Gamey Recon?

[Kingfish]

Wow!

A lot can happen when you leave a thread for a little while. Lets see if i can pick up where i left off...

Scott,

you wrote:

>>I agree, and this is another perfect reason why the game's TacAI should handle these units. In order to prevent players through ignorance or intention from committing 'gamey' behavior.<<

'Gamey' according to whom? As i stated in a previous post, I didn't see anything wrong with the way my opponent used his Stug crew. Am i wrong? Was he? If the answer is yes, who decided so?

You also wrote:

>>No one has shown me yet where allowing the TacAI to move these units would make the game less historically accurate or less realistic nor less fun for players that really want to play an ACCURATE W.W.II tactical wargame.<<

And no one has shown me where a coding change is the required fix to a difference of opinion re: game play. If you have a beef about guys using crews in ways you don't agree with (notice i didn't say "gamey") then state it before the game starts. I for one would have no problem if you said "please exit your tank-less crews" in your first e-mail.

You continue with:

>>And if you don't want this level of realism then IMHO you are playing the wrong game. :razz:<<

IMHO, any person that has forked over $45 + S/H is playing the right game.

Futhermore you state:

>>I have played with 'house' rules for two decades, why use them when the game can fix it for good?<<

Fix what? whats broken? And re: 'house' rules, i interpret that as an understanding between the 2 players of certain Do's and Dont's prior to game start. Now thats a radical concept

And finally:

>>Why rely on personal perspectives during the heat of play when it can be fixed? It is one thing to debate 'rules' now, but to do it prior or (God forbid) during/after a game is a pain in butt<<

If the code was changed, wouldn't we all be forced to adopt your 'personal perspective' on how this game should be played?

I hope you don't interpret this post as a flame directed at you. That is not my intention. Instead i wanted to keep this debate going by pointing out that this is an issue on Personal preference, Something that should be left to the individual.

BTW, no disrespect to Red Dog or Rick614, but to be 'Right' on this issue you need 2 other people to agree wholeheartedly with you, and their first names are Steve and Charles

Your thought?

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

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

[aka_tom_w]

ok lets look at this another way....

Lets do some simple math..

On the Allied side in CE there are 3 x 3 x 12 infantry soldiers (108 men) 3 squads.

AND there are 5 tanks with 5 men in each one and there are 3 mortar crews with 5 men in each crew. that 25 + 15 thats 40 SOLDIERS.

Not to mention 3 x 2 man zook teams plus 2 x 5 man machine gun teams plus one 6 man .50 cal machine gun team, Total 22 MORE soldiers, when they run out of ammo I will not simply retreat them, HELL no! They stay and fight, with their pistols and their knives and bare hands if neccesary.

Don't tell me what I can and cannot do with these 62 men under my command... They have pistols,(I think) and they are trained soldiers, ALL of them, not some bunch of candy-ass wimps that will run away to fight another day. Those 62 men represent about 33% of all the men on whole Allied side in CE ( 3x 4 Platoon HQ + 1 x 4 Company CO. ) 16 + 62+ 108 = 186 men in total.

OK they are not well armed and that is realistic and they have fragile moral, GREAT, that seems pretty realistic to me too, but if all five tank crews bail out un-injured, then that's 25 men I can put to work. After the 3 mortar crews run out of ammo, thats 15 men standing around doing NOTHING, NO thanks I have a war ro fight and I will keep them busy and if its gamey, or objectionable so be it. I fully understand they are worth more alive and safe in the rear, but if I lose the battle but save the crews, whats the sense in that??

"Remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

And that includes cooks, and tank crews and clerical staff!

So basically I'm saying don't tell me how to simply retreat ONE THIRD of my troops just because all they carry are pistols and their use as fighting soldiers is considered objectionable and "gamey" by some people here.

I hope that doesn't sound too much like a flame, but if fighting a battle and using every last soldier to try to win, is gamey and objectionable then I wonder if I'm playing the "right" game?

Hell, it's WAR isn't it?

There are NO rules, fight to the death to WIN, or am I just playing the wrong game?

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

First off, lets all define "Gamey".</P>

I have posted this several times buy the generally accepted definition is: if a game allows a tactic or behavior to occur that did not happen in real life than that tactic or behavior is "gamey". This includes things that were very rare in reality but are abused in games to the extent they occur too frequently.</P>

For example: Using trucks to draw op-fire in board games is gamey. Purchasing 120 Jadgtigers for a single battle (these were very rare) is gamey. Please note that these tactics are not cheating. It is 100% fair under the game's rules. But it simply did not happen (with any frequency that can be modeled) in reality.</P>

If anyone has a problem with this definition, and then that is fine but lets isolate this from the issue of crews and deal with that as a separate issue. But AFAIK this is the basic, accepted definition of "gamey" (in a nutshell) and this pre-dates PC games by several decades.</P>

Now, let's check out Battlefront.com and CM. From the front this site:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

<FONT SIZE=5>

Combat Mission </FONT>is the ULTIMATE simulation of Squad level WWII combat. There is no wargame in existence that offers the realism and value that this true 3D simulation powerhouse provides....We can not even begin to tell you how much love and effort has been put into the research. Whether it is the detailed TO&Es (Tables of Organization and Equipment), accurate OBs (Orders of Battle), weapon characteristics, or the intense armor penetration algorithms (be prepared to be surprised!), Combat Mission brings historical integrity to a new level.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

I am not going to insult you guys by posting more. I was going to count the number of times I saw realistic or realism on the pages here on this site...but I gave up. Does ANYONE doubt that one of the primary goals of CM is to make it as realistic as possible? Does anyone doubt that Battlefront.com is actively attempting to be a haven and a source of games for grognards that crave realism?</P>

If we can agree on these two basic issues, then we can say that CM should try to remove all possibility of gamey behavior whenever possible.

If we don't agree on these two issues than personally think you are missing something.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

venbede772, I value your imput but I think we differ in a few basic points.</P>

You said:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I still don't quite understand the point of changing the game for bailed out crews. Those who want to move them to the rear immediately can do so. Those who want them only to be able to withdraw can follow that condition. And so on. </P>

When I have a bailed crew I like to get them back to the rear as quickly as possible. At a minimum I want them in cover ASAP. In very rare cases I may want them for a last ditch stand. This is in my opinion perfectly legitimate. I am not going to use them for recon, or assaults, but I just might want them in case of an emergency. Troops under my command are not going to go running off into the distance without my permission.</P>

Most of the time( actually, so far, everytime)I have a bailed crew they will be sent to the rear out of harm's way. Others might not do this. They should be allowed to in my opinion. If you want to use them for recon or attack I think you should be allowed to. So long as those you play against feel the same. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

Because using crews even for recon or even a last ditch stand too often in a 40 minute infantry battle is gamey. It did not happen with any frequeancy in real life. For it to happen in 1 out of 100 games of CM would be a-historical. That is the defination of gamey.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I for one would hate losing control of my units to the AI. I cannot prove it, but I think the majority of CM players hate this too.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

True, people NEVER want to give up any power or control, but that does not move the game any closer to being 'realistic' does it?</P><DIR>

<DIR>

My SOP as a commander would be, your vehicle gets all blowed up, you come back to me for further orders as soon as possible. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

That is all fine, but from what I read you would have little if any control over your tanks most of the time and zero control over what the crews did after they bailed out if you were an infantry commander. Most of the time the armor units were simply attached to your command directly prior to the battle. I recall several times in "Company Commander" where the armor platoon commander completely disobeyed direct orders BEFORE the enemy was even spotted. You expect them to "come back for more" after their tank is shot out from under them???</P><DIR>

<DIR>

So, again I am confused by the argument for changing this part of the game. As far as I can tell all options: withdrawing only, running off map, reconning and fighting, etc are all available as the game is. Everybody can do as they wish. By taking away control the net result would be that some could not play as they see fit, with no benefit to those who want the AI to assume control. </P></DIR>

</DIR>

This arguement is simply not valid with CM and the stated design philophy behind it. If this is true why not allow the same crews to have SMGs? Why not allow the players to pick thier own ammo loads or OOBs for the units they buy? Why not allow the players an open data base to edit their units? Then all players can play as they see fit, right? </P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Fred:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

But do not try to dictate other players how they have to play! Who are you? What is the name of the last game you designed or programmed?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Does someone have to be a game designer to see that something happening in the game is something that did not happen in real life or happened so rarely as to make the game behavior gamey? I think not. </P><DIR>

<DIR>

Hard-coded restrictions on player control are just this; irreversible, artificial limits for 'rules lawyers'.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

You must be joking! The then entire game is an artificial limit by the all-high rules lawyers, right? Why not allow us free access to the code and data...I want my M8 to be armed with a German 128mm ATG! Why can't I do it?!?! </P>

The game is supposed to be as realistic as possible. Read the site you are visiting now. Countless other things in the game were added to prevent gamey play. Why is this so different? Bailed out crews did not go on impromptu recon missions. They did not (with any frequency) stop their trek back to armored HQ to guard prisoners for the local friendly 'foot sloggers'. Sorry, it just did not happen (with any frequency), but it can and does happen in CM (too often).</P><DIR>

<DIR>

You totally miss the point with your permanently repeated argument about "realism" (i.e. what you THINK is realism). </P></DIR>

</DIR>

This entire statement shows how wrong you are. THIS GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT REALISM. BTS did not make this game to be just another Close Combat with 3d and a different turn system. Ask them don't take my word for it.</P>

Somehow I don't think it is right that months were spent on making the penetration model soooooo accurate (for example) just so that they would then 'blow off' gamey use of crews because 'that's the way some people want to play'.</P>

Read my post above about what gamey is and what BTS and CM are about. I think we differ on these aspects more than this single issue with crews. </P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Mikeydz:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

With all this fuss about "banning" gamey tactics, let's consider this. For the most part, IMO, I belive that BTS's philosophy on how to combat "gamey" tactics is not to ban them, but to make them so costly, that you will stop using them. After all, BTS loved to say that you will have to unlearn what you had learned before in other wargames. You can't unlearn something that you aren't allowed to do. You are just hamstrung and forced into doing what some think is the right" thing to do.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

I don't think so, but I can't speak for BTS on this. I would more likely put it as a philosophy to code the game in such a way as to make gamey tactics impossible by making the game more realistic (example: the UGO turn system it self)</P>

If this is not possible then they try would to make it unprofitable to use gamey tactics.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Kingfish:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

IMHO, any person that has forked over $45 + S/H is playing the right game.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

LOL! Where were you when I paid $40 for "Starcraft"? </P>

No, read the stuff posted on the front page of this site and beyond. This game is supposed to be for people that want a REALISTIC wargame.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

re: 'house' rules, i interpret that as an understanding between the 2 players of certain Do's and Dont's prior to game start. Now thats a radical concept </P></DIR>

</DIR>

Sure is, just as radical as hexagons and IGO-UGO turns...you want them back too? </P><DIR>

<DIR>

If the code was changed, wouldn't we all be forced to adopt your 'personal perspective' on how this game should be played? </P></DIR>

</DIR>

No, it would force people to use REALISTIC tactics instead of using crews for recon and last minute rush attacks to gain a victory flag... Like I said if you don't want realism, you are playing the wrong game.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I hope you don't interpret this post as a flame directed at you. That is not my intention. Instead i wanted to keep this debate going by pointing out that this is an issue on Personal preference, Something that should be left to the individual.</P></DIR>

</DIR>

No, flames seen. I see your point and to an extent it is true. It is my personal preference that BTS continune to improve CM and make it as realistic as possible , a goal stated goal by them many times.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<HTML>

Tom_w:</P><DIR>

<DIR>

...5 tanks with 5 men in each one and there are 3 mortar crews...thats 40 SOLDIERS. Not to mention...Total 22 MORE soldiers, when they run out of ammo I will not simply retreat them, HELL no! They stay and fight, with their pistols and their knives and bare hands if neccesary. </P>

Don't tell me what I can and cannot do with these 62 men under my command...They have pistols,(I think) and they are trained soldiers, ALL of them, not some bunch of candy-ass wimps that will run away to fight another day. Those 62 men represent about 33% of all the men on whole Allied side...</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Yes, and they are highly traind on their equipment. And win or lose this battle the war will not be over.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I fully understand they are worth more alive and safe in the rear, but if I lose the battle but save the crews, whats the sense in that??</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Because the war will not end with this 40 minute battle and these men will be needed to fight again tomorrow. And most importantly these are SUPPOSED to be real men. You are not acting as if you belive that. You are treating as a chess game and they hold no value beyond this single action.</P><DIR>

<DIR>

I hope that doesn't sound too much like a flame, but if fighting a battle and using every last soldier to try to win, is gamey and objectionable then I wonder if I'm playing the "right" game? </P>

Hell, it's WAR isn't it? There are NO rules, fight to the death to WIN, or am I just playing the wrong game?</P></DIR>

</DIR>

Perhaps you are not playing the right game, but that is for you to decide. Using these men in last ditch fights in each battle has got to be gamey by ANYONE'S idea of the word. Things like this simply did not happen in every 40 minute battle, they did not happen but VERY, VERY rarely.</P>

This game is supposed to be VERY realistic. To allow unrealistic behavior like this to continune to the extremes you stated above is a violation of the philophy of the game IMO. The only possible excuse would be that it can not be fixed, or would be too costly or some other such production issue.</P></BODY>

</HTML>

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK gents, I guess it is time for one of us at BTS to weigh in here.

In general we do not like hardcoding special cases to eliminate gamey tactics. This often can lead to uninentional problems. We rather find more simple ways of minimizing gamey problems. And yes, it is our goal to at the very least minimize things that are unrealistic yet doable. Unfortunately, this is very often difficult to do without huge changes.

Crews are the single most difficult thing to "get right". We have already done a lot of things to make them not as gamey as other games, yet still retain some degree of realistic control for the player. The way things are now we have not found the perfect balance, mostly because there is no such thing

We are looking at this issue of spotting with crews again. There may be something we can do that is fairly easy and not necessarily detrimental to other aspects. The idea floated about reducing the ability for crews to spot enemy units is perhaps something we can do. I am forwarding this idea on to Charles in case he hasn't read this thread.

Thanks!

Steve

[Fred]

Scott,

this leads to nowhere. Our points are stated, our standpoints are clear.

As I said, you are no authority in defining game styles, just one voice out in the open.

But, without being a prophet, I seriously doubt, that Steve or Charles will change the game code because Scott Clinton wants it...

Fred

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fred,

This is certainly true, and not just applied to Scott. However, he is correct that we do not want people using crews for anything other than perhaps guard duty. To do more than that, on anything more than a rare basis, would be gamey and therefore against our primary design goal to model realism as best as possible.

Just to be clear, using crews for anything other than guard duty is gamey. It is not realistic. And therefore we will work, over time, to find more ways to ensure that crews can not be ahistorically used to better one's position vs. the guy on the other side.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Word back from Charles is that he is going to reduce the ability for a crew to spot enemy units. The new range will be something like 25-50m only. This means that if you do what you are supposed to do with a crew, which is move it to the rear, you will have NO problems. But if you try to move the crew through enemy territory on a scouting mission, it will most likely only spot an enemy unit just as that unit wiped it out. So at best you might spot one enemy squad or MG before losing your expensive crew.

While this is not a perfect solution, on balance it is FAR more accurate than the way things are now. And because this is a fairly easy tweak to make, it is the best and most practical solution to put in place at this time.

Thanks to everybody for the debate and ideas. This is how CM is made better and better each and every day!

Steve

[Fred]

Steve,

full agree.

My point was not, that I want to use crews in a 'gamey' style. I never did it (in all wargames I played), and I will not plan to do it.

My point was Scotts solution of "letting the AI take over".

Taking the responsibility away from the player is the thing that I do not like.

It is ok for broken/routed/surpressed units, but most people do not like the idea, that the AI "takes over" to often.

The single, most important person in a CM environment is the player.

So I more like the idea to "punish" a player for bad play (VP loss, loss of a veteran crew in a operation, etc.), instead of letting the AI "streamlining" it.

You once said, that in CM there will always be a balance between realism and gameplay.

I agree with this statement.

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 06-29-2000).]

[Fred]

Steve,

saw your last posting and I say it again:

you guys rule!!!!

We had a debate over days here, without a solution, and you look at it, decide and implement it in no time!

Thank you Steve (and thanks to Charles!)

And thanks to Scott Clinton!

Fred

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Word back from Charles is that he is going to reduce the ability for a crew to spot enemy units. The new range will be something like 25-50m only. This means that if you do what you are supposed to do with a crew, which is move it to the rear, you will have NO problems. But if you try to move the crew through enemy territory on a scouting mission, it will most likely only spot an enemy unit just as that unit wiped it out. So at best you might spot one enemy squad or MG before losing your expensive crew.

While this is not a perfect solution, on balance it is FAR more accurate than the way things are now. And because this is a fairly easy tweak to make, it is the best and most practical solution to put in place at this time.

Thanks to everybody for the debate and ideas. This is how CM is made better and better each and every day!

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi again..

OK well as long as it is fair to everyone and the AI uses crews the same way then I also support the BTS effort to reduce "gamey" play. Even though I have used it to win without thinking twice about it, I support every effort that makes the game more realistic.

But .....

What about this:

"

Red Dog

Junior Member posted 06-28-2000 03:39 PM            

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

In a quick battle I was commanding a small British force making a probe of a village. In the house to house fighting an entire rifle platoon was pinned down by a pair of MG42's in a heavy building at the end of the street, so I decided to move my Wasp up to clear the building. As soon as my Wasp came within range of the MG42's a Volksgrendier SMG squad popped out of hiding in a nearby building and fired a panzerfaust... it was a near miss, but the crew of the Wasp bailed out anyway. The three man crew then proceeded to charge the SMG squad and wiped them out! The next thing I knew the two MG42's in the building next door had surrendered to the Wasp crew... sadly one of the valiant crewmembers was taken out in the fighting.

I'll definately be recommending the Victoria Cross for the whole crew.

IP: Logged

gaffertape replies:

Member posted 06-28-2000 03:43 PM            

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

Red Dog:

Did the AI make the call to charge the Germans, or did you call the shots? Either way, I second your VC recommendation.

IP: Logged

Red Dog replies:

Junior Member posted 06-28-2000 03:49 PM            

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

It was the AI; it all happened in one turn, the Wasp was fired on in the first few seconds of the turn. Took them about 30 seconds to take out the SMG squad, and then at the end of the turn I noticed that the MG42's had surrendered.I wish there was some way to record the turns. "

End Thread."

When I see this kind of action and bravery from a crew under the direction of the AI I figure some crews could get real heroic for me if I ask them to go join the battle.

I am not at all dissatified with the way the game treats crews now. As I see NO difference at all between using 6 men of split squad to go out and do recon and 5 men from a bailed tank to go out and do recon.(That's why I guess my play couldbe considered gamey I suppose). The condtions are the same for both teams. Either they both enjoy the benefits of the "Magical CM radio" or they both have radios and are in communications somehow with the rest of the friendly units because in both circumstances the same information about enemy location comes back when either unit (bailed crew or 6 man split squad) sights the enemy.

That was a VERY fast response time. This shows us AGAIN how supportive and responsive Steve and Charles are to issues like this that are "do-able" and can easily be tweaked. Does this apply to just vehicle crews, or other crews like mortar crews, HMG crews and that 75 mm IG crew and pillbox crews? Will this new 25-50 meter spotting range for crews make into the v1.02 patch or is it on the v1.03 list?

Thanks again, anything to make the game more fun and more realistic is always welcomed my the majority here I'm sure .

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Thanks Steve, I think this will help and I am sure it is much easier than the "AI fix".

(ed. so folks won't get bent out of shape again)

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

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

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-29-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

As I posted earlier, if BTS chooses to change the rules regarding crews it isn't going to affect my play to any measurable degree. Furthermore I applaud their rapid response and efforts to improve the game. I think the solution they came up with is a nice compromise and will allow the players to retain control but will reduce the incidents of un-realistic use.

Speaking of that, it occurred to me that one reason we may have so many "last stand" situations is because most of the scenarios we play are set up to be balanced! As a result, both sides are often reduced and the commander is forced to utilize whatever dregs are remaining to keep that last victory location. No doubt those of you who prefer the Operations and those who will be participating in the CMMC will find that their use (or misuse) of crews will have a bearing on their success.

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't as concerned that my crews might not be able to "John Wayne" around the battlefield as I was that, by implication, others were telling me that I was doing something wrong or unethical. The term "gamey", after all, is not one that is usually used in a positive context. I took offense at that since the game clearly allowed it. If the change is made as outlined, it will fit my style (such as it is) just fine.

Joe

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

Thanks Steve, I think this will help and I am sure it is much easier than the "AI fix".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, Scott Clinton! I see where the concerns that started this thread have been wrapped up by BTS, but I was thinking a lot about some of the implications. Personally, I wasn't completely opposed to having the AI handle bailed or useless crews for me, and I too liked the idea that crews that the AI had designated 'fanatic' might still take part in a battle or in the game. But on this issue of 'guarding prisoners', which is the only way I ever used them while under 'my' control. I agree with you that it's completely unrealistic for bailed tank crews and such to be guarding prisoners, and, historically, therefore, freeing up other units that would have had the task. But what about mortarmen or bazooka teams that would fall under local command, and, now with knocked out or empty weapons, are pressed into the duty of guarding prisoners? Would this still be gamey, or a realistic useage of local resources? I want to get into more PBEMs with people, and I not only believe in 'realistic' composition and use of forces, but want to avoid 'gamey' behaviour because I don't want that kind of rep (this does not imply cheating, or disparage anyone elses game useage or tactics; I'm not here for that. I have a certain stance on this that I wish to take for myself alone, and that's what's behind this post.).

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Shep]

Steve, Charles...

Thanks for seeing the spirit of my original post, or at least in some way cutting through all the debate and seeing the real issue. I'm 100% behind you in reducing the gamey elements of CM, and I do agree with you about the gamey recon potential of crews.

To those who have been on the other side of the debate, thanks also, an awful lot. Your insight into the inner workings of this game, history, and gaming philosophy has really helped to define the issue and brought out many aspects that I never would have considered.

Mark

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

Scouts Out!

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Seanachai:

IMO, mortar crews ect would be fair game as they would be 100% under the local infantry commanders control. They never 'bailed out' and just ran out of ammo most of them time.

But, even for vehicle crews...I have been thinking...

From what I have read it seems that 99% of the time individual ground pounders or at most a pair of men would be assigned to escort POWs to the rear. And it seems, if it was possible they would use the walking-wounded to escort the POWs on their way back to the aid station.

BUT, you see, we can't do that. Walking wounded are IMO not modelled in CM (they are out of action) and we can't detach just one or two men to escort the POWs. So we either have to send an entire team (up to 6 men!) that could well out number the POWs ...or we can use vehicle crews to 'plug the hole'.

I don't know, really. But like I said, if you can do it and no agreement is made beforehand it is all fair IMO.

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

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

[Seanachai]

Scott, thanks for the reply. In general I don't think the 'guard duty' thing is usually a big deal. If nothing else, I just command my 'new chums' to move to the nearest of my units, and hunker down to await developments.

However, they can become 'collateral damage' then, of course, or even manage the dreaded 'escape'. I had a mortar in a Quick Battle game this afternoon (US 60mm) that was far off to the side, and was reduced down to one guy. He surrendered (mortar was knocked out), even though there was no German closer than 70m (Not that they couldn't have shot him, of course). He stayed there with his hands raised for a couple of turns, then the Germans nearest moved into the meat grinder battle that was chewing up both sides' infantry squads, and I had another mortar crew pass nearby the captured unit. Next thing I know, his hands are down, he's now 'unarmed', and I grabbed control and had him beat feat to the rear. On last report, he's still cadging drinks with the story of his 'great escape'.

I was interested in your reply on this because you'd actually given this sort of thing some thought, and represented a 'contrasting' (as opposed to 'opposing' viewpoint).

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[IntelWeenie]

I hate to reopen a just-healed wound, but a possible solution came to me in a dream last night...

Why not, in addition to reduced sighting ability, make crews controllable only when in command? Otherwise, they would be controlled by the AI (which would normally have them sit nearby and try not to get shot).

This simple(?) solution would allow their use in last-ditch or gap-filling situations, but would disallow the "gamey recon" tactic.

Once, this sort of thing actually happened to me at the NTC (National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, Ca). I was the team chief of a radio intercept team and we had our main vehicle administratively killed by arty. Our standing orders in a such a situation were to sit tight for recovery (tactical situation permitting). But on this occasion, a 1LT from a nearby infantry element came by and nabbed us to help root out some OPFOR recon dismounts on a nearby hill. Since we were out of contact with our own command (radios were in the destroyed vehicle ), we came under the general military authority of the nearest officer.

While this solution would not totally remove "gamey" uses (like a whole platoon of crews in the main battle line), I think it would greatly reduce them.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

But, even for vehicle crews...I have been thinking...

we either have to send an entire team (up to 6 men!) that could well out number the POWs ...or we can use vehicle crews to 'plug the hole'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be right 'cause Scott Clinton Agreed with me

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

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

[Shep]

Intelweenie:

I second the motion. Your idea was also a part of my original meanderings on this topic, and I do like it.

Mark

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

Scouts Out!

[aka_tom_w]

"Why not, in addition to reduced sighting ability, make crews controllable only when in command? Otherwise, they would be controlled by the AI (which would normally have them sit nearby and try not to get shot).

This simple(?) solution would allow their use in last-ditch or gap-filling situations, but would disallow the "gamey recon" tactic."

OK....

just for clarity I assume you mean when the crew has an active red line to an officer or commanding unit. Otherwise the AI will take over and tell them to seek the nearest cover and hide. This suggests that those orders (hide) are SOP and that the crew doesn't have a radio.

PERFECT that all sounds very reasonable to me.

THEN if you can get an HQ unit or a CO within yelling distance or within the command radius so the black line turns RED then, you the player, can give them orders. (presumable so they can exit to the rear or be used for guard duty, both of which have now been concluded to be (if I am correct) NOT gamey and not objectionable)

So the question for Charles is ......

"How hard will it be to code that"

(i.e. Bailed crews are under AI (SOP run and hide) until they get the red line to a CO or HQ, then the player takes over) ??

I think that is a GREAT solution!

(in addition to then limited spotting

ability, AFTER they bail out, hopefully

NOT before.)

great suggestion

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>