can we flatten them??

[MikeT]

Last night I finally finished a game, been working on it for a long time now. Germans got a minor tac victory, yeah.

Now during the game an incident came up and I decided to solve it by ordering my halftrack to run over a MMG position, thinking that the vehicle could/might crush the unit. Thing is what happen is that the American unit went prone and then got up and moved to a nearby position.

Now did the vehicle actually crush the unit? An examination of the MMG unit didn't show any losses and he setup position nearby and continued firing at my troops.

I got the idea from some old combat footage of the Russian front. There was a very unusual scene which seemed to have been taken through the drivers hatch of a T34. A German 37mm ATG was setup and firing. Suddenly from one side another T34 arrived a literally ran over the ATG and crew. You could even seen a body being flipped upwards/around by the tracks. Look cool and tragic at the same time, cool because this kind of realism is rarely shown.

I used to do a great deal of Squad Leader and did an equally great deal of reading in those days. I do know that on the Russian front such attacks were not uncommon, it was a brutal no holds fight.

So my question is do we want to have overruns, literally?

Mike Thompson

[Guest Scott Clinton]

No, BTS makes the assumtption (correctly IMO) that it would be damn difficult to hit anyone with a vehicle in combat. The men would dive aside, etc.

Add in that vehicles would then be a menece to YOUR OWN troops and you would end up having a lot more of your own men run over than the enemy's. It would also be a real pain for the AI to sort out...

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[M Hofbauer]

Mr Clinton,

obviously in your statement

"BTS makes the assumtption (correctly IMO) that it would be damn difficult to hit anyone with a vehicle in combat. The men would dive aside, etc."

you are ignoring that it was SOP for especially russian tanks to kill infantry by driving over them. You probably never heard (rather, read) of the Todestanz of russian Tanks rotating over german infantry foxholes to kill the inhabitant(s). No doubt very cruel but highly effective in subdueing the otherwise hard to eradicate entrenched infantrymen, something impossible in cm.

In one game I had a Hellcat drive in front of and over a german machine gun team - that btw was happily blazing *through* the tank into some infantry far away (realistic scale and all) - doing nothing to them. The germans seemingly weren't even scared, and rightly so, for the tons of steel did nothing to them. I once had a StuG chase an american HQ unit and instead of injuring them thy simply shoved them aside (though it didn't appear to be gently in the movie they weren't even scratched) out of their path.

This goes in line / hand in hand with BTS's "clean war"/p.c. attitude towards bodies on the battlefield (see other thread). Even if not realistic, and not that you have to agree, but you have to admit it's at least consequent.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[PanzerLeader]

I just finished "The Forgotten Soldier" and it seems that the Russian tanks used this tactic quite often against dug-in infantry. It must be quite horrible to be buried alive in a foxhole(it takes too much time to get out of the foxhole and the tank's machine gunners would kill the men anyway.)

Great book BTW.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

"...it seems that the Russian tanks used this tactic quite often against dug-in infantry."

I don't think "quite often" is even close to the number of times this tactic was used in an engagment on the scale of CM. Face it something of this nature is gruesome and draws attention (by writers) way out of proportion to its actual usage.

Neither of you seem to address the AI issue, or the danger to your own troops. Both of which are much more important that how often it was done...

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[NCrawler]

Scott Clinton>Face it something of this nature is gruesome and draws attention (by writers) way out of proportion to its actual usage.

And burning alive in a house or armored vehicle is not? Personally, I would rather have my head run over by a 45 ton tank than to be burned alive. Face it, WAR by it's very nature is violent and gruesome and trying to hide that fact is a bigger dishonor to those who served than by actually depicting it...

------------------

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[Guest Scott Clinton]

NCRAWLER please get down off of you 'soap box'. You have strayed completely off topic. And I really don't feel like having you preach to me about the 'horrors of war' on a GAME forum right now.

Try to re-read what I wrote: "Face it something of this nature is gruesome and DRAWS ATTENTION (BY WRITERS)WAY OUT OF PROPOTION TO ITS ACTUAL USAGE" (caps added)

Understand now?

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[NCrawler]

Scott Clinton>Try to re-read what I wrote: "Face it something of this nature is gruesome and DRAWS ATTENTION (BY WRITERS)WAY OUT OF PROPOTION TO ITS ACTUAL USAGE" (caps added)

And you seriously believe that if someone writes that this game has gruesome stuff in it that it will hurt sales? I guess the game Kingpin was a fluke, huh?

I've come to realize after reading several of your posts that you are an idiot. I will have no further discussions with you...

Scott Clinton>The Grumbling Grognard

Heh, right...

------------------

Jon Johnson

Steel Lightning Productions

[PanzerLeader]

Mr Clinton,

"The Forgotten Soldier" is (or is supposed to be) a TRUE STORY. Therefore the writer didn't mention those encounters to draw the readers' attention, he did it because it really happened. Maybe not on the WF, but on the EF at least this seemed common practice. The writer of the book participated in many battles and in most of them this happened...

Danger to the friendly troops, AI: CC3 deals partly with this: your troops don't get crushed when under friendly tanks...It's quite unrealistic, I agree. But isn't this problem simple after all? I mean, the AI would have to be VERY crap to run over his own troops. And the tanks anyway were not completely blind and they probably could avoid "friendly crushing" by spotting friendly infantry before running over them...

I really don't see the problem there.

[M Hofbauer]

To me it seems there's a misunderstanding here.

The way I understood Scott Clinton he meant that the amount of writing about the tanks doing that is out of proportion to the real ocurrences of these incidents in reality because they appear especially spectacular / spectacularly cruel.

If I understood you correctly, you seem to have thougt that he was referring to (p)reviewers, critiques and general feedback of the game.

Either party correct me if I am wrong in my comprehension of your posts.

Btw I disagree with Mr Clinton. The intentional use of vehicles to kill infantry was(is) very real and frequent / ubiquitous IMO.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Neutral Party]

NCrawler's cheery comment was "Personally, I would rather have my head run over by a 45 ton tank than to be burned alive." I would be most upset to be asked a question to which this was a rational answer

Joe

[Guest Big Time Software]

Er... let's keep it civil here.

First of all, from all accounts I have read, the Forgotten Soldier is fiction. VERY GOOD fiction, but not based on a true first person account. I too loved the book, but the arguments I read long ago pro/con convinced me that the book was indeed a fake. Still a GREAT work of literature, and that can not be taken away from it.

M. Hofbauer, we did *NOT* leave out running over infantry for some sort of "clean" mentality. Instead, Scott is correct that it was left out because there are limitations to what we can make the Tac/StratAIs. Sorry, we can't simulate EVERYTHING in ABSOLUTE realism. Just not possible to do.

I will double check with Charles about a morale hit for units that get out of the way of vehicles. There should be a pentalty, and if there isn't it is a bug.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just some more thoughts to keep in mind with those above...

In Bastogne there were 101 guys who were regularly run over by Panthers while in foxholes (they weren't crushed). Some were killed by exhaust fumes. Others just hung out there and waited it out. Pretty much NO ONE panicked. And most, once the tank moved, popped up and started shooting advancing Panzergrenadiers.

And the Germans on the Russian front were similar, letting Russians run "over" them, then hopping up with some mines or grenades and blasting the T-34.

It's one thing to grind a SINGLE man under your tracks, but a whole SQUAD (up to 12 men)? That's just plain unrealistic. And the idea that the entire squad would definately panic (i.e. be cowering in fear after running out of the path) isn't very realistic either, except *maybe* for really green guys.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Bastogne there were 101 guys who were regularly run over by Panthers while in foxholes (they weren't crushed).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee. And it didn't occur to any of them to get out of the way the second or third time?

(Yeah, really, really dumb joke, but I thought this thread could do with a bit of lightening up.)

[Guest Scott Clinton]

LOL!

I post...and I clarify...I even put it in all caps and some people still read what THEY WANT IT TO SAY!

...and I am an idiot?!? LOL!

M Hofbauer: Thank you. That is what I said.

PanzerLeader: Sorry to bust your bubble but I have owned the book for quite some time and I have read it cover to cover three times...and as Steve points out it has been pretty much determined it is fiction. Go the the Gross Deutchland web page and ask around. A man was never in that division by that name.

Guys a lot of misunderstandings can be avoide if you JUST read the words on the screen instead of trying to put YOUR own meanings behind them...pretty simple really.

Oh yeah, NCrawler...grow up.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-05-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jon, Scott... let's just stop it now, OK? Had I seen some of the comments in a more timely fashion they would have been deleted. I RARELY have to do this, so let's try and keep it that way, huh?

Steve

[kingtiger]

Does anyone remember the Russian Tank (probably T34) reversing and rotating on foxholes in the snow/ice/tundra during a tank assault in the movie "Stalingrad"?

Richard Kalajian

[Guest PeterNZ]

Yup, i also noticed the rest of the squad getting out of the way of the tanks and nailing a few of them. If we're going to let Tanks run over inf, then we should also let the inf have a chance of sticking grenades and satchel charges in various orifi under the tank..

it's only fair

I for one would never bother trying then hehe, just mg them to death

PeterNZ

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Gee...and I thought I was being rather diplomatic too...considering...

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-06-99).]

[Fionn]

Well, I'm avoiding the whole fight going on here and am sticking to some factual points:

1. A single tank crushed, at most a single infantryman. Even then it occured rather rarely AND despite what you've all seen in movies whichever tanks sat still crushing infantry were in SERIOUS trouble from this guy's squad mates.

2. Guy Sajer's book IS a work of fiction. VERY good fiction but fiction.

3. Stalingrad (the movie) is fiction too.

Most of the tanks running over infantry myths is just that, myth.. Sure it happened but its like an air crash.. Statistically its HIGHLY unlikely but if you've ever seen one your remember it forever.

If you wanted to scare your kids about the horror of war what better way than to tell them about T-34s running over your buddies. Things which aren't 100% accurate DO enter popular military history without accurate and extensive verification.

I'm not going to get involved in the issue which people fought here about but I just wanted to say that historically it was a lot less common than it would first appear.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest R Cunningham]

It is far from proven that Guy Sajer's book was fiction. There was an articel which appeared in the Military Review (publication of the US Army Command and General Staff School) some years ago and it was rebutted. For your consideration I offer the following taken from www.militaria.com.

--------------------------------------

The Guy Sajer Follies

by Jonathan Gawne

Copyright 1996- all rights reserved-

Like clockwork, someone posts to the net every month or two asking if Guy Sajer is a real person. As I am tired of trying to reply to every query here is a compilation of what's what.

Guy Sajer is alive and well and living in Paris. He is a well known newspaper cartoonist and has never tried to hide his identity- nor has he tried to promote it (why should he, he is well known in his own country). He has illustrated a number of books and comic books on military themes- and has a personal interest in U-boats. Folks that work in Paris military bookshops know him fairly well.

On the other hand, Sajer does not like to talk much about the Forgotten Soldier. He seems to like having an aura of mystery about him. Responding to claims he does not exist- he thinks this is very funny. But again, why should he even care about trying to prove he is real if the book sells so well, and he is very easy to find if you use half an ounce of brain power?

A while ago a US Military Historian wrote an essay claiming the book was fake. In my opinion this essay was very poorly researched. Many of the reasons cited can easily be attributed to the fact that the book was written in French for a French audience. Hence FRENCH military terms (like PM for machine pistol) were used. Again, why would anyone but a diehard enthusiast worry about such details? Certainly not the book publishers who really do not care to re-do a book which keeps selling just fine as is.

Other small details have been cited to prove Sajer is a fake: GD title on wring sleeve- well, figure how easy this is to screw up in translation, or have a 'know-it-all-editor' see that all the SS armbands are on one sleeve, so he changes it. I do not think Sajer has ever even read the English translation. It is sloppy scholarship to use details in a translation of a book to claim the book is a fake! You must go to the original French version and cite the text as written by the author.

As to the non-existence of some of the names used in the book, and the use of certain famous other units (such as a famous Stuka squadron). How many other war books use altered names for whatever reason? So what? This is no big deal.

Keep in mind that this book was written in France during a time when it was NOT a good idea to let people know you served with the Germans- and definitely NOT a good idea to let them know you served in an elite German unit- and a NO NO if you were in an SS unit. Think about this- it is rather important to keep this in mind. Why write a book that may well get you into trouble, under your own name, when it is very easy to take a fake pen name?

Now- some people do feel that the style of writing changes about the time Sajer enters the GD. This has given rise to the theory that it is the tale of two different men- written by two different men and joined into one book. There does seem to be some decent circumstantial evidence that Sajer, the Paris artist, did not actually write the whole book- that he is either fronting for someone else, or that he did the first half and used the better combat tales from someone else for the final part.

And of course there are those that claim he was in a French SS unit (or fronting for someone who was). This is a possibility. But then, there are many possibilities.

For those that insist it is a fake because of a few translation errors and the "non-existence" of Sajer- well, too bad. That's not a good enough reason. Don't go looking in an old German archive for a French citizen who is not in hiding.

For those that wonder about the much smaller and possibly more interesting details... it certainly is an interesting tale. I for one would love to see someone do a computer examination of the original French version to see if the styles of the two halves are the same (in English would be a waste of time). I have also asked the people that have contact with him if he would care to be interviewed on the accusations leveled against the book. Should this come about- the answers may prove very interesting.

--------------------------------------

[Guest PeterNZ]

FIONN: "Most of the tanks running over infantry myths is just that, myth.. Sure it happened but its like an air crash.. Statistically its HIGHLY unlikely but if you've ever seen one your remember it forever."

I think to further this point worth noting that if one included it in the game it would be used disproporionatly often.

If one accepts that tanks running over infantry happened once every 100 engagements, (a wild guess by me ), then i can guarantee that you'd see it happen one in every ten battles, (if not more!). This means that the tactic is, obviously, used ten times more often that it should be, and thus is disproportionately powerful.

For this reason, i say leave it out

PeterNZ

[Regan Wood]

Has anyone read the Sven Hassel series? Interesting reading. He also portrays tanks grinding infantry as a common Russian tactic; however, if I remember correctly, it was usually during an overrun type assault by tank units. It could also be very expensive for the tanks if the men (not squads) involved were veterans, as some generally were. Also, these books, except maybe the first, are fiction based on fact, I think. Anyway, my suggestion would be that an overrun by a vehichle have SOME penalty for the overrun unit. Also, wouldn't that be a good time for a unit to switch targets and utilize grenades, etc.?

[Reverendo]

I do not think the fact this tactic is often used or not is important. I don't play wargames to recreate history, but to rewrite it. It would be absurd to say 'Hey, I found a great tactic to take Riesberg, but I'm not going to use it because the Americans didn't take Riesberg that way'. The important fact is that if a Stug ran over me, dying would be quite a smart thing for me to do. It would be the ONLY thing to do, actually. It is not that it was used by the Russians or not, it's the fact that being ran over by a tank is bad for your health. During the occupation of Spain in 1812, throwing pots to French soldiers from windows wasn't a 'Commonly used tactic', but hell, go and tell that to the French soldiers who died this way!

We have seen infantry squads going THROUGH tanks. Not only in CM, but also in CC and C&C. So, why not making YOUR troops go through tanks, while ENEMY troops die if ran over?

The AI in CM is extremely advanced, probably the best AI I have ever seen, ok, fair enough, but sometimes it does weird things. And our duty as subscribers of this newsgroup is reporting them. I have seen a SINGLE volksgrenadier blow a Sherman tank up... from the INSIDE. That's not realistic. And don't talk about violence, since I think if we do so we will have the same problem we had with the 'Dead bodies' thing. I'm not asking for blood, guts and brains. I DON'T want the game to be a dismemberfest. But neither I want war to be simulated in a way so neat and fluffy. Running over soldiers is cruel, ok, but being shot down isn't either my idea of a good day, and people in CM actually shoot each other.

If I wanted blood, I would play 'Unreal' or 'Quake'. If I wanted an innocent game, I would play 'Barney the Cute Purple Dinosaur'. So let's not mess things up. I'm not pro-dead bodies, but I'm not against them either. The objective of a simulation is to... simulate. So, when personal conviction masks reality, we're no longer simulating.

------------------

Regards

Reverendo

[Reverendo]

Whoa, I always forget something! :¬)

If the problem is plainly technical, then leave it out. I'm not going to get upset if I can't run over soldiers. Actually, I only tried to do it twice.

About realism, I ken it is extremely hard to run over a man with a tank. But I have to say this game simulates long range combat perfectly, but I see flaws (perhaps just lack of feedback' in close combat. Tanks aren't the only unit to have problems about this. Infantry makes some weird things while assaulting. And I have seen a full squad of veteran panzergrenadiere fleeing from half a squad of american riflemen. So, when I try to scare 1 or 2 soldiers who are under fire and have lost their whole squad, and I get a tank close, why don't they flee? Actually, why do they kill my tank? Hell, I would be far more scared if I saw a steel box with 2 MGs and a gun than if I saw 5 jerks running through open ground... Specially because I can shoot the jerks down with my rifle...

Oh, and one more thing. Panzerfausts kill tanks, that's true. And they do it veri good indeed. But, why do grenades (I mean hand grenades) kill my buttoned tanks?!. You see a guy swinging his arm, a black dot flying on an arc and falling over your tank, a huge explosion and the crew running away... Isn't that a bit strange?

------------------

Regards

Reverendo