M Hofbauer Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 (rant on) there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the way CM handles/models the Archer. I mean SERIOUSLY (rant off) now, seriously, , somehow this rear-facing thing does not work well. Because, if it is used as a Tank Hunter, you will use the hunt command for all the nice advantages the hunt command has. Thing is, with the Archer, the hunt command means the vehicle is driving with it's cannon backwards towards an enemy. Once the enemy is spotted, it has to turn in place to bring it's weapon to bear. Needless to say, with a vehicle as nimble as the Archer, it is long toast before it has done it's dance of death. To remedy this you would have to use the reverse command. However, the reverse command means that your Archer will NOT stop when it sees the enemy but keep moving on (I had one nice example where a single Pz IV disposed of 4 Archers which all drove on towards him in reverse mode but because they did not stop did not fire (LOS broke on and off again), and the Pz IV killed one after another). The main benefit of the hunt command, to have the vehicle stop at the first sighting of an enemy, thus often creating a hull-down position, and open fire, is not possible with the reverse command, and consequently there is no way to do that with an Archer. (a side issue, and this may be just my personal experience, but it is my firm belief that while using the reverse movement order, the vehicle bogs down _much_ more often. they do it all the time on my computer, which is especially annoying when you were trying to bring several archers to bear on the enemy vehicle to overcome the lack of the hunt command, and then suddenly one of the Archers decides to stop short of LOS because in reverse they LOVE to bog down). I think it is ok to have the Archer move "backwards", ie with the gun facing rear, for fast move, move etc. commands, but I would imagine that if a british commander would order the tank to beware and hunt for tanks to the front of it, that it would not hunt them with the gun facing rear. It would try to advance with it's gun facing towards the enemy, for all the problems this might create for the driver. This could be represented in a penalty in speed while hunting etc. However, it is far better than having the vehicle ass-end up towards the enemy. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airborne Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I used one of these in a QB once--never again..Nice gun, but as you've mentioned it is tactically unsound..It took me most of the game to figure out how to use it.. I ended up digging out some of my books to try and figure out exactly what this thing was.. Basically, I parked it on a hill -backwards, and used 'reverse' to move forward..I didn't like it. And the AI did seem confused..It would not automatically spin it around to engage targets (before I manually rotated it). ------------------ Land Soft--Kill Quiet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 Instead of HUNT you could/should try "REVERSE"ing towards the enemy. That is what makes the German AA-HT's tick longer and more to their advantage when you have to move them towards the enemy with their fists up. They too get snuffed if you issue HUNT orders and the target appears in the forward quarter of the 360º arc. They do not have to waste time turning about to engage (or even worse REVERSING without being able to engage/suppress the target). By reversing you also get the added benefit that they bug out at full speed instead of using the slower reverse speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 The Archer was the first armored design to mount the 17lbr --- on a Valentine chassis way too small for the gun. The British used what they had at the time (mid '42), and the only way to get it to fit was backwards. Amazingly enough, some 650 of the things were built, and they actually saw service from about October of '44 on, as what was intended as a stop-gap solution proved to be a long-term success. In Real Life the rear-facing gun wasn't a problem, as the Archer was usually deployed in concealed positions from which it could escape if things went bad --- by heading away from the enemy! This beast was never meant to be deployed as a tank, so it's not suprising that it gets waxed whenever you use it like one. It's definately more of an ambush/defense weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 tero wrote: > Instead of HUNT you could/should try "REVERSE" Instead of "post" you should try "read". ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 David: The operative "word" was when you HAVE TO move them towards the enemy. My wife is 8 months pregnant. What is your excuse ? And PLEASE remove that farming produce STILL obstructing your diggestive system. PLEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Macs Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 in my CM experience the best way to use the archer is like the other allied tanks that cannot stand up to much punishment, move it fast from cover to cover without engaging. then when you want to engage with the archeryou reverse a short distance from cover with the target already designated, this way it does not have to reverse to far and will engage. it is a bit awkward tho and i agree that the hunt command should make it go gun first otherwise its just a useless plod command . hope that helps BM ------------------ "If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no plane at all it's the Luftwaffe." -German soldier, Western Front, 1944 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 tero - I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. What I'm talking about, is that the suggestion you made was negated by the post you were responding to. What do I need an excuse for? For stating facts? I may have been curt, but I had no reason to descend to the level of personal insults, which you seem to have been compelled to do. What you think is my problem is actually your own. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 16, 2000 Author Share Posted August 16, 2000 I think David is right here. tero, your suggestion had already been covered in my original post, where I pointed out exactly why the REVERSE order is _not_ a legitimate substitute for the HUNT command for the reasons given there. Therefore I had a good laugh when I read David's remark, which was in the same style as your suggestion "try reverse instead of hunt". Why don't you smile about it as well Oh, and that your wife is 8 months pregnant is not my fault. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I love the german flak halftracks, I took to them as so as I got CM. They work great, and when they get in trouble they drive forward on their own into cover. Drive them into your rear or send them to a diffrent flank. They replace my HMGs in most GBs. CM has the Archer!!! what!! Time to go play some GBs with the Brits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannon Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I have to agree that these vehicles need some tweaking. By these vehicles I mean all of the vehicles in CM that have rear facing guns. The hunt command is not just a command used to engage the enemy. It is also a way to tell your vehicles to reposition cautiously. In other words, move over there but if you see a threat stop and eliminate it or run away. Having to reverse these vehicles means that they tend to ignore these threat. Not something I think would really happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 Don't forget, though, that vehicles with rear-facing guns are designed exclusively for defence. They shouldn't be 'hunting' at all. Trying to reverse towards the enemy over rough terrain would be REALLY asking for it. Flak tracks are mobile air defences - if they're used for ground-based purposes, it should be purely defence. Archers should also be used purely for defence. In my opinion, hunting backwards with a flak track would either be classified as gamey, or suicidal. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted August 16, 2000 Author Share Posted August 16, 2000 well, David, "not designed for hunting" is not the right answer. Regular Infantry is not supposed to fight tanks, so why do Panzerfausts exist? similarly, your car wasn't designed as an ambulance - but would that stop you from driving an injured person to a hospital if you are in the outback where there is no other way to get help?? a hand grenade is not meant for fishing, but if you are stranded on an island with a box of egg grenades and there would be no other way to get food, I assume you would rather starve than go dynamite-fishing, eh In other words, sometimes, which in war tends to be the rule not the exception, you are caught in a certain situation where you have to improvise and make do with the means available, be they designed for the job at hand or not. Of course I am aware that the Achilles is not the british Jagdtiger, Brummbär and Sturmtiger all in one, designed to actively search out and destroy the enemy etc. pp. But there are times when you have to use them in a _hunt_ mode. yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer P.S.: David, I hope you don't issue with this post, seeing in your profile that you register as a cynicist yourself - Welcome comrade! - this my post is not ill-meant. -- "Wir brauchen mehr Blumentopferde!" (Hans Schumm, 1931, when tending to his balcony flowers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 M Hofbauer wrote: > In other words, sometimes, which in war tends to be the rule not the exception, you are caught in a certain situation where you have to improvise and make do with the means available Well, you try driving a real flak track backwards over rough ground, engaging enemy vehicles (which is the only purpose of the Hunt command) and see how far you get. =) I would suggest the difficulty you're having is not so much down to the inappropriacy of the Hunt command, but rather the inappropriacy of what you're trying to do in the first place. Battles are usually desperate situations, yes - but that doesn't mean you can suddenly do things with your equipment that were previously impossible. David P.S. Maybe you're a cynicist, but I was a cynic the last time I checked. =) ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted August 16, 2000 Share Posted August 16, 2000 I experienced the problems with reverse too. Vehicles of that time were usually move-stop-fire-move (at least for the main gun). The CM reverse doesn't let the tank stop to fire thus retreating defenses are kinda tough - howabout reverse hunt? My situation was that four of my tanks were reversing and didn't fire when the enemy came into view, early on in the turn, well at the end they were still reversing (I had a long reverse command) and 3 of them dropped without fire a shot. Actually will tanks stop and fire in fast move if the danger is real. Another thing would be cool is if tanks needed to go a direction rapidly that the tanks turrets could start facing one way while unbuttoned! (i.e. hightailing it in retreat but firing out the back so to speak). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: In Real Life the rear-facing gun wasn't a problem, as the Archer was usually deployed in concealed positions from which it could escape if things went bad --- by heading away from the enemy! This beast was never meant to be deployed as a tank, so it's not suprising that it gets waxed whenever you use it like one. It's definately more of an ambush/defense weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Don't forget, though, that vehicles with rear-facing guns are designed exclusively for defence. They shouldn't be 'hunting' at all. Trying to reverse towards the enemy over rough terrain would be REALLY asking for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are exactly correct. Archers and other rear-facing vehicle-mounted weapons are unsuitable for "hunting" maneuvers. In WW2, Archers were used as defensive weapons: almost exactly like antitank guns (except with no need for a separate vehicle to tow the gun) and not in the least like tanks. I think the best solution is to disallow the hunt move altogether for these vehicles. I will put this into v1.04. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: These are exactly correct. Archers and other rear-facing vehicle-mounted weapons are unsuitable for "hunting" maneuvers. In WW2, Archers were used as defensive weapons: almost exactly like antitank guns (except with no need for a separate vehicle to tow the gun) and not in the least like tanks. I think the best solution is to disallow the hunt move altogether for these vehicles. I will put this into v1.04. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whew! Thank you, Charles. This breath of sanity is greatly appreciated. I think we need reminding from time to time that in a game that attempts to be historically realistic, you can't always do everything that enters your head just because you might think it's "cool". Sheesh! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 David: >I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. Why am I not surprised ? >What I'm talking about, is that the suggestion you made was negated by the post you were responding to. The point I was trying to make that if you have no alternative but to move towards the enemy with any vehicle with rear facing guns your only option is to avoid using the hunt command because you will get in a jam using it when the vehicles zombie crew starts acting illogically in relation to the task the player intends them to do. Even if the reverse command does not work the properly it is the ONLY way to implement the task until BTS comes up with a universal HUNT command that covers all types of movement and all types of vehicle configurations. Disallowing it from these kinds of vehicles in an option but in my view only a stop cap one. These kind of vehicles still need the ability fight against targets of opportunity and who knows how the AA-HT's start acting against oncoming fighter bombers when they are moving to new positions, now that they will lose the ability to be on hunt mode while moving. Looking back a simple "concur" would have sufficed. I was however trying to expand the conversation to include the AA-HT's and that clouded my train of thought. I am not a native speaker of English so sometimes some things get lost in the translation. My English is almost perfect. But only almost. And the fact that I'm posting from work does not really help me either as I was interrupted in midsentence. >What do I need an excuse for? For stating facts? No. For sounding like a man who has not gotten laid for an eon and is taking it out on other people. >I may have been curt, but I had no reason to descend to the level of personal insults, which you seem to have been compelled to do. What you think is my problem is actually your own. Well, excuse me for not being crystal clear and concise on my point. Looking back I was not even very coherent. But does that give you the permission to act like a moron with a superior college degree in both English and in logical writing ? You seem to take pleasure in correcting other (non-native English speaking) members in their vocabulary and language. You also seem to think that you, Lord God, have the duty to admonish anybody whose posts are less than perfect in any shape or form (like Hofbauers incorrect use of a word and my questions on our previous encounter). You should not start making exuses that you do not mean it as an insult. This is the second incident you have attacked me personally. No amount of smileys you may use will ever purge your underlying tone unless you make a attitude adjustment. I can take a joke and I can take critisism. Your trackrecords just predesposes me towards disliking your attitude and tone of voice. Tero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Dear Hobauer >I think David is right here. tero, your suggestion had already been covered in my original post, where I pointed out exactly why the REVERSE order is _not_ a legitimate substitute for the HUNT command for the reasons given there. My intentded point got lost in the traslation. I was trying to be brief and to the point in including the AA-HT's to the equation, but failed miserably. >Therefore I had a good laugh when I read David's remark, which was in the same style as your suggestion "try reverse instead of hunt". Why don't you smile about it as well I hope you get a similar laugh and smile as widely when he is ridiculing your choice of words re: "cynisist" instead of the grammatically correct cynic. At first sight it does not seem that malicious but please check his "tone of voice". And he seems to turn ignorant when HE becomes the target and the butt of jokes. I can take a joke and I realised my post DID sound asinine when I reread it later. But as I said this is not the first time David has singled me out for special treatment. I am not very sensitive but unwarranted attacks I ward off vehemently. >Oh, and that your wife is 8 months pregnant is not my fault. I think. That was an attempt at sarcasm that David seems incapable of grasping. And yes, I have only myself (supposedly to blame for the situation back home. The full 15 secs of rapture is backlashing now handsomely. But I do not go slashing out on people on the net. I can use my hands for much more productive work than typing like a madman if the need to relieve pressures becomes intolerable. Like playing the game ! Not the other think you are thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 "help! help! I'm bein repressed !" -johnS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tero Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Our son is 2½ years old now, we got married 13 months ago and the baby is coming next month. I have less time to play games than I used to have. Have I not paid enough for my sins, mistakes and errors in judgement ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Our son is 2½ years old now, we got married 13 months ago and the baby is coming next month. I have less time to play games than I used to have. Have I not paid enough for my sins, mistakes and errors in judgement ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Holy Cow, man! You're right. Go a bit easy on the poor guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 ok so this is the now famous thread that now warrents the introduction of a new "Code of Civil Conduct" ?? Oh please! This is just another normal thread where new people here find out how things really work. What's the big deal? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 I was going to leave this alone, but since it's come back to the top... tero wrote: > No amount of smileys you may use will ever purge your underlying tone unless you make a attitude adjustment. > At first sight it does not seem that malicious but please check his "tone of voice". I think you'll find that, when people type, their tone of voice isn't quite audible - it is notoriously difficult to put feeling into words you exchange over the internet. The whole purpose of smileys is to reflect the way a comment has been intended. Simply because I dispute a point you've made (as I may have done in earlier threads) doesn't mean I somehow despise you. It's called discussion. I happen to enjoy making proper use of my language in my posts - if you interpret this as any particular 'tone', I'm sorry I don't type badly enough for you. When you're reading my posts, you obviously assume I'm out to get you. When I'm reading your posts, the personal insults are plainly obvious. Please make this distinction. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 OK, OK, settle down now. Let's just say that things got out of hand for NO REAL REASON and therefore there is NO REAL REASON to continue the bickering. As for the topic this thread started up to discuss... the decision has been made to remove HUNT from backwards facing units, such as the Archer. This is the realistic thing to do and it eliminates user error (no offense M Hofbauer ) trying to use an order that was not inteneded to support a behavior that the vehicle was not designed to perform. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts