Crew syndrome not fixed in 1.03?

[ianc]

Hello all,

After some play with 1.03, I have to say that I'm unconvinced that the crew problem has been solved to satisfaction.

I'm playing the first battle of the Wittman op via PBEM and I have to say that I have really taken some slams because my crack Tiger crewmen felt it necessary to rotate their turrets way past 90 degrees when approaching critical road junctions in order to fire at single crew survivors.

These Tiger crewmembers are well aware that they are engaged in a heavy tank battle with dangerous enemy forces right around the bend, yet they traverse their turret to the five o'clock position to shoot at crewmen while they advance into LOS...

Since the Germans start this scenario with only 6 tanks, the loss of two of these two guns is just about crippling.

It's about now that I just wish I had a little hotkey for 'Don't shoot at crews'. I wonder if this would be a feasible solution. Will the crew from a recently knocked out tank ever present any kind of danger at all to still-functioning one?

I admit that just having AFV's not target crews at all except under player orders would be a hit to realism, but I have to advance the theory that it would provide a much more realistic outcome than I'm seeing now.

Ack, Charles, please find a better solution, please! Thanks for listening.

Yer pal,

ianc

[Harmon]

Likewise with the Wittman scenario. I have played it at least 20 times since the 1.0.3 update and have noticed little improvement with the crew syndrome. Tiger was engaged with multiple Allied armor units dead ahead, armor pops smoke and hides, Tiger promtly turns turret 90 degrees to engage either a crew or a 2" mortar (can't remember which) over 400 meters away, smoke blows away and boom, no more Tiger.

Maybe the real problem is the elite/crack Tiger crews. So good they can be heavily engaged, buttoned up and still maintain 360 degree awareness. Need to trade them for green crews that would be too scared to look anywhere but straight ahead into the smoke.

[Guest Chris B]

The real problem is the real time awareness of the Tactical AI.

A real live tank commander will think:

"Hmm, that Sherman ducked behind cover, lets either advance and engage him, or wait till he comes out in a few seconds"

But the tactical AI goes, every single second:

"What are the targets? Whom to target?"

And ignores out of sight targets, which is a bit annoying since targeting takes time when rotating turrets.

At least destroyed AFVs result in fever crews now, but it is not like the problem is fixed.

Perhaps if Tanks maintained targeting on out of sight targets for 10-20 seconds unless visible targets were threats i.e. non-crews and not infantry far far away. That way hunting tanks would keep their turrets pointing the right way in case the hunt would flush out the target.

[:USERNAME:]

Ive noticed it too and have posted it here but noones listening.

Either:

1. Crews should be broken/paniced/whatever so they high tail it off the board (which is reasonable since they are highly trained assets)

2. Not appear at all. Just reported at time of vehicle destruction.

3. Be made invisible (extremely hard to spot), blind (make them useless) and chickens (so they run away).

Its funny how some aspects of a game are glossed over and some are anal retentive. Something like troops firing from a halftrack "not modeled because, hey, how effective could it be" is what you hear. Likewise, since crews cant man abandoned guns, tanks, MGS, whatever; Why even model them? How effective is a bunch of guys who MAYBE have pistols? Who just were forced from a vehicle?

Its hard to fathom that the Wittman villers scenario was playtested! It was my first choice to boot up and within minutes it was apparent that something was messed up.

There are things that require tweaking but there are things that NEED fixing. The crew thing is broken and NEEDS fixxin. Part of the problem is that inf/crews will go for cover towards the enemy. This drives them further towards the flanks and unrealistically into your face.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-06-2000).]

[Henri]

I have said this before, but just for balance, here it is again: the first thing I did when 1.03 came out was to replay the Wittmann senario, and I noticed that the "tiger firing on crew" problem was much improved.

To some extent, it depends on how you play the scenario; the PO does not know the disposition of the enemy nor how many there are nor where they will come from.Clearly if you drive Wittmann's tank into the middle of the enemy position (following the historical deed), his tank will be eventually attacked from all sides and the PO will be unable to decide on the optimum cannon orientation.

It has been said by the designers that the confusion and disorganization of the British in the historical battle is impossible to duplicate well in the scenario, since among other things in CM the British crews are initially with their vehicles.

One should also remember that some of the British infantry units are Piat units, just as dangerous as an enemy tank at close range, and that other infantry units have AT capability if they get close enough.

In my game (I tried a few with 1.03), I had no instances of Wittmann's Tiger shooting at British crews, and very few unjustified instances of shooting at infantry.

You will find the Tiger vs infantry problem much less severe if you don't let your tank get between enemy infantry and enemy tanks, which may have been justified in the historical situation due to disorganization, but is assured suicide in the CM scenario, in addition to using the slow traversing Tiger turret in its worst possible situation.

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-06-2000).]

[RokSS]

I am in a PBEM game in which my opponent has lost 10 or so Stugs and a Tiger. It's a large rural map with modest hills and sparse tree cover. He took out a couple of my Shermans ,2 M10s and an AT gun and became so encouraged that he rushed a large pack of tanks accross a wide open flank without firing smoke. My Sherman Easy-Eight is behind an embankment in the center and knocked out every tank there except the Tiger, a now dead Sherm76 got him.

So now he has all these bailed out crew, who are far from any hq, spread out wide and running towards the tank that innihilated 75% of his force. He is trying to distract the Sherm from the flank with these crew while attacking the front with infantry and SP guns. It hasn't worked yet but it would really tick me off if it did. It just looks ridiculous and unrealistic.

I know that with the 1.03 patch crews were made less effective as "seeing eye spotters" but how high do they rate as valid targets for a MBT? I think that bailed crew morale status should always be routed, panicked, shocked, intimidated or whatever at least for a few turns. The only commands available to them should be retreat or hide unless a good HQ is nearby to order them to walk towards certain death. Unless they can join an infantry platoon and be under c&c, then they should be incapable of doing anything but sitting tight and defending themselves with their pistol and Hitler youth knife.

RokSS

[:USERNAME:]

Another factor about the Villers scenario that isnt modeled in the game is that Whittman immediately jumped on the opportunity that presented itself. Namely a tail-to-nose convoy of halftracks. His battle experience told him that there was no time to deploy his other tanks and he just rolled parrallel to the convoy destroying the vehicles individually.

In CM, vehicles dont block LOS unless destroyed so this element of reality cant be modeled. The shock effect of a Heavy MBT suddenly in your midsts rushing you like, well, a tiger is also hard to model. The british probably figured that it was a point tank (which makes sense-tanks usually dont operate alone) that "more" were coming and his bluff paid off.

Once he detected other MBT armor in the battle there is no reason he would have bothered with ANY infantry IMO. His radio operators MG34 would be solely occupied with that task.

I base this on the fact that his experience was mostly Eastern Front and that would have influenced his decisions. In the east, baazooka paranoia wasnt as prevalent as in Normandy. Im sure he was buttoned up if not head down (hatch open, you inside) for most of this action and 2 and 3 man crews flitting about would have been almost the last thing on his mind. German tank drivers had lights that indicated if the gun was over a certain clock heading (not sure but i think its about 10 aaand 2 oclock) and used these to get the front armor in line with the guns bearing. Having the main weapon at over 5 oclock would only happen if there was an immobilization or very tight quarters.

Lewis

PS If you read Steel Inferno you will find that his bluff paid off way beyond reason. The British command failure at higher levels was almost criminal. They should have pushed on with the material advantage they had and cleared Villers and beyond that same day. This would have really put the screws to the germans and had a decisive effect.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-06-2000).]

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-06-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ive noticed it too and have posted it here but noones listening.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok lewis, as this is actually an important and relevant, please try not to cause a "Username Effect" on this thread. Just because this problem has not been resolved yet does not mean that it has not been worked on, and it is more than a little argumentative to start off that way.

I hope to see some sort of improvement on this problem also. My opinion, as previously stated, is that the problem is more related to your unit's target drop due to temporary loss of LOS due to smoke. I have wondered if the problem could be solved by forcing ANY unit dropping smoke via TAC AI, to accompany that order with a reverse out of there order.

This way, when the smoke clears, the enemy tank is not there to shoot at your mispositioned turret. This is logical IMO. Noone would drop smoke, unless he wanted to get away anyway.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

Ok lewis, as this is actually an important and relevant, please try not to cause a "Username Effect" on this thread. Just because this problem has not been resolved yet does not mean that it has not been worked on, and it is more than a little argumentative to start off that way.

I hope to see some sort of improvement on this problem also. My opinion, as previously stated, is that the problem is more related to your unit's target drop due to temporary loss of LOS due to smoke. I have wondered if the problem could be solved by forcing ANY unit dropping smoke via TAC AI, to accompany that order with a reverse out of there order.

This way, when the smoke clears, the enemy tank is not there to shoot at your mispositioned turret. This is logical IMO. Noone would drop smoke, unless he wanted to get away anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am just stating a fact. Read anything into it you want. 1.03 was SUPPOSED to address this but ahsnt. Not starting any arguments, just looking for answers. Maybe monday.

As for your smoke-em-and-you-reverse. Thats fine but there are situations where armor is out of LOS, gone behind a large building, and its target the crunchies time.

Lets hear from BTS. I like the MG improvements, running casualties, etc. I hope that they can keep us in the loop and maybe use some of our ideas.

Lewis

[:USERNAME:]

I also want to add that the Villers scenario is interesting from the german point of view because you get to see the amount of enemy information ONE unit can see with the FOW ON.

Also another 'solution' could be that when you target an ambush location, the tank should focus its turret at least in that direction (and greatly deprioritize other targets as a function of threat/angle away from the ambush marker). Since I cant give the tank a 'target right' or 'target left' command, this is the closest thing to it.

Lewis

[Guest Bad Ju Ju]

Although improved, I have to chime in that this play issue has not been "fixed." I would love to see BTS really resolve the "crew targeting" problem. I understand why crews are modeled, but perhaps some adjustment could be made to take threat levels into account for targeting by a MBT. Or send the shocked, vehicle bereft buggers running for the rear!

[BV]

I agree with several of the posts above. This is very important issue and is greatly affecting realistic gameplay. I have played several scenarios using v 1.03 and tanks are still firing at crews, mortarmen crawling away from knocked out mortars, infantry 400m away etc. on a regular basis. I think fixing this problem is THE most critical issue at this time, in an otherwise excellent game. Is it possible to code the AI to Never fire at non-AT equipped infantry with their main gun unless specifically ordered to do so by the player in the planning phase? The AI could still order the tank to fire its machineguns at infantry-type targets, which does not require changing the turret direction. Please consider this or a better solution to this very frustrating problem. It's a real bummer to play a scenario for several hours only to have the results very unrealistically affected by this problem.

Congratulations BTS for your excellent game.

Thanks

[Dan Weaver]

The problem with Villers-Bocage is that the designers reduced the British to unbelievably low skill levels in order to give Wittman a chance at repeating his incredible deed every time the scenario was played. Villers-Bocage is a straw-man scenario, a fun little one-man jaunt, and it's about the worst possible thing to base a gripe on. Play scenarios the game was designed for, like First Clash at Cambres or Nijmegin. I think tanks do just fine.

Dan

[iggi]

How are the tanks to know for sure that crews are only crews and not anti tank teams?

[ianc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have played several scenarios using v 1.03 and tanks are still firing at crews, mortarmen crawling away from knocked out mortars, infantry 400m away etc. on a regular basis. I think fixing this problem is THE most critical issue at this time<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Tank crews as modelled have absolutely NO ability to damage an enemy MBT in the game in any way, hence they should NOT be regarded as a threat. I also think that this is the last issue that seriously needs attention in an otherwise superb game.

ianc

[iggi]

It might not be unrealistic for tanks to shoot at crews. Crews however should rout right away back to your rear. If a tank then is in your rear flank and gets distracted by a routing crew, it should try to shoot at it cause it could be a schreck team. Normally though. a tank should not run accross routing crews. Plus the routing crews should spot worse.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Dan, I think that people are focusing on Villers Bocage because it is an easy reference to a situation most people can easily check out. It is certainly not a problem that I see occuring often, but at the same time it is a limitation that must be recognized and addressed.

Personally guys, you you chuck the whole crew parameter out the window and the same situation still exists IMO. "Wittman Syndrome" as defined by websters is the handicap caused in a tank duel to the advancing/attacking armor, when he fields a superior armor unit, causing the defender to drop smoke, and consequently remain where he is.

The unintended side effect is an advantage for the stationary defender when the smoke clears. The attacking armor is "surprised" to see this tank there, who he was dueling with 30 seconds ago, and has taken to shooting at relevant, or irrelevant targets of opportunity, at angles 90 degrees or more from his facing. The defender will not suffer this problem typically, as on defense, there are few targets available, except for the spearhead he is hiding from, behind his precious smoke. (If you disagree with my definition, coin your own phrase!)

Now I am having trouble coming up with any reason that a Tank Commander who was motivated enought to drop smoke, would be motivated to stay where was, and fight when the smoke cleared. Surely if he thought he had a good chance of prevailing, he would not have wanted that smoke in his way.

Now again, this situation does NOT come up all the time for me, but in a close quarters armor battle, urban fighting, narrow lanes, it makes itself more evident. I currently avoid these situations altogether.

BTS, if you are listening, we would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your kick ass support around here.

[M Hofbauer]

I agree with iggi and with Dan Weaver on thisone. It's quite typical that most people would immediately jump for the flashy, high-profile Villers-Bocage battle because they heard/read about it before. As has been stated before, the historical situation it is not a situation that CM can model effectively. It is not very representative of a regular CM game, and as such, it illuminates a problem that might indeed exist but way out of proportion because it becomes so very acute only here. RokSS reports an apparently similar situation due to a very gamey tactic, where according to his report the problem is not as acute, because it is actually a very different situation (sherman fast turret vs Tiger exceptionally slow turret etc.)

iggi is right that a tank would not be able to tell a PIAT team from a crew. usually. he might positively identify some guys running around with a PIAT as such, but if he didn't see a PIAT with some guys running around he wouldn't know what they are. I mean, the way CM handles unit identification right now, even at full FOW, we *do* know that it's probably a crew.

btw, I find that CM has too much very good and accurate identification. I wonder how a german infantry guy looking at a tank 400 meters away, seeing only the turret etc. can identify it readily as an M4A3(75)W+. what I mean is, he might know it's some sherman, but I do not know what recognition features he uses to tell that it has a wet ammo storage.

I agree with CPT Foobar that the smoke thing w/o the respective action by the smoke-throwing tank, and the "surprise" after the smoke has cleared up (= the lack of even short-time memory of the attacking tank re. the location/presence of the smoke-hidden enemy tank) is more like the problem here.

IMHO the other thing, the crew issue, might indeed be also a problem, but not of the priority of most pressing/it needs absolute fixing right away - kind.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[BV]

By no means is this problem seen only in the Wittmann Scenario or only when smoke is popped, although it certainly has occurred regularly in those two situations. I was recently playing the Elsdorf Scenario (no spoiler info) where one tiger was facing off with two Pershings. The tiger had been facing the right direction with both turret and body, when literally seconds before the Pershings came into LOS a crew (clearly marked and recognized as such) comes running out of the woods, routed by a machinegun. You all know the rest. The tiger slews its turret over to take on the dreaded killer crew, which is cringing off behind some woods, and by the time it gets its agonizing slow turret back in the right direction, it is knocked out. This is the type of problem that needs to be addressed. Thanks again.

[:USERNAME:]

Not only is this a problem, but a great weakness in that gamey crew rushes can be used by a player against a tank to divert attention while you give a hidden paused SP can wait for the tank to take the bait then pop on out.

This is a problem and needs fixxin. As far as Im concerned a bailed out crew should be out of command and control and beyond the players orders.

Lewis

[Guest Chris B]

And now for something completely different:

I have gotten my hands on the german training course for handling anti-tank threats in the field. BTW, the allied course are almost identical.

Sgt.: Ha. Right. Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks your tank with armed with a pistol....

(Grumbles from all)

Soldier: Oh, you promised you wouldn't do small arms this week.

Sgt.: What do you mean?

Soldier: We've done small arms the last nine weeks.

Sgt.: What's wrong with small arms? You think you know it all, eh?

Soldier: Can't we do something else?

Soldier 2: Like someone who attacks you with a Sherman?

Sgt.: Sherman? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against Shermans, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Small arms not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're driving your tank in France and some homicidal american comes after you with a six-shooter, don't come crying to me! Now, the army revolver. When your assailant fires at your tanks from 500 meters with a Colt revolver...