crew-served weapon crews w/o small arms

[M Hofbauer]

Another thing...

while we are talking about .50cal, I noticed that support teams such as .50cal MGs, .30cal MGs and 60mm Mortars have 4-6 people but no small arms at all??

I mean, there is a handful of people working the mortar or the 30cal and they don't have personal weapons? - not even a Colt M1911 .45?

also, I thought this was exactly what the M1 Carbine was for - personal weapon for self-defense for crews like these.

wondering and appreciating any input/enlightenment,

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Fionn]

Answer:

Beta demo.. Not everything which is going in is in yet.

Of course they'll have pistols (not rifles though.. those things are too cumbersome IMO to carry around while serving a crewed weapon

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Jarmo]

.45:s would be the thing for MG:s and such,

but I'd expect carbines with 88 gun teams and such. At least for some crewmen.

[M Hofbauer]

Actually, the M1 carbine was developed specifically as such: small arm for rear area troops and crews of crew-served weapons. It was for this expressed purpose that it was designed as the small and handy rifle (rather, carbine) it was.

It is true that at least the gunner of the two-man bazooka team was armed with only the .45 Colt M1911 as a sidearm. hoewever, already his assistant is often seen with something more substantial. Whether this was official policy or just individual creativity of the soldier born out of the sense of need and self-preservation I don't know.

However, other, real crew served weapons' crews had carbines for self-defense. Or anything else, for that matter. FTR, I've seen pictures of american artillery men with british Sten SMGs.

Fionn, you are probably right when you say that rifles "are too cumbersome IMO to carry around while serving a crewed weapon". But emphasis here is on "while serving a crewed weapon" - they did, however, have their small arms close by. In fact, many vehicles and guns had provisions for holders for these weapons. Now, it's a simple fact that crews *were* armed.

an arbitrary example:

In the picture we see an american 60mm mortar in action in France 1944. The leftmost soldier has a Colt .45 at his right hip. The second from the right holds an M1 carbine in his left hand. And - behold! - the rightmost soldier who is seen talking on the radio has a fullgrown, real life-sized M1 Garand rifle slung over his right shoulder!

German crews usually had the standard K 98k Mauser rifle as their personal weapons, although I do have pictures showing MG 42 gunners (gunners, not assistants!) shouldering an MP40 (MG 42 gunners also were armed with an specifically issued P-38 pistol as their standard official sidearm).

To research the official equipment of personal weapons for all the different crew-served weapons would be a no doubt very interesting matter. If the amount of time to research into this cannot be scrounged up, I think equipping german crews with the Mauser and american crews with the carbine would be a very rough but better than nothing compromise.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest Big Time Software]

Crews are not going to be armed with anything more than pistols. Yes, we know very well what they had for smallarms. Got the details right here in our TO&Es. So this is not a question about having data or not having data. In general one or two members of a 4-6 man crew had at least a rifle, if not a SMG. The rest of the crew usually did not. IIRC off the top of my head, a 6 man HMG42 crew had one SMG and one Kar98k (maybe 2?), the other four pistols (and the MG42 of course .

The problem here is with code and gameplay. It would be a mess to try and have a crew function with two different sets of weapons from a code standpoint. It would also be a headache to manage the data for a unique crew for the almost 100 team weapons we have in the game. People *hate* when we give this sort of answer, but we are not free to do everything we want because of time and coding realities. Thankfully for you guys we do NOT give this answer very often. Secondly, we do not want crews to be misused by the player after their main weapon is KO'd. One might argue that one SMG or Rifle isn't going to make a difference in terms of game play, and we totally aggree. And therefore since a large section of CM would have to be rewritten to handle this, it isn't going to happen because it doesn't really make a differnce

Having said that, there has been an item on The List for about a year to make a generic "self defense" value at close range to simulate the realitic employment of small arms defense while the main weapon is still active. But since this is a VERY small issue in game and realism terms, it is WAY down on the list. We can't put everything in the World War 2 into CM, and can't make all of those that do 100% realistic, so we have to pick and choose. Reality is hard to argue with, especially if you are the one that has to actually deal with reality

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Plus which (as I've stated elsewhere this evening) making a crew leave its gun generally means hurting it so badly that it doesn't matter what weapons the men carry; they'll be too busy running or huddling in the fetal position.

DjB

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I agree with BTS stand on this. I have seen WAY to many games in my 30 years of wargaming come down to CREWS slugging it out in the final turns with their 'self defence' weapons.

I am much more interested in if and how these crewmen will RE-crew thier abandoned weapons. I had a 60mm crew flee their weapon when an 88 shell killed one man in their squad...this happened to all three of my 60mm teams...one man lost in each team.

They were 100% "OK" witin a turn or two, but as I could not 're-crew' their weapons they were worthless.

I ended up moving them to the map edge and hiding them (did not have the heart to have them exit/flee )

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

The Grumbling Grognard

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

[Fionn]

Scott,

The ability to do all those things will be in the final game. They're not in the beta yet..

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[M Hofbauer]

I know this is moot since BTS is apparently not interested in implementing this but nevertheless I felt I wanted to clear something up with regard to Doug's post.

Doug: I am, not talking about wrecked/fleeing crews of a destroyed weapon. I am talking about the incident where the odd straggler FO or infantry squad leftover stumbles around in your rear. Once they approach your (mind you, fully functional) support teams, a - for example- mortar teamhas no means at all to defend themselves.

First of all, I am not so sure if the employment of a 60mm-mortar crew or the crew of a machine gun for real fighting is so game as many seem to perceive it. Come to think of it, I *am* sure that it happened fairly often.

Even if it would be considered gamey-

I am not sure if the phobia of "gamey" use of crews justifies leaving 4 to 6 healthy men standing by their weapon and having nothing but their bare hands should enemy infantry come close by. Well, actually I *am* sure it does not justify this but what the heck.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest Scott Clinton]

M.Hofbauer:

I have to agree with your entire last post EXCEPT the aspect of it being too gamey, ir the trade-off too great.

All I can think of to respond to this is either you have not been gaming as long as I have or that your opponents (in PC games and otherwise) have not been as resourceful/gamey as mine have been

I could quote literally dozens of horror stories about crews and last ditch attacks on the last turn...but I think you know what I mean.

But please elaborate on how this issue will not be rectified if/when BTS implements a "self defense value" as they outlined above? I think this could be the perfect compromise.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[M Hofbauer]

Scott,

you misunderstood me again it seems.

I wasn't implying that using those crews was not going to happen in a game. I meant to say that IMO such a use for these crews would not be "gamey".

granted, the 6-man MG crew was not the movement but the support element in the german infantry close combat tactics. Nevertheless they actively participated in engaging the enemy, I mean, engaging them directly as opposed to a neutral, clean / sterile back-area "support" team.

I see no difference between giving such teams an -here's that ugly word again- *abstracted* close defense value and equipping them with rifles/SMGs. The "invitation to gamey use" (that, as stated above, I question itself) argument goes for a generic defense value the same as it would for a rifle.

I hope you get me right, it just strikes me as ridiculous that there should be 6 men being able to do nothing but picking their noses all day once their MG42 ammo is gone.

Oh yes, while we are at it, same thing with forward observers.

And another thing, when I played that last defense map: I wanted to have my entering fresh american infantry squads lay down suppressive fire onto some germans in the open before the town. All I got was a "Out of Range" which I couldn't believe. We are talking the M1 Garand here. surely you are able to shoot further than the 500+m had in that incident: the sights of the M1 Garand weren't adjusted up to 1,200 yards for nothing.

Sure, you'll say now that re. *aimed fire* you probably wouldn't hit anything in excess of 600m, but nevertheless three squads of american infantry should be able to lay down quite some suppression *area fire* at that range. I mean, even if the *abstracted* firepower value for the team would be very low, it would still ensure that I could use them *at all*.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest Scott Clinton]

No, I did not misunderstand you.

> I wasn't implying that using those crews was not going

> to happen in a game.

Did I imply you implied that?

> I meant to say that IMO such a use for these

> crews would not be "gamey".

Yes, I read that also. IMO, on the scale and in the manner it will surely be done, if allowed, it would be gamey.

In a game with a finite number of turns…with specific objective areas that can determine either victory or defeat when occupied for a single turn…the excessive use of EXTREMELY valuable trained crews in a desperate, unrealistic, human wave assault on the last turn of a game can and does happen in Steel Panther, Steel Panthers 2, Close Combat 2, Close Combat 3, etc. All games that allow you to do EXACTLY what you want to do…arm crews with historical weapons that were really there only for self-defense and TRUE emergencies. Campaigns reduce this problem but the do not remove it entirely.

I can only imagine that either you have never played these games head to head or for that matter any miniatures based game of the same type. Well, I have played countless gaming systems devoted to WW2 and modern warfare in the past 30 years. EVERY ONE of these systems that allowed crews to carry their historical weapons was abused, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

If you don't believe me log in with a copy of CC3 and play a few games against an online opponent with lots of ATGs or Guns…. It should not take but a couple of games before you see 'crews' acting as scouts, decoys to draw fire and rushing forward to kill AFVs in close combat like assault infantry.

> I see no difference between giving such teams an -here's

> that ugly word again- *abstracted* close defense

> value and equipping them with rifles/SMGs.

> The "invitation to gamey use"

Not necessarily, it depends on how this 'abstracted close defense value' is implemented.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

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

[M Hofbauer]

Mr Clinton,

> I wasn't implying that using those crews was not going

> to happen in a game.

Did I imply you implied that?

///well I thought you had misunderstood me that way. anyways, it's cleared up now.

> I meant to say that IMO such a use for these

> crews would not be "gamey".

Yes, I read that also. IMO, on the scale and in the manner it will surely be done, if

allowed, it would be gamey.

////But does the possible wrong use of a feature justify ignoring the very real presence of such armament? it is the same argument as carried by the anti-gun lobby. guns are bad because people can abuse them to do bad things. Ok. how about screwdrivers? how about ... pencils? even a pencil is a potentially dangerous weapon. Do you have a car? Don't you think cars should be banned because after all they can be uswed for bank robberies, drive-by shootings and just plain everyday vehicular manslaughter.

In a game with a finite number of turns…with specific objective areas that can determine

either victory or defeat when occupied for a single turn…the excessive use of EXTREMELY

valuable trained crews in a desperate, unrealistic, human wave assault on the last turn of

a game can and does happen

/// aha! but think about it - isn't it the game here that is "gamey"? how realistic is a battle with a set absolute number of turns after which it doesn't matter how exposed battered ill-placed etc. your troops areas long as you hold those VLs?

...in Steel Panther, Steel Panthers 2, Close Combat 2, Close Combat 3, etc. All games that allow you to do EXACTLY what you want to do…arm crews with historical weapons that were really there only for self-defense and TRUE emergencies.

///No they weren't. As I have stated above, the machine gun crews were expected to actively take part in fighting, which was why they were armed with small arms and part of a machine gun squad. In fightings like in Stalingrad there weren't those nice, clear front lines where you could say "but this here is 400m behind the forward units and the front so this is safe and support-team only area. No enemy infantry allowed. NO! these machine gun teams were the support element of the maneuver tactic of the infantry. They were not only *CLOSE* to the fighting, they were *PART* of the fighting.

I can only imagine that either you have never played these games head to head or for that

matter any miniatures based game of the same type. Well, I have played countless

gaming systems devoted to WW2 and modern warfare in the past 30 years. EVERY ONE of

these systems that allowed crews to carry their historical weapons was abused, WITHOUT

EXCEPTION.

///but that is YOUR problem not mine. I mean, this sounded offensive but wasn't meant that way, what I mean is, it's your fault if you play with such opponents who abuse a feature. I only play with people that I know rather well and which I trust. Is it the car's fault if you are driving in the backseat of someone who drives crazy? If he drives crazy, you can't say "all cars should be banned" or "driving is dangerous" - I say "choose with whom you drive".

> I see no difference between giving such teams an -here's

> that ugly word again- *abstracted* close defense

> value and equipping them with rifles/SMGs.

> The "invitation to gamey use"

Not necessarily, it depends on how this 'abstracted close defense value' is implemented.

///I agree that it remains to be seen how this is done, yet I maintain that if the crew is able to fight it can still be used in a gamey way the same way it (in quality, not in quantity, I mean, in tendency but admittedly not to the same degree) would if it had regular small arms.

I maintain that I find it wrong that we should have the unrealistic and ridiculous fact of 6 men having to stand around an empty MG 42 with hands in their pockets waiting for the odd straggler 1-man infantry unit to kill them off just because of the possibility of an abuse of armed crews. at any rate, there are ways to discourage their "gamey" use (which I still maintain would not be gamey) on the advance. Give them bad values for their weapons, or make them more prone to become pinned/panicked / likely to surrender etc. Impose a special penalty for losing those units etc. pp.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I understand what you are saying and if we all lived in a perfect world there would be no issue and BTS would have never removed the weapons.

Buy as I stated twice before your 'hard-line' stand on this issue really does reflect a limited amount of exposure to wargaming or at least the wargaming community at large. This issue is probably the most abused in WW2 tactical gaming I can think across all game systems. That may sound like an exaggeration but IMO it is not. I know believe and I think Steve and Charles realize that also, and that is why they removed the personal weapons from the crews in CM.

>I maintain that I find it wrong that we should have the

> unrealistic and ridiculous fact of 6 men having to

> stand around an empty MG 42 with hands in their

> pockets waiting for the odd straggler 1-man infantry

> unit to kill them off just because of the possibility of

> an abuse of armed crews. at any rate, there are ways

> to discourage their "gamey" use (which I still maintain

> would not be gamey) on the advance. Give them bad

> values for their weapons, or make them more prone

>to become pinned/panicked / likely to surrender etc.

> Impose a special penalty for losing those units etc. pp."

I will only mention in passing that you exaggerate to the extreme here. Crews are NOT totally unarmed they carry pistols and any day you want to kill one of my six men crews with a single rifleman let me know. If it helps just pretend that the pistols are really rifles and they are just lousy shots because they are not rifleman

As for ways of 'fixing' this, I agree. But they only work so well. The best IMO is to increase the point value to a much higher and more realistic value/rarity for crews when compared to infantry. AFAIK Combat Mission does this. As for changing their morale or other settings when they have only self defense weapons as opposed to their standard weapons you have just added an HUGE area that would have to programmed into the game: morale/skill based on current weapon system used.

Considering the level of detail that CM uses morale, weapon systems, training, etc. to add an entirely new dimension for this is not worth while at this point. Perhaps in CM2 it might be done. But this REALLY does look to me like a BIG addition. You must change the entire way the game views units... A units CORE stats change when their weapons change...or the unit itself changes when the weapon is destroyed (i.e. the "MG TEAM" becomes a "CREW TYPE X"--with smgs). I hope you can understand why BTS may be hesitant to put this in right now...

I should note that when I speak of Steve, Charles and BTS I am just giving my impression of thier opinions.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[SgtJim]

My 2-cents. Often times the 60mm mortar (or any light mortar British 2", German 50mm) would often be left behind and the crews used just as regular infantry (fill in for loses). Even though I believe the US 60mm mortar was a better light mortar than other equivalent types, I know often it was considered useless. Standard GI mentality. (I don't believe that nor does my buddy in the Marines who hauled one around the Persian Gulf) Now many of the 60mm US Mortars was a part of a SQUAD (Check you AIB TO&E) These boys very easily would leave it behind. Thus just a squad which you can easily say is figured into the force on the board. I accept that, no problem. Besides, if you don't want them lagging around in the rear, have them guard prisoners. There not going to waste there.

As for German MG42's. There 4-6 men "team/crew" was for hauling ammo/spare barrels and yes, close defense. But once the 42 used up it's last round, they would march off as infantry, 98ks and whatever. But they would NOT abandon the weapon. I'm not exactly sure what they would do, but they are not going to leave the single most important item in German squad/platoon/company level tactics behind.

If I use tanker logic (OK stop laughing), and I run out of ammo, I would return to the platoon/company/battalion area and re-load.

[Guest Big Time Software]

SgtJim, when a weapon had expended its ammo it would likely do one of three things... send some of its crew to get more, sit tight and wait for someone to resupply them (not terribly likely), or they would withdraw from the battlefield if under threat. The duty of a crew is to its weapon, not to run forward with pistols in hand and take a Victory Location

M. Hofbauer, generally only one or two of the men had a weapon capable of offensive action. Like I said, at least half, if not 2/3rds, were armed with pistols. So is it right for a 6 man team to go charging the enemy with 1 or two combat effective men and a couple of "sponges" as decoys? Completely unrealistic, and yet it works VERY well as a tactic in other games.

I'm sorry to say that REALISM must take a back seat to gameplay if the realism leads to gameplay that itself detracts from the overall REALISM of the game. By focusing on a single point of realism, and not looking at how it comes into play in the larger picture, is a VERY bad way to design a game of any sort. The sign of a good game designer is one that carefully considers the pros and cons of breaking when trying to make a balanced system. Our treatment of crews might not be the most perfect system that could ever be devised ever, but it is on balance better (in our opinion) than the treatment of crews in other wargames WITHOUT a serious compromise of reality.

As Scott has stated so well, crews have been probably the single most abused feature in wargames. This is an IMPORTANT reality that we must design around. Sorry if that means dropping a carbine or MP40 out here and there, not out of ignorance or a lack of caring for historical armaments, but for the greater need to preserve the realism and integrity of the rest of the game.

The use of crews is unrealistically exploited to achieve "gamey" and totally unreasonable and unrealistic results. We took the steps we felt would eliminate, or at least GREATLY reduce, this cheat. It does not sound like you can fully understand this particular point because you haven't a lot of wargaming experience (please correct me if I am wrong here), so you really need to defer to those of us that do.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-05-99).]

[Runyan99]

Brought this thread up from the archives because of an incident that happened to me recently in a PBEM game. A Panther drives down the road and it knocked out by a bazooka team of mine. The tank crew bails out and either in a fit of revenge, or just looking for cover, the 3 guys remaining in the tank crew run into the cottage where my bazooka team was hidden. The tank crew has pistols, and they kill one of my bazooka team. Since my team has no personal weapons, they are defenseless. Were it not for a 50mm MG nearby which drove the tank gunners away, they would have wiped out that bazooka team.

If allocating sidearms to units like these is not a possibility, I would still like to see another solution implemented.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I THINK that allocating side arms (pistols) to all crew served weapons is still on the list.

But frankly I have not heard from BTS on this issue in quite some time. Perhaps they ran into unforseen difficulties in coding this. Just as likely this issue just keep getting bumped do to more pressing issues...

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Dragoon44]

Guys, back in my scout days when we dismounted, we packed our M-60 with us,,,and I STILL HAD TO HAUL my M-16 with me. I have to admit to ignorance about the WW II TO&E for crew served mortars and HMG's so other than hoping that the crews in the game will have something to shoot back with when their main weapon is out of action or abandoned IM STILL GONNA CM MY FOOL HEAD OFF! Keep it up BTS youre kicking ass. Thanks for letting me spout off all y'all.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99:

A Panther drives down the road and it knocked out by a bazooka team of mine. The tank crew bails out and either in a fit of revenge, or just looking for cover, the 3 guys remaining in the tank crew run into the cottage where my bazooka team was hidden.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows quite well why self defense weapons should be modeled.

Maybe it could be forbidden to give targets to crew, so that

they would only use their weapons while endangered.

I know it wouldn't stop the gamey use of crews, but still...

[Kingfish]

The easiest way to give crews self-defense capabilitles but ensure they don't join the grunts in assaults is to give them a "low" ammo rating. This way they only fire in self defense.

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

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Kingfish & Jarmo!!!

Those are two GREAT ideas I have not heard before!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:

The easiest way to give crews self-defense capabilitles but ensure they don't join the grunts in assaults is to give them a "low" ammo rating. This way they only fire in self defense.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go. What could be better?

Michael

[Mi_Go]

I would like to point out a couple of problem with people calling crew use as infantry "gamey"

1. a single crew may have 6 guys in it. Lets say 2 rifles. not that serious a threat. Now let me give you an example of where they are a legit threat that isn't supported right now. 4 crews UNDER COMMAND. thats 2 dozen men with a commander. your telling me its "gamey" for them to hold a spot or even attack a spot. Thats both crazy and un realistic. that many men have the firepower and the manpower to be a legit threat on CM battlefields. its very phony to think these guys couldn't take a spot defended by a squad that was beat up and tired from a half hour of constant fighting. Let me put it another way. I'm a company commander, I see my objective 200 meters away, clear line of site, I can COUNT 6 guys digging in to defend it. My combat squads are engaged, but I have a big pile of guys sitting in the building behind me doing nothing because their crew served wep is empty. hmmmm what am I going to do??

2. I also have to agree that if you are playing against people that use tactics you are not comfortable with, you should get new opponents. How about talking with your opponent before hand to agree with what is "fair" and what is "gamey"

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

I know it wouldn't stop the gamey use of crews, but still...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for the record, since I assume it was my Panther, I did not give the crew an order to go after the zook team. If it was mine, I did not even notice this since I was too busy surrendering...

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

Andreas