Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Ok Here's the situation - I've just played a game where my Panther broke down (immobile - not bogged etc) - the crew hasn't bailed and the vehicle is in combat order (baring mobility of course) I've 2 Sdkfz 7 Tractors that were purchased to tow my AT guns. Now I've plenty of pictorial evidence showing where these vehicles were used as recovery vehicles so I got to asking - why cannot they be used in this fashion in-game. Now I'm not talking repair because the game time is too short - but I am speaking the ability to tow. The benefit of moving my mobility impaired Panther to a better spot would add great value to the Panther. Cheers Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Ok I've 2 Sdkfz 7 Tractors that were purchased to tow my AT guns. Now I've plenty of pictorial evidence showing where these vehicles were used as recovery vehicles so I got to asking - why cannot they be used in this fashion in-game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Could you see it, if this was possible in CM you hook up 2 Sdkfz 7's to tow the Panther & one of the Sdkfz 7's breaks down after going 10ms .... Regards, John Waters ------------------ Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 I could definitely see this in an Operation (increased chance of extracting a vehicle beyond the recovery value setting for the operation), but a scenario is too short of a time frame for the particular extraction you are talking about here. In real life such extractions of bogged vehicles could easily take several hours while not under fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Schrullenhaft has it 99% correct. Recovering heavy AFVs took a LOT of time. Do a Search on this topic and see comments from post war tankers/soldiers who talk about this. The 1% you missed, Schrullenhaft, is that nobody would tow an AFV into a better position under combat conditions, even if it only took 5 minutes to hook it up Even an armored recovery vehicle wouldn't do this, not to mention the unarmored Sdkfz 7s. In the end, it is clear that dragging around immobilized vehicles during a battle is both unrealistic and gamey. So I think this "case" is closed Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 LOL John - yes - sad to say I can see it Schrull - like I said it isn't bogged - it's broken down - I agree with the bogged thing - but it doesn't take a long time to hitch tow cables. Cheers Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 Steve Actually I take offence at the "Gamey" comment - as my Concord Book - "Panther Tank" clearly shows a Tiger being recovered under battle conditions and then the Bergepanther recoving it is destroyed. I do not see it being gamey to remove the Panther to guard an objective point in an overwatch position (if I'm willing to risk the recovery vehicles) as the whole principle of objective flags is gamey in itself. I would appreciate perhaps a more objective approach from someone in your position rather than an off hand remark about a issue being gamey. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Aussie, Althought the recovery in battle conditions could be done from time to time, it isn't a standard or even desirable procedure. Even if the recovery is done under fire, most likely should be to get the tank out of enemy sight for further repair than to put it and the more valuable asset, the recovery vehicle, in a good fire position. I think Steve tried to said that, taking it in consideration, doing what you suggested could be considered gamey... OTOH, if you makes 2 tanks push an immobilized tank in straight line, you could make it goes everywhere I do it playing Villiers against the AI once, I got Witman tank Immobilized and used 2 Tigers to push him right in Villiers, firing all the time Ariel [This message has been edited by argie (edited 09-11-2000).] [This message has been edited by argie (edited 09-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Steve Actually I take offence at the "Gamey" comment - as my Concord Book - "Panther Tank" clearly shows a Tiger being recovered under battle conditions and then the Bergepanther recoving it is destroyed. I do not see it being gamey to remove the Panther to guard an objective point in an overwatch position (if I'm willing to risk the recovery vehicles) as the whole principle of objective flags is gamey in itself. I would appreciate perhaps a more objective approach from someone in your position rather than an off hand remark about a issue being gamey. Regards Craig <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I don't have a problem with Steve calling it gamey because it is gamey. At best it would be a rare event that a dedicated recovery vehicle would, in the middle of combat, go out and tow a disabled tank. Even rarer would be going out to tow the tank into another spot that would still be in dispute. And as far as the victory flags are concerned. Are they gamey? Yes. Do they serve a purpose, Yes. Most important is for the AI. If there were no victory locations, then how would you propose that the AI know what location is important for a given scenario? The Flags give the AI a goal for the Ai to try and obtain. Without them, the AI more often than not would locate the best defensive terrain, and hunker down in a defensive mode, not moving. So there is a difference between adding a gamey feature out of necessity (Flags) and adding one to satisfy some gamers unrealistic requests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 *takes a deep breath* Unrealistic requests??? How is any request unrealistic as its a request - be it possible or no. Ok I'm not normally inclined to get into these arguments as they're purile but hey with this one I'm going to. During the retreat from the fronts (accelerating from Nov 44 on the west front) the speed of the retreat in area's generally forced the Germans to make use of immobile vehicles as static strongpoints whereby in other times these vehicles would have been recovered. I have an immobile vehicle (it has not yet reached the front and is safe to recover - but that should not form the basis of the issue) - I want to use it (as the loss of these points in a point's based game essentially puts me at a slight disadvantage) - this is my only point - these comments on "gamey tactics" are not welcome nor form the basis for my post. If a considered opinion on the basis for my 'request' cannot be provided - then don't post - but please if you wish to provide a considered argument I'm more than happy to listen. Last comment - 'Gamey' as a comment in a game - please..... Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: *takes a deep breath* Unrealistic requests??? How is any request unrealistic as its a request - be it possible or no. Ok I'm not normally inclined to get into these arguments as they're purile but hey with this one I'm going to. During the retreat from the fronts (accelerating from Nov 44 on the west front) the speed of the retreat in area's generally forced the Germans to make use of immobile vehicles as static strongpoints whereby in other times these vehicles would have been recovered. I have an immobile vehicle (it has not yet reached the front and is safe to recover - Craig<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If your vehicle is in Combat Mission, it is at the front! I have recovered bogged armored vehicles (M60’s, M113’s) in the field. Most often it takes another vehicle capable of towing, a squad of men and a backhoe several hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Not sure what the big deal is here. Repair/Recovery/Towing etc is outside the scope of what happens during the small battles that happen in CM. The 30 or 40 turns represent 30 to 40 minutes, you'll be lucky if a tank would even have gotten hooked up to both trucks in that short of time (oh and btw I would be VERY surprised if those 2 sdkfz7 could have budge the dang thing). Guns are designed to be rapidly limbered to a truck, while tanks aren't.. But tell you what let's say it takes 20 minutes (very generous) AND those 2 tractors could tow it (very generous). You're saying that you actually want all these people to be jumping and crawling around out in the open while arty, machine gun fire, and airplanes are all out there trying to kill them? Repair/Recovery/Towing right at the front lines during the middle of a firefight would very much be the exception. The fact that you have ONE picture or anectdote of it happening (and failing, serving as a reminder as to why it wasn't done) proves nothing, it is an aberration. As for the "gamey" thing, the reason why so many people like the game is because it strives to be so accurate. Thus the term "gamey" evolved to mean anything that was ahistorical. So "gamey" being applied to a game isn't as weird as one might think. Just some of my thoughts. Think of it this way, would you rather them work on CM2 and get it out the door sooner, or do you want them to waste time coding in the ability to tow a vehicle (limber time 30 minutes)? ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Aussie Smith wrote: > I would appreciate perhaps a more objective approach from someone in your position Hey everybody, jump on the Steve-is-full-of-crap bandwagon! It's plainly obvious he doesn't have a clue, and isn't even qualified for his job! If we want a change in the game, he should bloody well get onto Charles and get it implemented, otherwise everybody will get pissed off and go and buy Close Combat 13!! David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 David Yes - thank you for the value added comment Craig ps - The vehicle isn't bogged guys - its immobile - I'm sorry I even posted this one already. [This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 09-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: David Yes - thank you for the value added comment Craig ps - The vehicle isn't bogged guys - its immobile - I'm sorry I even posted this one already. [This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 09-11-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Immobile is just as bad as bogged if not worse. Immobile many times means a thrown track a broken roller or a bad sprocket.. Making the vehicle unable to be towed without repair. Repairs of this type take longer then most CM battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 In CM immobile is by definition worse than bogged. When a vehicle bogs down there is a chance that it can become mobile again if left alone. A bogged vehicle which fails to become mobile again is immobile. The other type of immobile is an immobility caused by feild damage. In that first situation it means that in the snow/mud/crater/whatever that the tank became bogged down in it then dug itself in accidentally by spinning it's treads. The only real way to get a large vehicle out of a bogged situation in real life is to rock it. The problem is that if you fail to get out the spinning of the tires/treads one way then the other rapidly has dug them in. If that is the case then you're talking about one or two trucks trying to drag a tank, a panther in your case, up out of the muck/snow/whatever after jerry rigging some system by which to limber it. If it is possible, which considering the weights involved and the engines of the day I would say is damn unlikely, then it would require many hours to do. Since the outside limit on a CM firefight is 120 turns if your panther became immobile after bogging the first turn and you happened to have your vehicles right there it would be unlikely they'd even move the tank before the firefight is up. That brings us to the second possibility. Even in perfect flat dry conditions this is likely impossible with a Wespe let alone a panther. At least part of the bottom of the tank is going to be jagged and dragging and digging into the ground. With that kind of resistance how in the world would a couple of trucks pull a tank? It's easy to think that the crew should just hop back into their vehicle and fight the good fight but we've got to remember that what we're seeing is an abstraction. When a tank reads abandoned it looks in the same pristine order that it was when it rolled onto the battlefeild but the fact that it is abandoned means there is something fatally wrong with it. When you see an immobile tank all you see is the tank resting normally on the flat ground when in reality it is at the very least partially sunken into the ground. It's also easy to forget how much heavier things were back before so much of vehicles was replaced with plastics and fiberglass. The lightest peice of Axis armor weighs 12 tons (Wespe), the lightest allied 16 (Stuart V). Almost all the tanks were between 25 and 50 tons, some more. Even with the slightly speeded up world that CM exists in (firefights usually lasted a bit longer than your average CM firefight) the idea of rescuing a tank from immobility in the field under fire is unrealistic for simply practicle reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: *takes a deep breath* Unrealistic requests??? How is any request unrealistic as its a request - be it possible or no. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, your request if real, but what your requesting to be simulated would be unrealistic. Is that better semantics for you? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ok I'm not normally inclined to get into these arguments as they're purile but hey with this one I'm going to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Up until this statement, there has been nothing childish about the arguement so far, except maybe the part where you chided Steve for taking the time to answer your question. So far everyone how is against your argument has pointed out that what you described as wanting to be able to do as being unrealistic, given the time scale and scope of battles that CM represents. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> During the retreat from the fronts (accelerating from Nov 44 on the west front) the speed of the retreat in area's generally forced the Germans to make use of immobile vehicles as static strongpoints whereby in other times these vehicles would have been recovered. / Yes, this is true. No argument that the Germans did this occasionally. But what the Germans did not do as a matter of routine is send out a recovery vehicle to drag an immoblie tank in the middle of combat, then relocate it to another area to fight in the same battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 OK, settle down... Craig, there was no offense intended. But what you ask for is both unrealistic, and if it were implemented, gamey. The examples you give are either rarer than rare, or were not done under combat conditions. Already one guy with first hand experience has piped in about the time requirements for recovery. That should settle the "realism" bit since it is inline with what I have read and every other tanker that has given his 2 cents worth on this issue. As for game, the use of static tanks often took all day to arrange, if not longer. There are some famous shots of a damaged MkIV dug in by a road junction near Caen for example. This is not something that was done while the lead was flying. So to allow it would first be unrealistic (timing) and then gamey (it wasn't done in the real war). Truth of the matter is that either counter argument alone is enough. But with the two together, it is clear that this feature doesn't belong in CM (except for Operations inbetween battles). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 It is my objective opinion that what you request would lead to "unrealistic" and "gamey" tactics. Why? For reasons outlined here and obtainable by a quick search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 Steve Thanks mate - thats all I was after in the first place. ok - I'll accept your argument in relation to time required. Thanks Again Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts