Good Idea Joe.
If the weapon or vehicle a crew was manning is destroyed, then that crew could move only towards the Retreat Hex, and lose their ability to attack. Only fire when fired on. It would be important that this only happen after the weapon or vehicle were destroyed, as they can recrew if the weapon or vehicle were still functional.
I too am guilty of losing a vehicle and moving the crew to a location where they can see. Makes for good intel. Realistic? probably not.
Snipers and Crews close assualting
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
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.
Really what we are discussing is not really who is right or wrong, but searching for consensus on what rules should be in effect. Gamers are currently restricted in what they can do by the rules (coding). This issue of crews is no different from asking what is the appropriate delay for arty from a FO. The programmers made a decision that some delay rather than no delay would better represent what the battlefield commander could expect (hence attend realism) versus advancing enjoyable gameplay (fun). Which side wins this argument? Neither really b/c its a good game either way, but the programmers based on their judgement will enforce a set of rules for us gamers to abide by. All won't agree with whatever decision is made (i.e. out of contact artillery really bothers some and not others).
But that is the fun of this game. We don't have to stick to history or realism or our force's doctrine. The whole point is that it is up to you, the player how crews are handled.
I disagree on this particular issue b/c we have no control over whether crews bail out or not. If they bail out we can't ignore what they see, we could decide to use them in a historically correct way or not.
I agree with an earlier comment that it is a luxury to argue over a fairly small issue.
For those who seem to think bailed crews are a good idea, what is the value added for this particular feature. Why is it a good idea to keep it exactly the way it is now? Maybe if I could hear this argument I could change my view.
Really what we are discussing is not really who is right or wrong, but searching for consensus on what rules should be in effect. Gamers are currently restricted in what they can do by the rules (coding). This issue of crews is no different from asking what is the appropriate delay for arty from a FO. The programmers made a decision that some delay rather than no delay would better represent what the battlefield commander could expect (hence attend realism) versus advancing enjoyable gameplay (fun). Which side wins this argument? Neither really b/c its a good game either way, but the programmers based on their judgement will enforce a set of rules for us gamers to abide by. All won't agree with whatever decision is made (i.e. out of contact artillery really bothers some and not others).
But that is the fun of this game. We don't have to stick to history or realism or our force's doctrine. The whole point is that it is up to you, the player how crews are handled.
I disagree on this particular issue b/c we have no control over whether crews bail out or not. If they bail out we can't ignore what they see, we could decide to use them in a historically correct way or not.
I agree with an earlier comment that it is a luxury to argue over a fairly small issue.
For those who seem to think bailed crews are a good idea, what is the value added for this particular feature. Why is it a good idea to keep it exactly the way it is now? Maybe if I could hear this argument I could change my view.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Like Mt Everest, becasue they are there!
I've read lots of accounts of tanks being knocked out and how "Slappy, Ed, and the Kid, joined up with us as we tried to fend off the next (insert enemy) attack"
'scuse me, but where in the Geneva Convention does it mandat that crews form knocked out vehicles must proceed immediately to the rear, do not pass go, do not collect $200?
Every tank that gets knocked out is not blown sky high in a plume of fire. Most are simply damaged and the crew forced to now take up arms on foot.
Maybe they link up with some of those "dispersed" unit guys who have a bazooka, or some better weapons.
THose who don't like crews seem to be bothered by the lack of certainty that they have eliminated a threat. Welcome to the Fog of War.
I've said many times that I consider the game an "impressionistic treatment" we have details because gmers tend to like details, but don't lose sight of the forest for the detail trees.
Assume that the crews repressent not just the guys who bailed out of the vehicles, but other guys that form up ad hoc around the battlefield as the battle rages. Remember that the number on the unit represents "effectives" not necessarily the physical number of bodies!
Think of "crews" not literally as the guys that jumped out of a tnak just then, but maybe a few other guys who were skulking around nearby and saw some comrades and joined up.
Don't assume that becasue the game appears to give you perfect knowledge of some things that that is meant to be "truth".
The only thing certain about war is the uncertainty!!
I've read lots of accounts of tanks being knocked out and how "Slappy, Ed, and the Kid, joined up with us as we tried to fend off the next (insert enemy) attack"
'scuse me, but where in the Geneva Convention does it mandat that crews form knocked out vehicles must proceed immediately to the rear, do not pass go, do not collect $200?
Every tank that gets knocked out is not blown sky high in a plume of fire. Most are simply damaged and the crew forced to now take up arms on foot.
Maybe they link up with some of those "dispersed" unit guys who have a bazooka, or some better weapons.
THose who don't like crews seem to be bothered by the lack of certainty that they have eliminated a threat. Welcome to the Fog of War.
I've said many times that I consider the game an "impressionistic treatment" we have details because gmers tend to like details, but don't lose sight of the forest for the detail trees.
Assume that the crews repressent not just the guys who bailed out of the vehicles, but other guys that form up ad hoc around the battlefield as the battle rages. Remember that the number on the unit represents "effectives" not necessarily the physical number of bodies!
Think of "crews" not literally as the guys that jumped out of a tnak just then, but maybe a few other guys who were skulking around nearby and saw some comrades and joined up.
Don't assume that becasue the game appears to give you perfect knowledge of some things that that is meant to be "truth".
The only thing certain about war is the uncertainty!!
well i have read long and hard and here is my two cents worth.
1.snipers were more often than not the death of many opentoped afvs and this includes also some surprisingly high kia rates linked to turreted afvs as commanders perfered to look out the hacth to get a better few in the more quieter areas wear the old sniper lurked.
2.the sniper also often had a high vantage point so could look down onto the afv.
3.i have heard that in some cases tanks crews that survied a large battle often were drafted into fighting units as the replacement tanks were far and few between at times especialy near the wars end.
2.a lot of russian crews would bial out grap some wepons that lay around and continued the fight on foot so much was there hatred for the enemy.
3.when i was in the army you were always a soldier first and your trade secound,my dad served in tanks in the 60s and they spent a lot of time trianing as grunts and when it came to having to bial out he siad they were always prepared ie weapons to defend them selves with.
4.these things i have talked about i have read and heard but alot is common sense think if you were in the thick of battle your tank brews up or just stops you grap your weapon and get the hell out.do a quick recce and try and find some safty to get your brearings if your really mad that you lost some mates i would find me the badest weapon handy and get some revenge.also you know a tank inside out and what better guy to discover its week points than a tankie himself.self presevation often leads to some mighty heroic deeds at times in the heat of battle
5.having crew is good and adds to the game play and as you are in control of the game you can use them as you wish your the commander also for the AIs crew when you knock the tank out hose the crew down with your hull machine gun or use some HE if there to far away that way they won,t live to fight another day.
1.snipers were more often than not the death of many opentoped afvs and this includes also some surprisingly high kia rates linked to turreted afvs as commanders perfered to look out the hacth to get a better few in the more quieter areas wear the old sniper lurked.
2.the sniper also often had a high vantage point so could look down onto the afv.
3.i have heard that in some cases tanks crews that survied a large battle often were drafted into fighting units as the replacement tanks were far and few between at times especialy near the wars end.
2.a lot of russian crews would bial out grap some wepons that lay around and continued the fight on foot so much was there hatred for the enemy.
3.when i was in the army you were always a soldier first and your trade secound,my dad served in tanks in the 60s and they spent a lot of time trianing as grunts and when it came to having to bial out he siad they were always prepared ie weapons to defend them selves with.
4.these things i have talked about i have read and heard but alot is common sense think if you were in the thick of battle your tank brews up or just stops you grap your weapon and get the hell out.do a quick recce and try and find some safty to get your brearings if your really mad that you lost some mates i would find me the badest weapon handy and get some revenge.also you know a tank inside out and what better guy to discover its week points than a tankie himself.self presevation often leads to some mighty heroic deeds at times in the heat of battle
5.having crew is good and adds to the game play and as you are in control of the game you can use them as you wish your the commander also for the AIs crew when you knock the tank out hose the crew down with your hull machine gun or use some HE if there to far away that way they won,t live to fight another day.
"The best form of defence,is attack"
-
Mac_MatrixForum
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Finland
A big cry for a small issue.
Definitely better with crews than without. Perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to make the morale of the crews crumble a bit more rapidly (or remove the "end of turn suppression removal" for them) than what is with other infantry.
Paul, we can't possibly thank you enough for all the things you and the other crew have added to this wonderful game. We just keep coming with all sorts of (sometimes plain stupid
) ideas because we actually see them getting done at times. I hope you stay true to YOUR vision of the game instead of trying to please everybody... Us gamers can hardly understand the finer details in this particular game engine and the reasons for them and it is important that YOU who do know all the details are building it. Thanks for sharing the many details so that we DO know a bit more than on average 
.
It's very important, IMHO, to have open discussion about all these things, silly or not. Some people are just more whiners than others and I'm not saying this to insult anyone but because that just is. And the better and well known the game becomes, the more people it will attract and the more fights there will be about the little things.
Hell, if it's taking too much resources to do something just forget about it and concentrate on something you think is good for this game. I'm really glad that you read the posts here but that makes me sometimes frustrated because you propably have to browse through some bad posts at times: complaints, mis-information, crying for little things, people not reading the manual before, people not reading earlier posts.
Well to end this note, thanks for everything so far. Anything you are still going to do I'm going to appreciate.
And thanks for the other posters who hang around here making this quite a classy forum IMHO. I believe you join me in my opinion...
------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5
Definitely better with crews than without. Perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to make the morale of the crews crumble a bit more rapidly (or remove the "end of turn suppression removal" for them) than what is with other infantry.
Paul, we can't possibly thank you enough for all the things you and the other crew have added to this wonderful game. We just keep coming with all sorts of (sometimes plain stupid
) ideas because we actually see them getting done at times. I hope you stay true to YOUR vision of the game instead of trying to please everybody... Us gamers can hardly understand the finer details in this particular game engine and the reasons for them and it is important that YOU who do know all the details are building it. Thanks for sharing the many details so that we DO know a bit more than on average .It's very important, IMHO, to have open discussion about all these things, silly or not. Some people are just more whiners than others
and I'm not saying this to insult anyone but because that just is. And the better and well known the game becomes, the more people it will attract and the more fights there will be about the little things.Hell, if it's taking too much resources to do something just forget about it and concentrate on something you think is good for this game. I'm really glad that you read the posts here but that makes me sometimes frustrated because you propably have to browse through some bad posts at times: complaints, mis-information, crying for little things, people not reading the manual before, people not reading earlier posts.
Well to end this note, thanks for everything so far. Anything you are still going to do I'm going to appreciate.
And thanks for the other posters who hang around here making this quite a classy forum IMHO
. I believe you join me in my opinion...------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5
I think what is peeving people off the most is not that crews and snipers are fighting but how effective they are at it.
I agree that crews can continue the fight if morale allows it but they are ad hoc formations (even with extra members/weapons picked up around the place) and couldn't be expected to CONSISTANTLY perform as well as formations trained for the task (taking experience into account of course).
I have had AFVs lost to snipers which I think is a bit much. Literature is full of infantry advances brought to a grinding halt due to snipers (particually in jungle terrain) as snipers are and rightly should be, very effective against unprotected soldiers. However, the historical solution to the stalled advance was usually to bring up some armoured support. These were normally infantry support tanks though light tanks were used to effect.
As the game currently stands, I am very hesitant to commit AFVs in this situation as it is more than likely they will be taken out in close assaults by the hidden snipers even though they are not equipped for it!! I would be far happier if I lost the AFVs to hidden AT elements in support.
I know the whole idea of the game is to explore "what if"s and I applaud this, but I would rather not explore the possibilities of snipers being superhuman.
Just my humble opinion,
Reg
I agree that crews can continue the fight if morale allows it but they are ad hoc formations (even with extra members/weapons picked up around the place) and couldn't be expected to CONSISTANTLY perform as well as formations trained for the task (taking experience into account of course).
I have had AFVs lost to snipers which I think is a bit much. Literature is full of infantry advances brought to a grinding halt due to snipers (particually in jungle terrain) as snipers are and rightly should be, very effective against unprotected soldiers. However, the historical solution to the stalled advance was usually to bring up some armoured support. These were normally infantry support tanks though light tanks were used to effect.
As the game currently stands, I am very hesitant to commit AFVs in this situation as it is more than likely they will be taken out in close assaults by the hidden snipers even though they are not equipped for it!! I would be far happier if I lost the AFVs to hidden AT elements in support.
I know the whole idea of the game is to explore "what if"s and I applaud this, but I would rather not explore the possibilities of snipers being superhuman.
Just my humble opinion,
Reg
Cheers,
Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
-
David F. Wall
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Waltham, MA, USA
The funniest thing I ever saw happen in this game was kind of around this.
I was playing the Germans against a Russian computer opponent and I had two Pzkw-IVs destroyed very early by kind of sashaying in front of a KV-152. Well, live and learn. The tanks go bang, and I send the crews into the woods, expecting them to kind of hide there for the rest of the game.
Eventually, along comes this Soviet forward observer, and thus begins the Shootout at the Borisov Corral. These clowns spent the rest of the game firing their Tokarev and Walther pistols at each other and never hitting a thing. No intervention from me -- it was all strictly opportunity fire. A little comic relief.
One of the fun things about the game for me is imagining what's happening at the occasional absurd moment.
I was playing the Germans against a Russian computer opponent and I had two Pzkw-IVs destroyed very early by kind of sashaying in front of a KV-152. Well, live and learn. The tanks go bang, and I send the crews into the woods, expecting them to kind of hide there for the rest of the game.
Eventually, along comes this Soviet forward observer, and thus begins the Shootout at the Borisov Corral. These clowns spent the rest of the game firing their Tokarev and Walther pistols at each other and never hitting a thing. No intervention from me -- it was all strictly opportunity fire. A little comic relief.
One of the fun things about the game for me is imagining what's happening at the occasional absurd moment.
Hi Tom,Originally posted by 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
How do the crews get past your infantry screen? When you blow up an enemy tank and the crew survives, you get to see the crew exit the tank. Since you know where the enemy crew is, just make sure to keep infantry between them and your tanks.
It sounds like you have infantry support your tanks, how can the crews get past them?
BA Evans