What is the command to reman an AT gun?

[Destraex1]

CAnnot seem to get my guys to re-man a gun I had them abandon to hide for a bit.

[Holman]

Unfortunately, the engine does not yet allow guns to be remanned. Abandoned is abandoned.

[Destraex1]

I can re-man tanks

[Baneman]

Tanks are vehicles. Guns are not vehicles, they are "Heavy Weapons" and are dealt with differently in the code ( mostly to allow them to be towed, I think ).

At the moment, if the crew abandons a weapon, it's defunct.

[Destraex1]

So I can abandon weapons manually... but not the other way around.

So why allow the player to abandon if the crew cannot do anything about getting back on?

Seems like half finished code.

[Melchior]

Weapon crews are armed and can double as infantry in a pinch. (And they often did.) You might also want to save them if artillery is being dialed in on their position. Better than losing everyone.

[Bulletpoint]

It seems a limitation of the current code. I'm sure that Battlefront could fix it if they wanted to, but it seems they have other priorities ..

I thought about some examples of how the ability to re-man the gun could be exploited by the player, but after thinking some more, I wasn't sure if it was really "exploiting", or "being clever".

[Melchior]

Crews would leave their guns during artillery strikes to hide in dugouts but that doesn't have to be represented directly in the game. I'd really like to see infantry not in the weapon-team able to recrew another team's abandoned weapon myself but i'm sure Battlefront would to. It's a coding problem as far as I know.

[YankeeDog]

As noted, ordering a crew to abandon a gun is mostly a measure to save the crew's lives when they are clearly outmatched and no longer useful; you may not be able to save the gun, but at least you can save the crew. You can try to use them as infantry after they've abandoned, though personally I find them only marginally useful in this role. I have done this a few times in extremis, though.

In addition to coding challenges with getting guns to re-crew, crews would also often (but not always) disable a gun when abandoning in order to prevent the gun from being captured and used by the enemy.

So when and if BFC can get around to adding gun re-crewing, some kind of consideration needed to be made to when a crew should "spike" the gun, and when they shouldn't. Tricky thing to model.

[Childress]

In addition to coding challenges with getting guns to re-crew, crews would also often (but not always) disable a gun when abandoning in order to prevent the gun from being captured and used by the enemy.

You'd need to separate the gun and the crew into two autonomous entities. Doable, one supposes. But worth the effort? And abandoning an intact heavy weapon was an act liable to severe penalties in every army. Le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle.

[H1nd]

You'd need to separate the gun and the crew into two autonomous entities. Doable, one supposes. But worth the effort? And abandoning an intact heavy weapon was an act liable to severe penalties in every army. Le jeu ne vaut pas la chandelle.

Every time this is discussed somebody brings up this yet it uterly disregards common sense that there is a difference in abandoning your heavy weapon and taking cover from enemy indirect fire for example. In a foxhole say 1-15m away from the weapon. It's not like the crews were actually glued to their guns since it definatedly was not 19th century warfare anymore (from wich (and earlier times) many of the these rules came from). And to what extend did the regulations and rules really apply in the ww2 battlefield conditions?

I think it's pretty important for BF to solve this since atm gun's are simply too easy to neutralize with artillery since ther is no form of entrenchement or other way that properly protects the crew as fas as I know.

Edit. with acknowledgement that many things could be still be more important than this.

[YankeeDog]

I think it's pretty important for BF to solve this since atm gun's are simply too easy to neutralize with artillery since ther is no form of entrenchement or other way that properly protects the crew as fas as I know.

Try putting the gun in foxholes or a trench section (to protect the crew) with a sandbag wall (to protect the gun. Under these conditions, you'll find the crew and gun are often remarkably resistant to artillery & mortar fire...

[Childress]

Every time this is discussed somebody brings up this yet it uterly disregards common sense that there is a difference in abandoning your heavy weapon and taking cover from enemy indirect fire for example. In a foxhole say 1-15m away from the weapon.

Sounds good! And realistic. 15m represents equals two action spots. Without separating the team from the gun how do you do this? A special Hide command that directs the team to the nearest pillbox or trench?

A mitigating factor may be the enhanced flexibility of AT guns in 3.0.

[H1nd]

I have to ask this about fortifications in general in cmx2. Does it matter if the pixeltruppen dont visibly remain in their foxholes even if one is present in the action square? Because in most cases having the tacAI actually leave the men in their foxholes can be real pain with infantry let alone with heavyweapon crews. Usually they end up everywhere else but in those foxholes. Even trenches are problematic but in general they are in any case much more rare in CM setting than regular fox holes. So does this affect casualties or are the foxholes abstracted so that it only matters that they are present in the action square? this has bugged me for a very long time. In my experience foxholes are only usefull if you can actually get the pixeltruppen stay inside them and even then it can be meagre help at times.

[H1nd]

Also the sandbag walls are even more pain to work with to actually get the gun stay in the middle of the sandbag corner. If anything the fortifications need rework/fix more badly than at-guns and many many other issues.

Edit: To this end I have to also mention the tale of heroic PAK crew that managed to win a h2h game for me by killing roughly 6-7 shermans and damaging even more despite being under fire almost constantly from multiple tanks. The low bocage it was behind managed to protect the gun during the entire game x)

[A Canadian Cat]

Also the sandbag walls are even more pain to work with to actually get the gun stay in the middle of the sandbag corner. If anything the fortifications need rework/fix more badly than at-guns and many many other issues.

They are annoying indeed. Here is what I found works. First position the sand bag wall as close to the way you want it. Yes, as close as you can - the sand bag walls do not seem very flexible. Next position the gun in the same AS as the wall. If it is not nicely centred the way you want give it a face command. Repeat adjusting the face command just slightly until you get what you want. If you cannot get it right move the gun away and then back again - repeat giving face commands. Obviously this really only works during setup but that is usually fine for guns since they don't move around much anyway.

Edit: To this end I have to also mention the tale of heroic PAK crew that managed to win a h2h game for me by killing roughly 6-7 shermans and damaging even more despite being under fire almost constantly from multiple tanks. The low bocage it was behind managed to protect the gun during the entire game x)

Sweet!

[permanent666]

Maybe it is not a big problem for most circumstances but in some situations it would be good if our pixeltruppen could leave the gun and reman it: