Embarked/Destroyed Crews: Objectives

[JoMac]

What effects do Embarked or Destroyed Crews from Vehicles, Field Pieces, etc have on holding Objectives.

Ex; I have an instance where there are only a few turns left in a QB Game.

I want to hide my Tank somewhere safe outside objective, and have my Crew dismount and enter an Objective and hide in one of the buildings.

Joe

[Holman]

I may be wrong, but I think the games counts any living, unbroken/unpanicked soldier the same for purposes of "being there." Abandoned vehicles don't count.

[womble]

Martyr has the right of it.

[JoMac]

Thanx for the info, guys.

[Michael Emrys]

A trifle gamey as AFV crews were notoriously reluctant to leave healthy vehicles on the field of battle. Allowable as I suppose it could happen and therefore probably did somewhere sometime. But if I were your regular opponent, I would protest if you made a habit of it.

Michael

[JoMac]

Yeah, I Umm, Umm taking my Crew to Scout-out the next Crossroad...using the building for cover :-)

Actually, that does sound Gamey, and think CM should not have Crews ( Tanks, HT's, AC, etc ) be allowed to disembark, and think only Passengers should be allowed...Think CMx1.

[womble]

Dismounting to scout isn't gamey at all; vehicle commanders did it all the time, but you're not allowed to dismount just the leader, so you have to take the whole crew. Using it as an excuse to hide a crew in a building to contest the VL is, however; haven't you got any other units that can do this, and use the vehicle for something sensible, like firing on the enemy and stopping them contesting the VL? There's no direct point having anyone in the VL until the end of the game anyway.

[ChappyCanuck]

Some of you may think this is "gamey" but I would argue that at no time during this war (or any war) did a single unit have to occupy a generic "green area" of a map at a certain time (down to the minute) to gain "points"

[sburke]

Some of you may think this is "gamey" but I would argue that at no time during this war (or any war) did a single unit have to occupy a generic "green area" of a map at a certain time (down to the minute) to gain "points"

IIRC correctly a Pz IV crew from Panzer Lehrer was able to slip into Bastogne and hide in a basement denying the 101st of a hard fought victory.

When informed Anthony McAuliffe was heard to declare "nuts, the gamey bastiges!" At which point he rage quit and went on to play angry birds.

[postfux123]

A story about a gamey tank commander:

"A Tank Commander named Robert Early from E Company 32nd. Armored Regiment went on foot to investigate. I asked to go along and we went on the mezzanine of a building and saw the tank. He told me to stay there and he would come back in his tank and try to put the German tank out of commission and I could photograph it. He had one of the new M-26 Pershings with a ninety-mm gun. Sgt. Early said he would turn into the square under me, stop and fire at the German tank."

The german tank crew didnt want to play him again.

Interesting reading for german speakers: http://www.panzerduell.de/

[Michael Emrys]

A story about a gamey tank commander...

That I wouldn't regard as gamey. For a TC to scout forward on foot, accompanied or not by one or more of his crew, was a pretty well documented practice. It was less common among tank crews than among dedicated recon units, especially if the latter were riding soft skinned vehicles, but it was done.

Michael

[postfux123]

Michael, Sgt. Earlys story pretty much confirms what you already posted above.

I also think that if your opponent is able to sneak a crew into a VL with their vehicle close by you rightfully dont "own" that VL.

A little OT: Is it possible to target disembarked vehicles and does the AI do it? Thinking about it i cant remeber loosing a disembarked ammo carrier to direct fire.

[JoMac]

Yes, you can Target or let the AI eventually auto target disembarked Vehicles as if they were active.

I won't worry about been Off-Topic to much since half the Posts within a Thread will eventually do that.

[postfux123]

Yes, you can Target or let the AI eventually auto target disembarked Vehicles as if they were active.

I am playing "A strange awakening" aka "Shooting fish in a barrel" and had a team sitting right beside an abandonded Kübelwagen (not knocked out) for several turns.

Annoyed me that much they got a "target light" order that promptet them to use their most heavy weapon, the bazooka. Was a nice explosion.

The TacAI seems very reluctant to fire at abandoned vehicles making disembarking a kind of exploit at least against the AI.

[womble]

Annoyed me that much they got a "target light" order that promptet them to use their most heavy weapon, the bazooka. Was a nice explosion.

"Target Light" shouldn't let them use their Zook. Or their rifle grenades.

[Baneman]

"Target Light" shouldn't let them use their Zook. Or their rifle grenades.

Hmmm, I queried this a while ago pertaining to an example where some infantry with a Target Light dropped their faust on some other infantry in a close-in fight in a forest.

I was told that Target Light emphasises ammo saving ie. lower RoF and de-emphasises use of "heavy" weapons, but does not preclude their use 100%.

So if the TacAI thinks it will take a zook or whatever to get the job done, it will use it.

I have occasionally seen a Tank fire HE when told to Target Light. Not often mind, but I have seen it happen.

[womble]

Interesting. I don't think I've ever had infantry with Target Light use their projected HE weapons. The chance that they might do so, though, strongly supports the SOP of splitting out a squad's AT team, if present, at the earliest opportunity, so that it doesn't go shooting off its tube at the TacAI's fallible whim.

[postfux123]

Just reloaded the savegame and have to admit the team firing the bazooka was a dedicated AT team consisting of two men (bazooka and rifle grenade).

I shuffled around a bit and gave a team of 4 (bazooka, 3 rifles without rifle grenade) a target light order and they heroically took down the Kübelwagen with rifle shots.

Should have paid more attention the first time. But HE weapons might be used by infantry on target light after all.

[JoMac]

All Good Comments...

Which one of these below would be a more appropriate choice to consider, wither against an Opponent or Computer AI. This could also be applied in the CM: House Rules Thread I posted.

- Vehicle crews can disembark/embark at any given turn, but must embark before the last turn of a game...This way Vehicle & Crew are legally one by games end.

- There will be no disembarking of Vehicle Crews..

Are there any other considerations to add ?

I would think the last choice would be more appropriate since it goes in tandem with Heavy Weapons crews not be able to un-crew if need be (except by being destroyed ).

[Baneman]

Yes, but crews can panic, dismount (from a working vehicle) and then recover.

The game could end before they can get back to their vehicle - eg. they ran a long way away and are now tired...

Or the area the vehicle is in is still hotly contested.

The House Rule immediately becomes complicated - which is not a good thing.

[JoMac]

Yes, but crews can panic, dismount (from a working vehicle) and then recover.

The game could end before they can get back to their vehicle - eg. they ran a long way away and are now tired...

Or the area the vehicle is in is still hotly contested.

The House Rule immediately becomes complicated - which is not a good thing.

Yes, I was thinking of adding that implication in previous post and figured someone would end-up mentioning it.

In a situation like that, once forced to dismount, then Crews have the ability to do whatever they want during the game...embark ( ofcourse, once embarked they must remain so ), move about, enter objective by games end, etc...I say this, becuase a unit's hand has been forced by the Game ( not fault of player ), and thus most restrictions are voided.

Anyways, like you said, things can get complicated and players need to discuss these sort of things before a game.

[postfux123]

I disembark/ embark my vehicles a lot. Mostly to use the drivers as gunners in other transport vehicles. I guess this may be considered gamey but for me it is a workaround to drivers refusing to man the MG since its not in their job descriiption. Parking disembarked ammo carriers in your fire base sure is an exploit against the AI given the reluctance of the TacAI to target them. I have no problem with sneeking a crew in a VL. If you can do it the oüüonent dont deserves the VL.

I think the only working rule would be not to disembark your vehicles at all. Against the AI it evens things out. On the other hand a see no reason for such a restriction against a human opponent who can manually target abandoned vehicles.

[A Canadian Cat]

I disembark/ embark my vehicles a lot. Mostly to use the drivers as gunners in other transport vehicles. I guess this may be considered gamey but for me it is a workaround to drivers refusing to man the MG since its not in their job descriiption.

I just do not see a problem with doing that.

see no reason for such a restriction against a human opponent who can manually target abandoned vehicles.

^^^

Yep +1 from me.

[Michael Emrys]

- Vehicle crews can disembark/embark at any given turn, but must embark before the last turn of a game...This way Vehicle & Crew are legally one by games end.

- There will be no disembarking of Vehicle Crews..

IMHO these restrictions are too sweeping in that they would restrict what I would consider legitimate behavior. As has been noted, it was common enough for members of vehicle crews to debark in order to scout on foot. Being able to do this in the game should be preserved, even if it involves repeating the behavior more than once in a game. What we are after is preventing the abuse of that behavior in order to claim a VL at the end of a game, or at least preventing the opponent from claiming it.

But as I see it, this is a problem that only BFC can provide an adequate fix for. That is, to rewrite some of the code to the effect that disembarked vehicle crews cannot contest the possession of a VL. They can claim an unoccupied VL, but their claim is automatically canceled by the presence of a good order enemy unit. Until that comes about, it seems to me that the only reasonable house rule—if we must have one—is to examine the ground at the end of a game and if necessary recalculate the score to eliminate any abuse that might be profitable to one or the other player. But this strikes me as a lot of bother for small gain. A far better solution is simply for players to agree beforehand not to abuse the tactic and to stick to that agreement.

Michael

[Erwin]

CM1 seemed to have a better/more satisfying method of calculating levels of victory and also of calculating who holds the VL or if it's contested.

In CM2 I regularly find that levels of victory can change radically eg: from Major Defeat to Total Victory on the basis of a couple of guys KIA. It's frustrating and unsatisfying. In CM1 the result changed slowly based on casualties or VL points and it made more sense. I don't recall the above issues occurring that much.