Bulletpoint Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I just finished a game where I exited my force off the map, apart from a tank crew that I kept back to hold an objective. The game did not award me the objective however, despite no enemy troops being nearby (I checked after the battle). Do tank crews have some special rule to not let them hold objectives, or is there a certain number of soldiers needed? I had 5. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) No special rule that I know of. Usually it is enough to have the paniced second cook on the objective to contest it. Edited February 8, 2015 by poesel 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I have to admit that this situation seems kind of odd. It should be relatively simple to test though so I might check it out some day just out of curiosity. I do know that there have been frequent alterations to crews and victory conditions in an effort to prevent what many consider to be 'gamey' behavior so it is possible that crews can't hold objectives. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but I don't know for certain if it is the case or not. Edited February 8, 2015 by ASL Veteran 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) The tank crew was perfectly fine too. A crew from a HQ tank that had become immobilised in mud. Edited February 9, 2015 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 It just occurred to me I had this happen to me once and it turned out the objective was not contiguous. I thought there were two separate objectives - there were to areas of green highlighting - but it was really one. So, what I thought happened was I owned on objective and the other one was contested but in actual fact I was out of luck.Is that possible here? I do not recall any stock scenarios with such a setup.Just searching for possibilities... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) As you mentioned, Ian, that's probably the case...it's most likely one Objective that was seperated into two parts ( two parts in different areas of the Map ), and the Scenario Designer didn't seperate them as two Objectives ( intentionally or accidentally ). Joe Edited February 10, 2015 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 The scenario was "Carbide Carbide", and the objective was "center bridge". It's very small and doesn't seem like it could be shared with any other place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Looking in the editor you can see that the main action square of the 2 storey building is not highlighted as an objective. If your man was in that location he was not on the objective. Whether this is a deliberate design descision or a case of a missed tile only the designer GeorgeMC ?? can tell. Anyways it serves you right for being gamey and using a tank crew to hold an objective P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I can't find anything in the manuals or patch notes, but I could swear I heard somewhere that vehicle crews do not count towards terrain objectives... I could be mistaken though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Looking in the editor you can see that the main action square of the 2 storey building is not highlighted as an objective. If your man was in that location he was not on the objective. Whether this is a deliberate design descision or a case of a missed tile only the designer GeorgeMC ?? can tell. Anyways it serves you right for being gamey and using a tank crew to hold an objective P You nailed it - that's where my tank crew was. Pretty obvious design bug, but yes, i guess it does serve me right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Oh man bummer. Sorry but that made me laugh though - and then I felt bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Upon further review it seems I was mistaken. Vehicle crews can indeed secure an objective. Also, ignore the naysayers, it's not "gamey" to hold an objective with vehicle crew. They do carry weapons after all, thus they are merely a different type of infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Yeah, if one wounded Conscript Kriegsmarine truck driver with an empty pistol, bladder and colon can contest a VL against a Company of Elite Rangers, a good-order vehicle crew should be enough to provide "security" for the same VL... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 12, 2015 Author Share Posted February 12, 2015 Well, I guess the proof should be in the pudding: If the enemy is unable to take back the place even though you have only a couple of crewmen there, then de facto you hold the objective. But of course, we as players know that the AI doens't have a counterattack doctrine... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Well, I guess the proof should be in the pudding: If the enemy is unable to take back the place even though you have only a couple of crewmen there, then de facto you hold the objective. I assume this is tongue in cheek. I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I assume this is tongue in cheek. I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point. This is why I really hate MOUT scenarios and refuse to play them. There never seems to be enough time or personnel to check every building to make sure that some enemy trooper is not hiding in a corner somewhere. If I'm gonna have to do that, then give me double the infantry. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I assume this is tongue in cheek. I think that it can be a real pain to attempt, within the time limits afforded by a scenario or QB, to try to do a house to house (or other LOS limiting terrain) search of a victory objective. Or perhaps some of the maps I've played on have had insanely large objective areas. One can win by playing hide and seek, which hardly seems realistic after a point.This is something that scenario designers are learning as time goes on. Huge VLs are features to be used with caution. Huge urban VLs even more so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 This is something that scenario designers are learning as time goes on. Huge VLs are features to be used with caution. Huge urban VLs even more so. The map in question actually does this quite well, apart from the missing bit of objective at the house. While you're tasked with securing river crossings in dense terrain, the actual victory locations are quite small. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.