Why No Tank Riders?

[MarkEzra]

Well, for me the biggest thing missing is AI triggers being applied to at least some stock scenarios and campaigns. Hope these will be available at some point.

Last Defense V3 was uploaded to CMBN-MG (it uses Hellcats) It uses triggers and the increased number of AI groups to improve my original CMBN effort. I also added 14 new QB Maps (CMBN Basegame/Maps) that use the increase group numbers...but not triggers. Sorry but I made them in anticipation of V3.0, not with V3.0.

[Hister]

Thank you Mark!

[Shorker]

I guess every vintage video of troops from all sides riding on tanks was completely fabricated, LoL. Not even including quotes from infantry vets saying, "We saw the Tiger, and before we could jump off, etc." It may not have been doctrine, but as a prior service Ranger, I know at the platoon or squad level, a ride to anywhere would be greatly appreciated. I love BF, bought EVERY CM game/upgrade from CM1 on (except Afghanistan). But I'm definitely not impressed with the 3.0 upgrade release decisions, and very disappointed. And then to pay for the upgrade twice for FI AND BN? Not to mention, I'm sure flame throwers and tank riders will be another upgrade we'll have to pay for down the line. It's a rip that I can't support or defend. (Maybe "defend" is a little harsh) but I think I'll be passing this upgrade up until there's more content.

Same here.

All Combat Mission x2 titles with their modules are so expensive but they are still lacking so many features, that it is a real brazenness/impertinence to let the customers pay for every little additional feature/improvement that should have been in the game already from the beginning - like it is the case in other wargames like e.g. the "Men of War" series etc.

Enough is enough - I won't be a party to that.

[Lethaface]

Personally I would like tank riders but I'm fine with the decision, since I not really use m that often in CMRT and waiting longer and paying more just for that is not really justified IMO.

[Lethaface]

Last Defense V3 was uploaded to CMBN-MG (it uses Hellcats) It uses triggers and the increased number of AI groups to improve my original CMBN effort. I also added 14 new QB Maps (CMBN Basegame/Maps) that use the increase group numbers...but not triggers. Sorry but I made them in anticipation of V3.0, not with V3.0.

Thanks! going to check that out scenario out.

[Pelican Pal]

You want tank riding because you want it, forget its historically inaccurate for the theater and downright suicidal in close country during gameplay. Its one of those things where after you've done it three times and lost two squads in the process the novelty wears off, so its no big deal not having it. If BFC had made a "12 miles behind the lines" simulator then maybe tank riding would be appropriate. After BFC crosses the Rhine perhaps American infantry riding on tanks will make an appearance. Most picts you see of American tank riders are from the 1945 timeframe.

Tank riding is historically accurate. It did in fact happen.

It should not be the tank riding that is currently in CM:RT. A Soviet squad will ride that tank into the drop zone come Hell or high water. Instead a small number of casualties or more than a few potshots should cause the men to dismount. This isn't an assault tactic but an administrative movement.

Currently a player can have a rifle company attack across completely open ground covered in mines and TRPs with two companies of Germans dug into the other side of the field. This is company wide suicide yet the player can still do it. Hell the player can call naval artillery onto their own position if they want to. They can dismount a company of Shermans and have the crew act as infantry. Point is that because something is tactically suicidal does not mean that the player should be (or is) prevented from doing it.

The game is also increasingly becoming the "12 miles behind the lines" simulator. The map size is now 8 KM deep by 4 ( or is it 3) KM wide. We are a mere four KM (and depending on map orientation even less) from that 12 KM. Back in CM:SF your argument would work, but the maps are getting increasingly bigger and the opportunity for tank riding (as an administrative move) to make a tactical difference is increasing with it.

[Childress]

Re: riders, etc. A lot of people are disappointed but it's Battlefront's call. They know what they're doing given their resources. They been punching these out since 1999 and many similar companies have fallen by the wayside. I trust their explanations.

[Pelican Pal]

I actually found BFC's explanation which is a whole lot more legitimate than what is currently being thrown around.

\

Unfortunately the scope of work for tank riders was too massive to be included in a $10 Upgrade. Each model plus (IIRC) 2 LODs has to be hand tweaked by a 3D artist, hand coded by Charles, and tested for problems. There are always problems (guys sitting above the deck, into the turret, facing the wrong direction, using the wrong animations, etc.) because placing these hotspots is more art than science. The assuredness that a certain number of hotspots will need some tweak or several means the development cycle is repeated for a subset of the total number of changes. To give you some understanding of the process we go through...

From memory there is about 200 vehicle models between CMBN and CMFI. If we figure an average of 10 "hotspots" for soldiers per vehicle (some have more some have less), that's a total of 2000 hotspots that have to be created for the base models, times 3 to include the LODs. That means about 6000 hotspots have to be added, coded, tested, and tweaked before we're done. Knock the workload down by a small bit because there are a few models that are 100% the same between releases or nations (there's still some work to do, just not as much) and exclude the vehicles that don't need the feature at all. Oh, let's say 5000 hotspots. I dunno what each hotspot averages out to in terms of work, but 3 minutes each is probably very conservative. That means the cost of an Upgrade has to cover 250 hours of labor just for this one feature, plus the other features, plus the other testing, plus the sales related expenses, plus the "opportunity cost", plus our risk, plus profit.

So yea, a lot of work. Which sucks but its what we got.

[kulik]

Lots of monotonous work? Hire temporarily one or two mediocre coders, 250 hours of labor = 16 days of work for two guys. Its all the CMBN and CMFI sales X 10 bucks, I recon you could cover their salary.

Personally, I doubt that I would use tank riders in CMBN, but you are setting a dangerous precedent here "Upgrade will bring older titles to most current feature level, except these features...".

[Pelican Pal]

FWIW, I'll agree with you Kulik. If this were to happen again I would hope BFC would point out which features would be brought into the upgrades and which would not. I'm sure some people expected tank riders to be in the patch. Especially since they are a definite selling point of the CM:RT 3.0 version.

[Frankster65]

Same here.

All Combat Mission x2 titles with their modules are so expensive but they are still lacking so many features, that it is a real brazenness/impertinence to let the customers pay for every little additional feature/improvement that should have been in the game already from the beginning - like it is the case in other wargames like e.g. the "Men of War" series etc.

Enough is enough - I won't be a party to that.

Another one who wants something for nothing. Amazing.

[Mord]

Well, you can chalk me up as happy.

Fire weapons will come in a module. That's pretty much what was discussed way back. I would've expected at least man portable flame throwers in this upgrade but they aren't. So, I'll wait until the module that includes all the flame stuff. It's not that big a deal.

I don't care about the tank riding one way or another. The hit decals and triggers were the things I was most excited about seeing added to BN & FI. After that anything else is a bonus.

Mord.

[Pelican Pal]

Another one who wants something for nothing. Amazing.

There is a point here. Say a V 4.0 comes out, and you've been an exceedingly loyal customer buying every CM game. To upgrade your collection that small $10 fee could be aaas high as $50 (CM:A, CM:BN, CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:SF). Now if you throw in Black Sea and the Bulge game you are paying $70 to upgrade your games to the same level.

I also wondered about fire weapns. Presumably some formations currently in CMBN and CMFI should have fire weapons by default.

[Frankster65]

There is a point here. Say a V 4.0 comes out, and you've been an exceedingly loyal customer buying every CM game. To upgrade your collection that small $10 fee could be aaas high as $50 (CM:A, CM:BN, CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:SF). Now if you throw in Black Sea and the Bulge game you are paying $70 to upgrade your games to the same level.

I also wondered about fire weapns. Presumably some formations currently in CMBN and CMFI should have fire weapons by default.

No, there is not a point other than these people want to get something from BF without paying for the labor and know how in bringing all modules up to same game version. They are not forced to purchase anything. They can stay with the game engine version they have and play to their hearts content. They just cannot play with others in PBEM games who have upgraded and they cannot enjoy the new features added to the older modules.

[Shorker]

Another one who wants something for nothing. Amazing.

Nonsense - please read more carefully. My post is about price and content.

[Frankster65]

Nonsense - please read more carefully. My post is about price and content.

BS. You want something for nothing.

[Shorker]

BS. You want something for nothing.

This is you level of argumantation...?

For ppl like you the world is easy - go and enjoy yourself.

[Frankster65]

This is you level of argumantation...?

For ppl like you the world is easy - go and enjoy yourself.

All Combat Mission x2 titles with their modules are so expensive but they are still lacking so many features, that it is a real brazenness/impertinence to let the customers pay for every little additional feature/improvement that should have been in the game already from the beginning - like it is the case in other wargames like e.g. the "Men of War" series etc.

Lacking features? You apparently can't read or don't read features list and you have poor memory in terms of remembering what we started with and where this simulation is now. So expensive? Compared to what? I've had hundreds if not thousands of hours of enjoyment with this game at a small price point I may add. $20 to bring the other modules up to speed and that is expensive? Clearly you need to go play something else then. I drop that every time I take my wife to a movie and we only get to enjoy that once.

Brazenness/impertinence to expect to be paid for work performed? Should have been in the game already from beginning? LOL...come on.

You have no argument. All your tantrums about how BF has cheated or is cheating you are laughable at best.

[Mord]

How much "content" do you provide in one day, for ten bucks? How long will that content last your employer or the people that deal with your employer? NOW, when's the last time you worked three months for ten bucks? Three years from now will that ten bucks worth of work still be viable to those that paid you?

Mord.

[weta_nz]

Personally - I was a little surprised that fire units and tank riders didn't make 3.0 upgrade. But I totally respect Battlefronts decision not to include tank riders based on the amount of work required. C'mon guys they can only do so much with your $10. If they could have put in the features I'm sure they would have. What I don't understand is the attitude of some people. As a consumer you have a choice to buy or not to buy depending if you think it is of value to you. Otherwise you need to design and market your own game to decide what features should or should not be included. Good luck with that!

[Macisle]

Finally! Y'know, MikeyD posted this way back in post #6 in this thread:

People somehow didn't seem to notice that. Furthermore, there has been previous discussion along the same lines previously. Not inconceivable that someone might have missed the earlier discussion, but what's the excuse for ignoring MD in this thread?

Michael

I must have skimmed past MD's post earlier post. I didn't see it.

While the upgrade price is still very fair and what it brings well worth buying, I think that going forward, BF should be careful to make sure that people understand in advance that upgrade packages will not necessarily add ALL the newest features to old titles. Up until now, the assumption has been that it would.

On pricing, for my part, I'd rather pay more for an upgrade and have it make my old games fully current than have stuff left out for only $10. Plus, this precedent seems to add to the confusion about versions and what they include.

Of course, BF knows the ins and outs far, far better than I do. So, just my two cents.

[sfhand]

...

While the upgrade price is still very fair and what it brings well worth buying, I think that going forward, BF should be careful to make sure that people understand in advance that upgrade packages will not necessarily add ALL the newest features to old titles. Up until now, the assumption has been that it would.

On pricing, for my part, I'd rather pay more for an upgrade and have it make my old games fully current than have stuff left out for only $10. Plus, this precedent seems to add to the confusion about versions and what they include.

Of course, BF knows the ins and outs far, far better than I do. So, just my two cents.

Well stated, my thoughts as well.

[Macisle]

Well stated, my thoughts as well.

Thanks, sfhand.

I just want to quickly state again that I really want to see tank riders added to BN/FI.

I recently finished a huge custom QB in CMRT where tank riders played a major role outside the hot zones in the battle. They were vital in my being able to shift my reserves around--even allowing me to escape a distant threat that would eventually put my initial staging ground in enemy LOS.

It was great fun, felt very realistic, and allowed me to really cut down on the mouse clicks to get my infantry repositioned.

Again, it was all outside of enemy LOS. And, I was Axis. I could definitely see the Western Allies doing the same kind of maneuvering. There are a lot of pics of Amis and Brits riding tanks outside of harms way.

I'd sure like to have the feature...

and I don't mind paying.

[Michael Emrys]

I must have skimmed past MD's post earlier post. I didn't see it.

BTW, I wasn't jumping on you specifically. After all, you were the one who finally figured it out. That's why I began my response with the word 'finally'. It was all the other folks who blithely glided past MD's post to continue a line of argument that was not valid who moved me to post.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Most picts you see of American tank riders are from the 1945 timeframe.

Interestingly enough (to me anyway), I just began reading John Irwin's Another River, Another Town, where he makes a point of describing infantrymen riding on his Sherman and later Pershing. But he joined the 3rd. Armored after it had crossed the Rhine and during the closing of the Ruhr pocket. Yes, this was administrative or perhaps operational movement. The form was that once fire opened or they were close to a suspected German location, the GIs would jump off and proceed on foot. I suspect that something similar was done during the post-Cobra breakout and the pursuit across France. But there is more to be said about this topic.

Michael