Anti tank team problems

[David Aitken]

Seanachai wrote:

> these teams have to be right there in the middle of things

My suggestion is really that such teams should never be far away from supporting riflemen. When someone says "My Bazooka was sitting in a building with a Panzerschreck, and they both did nothing", I just think "Why the heck were they there in the first place?". If a team enters a building with enemy soldiers they aren't equipped to fight (regardless whether they enemy is equipped to fight them), they wouldn't be inclined to hang around.

I actually stick by my claim that there is some abstraction in these teams - simply in the fact that you can run them around completely on their own. I think teams' ability to defend themselves should be taken as the proximity of friendly riflemen. If you send them off on their own, this isn't particularly realistic, and the fact that they can't defend themselves is a result of this.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Lorak]

First off,

I didn't run my shreck team into a building knowing someone was there.

This was a city fight, and this house had good LOS to the road comming in on the right side.

They were snecking into the building to set up an ambush. The scheck team was already hiding there.

They were part of my platoon who happened to be in a very heavy fire fight with a platoon accross the street. This building seemed like a good ambush spot and was out of the line of fire.

I'm not saying tactics aren't a big part of it. I'm just saying they should have some means of self defense.

Lorak

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

Proud commander of the CCT's Chinchilla Commando Teams

[Jeff Heidman]

David, at what point do we disagree in the following chain of facts:

1. Bazooka, PIAT, and Panzerschreck teams existed in WW2 as seperate entities, i.e they were NOT integrated into the squad.

2. LATW teams in WW2 were armed with personal weapons of some sort.

3. LATW teams in CM are NOT armed with pesonal weapons, and this creates something unrealistic, due to 1 & 2 above.

You are demanding that players use what YOU define as "good" tactics to cover a shortcoming of the game system. Quite honestly, if players want to use piss poor tactics, then they should be able to do so without limitations in the game punishing them more than they would be in real life.

It is not the games job to make sure the players use good tactics. It is the games job to simulate reality as best it can. If it does THAT job well, then players will be punished for using poor tactics as a result. There is no need for a game with the fidelity of CM to use abstract and unrealistic tols to try to force the player to meet some pre-conceived and narrow defintion of "good tactics".

Settipng up AT ambushes that are not directly covered by friendly forces is not always a great idea, but sometimes it might be the best idea at the time. That being the case, there are going to be times when this problem will arise, and it is not even because the player was using bad tactics.

Right now, in a PBEM game I am playing, I have a zook team all by himself, and he has no ammo. If my opponent wants to rush him, there is not a damn thing I can do about it. You can claim that is evidence of my shoddy tactics, but in reality, that Zook killed a very important piece of my opponents defense, so it was, in fact, perfectly acceptable tactics, yet here is this problem were the game does not simulate reality.

This is not an issue of tactics. It has nothiing to do with tactics. This is not an issue of abstraction. LATW teams in WW2 can and did operate semi-independently. They were in fact armed with personal weapons. Why is it so difficult to just admit that for whatever reason, the game could use a tweak in this case?

In reality, I seriously doubt that the reason LATW/MG temas have no personal weapons has anything to do with your claims, but how CM models these types of units. Since LATW and MGS are not modelled as cew served weapons, but as personal weapons, there is probably no way to have the unit not fire additional personal weapons until the primary weapon is out of ammo. For example, I would bet that if BTS gave PIAT teams a pistol and a carbine, they would fire them all the time, which would be a problem, since presumably they would not be doing that under normal circumstances.

If you want to claim that the amount of work necessary to code the change outweighs any potential advantage, I could buy that argument. But quit with the "tactics" bit. No one is buying it, and it just makes you sound close minded.

Jeff Heidman

[BasilD]

I have to put my hat into the ring and vote they should have sidearms. I had a look of sheer dismay earlier when my brave shrek teams ran forward to toast the cruel enemy sexton today, only to watch the damn crew leap out and kill both teams with their damn pistols, while my men screamed in abject and impotent horror.

Grrr.

Really tho, I have to think they had pistols no?

In the note of utter irony, my opponent casually told me the sexton's gun was taken out earlier by a mortar round. Then I was really mad!

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

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Supertanker]

I often send a anti-tank team out by itself on a flanking manuever. The riflemen stay where they are to engage or provide a convenient target to the enemy AFV, while the AT team sneaks out the back and around the side for a better shot. It works great, and I don't know if I would call it bad tactics. I don't know how you could avoid such a thing in a good city fight.

[Ski]

Couldn’t you program the game to have the anti-tank teams carry side arms, but to always give priority to any armor or vehicles they encounter (thus, use any anti-tank weapon they carry), and only use the side arm to defend itself if attacked by infantry?

If this became some major programming problem, I say it wouldn’t be worth it, but if it could be done, then it would add to the realism of the game.

I would have to agree with Jeff, bad tactics aside, you shouldn’t be punished by the game for something that it doesn’t have. If you played the game based on your experience in real life you would expect the anti-tank teams to have side arms, and you would be surprised when they didn’t. If you didn’t check before hand you wouldn’t know that they didn’t, and why would you check when you expected them to be modeled based on how they were in the actual war. However, as I said, if it’s a major programming problem, it’s probably not worth it.

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

To conquer others is to have power,

To conquer yourself is to have strength.

-Lao Tzu

[Guest Big Time Software]

Everybody... this has been covered about a dozen times before, even prior to the Beta Demo coming out. In a nutshell...

1. AT teams are, to a large degree, an abstraction. Flamethrowers, Bazookas, Panzershcrecks, and perhaps in practice PIATs were in fact manned by regular squad members. Panzerschrecks were also assigned to dedicated AT teams, in particular in Volksgrenadier and Pattern 45 Infantry divisions due to the lack of AT guns.

2. The assistant in such teams often caried a light small arm, usually carbine for the US and Kar98 for most German teams. The gunner had a pistol in all cases that I know of, and the assistant often did as well.

3. #2 applies to other team type weapons, including mortars, AT guns, etc.

There are two problems with doing this in CM:

1. Coding. A huge quantity of code would have to be written to support this. What might seem simple to the gamer isn't always simple to the programmer.

2. Realism. Although the members of a team had small arms, how exactly do we determine who is in a position to use them in a given situation? With a 2 man team this is easier to do than with a 6 man team.

Our proposed solution is a compromise, but simply hasn't been important enough (compared to other things) to warrent the work and cutting to the front of the line. The solution we came up with a long time ago was to give each team a generic self defense small arms capability based on headcount. This is something we do, eventually, intend on putting into the game.

Steve

[Guest Rollstoy]

I hope the FAQ guys have their Copy-Paste gear ready !

[Mannheim Tanker]

LOL Germanboy! What I meant to write was "British are UK" (IE just part of it). I caught the improper word order after posting it, but rather than editing it, I decided to see who would bite. I guessed Fionn or you - and was right! Someone is knocking at the door, gotta go. Is that bagpipes that I hear?....

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> In reality, I seriously doubt that the reason LATW/MG temas have no personal weapons has anything to do with your claims, but how CM models these types of units. [...]

> If you want to claim that the amount of work necessary to code the change outweighs any potential advantage, I could buy that argument. But quit with the "tactics" bit.

I wrote:

> If you started worrying about small and inconsequential failings, the game would infuriate you. It's not going to be 100% realistic, and it never will.

> The fact is, the unarmed AT team issue has a simple tactical remedy - protect them with riflemen. This isn't unrealistic, and it doesn't require reprogramming.

Doesn't this answer you? My argument has been based on how CM models teams, and I have been saying that that it's not worth the programming involved. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a tactical remedy.

Regardless of TO&E's, I think Steve has vindicated part of what I'm saying. Whether or not teams should have sidearms, the fact is they shouldn't be roaming around on their own. Just because in CM you're able to order a bazooka halfway across the battlefield, doesn't make it a realistic tactic. Try ordering a team to do that in reality. They're not going to sneak forward and take out that Tiger, even if it's pivotal to the battle, if they have little chance of getting out alive.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Gentleman]

Is it safe to come out yet?

[Jeff Heidman]

Well, as usual, David is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.

No one is claiming that they should be allowed to send their LATW teams halfway across the map on their own, although last I checked the manual rather specifically stated that teams were SPECIFICALLY meant ot be semi-independent.

They are just pointing out that there are many times when your AT team might not be immediately covered by a rifle squad. They could be 5 meters away and this could happen, they hardly need to be running all over the map. This is not necessarily bad tactics, it is just something that happens sometimes, often without any intent on the aprt of the player to begin with.

The fact remains. In the real world, these guys were not unarmed. In CM they are. Your "tactical solution" is nothing more than an attempt to cover up an issue. It is as simple as that. It is NOT "realistic" to say that AT teams should not be armed because they should be baby sat at all times. That is nto how they were used historically, and it is not "realistic tactics" as defined by David or anyone else. No constraint placed upon a unit that ahs nothing to do with reality can possibly be justified by an appeal to reality.

I will chalk yet another one up to "CMisperfectitis".

You have made exactly ONE valid point, and it is a point I agreed with to begin with. The issue is not important enough in the overall scheme of things to worry about, and not worth spending time on when there are add-ons, patches, and CM2 on the horizon. If you would have stuck to that, we would not be having this argument.

But the original poster was correct. This is an issue that detracts from the overall realism in the game.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Mortiis]

I've been in situations where my rifle squad was no more than 10 meters away from my anti-tank team and had my at team wiped out by a squad moving into the house that the at team occupied(enemy squad was not in los of my rifle squad) Now I dont think this is a big enough problem to warrent any immediate action on the part of bts there are more important things in the works for cm. But I cant believe the logic that I have to have my rifle squad right next to my at team or else Im not properly using my at team. This argument is laughable, why cant you (david), admit that yes there is a slight flaw that needs addressing in the distant future instead of making up ridiculous reasons as to why it shouldnt be changed at all. Dont mean to sound nasty but I cant understand why you are so adverse to change even when its warrented, and this isnt the first time Ive seen you argue in this manner when someone suggests an improvement. I think this game is great as it stands now but nothing is perfect and when dealing with a game as complex as cm there is always room for improvement. I leave this matter in the capable hands of bts who so far managed to create the best war game that I have ever played and Ive played my share of em.

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman

> Well, as usual, David is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.

[...]

> I will chalk yet another one up to "CMisperfectitis".

Jeff, I could equally say that as usual, you are resorting to browbeating. If you can't discuss without resorting to attacking me personally, I will ignore you, and you will have the distinction of 'winning' through being childish and petty.

You say teams should have small arms. Steve says teams are an abstraction. The manual says Combat Mission never will be 100% realistic. I say that, as there is a tactical solution to your problem, you would be well advised to use it.

Teams would, in reality, be part of a platoon. As I have said, they would have a self-defence capacity, but they would not have a fighting capacity. Therefore, they rely on their platoon for protection, while they concentrate on hunting tanks. Regardless of whether they have some small-arms capacity or not, they are vulnerable, and will not last long in a firefight.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to surmise that:

1) A team's defence capacity should be in its association with its platoon. If it is only yards away from the nearest squad and is overrun, that's not unrealistic - but help should be close at hand.

2) Carrying small arms or not, a team isn't going to hang around in a firefight, so there is little point in modelling small arms. Unless they're killing tanks, they should either be behind a screen of riflemen, or making tracks towards such a position.

3) For gameplay purposes, it makes perfect sense for a team just to have their AT weapon and nothing else. This symbolises a platoon's AT capacity, which the platoon must protect (whether these men are devoted team members or just squad members with AT weapons is a point of contention, but Steve says they are abstracted, so the above makes perfect sense).

I am making a logical argument for the way the game is designed. If I were simply saying "Oh shut up, leave it the way it is", you would have grounds for accusing me of your fanciful diseases. As it is, you do not.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Moriarty]

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

Is it safe to come out yet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gentleman, it is always safe to come out ... sometimes you just gotta duck before you do it.

Some on the board are quite learned in military technology, OOBs, minutiae and other assorted bric-a-brac and they have strong opinions, as I'm sure you have noticed. This adds greatly to the quality of responses on the board but these also occasionally bring strong feelings with them. Distill the useful; ignore the rest.

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

"Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?" — Oddball

"Crap." — Moriarty

[willys]

And of course there are instances where anti-tank teams were found to be exactly in this predicament (having no secondary weapons). When the young conscripts were sent into the streets of Berlin with nothing more than a panzerfaust. In the Last Battle (I think) Heinrici rails "what are they to do when they have expended their one round? Use their empty weapon as a club?" I tend to doubt, however, that this was the norm in a typical German TO&E.

[robo]

Interesting to note that a mortar team has no small arms unless they abandon the mortar at which point they act as a crew fully armed with pistols, but the LATWs are never abandoned. Seems like the mortar teams should also benefit while the mortar is still available.

[IntelWeenie]

I know BTS is taking a firm stand on this, but I have a thought that I don't know has been tried yet about this.

Could the AT teams be given sidearms as primary weapons and Baz/Shrek/Piat as a secondary like PFs/demo charges/gammon bombs/rifle grenades. Only tweaks needed that I see are increasing the likelyhood of using the AT weapon and losing the ambush command.

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

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

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

David, I think you are correct to an extent, but I also think you go to the other extreme, i.e. you are too quick to assume that every problem has, or should have, a tactical solution.

CM spends a LOT of time touting how realistic it is. Indeed, that is what most people like about it. I know it is one of the things I like about it.

So when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana (2 cents to whoever catches the reference first), I tend to think it is a failing in the system, not a failing in myself. Now, it might be a small, or even inconsequential failing, but it is a failing nonetheless. All the tactical thinking in the world is not going to get around the fact that when two AT teams bump into each other, it is kind of silly for them to start slinging zook or schreck rounds at each other from a range of 10 ft.

If AT teams are meant to be an abstraction of integral squad weapons, then they should have just put the men into the squad with the weapon, the way they do with Panzerfausts. But, as Fionn pointed out, that is not the case. In all armies, dedicated AT teams existed and where not integrated into the squad generally. This is not an abstraction.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I want you to attack me with the banana! Come on! Do it, man!"

"AHHHHHH! (Man charging istructor)"

"(Instructor pulls out gun) BANG!"

Monty Python was the best.

Jeff

[Trooper]

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

'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm.. This is news to me..

Isn't it "Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?"

Else some of us Southerners are in for a bit of a shock..

NTM

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

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[dNorwood]

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

Come on! None of you have got it yet! Yes, it is Monty Python, but what was the flick?

"And Now for Something Completely Different"

That pair of shiny new pennies is clearly mine.

Chuckd<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But BEFORE that it was simply a sketch in an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

(and yes, I have been reading the rest of the thread)

[Schrullenhaft]

Ha ha ! The South has been assimilated with nary a shot fired. Truly... the pen is mightier than the sword!

I think it is time for a "Fish Slapping Dance"... would you like a mackerel or a tuna ?

And some poor sod thought this topic was being bumped up for it's anti-tank team material...

[Michael Dorosh]

EDIT - heehee quick on the draw, the point has been made that PIATs were indeed seperate teams.

Ah well, consider this a bump since it just came up again. I have to stop posting from work.

Second Edit

Steve appears to be misinformed - PIATs were NOT manned by squad members. They are not M-72s; they are heavy, difficult to use, and a relative rarity on the battlefield, issued one per platoon.

I have no data on how they were armed - bear in mind Smokey Smith won the Victoria Cross in an individual action - he was part of a two man PIAT team. His buddy was wounded, but he managed to knock out a Panther, and then used his tommygun to drive off 20 Germans (he killed several of them in the process).

I can live with BTS' explanation that it is too much work to code personal weapons, and I don't mind the abstraction in the game. Platoons are meant to fight as platoons, and Smokey Smith got the VC because he was the exception, not the rule - LATW teams didn't go around shooting at other infantrymen. Allowing them to do so gives the commander too much control.

I do want it made clear, however, that PIAT teams in real life were dedicated teams, and their portrayal in CM (whether Steve knows it or not!!) is realistic.

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-20-2001).]