CM is, which is good, seeing as I'm playing a Company CO in the game I don't really care about penetration angles, etc... nor do I care really about reverse speeds, an abstraction in this regard would work well for me.  Pick a percentage of the max speed and stick with that for all vehicles.

Bil 

I agree. Some CMers think the game is too simple. I sometimes think CM is too complex and out of balance. I still play CMBO because it is less complex then BB and AK.
PC has enough 3D to immerse and enough balance to make a game of it.
There are differences between the German and Soviet play tactics but not the frustrations of CMBB.

Hope it stays this way.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Mobius I'm glad you are here to keep our feet on the ground  [;)]  ...just goes to show how one little thing can balloon once the statistics are examined. 
I must say though that the one thing I like the most about this game is that it has more abstractions... not as tight on the stats as CM is, which is good, seeing as I'm playing a Company CO in the game I don't really care about penetration angles, etc... nor do I care really about reverse speeds, an abstraction in this regard would work well for me.  Pick a percentage of the max speed and stick with that for all vehicles.

The 1/2 movement in reverse in PW was meant to be playable. In a miniatures game nobody is going to be able to move a model 13mm as opposed to 25mm. That would be too fiddly.

Is acceleration and deceleration even modelled in this game?  I would say no, not that I'm suggesting they should be (bigger fish to fry) I'm just curious based on your reply.

Actually it is. The movement value is about 60-66% of the distance a tank would move if it was moving the entire turn (80 seconds) at its max sustained speed. It assumes there is an acceleration from a stop, full speed movement and then to a breaking stop. But could be a more cautious continuous battle movement too.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Mobius I'm glad you are here to keep our feet on the ground [;)] ...just goes to show how one little thing can balloon once the statistics are examined.
I must say though that the one thing I like the most about this game is that it has more abstractions... not as tight on the stats as CM is, which is good, seeing as I'm playing a Company CO in the game I don't really care about penetration angles, etc... nor do I care really about reverse speeds, an abstraction in this regard would work well for me. Pick a percentage of the max speed and stick with that for all vehicles.

The 1/2 movement in reverse in PW was meant to be playable. In a miniatures game nobody is going to be able to move a model 13mm as opposed to 25mm. That would be too fiddly.

Is acceleration and deceleration even modelled in this game? I would say no, not that I'm suggesting they should be (bigger fish to fry) I'm just curious based on your reply.

Actually it is. The movement value is about 60-66% of the distance a tank would move if it was moving the entire turn (80 seconds) at its max sustained speed. It assumes there is an acceleration from a stop, full speed movement and then to a breaking stop. But could be a more cautious continuous battle movement too.

A recurring theme appears to have emerged here on the forum, one in which players recount their expectations of the game, of being disappointed at it's lack of sameness to that with which they are familiar, and then of challenging its mechanics although they are pretty much unaware of what the mechanics truly are.

This comment isn't directed at anyone; I initially had the same reaction myself.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[redwolf]

I don't know whether WW2 tanks drove backwards for extended periods the way that some CM gamers travese half the map in reverse to have the front armor still face a potential threat, but I assume not.

It is, however, no question that tanks would reverse short paths out of positions that they just drove in, or drove in before the battle. Engineers are building fortifications for tanks (earth walls to achieve hulldown), there is no other way to get out of them than by backing up. Backing up 10 or 20 meters straight, after driving up those same 10 or 20 meter. It's no question that this is done. People don't sit in their tanks dumb fat and happy while possibly penetrating shots come on and they know for fact the way straight back 20 meters, out of LOS of the enemy, is free (except possibly for some crunchies).

Given that time constraints in the game don't really allow anybody to go backwards for several turns in a row I am convinced that the realism gain from a reverse movement order is much bigger than the realism hit from possible abuse.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: redwolf

I don't know whether WW2 tanks drove backwards for extended periods the way that some CM gamers travese half the map in reverse to have the front armor still face a potential threat, but I assume not.

It is, however, no question that tanks would reverse short paths out of positions that they just drove in, or drove in before the battle. Engineers are building fortifications for tanks (earth walls to achieve hulldown), there is no other way to get out of them than by backing up. Backing up 10 or 20 meters straight, after driving up those same 10 or 20 meter. It's no question that this is done. People don't sit in their tanks dumb fat and happy while possibly penetrating shots come on and they know for fact the way straight back 20 meters, out of LOS of the enemy, is free (except possibly for some crunchies).

Given that time constraints in the game don't really allow anybody to go backwards for several turns in a row I am convinced that the realism gain from a reverse movement order is much bigger than the realism hit from possible abuse.

Well, the good news is that you're probably gonna get your wish.

The bad news is that the target acquisition modeling in PzC is somewhat less whimisical than in some other games. The vehicle that gets in the first hack, all other factors held equal, will likely prevail. And that vehicle will most likely be the one that was stationary when the LOS was established. So if you advance 20 meters, halt, acquire a target, shoot, and then reverse 20 meters, you're rather more likely to get toasted than the enemy vehicle which was stationary throughout the sequence.

It was the best of times and the worst of times...

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Yoozername]

For those of you that have not driven an armored vehicle..

You can reverse somewhst quickly when backing down a slope. So crawling up slowly, scanning for targets is the drill, and reversing quickly (thanks to gravity) is another benefit when pulling back.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

For those of you that have not driven an armored vehicle..

You can reverse somewhst quickly when backing down a slope. So crawling up slowly, scanning for targets is the drill, and reversing quickly (thanks to gravity) is another benefit when pulling back.

Exactly what good would that do the advancing vehicle if an enemy is waiting in overwatch for a target to emerge into LOS? A moving vehicle is more likely to be spotted than a stationary vehicle. The fire of a stationary vehicle is far more accurate than that of one that is moving. If all other factors are held equal, vehicle quality, crew training, and so on, movement can confer no advantage on the advancing vehicle. On a statistical basis, the maneuver would serve no likely end other than postponing the eventual outcome by reducing the number shots on target in a given time increment.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
For those of you that have not driven an armored vehicle..
You can reverse somewhst quickly when backing down a slope. So crawling up slowly, scanning for targets is the drill, and reversing quickly (thanks to gravity) is another benefit when pulling back.

Exactly what good would that do the advancing vehicle if an enemy is waiting in overwatch for a target to emerge into LOS? A moving vehicle is more likely to be spotted than a stationary vehicle. The fire of a stationary vehicle is far more accurate than that of one that is moving. If all other factors are held equal, vehicle quality, crew training, and so on, movement can confer no advantage on the advancing vehicle. On a statistical basis, the maneuver would serve no likely end other than postponing the eventual outcome by reducing the number shots on target in a given time increment.
PoE (aka ivanmoe)

On a hill defilade the tank commander could at first go turret down, stop the vehicle and see over the hill without the vehicle being seen. That way he gets to sight stationary. Seeing a target he would order the driver to pull up to a hull down position and fire at the target. He could then order reverse to escape any return fire from Defending (Overwatching) tanks.

In the game this would take at least two turns of orders to carry out.

If there were overwatching tanks who would fire first? Its hard to say. If they were close enough and facing right at the hulldown tank then they might get the first shot. If quite a ways away they might not react until too late.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
For those of you that have not driven an armored vehicle..
You can reverse somewhst quickly when backing down a slope. So crawling up slowly, scanning for targets is the drill, and reversing quickly (thanks to gravity) is another benefit when pulling back.

Exactly what good would that do the advancing vehicle if an enemy is waiting in overwatch for a target to emerge into LOS? A moving vehicle is more likely to be spotted than a stationary vehicle. The fire of a stationary vehicle is far more accurate than that of one that is moving. If all other factors are held equal, vehicle quality, crew training, and so on, movement can confer no advantage on the advancing vehicle. On a statistical basis, the maneuver would serve no likely end other than postponing the eventual outcome by reducing the number shots on target in a given time increment.
PoE (aka ivanmoe)

On a hill defilade the tank commander could at first go turret down, stop the vehicle and see over the hill without the vehicle being seen. That way he gets to sight stationary. Seeing a target he would order the driver to pull up to a hull down position and fire at the target. He could then order reverse to escape any return fire from Defending (Overwatching) tanks.

In the game this would take at least two turns of orders to carry out.

If there were overwatching tanks who would fire first? Its hard to say. If they were close enough and facing right at the hulldown tank then they might get the first shot. If quite a ways away they might not react until too late.

Hi Mobius,

Thanks for you comments.

I hate to quote myself, but above in bold print I stated the following:

If all other factors are held equal, vehicle quality, crew training, and so on, movement can confer no advantage on the advancing vehicle.

I worded the statement that way intentionally. No exception is offered for an elevation difference. Were it not so, the elevation difference could just as easily be afforded to the stationary unit. The stationary unit could just as easily be hull-down. In this purified environment no advantage is afforded the cagey or clever. The numbers are what the numbers are.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Hi Mobius,
Thanks for you comments.

I hate to quote myself, but above in bold print I stated the following:

If all other factors are held equal, vehicle quality, crew training, and so on, movement can confer no advantage on the advancing vehicle.
I worded the statement that way intentionally. No exception is offered for an elevation difference. Were it not so, the elevation difference could just as easily be afforded to the stationary unit. The stationary unit could just as easily be hull-down. In this purified environment no advantage is afforded the cagey or clever. The numbers are what the numbers are.
PoE (aka ivanmoe)

I understand what you are saying and you are correct. But the factors aren't equal.
What I am saying if the moving tank halts on the other side of the hill, yet his TC can see over the hill (turret down) he might spot the stationary units waiting there. If so then knowing where they are as targets does present some advantage to the hill vehicle. Now if that tank proceeds next to climb a little more to a hull down position and try to shoot the stationary targets (that it already sees) it might be a crap shoot of who gets the first shot. Since the ones waiting on the other side don't know he is there and would have to spot, identify and acquire him.

So there might be a reaction time/distance involved. If the turret down vehicle was 1500 yds away there might be a lot of hill ridgeline at 1500 yds that the stationary units have to check out. If the hill was 200 yds away the tank moving into a hulldown could be more readily spotted and reacted to.
(Maybe I'm making this too complicated.)

[PDiFolco]

Hmm, you should also take into account that the stationary "defender" would likely have to traverse to engage the new threatening vehicle that just topped the ridgeline, with said vehicle "advancing" so having usually less to traverse ... Well if one or both are SP Guns it's still more complicated [:o]
 
Still I don't know where is this thread going now [:'(]

[Yoozername]

Prince is just being argumentative.  Don't worry about it. Trolls have a hard time staying on topic. I suppose his point is that defending is easier than attacking. Wow. He is smart. Except this can also be a defensive manuver.

But my point WAS that reverse speed (which is quite slow and Mobius is correct) can be increased while reversing down a slope. That's physics and not worth arguing about.

And it IS on topic.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ ... 019208;p=5

I must say; Dorosh is still obsessed with me after all these years.

I just read that Sherman tankers used reverse extensively; to change direction! They back up a bit and then move forward. Thats how they changed direction from a stand still it seems.

It was in the German vs Allied eqpt report to Eisenhower. The US tankers appreciated the Panther and Tiger chassis ability to turn in place.

To the other members:

Given the fact that the member linked us to another forum, I'll take a brief moment to detail his activites there.

This poster was banned from the battlefront.com forums for using a series of aliases, the most well known of which was USERNAME, but there were many others.

His posts there were typified by specious argument and endless dissembling. A principal impact of his antics was to reduce any sort of legitimate discourse to hash. That his several personas kept the BF forums in turmoil for many, many months is also true.

Anyone who cares to dispute these facts is welcome to do so.

The "topic" is USERNAME, as it always will be, wherever and whenever he's a participant.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)