Mortor crew question

[Mi_Go]

MIRAGE/GERMANBOY

ok, sorry completly misread your replies, please ignore above except for general concept.

here is my new response

MIRAGE:

Agree completely with your position on using a crew of knocked out VEHICLE behind the lines to take objective. that would be gamey. I think I need to make clear that difference, VEHICLE crews are basically useless in battle, I will agree with that. I'm more concerned with wep crews (including bunkers) that run out of ammo/knocked out. They are infantry, and it is not gamey to use them as such. imo.

GERMANBOY

I am not sure that your post is along the same lines as my answer. Personally, I don't look @ the turn counter, except to see how long I have to suffer when I get pummelled. Now, in an operation, I would be more careful with some weps crews, not all certainly, and I would probably still take my objective with them if possible. But I believe the crux of the issue is what you read into your individual mission. When I play a single battle, it is just that, a single battle. I autmatically assume I don't have to worry about a counter attack or anything else after the battle is completed. Now, If what you are actually saying is people don't play it "correctly" because they know the game ends @ x turns, then play them an operation. problem solved. If they take a risk with their support units, its THEIR risk. Don't make the game so that no one can take that risk. That removes a legitimate strategy from some 1 willing to take it.

hope that made sense to every 1

[Mi_Go]

GERMAN BOY

ps. didn't take it personal

(you got your message in while I was writing the last 1)

[Guest Germanboy]

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

GERMAN BOY

ps. didn't take it personal

(you got your message in while I was writing the last 1) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did not get that impression. I can understand your frustration. But at the moment, where I see some problems with ops (one would be the time needed to finish one in a PBEM), battles are just the natural choice. So I think it is okay the way it is at the moment. Not necessarily realistic, but enhances game-play for the time being. There have to be some choices, I guess.

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

Andreas

[Mi_Go]

cool, glad we agree to semi agree

for the record, I do agree that a lot of people will use it in a gamey way. I just don't think its right to remove the ability from people who would not use it in a gamey way. It all goes back to who you play against I guess. Anyway, I am done with this thread. gl germanboy, may all your opponents be honorable so you don't get frustrated ( I know I would if my opponents constatly did a gamey tactic)

[Guest Germanboy]

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

gl germanboy, may all your opponents be honorable so you don't get frustrated ( I know I would if my opponents constatly did a gamey tactic)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They do it once, I discuss it, they see the light or I drop them. I have had no problems so far. Seems to be a very good crowd here. So there might be a real point for going your way, but of course you won't know that while developing the game. If you are on for a PBEM in a week or two, let me know (email in the profile).

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

Andreas

[ASL Veteran]

I have been following this discussion of heavy weapons crews and someone raised the question of whether WW2 German mortar crews acted similarly to modern US Marines. I have no practical experience with Marine mortar teams and would certainly defer to our Marine expert on this thread in that regard (I served in the army - Air Defense Artillery). However, I do have "The German Infantry Handbook" by Alex Buchner. First I will relate what he says about the 50 mm mortar (which he calls ‘grenade launchers’). “The light grenade launcher troop with its troop leader and gunners 1 and 2 carried the troop’s high angle fire weapon, the 5-caliber light grenade launcher 36. The troop leader carried a rifle, binoculars, message case, three leg brace for the launcher, and in combat an ammunition box with ten grenades. Gunner 1, armed with a pistol, had the bottom plate, Gunner 2, likewise armed with a pistol, had the barrel of the launcher – both were carried on their backs. The launcher gunners also each carried two ammunition cases by hand.”

For the 81mm Mortar he says “The heavy grenade launchers consisted of three parts: barrel, bipod and baseplate, and could be dismantled. Before combat, these three parts, each weighing over 18 kilograms, had to be picked up by a gunner and carried, while two ammunition men each had two cases of three grenades each to carry, with a total weight of 22 kg. The leader carried not only the gunsight, but also a case of ammunition. With these burdens, it was not surprising that the grenade launcher squads and troops often hung well back in combat. Often rifle troops also had to be deployed to help carry the ammunition.” I think that any comparison between the US army (modern or otherwise) and the WW2 German army must take into consideration the lack of mechanization in most German units. Also by employing mortar teams as infantry – you have to do something with the mortar. I should think that abandoning it would not be an option because a real commander would probably want those babies handy in the next battle. Can you really expect your mortar troops to be running around the battlefield grappling with the enemy while carrying mortar baseplates and barrels strapped to their backs?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

Just to put in our two cents worth here...

CM is an abstraction when you look at warfare as a whole. Or put another way, it only covers a tiny, itsybitsy piece of what is warfare. There are many things that can be done at the CM level when the rest of the reality of war is not simulated. Why not toss all your crews together and then assualt an enemy position? Afterall, when the game is over it is over. No worries about what comes next, no getting chewed out by a superior for wasting valuable trained crews to raid some Frenchman's cottage held by a handfull of the enemy's forces.

So we are faced with a bit of a problem as game designers. We can not really simulate the real world reasons why you as a commander wouldn't do this, yet if we don't do something we will have totally unrealistic use of crews during a battle. And that is what Scott and others have been talking about.

We know full well what each and every man of a heavy weapons team was armed with. Most units have a mix of pistols, SMGs/Carbines, and rifles as well as their primary weapon system. We don't doubt for a moment that they could use these weapons almost as effectively as the line infantry could. Tactically they could also be used as fairly weak (firepower wise as well as experience) infantry. BUT...

We know for a fact that if we didn't do something to limit the usefullness of crews gamers would be utterly abusing their historical roles in practically every game they played. Why are we so sure? Because it has happened in every other game that has few (if any) restrictions on crews.

So there we go. People want realism. Fine. But is realism having a guy armed with a M1 Carbine instead of a pistol, or is realism being forced to use units in the way they were in real life (on average)? On balance our changing the TO&E for heavy weapons teams is far less a hit to realism than if we armed them with their historical weapons and let them run about like shock troopers.

Sorry, but NOBODY has come up with ANY useful suggestion about how we can do things differently. Lots of bitching, you bet , but pretty short on other possible solutions. Make no mistake about it, the ahistorical use of crews is a huge problem that must be addressed in some way.

Steve

P.S. Just for the record, one of our best testers is a 23 year active SGT with the US Army Special Forces. He has had mucho experience with mortars, as well as the oportunity to hang out with combat vets who dropped into Normandy (he used to be 82nd before SF). He has no problem with our treatment of crews because he understands the abstraction is necessary to preserve overall historical accuracy.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 07-21-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry, but NOBODY has ever come up with ANY suggestions about how we can do things differently. Lots of bitching, you bet , but pretty short on other possible solutions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, except (you knew that was coming didn't you? )

I HAVE seen a few good (IMO) ideas raised in the last few weeks.

I will try to relate them as best I can...

1.) Limit crews to "LOW" ammo

2.) Reduce exp. rating of crews, morale rating of crews and raise cost (if lost) more

3.) Allow the AI to take over the crews a set percentage of time (say 90%+) and then the AI will exit them...if you get lucky then you can use them as you see fit.

There were a few others that I never thought of (and have now forgotten ).

Frankly, I think the 'low ammo' idea is fantasitic because it is simple, elegant and realistic both in nature and effect (IMO of course--do I really have to keep saying that? It should be a given, right?)

If any or all of these are unfeasible, etc. thats fine (of course) I just thought the sounded good (but then again I don't have to code it).

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

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

[Jarmo]

I'd still wish crews had even semi-realistic self defense

capability without abandoning their main weapon.

[KiwiJoe]

I think LOW ammo could work. Then bakooza teams could at least fend off crew attacks. While I'm on it... what did crews of a knocked out tank do once they had exited (and survived any immediate small arms fire)?

Were there proceedures to follow, like make your way back to friendly lines, hide and wait for friendly forces or something else? Or was it just a case of save your ass anyway you see fit at the time.

[IntelWeenie]

**Shameless Plug**

I still like the idea I had on this (well, who doesn't like their own ideas?)

Looking bcak over many of the examples given of crews being used as infantry reveals a common element in nearly all of them...the presence of an officer (the major exception being self-defence). So, allow the use of crews as infantry only when in the command radius of a HQ. When not in command radius, the AI makes them sit tight or head towards the rear/safety. Taken in conjuction with some of the other suggestions (point value, ammo, etc.) would, I think, preclude any "gamey" use in nearly all cases. I would think could be doable programming-wise, since there is already one routine that chacks for command radius already (mortar spotting).

As for me, I generally don't do anything with crews as it is other than to move them out of harm's way.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Los]

I guess I gotta step up here and say something since there has been some question called to the tester group re: these issues as if we were laying down on the job or something. First off I am a beta tester, scenario designer, historical researcher for CM. I've also spent 23 years in the Army, all in combat arms and the last 13 years in Special Forces. I have also been in combat, (To include running a rifle company), on several occasions including places you'll never hear of, so lets put this bull**** to bed right now about BTS not having the sense to consult vets. And there are other vets and those with military experience on the beta test team including guys from other countries. More importnatly I talked to WW2 vets, not truck drivers or cannon cockers mind you but infantryman and not just to hear stuff like how many krauts tehy rounded up in '44 or how nice the whore houses were in Paris but detailed info like how many smokes and frags did you carry normally, or when were rifle grenades used, did you carry the adapter rready on your rifle and other kinds of trade secrets that you might expect two soldiers to sit around and chew the fat about. 'Nuff said on that subject.

One thing I had to realize and came to realize during the research for this project is that my experience was very relative and important to researching and testing this game in SOME areas, (It certainly helped direct researc, interviews, etc. etc.)but in other areas relatively NOT so. Most importantly is making the assumption that whatever we are doing nowadays, (in the US Amry no less) or did in Vietnam and some cases even in Korea was how things were done in WW2, and particularly to extrapolate that out to what other countries did in WW2. That's simply not so. Just like being an ASL guru does not necessarily make you an expert in WW2 operations (It does make you an expert in WW2), being an experienced veteran in the eighties and nineties does not automagically make you an expert in WW2 operations. Again I'll give BTS it's due to have the wisdom to know the difference between the two.

Now specifically regarding crew self defense, yes it could be handled better and it is in the plan to redo the self defense of crews to ensure they relfect the carrying of heaier arms but it is a porgramming issue also which may not be apparent to most. However there are lots of areas that still need to be tweaked or implement in future releases of patches and another games. CM will continue to improve the modelling of the combat environment throughout the life of the product. However all things have to be rated for what needs to be worked on first, and unless you wanted to wait until 2002 to see CM1 released that should be common sense. BTW anyone with sense to do a simple SEARCH could see that crew self defense has already been hashed and rehashed plenty of times already.

Back to crew self defense. Yes crews are trained and pick up experience on infantry tasks. However a problem with wargamers is that most gamers only live for that particular scenario or battle. Crews are very valuable. If your crews run out of ammo and you decide to send them forward as infantry, then who the hell is going to man your valuable heavy weapons tomorrow? (This is very nicely captured in Operations) And guess what? Not every small unit action is Little Round Top or Cannae, or some other decisive small unit action through which the fate or the world hangs in the balance justifying throwing away valuable crews just so you could take an extra fifty meters of front line. There's always tomorrow. Lose those guys and you drastically reduce the capability of your units to conduct further and follow on operations,and to even holsd on to what you got, and you can bet the BC will cashier you soon enough.

Now without all these issues to deal with, it's very easy to utilize these expended crews (It already happens with bazooka crews) to do ahistorical things like, go scout out ahead now that you are out of ammo, ("BTW sure just leave that valuable mortar there maybe we'll find it later").

As some point soon there will be a more robust and useful self defense value utilized for crews which will allow them to at least hold their position in the line, and maybe if you want to even send them forward to get killed off if you want. We know about it, we're talking about it, we're trying to make it work where it will not be used in some gamey way.

BTW none of this has any relevance on the overall feel of the game. When I tested and played the scenarios I didn't sit here and count every factor to see how well it was being utilized, nor did I replay each turn a hundred times to see how I can micro adjust every waypoint to try and hunt down every enemy or address every situation. Nor did I spend hours firing into every piece of terrain to see if the right factors were being applied to each situation. (Of course other testers did do that thankfully, someone's gotta do it) Nope. I just take my forces, come up with a plan, and inflict that plan upon the enemy. I order my troops to do what I would order my real guys to do. I expect the terrain to act as it would within reason based upon my experience as a soldier (and a 30+ year wargamer too btw)and within the histiorcal context of WW2. And in all these cases CM does what I expect it to do without me having to learn any work arounds, or gamey tactics. Crew self defense doesn't bother me because in real life I wouldn't order dismounted vehicle crews, mortar crews or MG crews to put themselves in those situations. That's an irresponsible commander that does that. Sure you want them to know how to do it for those one off dire situations but you certainly don't want to do it as a normal matter of course during operations. And for those one off situations I do look to see the issue adressed in the near future. Everything in due course.

Cheers...

Los

[L.Tankersley]

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

Now without all these issues to deal with, it's very easy to utilize these expended crews (It already happens with bazooka crews) to do ahistorical things like, go scout out ahead now that you are out of ammo, ("BTW sure just leave that valuable mortar there maybe we'll find it later").

As some point soon there will be a more robust and useful self defense value utilized for crews which will allow them to at least hold their position in the line, and maybe if you want to even send them forward to get killed off if you want. We know about it, we're talking about it, we're trying to make it work where it will not be used in some gamey way.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to embrace the madness and chime in here even though the topic HAS been done to death, because I had an idea that was triggered by the above. [We need a "light-bulb" smiley, BTW.]

The idea of giving crews "LOW" ammo for small arms has some merit, but they could still be used as cheap scouts or as close-range shock troops. What I thought of was this: give crews their deserved small-arms firepower, but only if they are currently (still) in possession of their crew-served weapon. If they abandon their weapon, [or possibly also if it runs out of ammo], they've got nothing (or maybe a notional "pistols" defensive value).

This would have the following effects:

1. Crews (esp. mortar crews) at least have the ability to fire back at enemy troops inside their minimum ranges, so a 1-man squad remnant that breaks through the line can't put them all to flight/shoot them where they stand.

2. If the weapon is destroyed/abandoned, the crew has little or no firepower and thus next to worthless on the line. It could still be used to scout, but I also like the idea of reducing the morale level of "rogue crews" so they would be more liable to break/panic/cower. This could be done for (e.g.) bazooka crews that run out of ammo as well, to "encourage" them to seek the safety of friendly lines once they are empty.

3. If the weapon ISN'T abandoned, the crew's movement is significantly hindered so their ability to perform scouting functions is small.

Now, I understand that adding this capability to crews is non-trivial from a programming standpoint. The hard part is probably getting crews that still possess their main weapon to also be able to use small-arms at close targets, because there are likely several code assumptions about how crews perform target selection that would have to be changed. This is a "would-be-nice" kind of change, not a warstopper. But as long as people keep their heads and keep things polite, this kind of discussion has value because it can turn up ideas that may not have occurred to BTS or the beta testers. On the other hand, people need to realize that BTS and the testers may not have the time and energy to refute arguments point-by-point; if they say "we considered it and rejected it" just accept it and move on.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[ASL Veteran]

"More importnatly I talked to WW2 vets, not truck drivers or cannon cockers mind you but infantryman and not just to hear stuff like how many krauts tehy rounded up in '44 or how nice the whore houses were in Paris"

Oh my

[Priest]

I think this discussion illustrates the kind of players that permeate CM. We all seem to be aware that "gamey" is bad, which I think says a lot for the players of this game. Do I think that the crew conundrum hurts the game? No not at all and I think that is what we need to realize. If we are nit picking over this stuff then we are playing one impressive game. I know people have thanked the designers for the game but I want to thank them for the game that spawns so much discussion. In other games we would be complaining about the AI or LOS, but in CM we are mad because a crews who we may or may not use (depending on personal tactics) might not be properly represented (again personal opinion). Gee what a rough gaming life.

[Los]

Seriously though, you can never really eliminate gamey tactics when players don't have to live with the consequences of what they are doing. Mainly this is due to limitations in any game engine, finite length single-battle scenarios, and their own asses not being on the line. SO to some extent it just has to be lived with, no matter what you do being that it is a game.

Los