results of my test using crews for assaults

[Juardis]

In short, it works well.

Background:

I wanted to know if you guys considered sending crews into a defended building to do an infantry's job was gamey. Most thought it was. My situation was that my infantry was LOW on ammo (as in scrounging clips off the dead and wounded). The only guys with ammo were some MMG units and crews. So I thought I'd send in the crews since they had bullets.

What actually happened:

I sent in the infantry based on this boards response and they got massacred. Sent 2 squads and an HQ unit. Against 1 known squad. Discovered a shreck team and another squad after the fact. Did that move 3 seperate times. Best result was one of my squads had 2 guys left, the other had 3 guys left, and my HQ was dead (all 3 times). And that was without taking the building since I only managed to reduce the enemy strength.

Redid with 3 crews assaulting:

Laid down cover fire with the MMG and the one shot my infantry with LOW ammo had. 2 crews made it to the building, one got hung up (too long a command delay). One got killed out right but not before taking out the shreck team and providing intel to me. The other crew killed one squad (albeit it was reduced to begin with) and was engaged with the other when the turn ended. He lost one guy, did NOT break or run, and acquitted himself quite well.

Conclusion?:

I don't consider using crews on the attack into a building as gamey. If you're smart you can keep them alive. By that I mean keep them in C&C, preferably with a strong fighting and morale HQ, and keep the enemy's heads down with suppression. Once inside a building, pistols are great. Sending them running across an open field is suicide, but sending them across a street into a building to fight isn't.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Germanboy]

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

In short, it works well.

Conclusion?:

I don't consider using crews on the attack into a building as gamey. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, seems I have to reassess my opinion on the efficacy of using crews in that way. I still don't agree with your conclusion though. It may be effective, but IMO it is still gamey. One does not exclude the other, on the contrary. YMMV.

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

Andreas

[DrBrydon]

I think it is gamey unless it's a desperate situation. I don't think you could get crews to do that, nor would their commanders be thrilled about using their highly trained crews as cannon-fodder.

OTH, last night my M8 howitzer got in too close and got knocked out. The crew bailed and proceeded to knock out a Sdkfz 7/1, because it was an us or them case.

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

Will

---

"The truly great thing is not to lose your nerve." --Unknown.

[Joe Shaw]

Right Andreas (God I hate saying that), the issue has never really been whether it would WORK to use them that way, but rather whether it was REALISTIC to use them in that fashion. I find myself using crews "lightly", i.e. they can guard prisoners or "hang out" in safe areas just to keep watch on flanks. I will, if I feel the situation is justified, put them in buildings where it's safer than being in the open. I will NOT send them on recon missions or use them offensively. Now if someone chooses to attack the spot they are in, they will undoubtedly fight, but I don't order them to. A rationalization on my part, to be sure, but one I feel comfortable with. Others will disagree ... and have.

Joe

[Juardis]

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

It may be effective, but IMO it is still gamey. One does not exclude the other, on the contrary. YMMV.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point Andreas, I concede it. But there were some that said it was suicide to send in crews and they'd love to play me in a ladder game. I think this test proved they COULD be effective, but you're right, it COULD also be gamey. I don't routinely send crews into battle, but my situation demanded something different than I did, and using crews was the answer.

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

Jeff Abbott

[This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Guest mch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I sent in the infantry based on this boards response and they got massacred. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Redid with 3 crews assaulting:

Laid down cover fire with the MMG and the one shot my infantry with LOW ammo had.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just curious,did you lay down MMG/squad covering fire the first time? You didn't

mention it.

[DanE]

Thanks for reporting the results of your test. The results are surprising. I fear this may not be a good thing. Perhaps it will have to come down to the crews only having two commands: Withdraw AND Hide.

Regardless, the use of crews in this manner is gamey. I am no expert, but I do not think I am going out on a limb by saying that a real commander would not use his crews in this manner.

If the victory location is that important, then the commander would pull back until properly reinforced and then the assualt would continue. In game terms, this means you would not have won the battle.

I am not saying that crews never took part in a battle, I am just saying that it had to be an extreme situation for it to happen. And needing to capture a victory flag at the end of a 30 minute fight is not it.

Let's look at it this way: would you have used your crews, instead of infantry, to attack the victory location at the beginning of the battle? Was this move done because there was only a few turns left in the battle and there was no concern about a possible counterattack? If the enemy is so weak that a bunch of crews can defeat them, then the enemy would probably be vacating that location very soon anyway.

I am not saying you can't use your crews in this manner (and I realize that we asked you to report back your findings on this test). It is a game and some people play to win using whatever means are available to them. However, if there is a possibility someone is going to use tactics such as this, I think they should make it known at the beginning of the battle.

Have a nice day.

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

Dan

[JoePrivate]

Before everyone gets carried away thinking crews are all Audie Murphys in the making, I'll relate a similar incident in a recent pbem. My opponent assaulted a squad of mine in a building with 2 crews and squad, the crews were leading. At first I was going to cry foul for this 'gaminess', I feared my squad would be distracted by the crews and get shot up by the enemy squad. However after the turn's resolution, both crews and the enemy squad lay dead at my squads feet. It lost 3 men from 10 initially. I didn't say anything though haven't played this opponent again.

[KMan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>JoePrivate said:

Before everyone gets carried away thinking crews are all Audie Murphys in the making, I'll relate a similar incident in a recent pbem. My opponent assaulted a squad of mine in a building with 2 crews and squad, the crews were leading. At first I was going to cry foul for this 'gaminess', I feared my squad would be distracted by the crews and get shot up by the enemy squad. However after the turn's resolution, both crews and the enemy squad lay dead at my squads feet. It lost 3 men from 10 initially. I didn't say anything though haven't played this opponent again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JoePrivate,

Your last sentence can be interpreted in a couple of ways:

a.) You won't play this opponent again

-or-

b.) When you play this opponent again, you will mention that you think this is "gamey"

If the correct interpretation is "a.)", then I suggest that you go ahead and say something to the opponent. If the two of you hadn't agreed before the game as to what was allowed or not, then he may not even know that he did anything wrong.

Along those lines, I've decided that at the start of all my future pbem games, I will tell my opponent what behaviors I think are "gamey" and that I won't be doing any of them. I would prefer that my opponent has similar views, however, I will still play opponents who don't - I can still have fun playing against "gamey" tactics (I'm definitely not hardcore).

-Kyle

[This message has been edited by KMan (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Hummer]

I was playing a battle last night where a German crew with 4 guys 1 wounded (AI in control) entered a heavy building and wiped out an American MMG crew that had plenty of ammo and was in a normal state.

[Purple4Ever]

I was playing a game where one of my 'schreck teams took out a Sherman, the crew bailed (4 out of 5 wounded).

The lone crewman charges the 'schreck and starts firing with his pistol.

The 'schreck team just sits there, they have no small arms to counter with.

I have not finished the game and the 'schreck team is still alive.

It's kinda funny - this lone gunman (you can hear the pop-pop-pop of his pistol) firing at my AT team and they're unfazed (so far)

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

And on the eigthth day, God created the Art of War

And laughing, planned the end.....

[This message has been edited by Purple4Ever (edited 08-11-2000).]

[OsinO]

Crews usually cant fight for s**** and are worth lotsa points. What I do is when I play, I try to get ahead of the objective flags before he even gets to then defend rather then attack. Anyways, there is usually atleast one or two of those secondary smaller objective flags way behind my forces with the ? on them because no one is near them. When I get a crew, I just run them behind my front lines to sit at the flags so I "own" them.

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

¤§ïѤ

[This message has been edited by OsinO (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When I get a crew, I just run them behind my front lines to sit at the flags so I "own" them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In my experience that doesn't always work. I've got a 120mm mortar crew that ran out of ammo sitting on a VL now for several turns and the damn thing won't change from neutral. No enemy troops anywhere near. OTOH I've had a sniper change a neutral to my flag, who knows.

Joe

[OsinO]

Hmmm thats weird...it should have changed. Are you absolutely sure there wasnt any enemies around? The only problem with this "tactic" is that crews arent worth very much, so the second a enemy vehicle or even a squad gets near the flag controlled by your crew, itll change to there flag because the vehicle/squad is a much bigger presence at the flag then that little crew. Then again you shouldnt let any enemies get past your frontlines to get back there right?

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

¤§ïѤ

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you absolutely sure there wasnt any enemies around? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who knows for sure, I play with full FOW so anything is possible but I really doubt it.

Joe

[Juardis]

OK so let's say we're racing against time. You have to relieve x battalion at y location in z hours or they will die and the war will be lengthened by a few months. The only way to get to y is to take a road, or a this building, or a bridge. You're already behind schedule. Do you

a) stop, have a spot of tea and wait for reinforcements? or

send in anything and everything you got to take said objective?

Yes, I laid down cover fire with my MMGs for the infantry assault as well.

I hesitate to say more, but if I must

*

*

*

* SPOILERS

*

*

* BELOW

*

*

*

*

The scenario is Nijmegen. The building I need to take is a VL on my side of the river Waal. If I do not take this building, I do not capture Nijmegen bridge and Arnhem has no hope of getting reinforcements. You, as CIC, have to decide whether preserving some tank crews is worth the lives of 100's of men further up the road. In real life I would sacrifice those tank crews. That is not gamey, it is reality.

[Grognerd_Fogman]

Hmmmm, now this changes my opening strategy a bit. Think I'll see if I can get 2 or 3 AFV's disabled on purpose in the first coupla turns so I can get the crews...yes, yes, I see it all now....CHARGE!..

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Oberst Angsthase]

I believe your unit needs some offensive capability to hold a victory location. I tried securing one with a 251/1 that had had it's gunner shot...no luck.

[Mikeydz]

How many times did you run your test to validate your idea that crews can be effective? How many total men in the crews were involved in the attack. How many defenders?

I ran a test of your theory.

I created 3 5 man crews (Axis Panther Crews) to use as one attack element (supported by a platoon HQ). As a "control" I used 2 German squads with a HQ.

For defenders in this test, I placed 1 US squad, and 1 Platoon HQ hidden in a heavy building (1 story).

I ran each attack 10 times.

The German squads with HQ (total 22 men attacking) suffered on average, 14 casualties, while inflicting 3 to the defending squad/HQ

The crews with HQ (19 men total) suffered on average 10 casualties, while inflicting 1 casualtie TOTAL in the 10 tries at attacking the building.

So, which group did better, the regular troops, who suffered approx 64% casualties, or the crews who suffered approx 53%?

The troops did better. The reason that the crews suffered fewer deaths was because almost to a man they panicked, or otherwise ran for cover as soon as they came under fire, while the real troops in general braved the defensive fire to get close enough to do some damage.

Without knowing the exact circumstance of what you encountered, it's hard to say how your crews survived, but more than likely, the defenders were also at a LOW ammo state. When you add that plus having them suppressed by the MG and intermittent fire from you low ammo squads, is probably the only thing that saved your crews.

In light of this, I still believe that...

A. Using crews in an attack in general is going to be foolish, foolhearty, and ultimately futile.

B. Using crews to lead an attack to absorb damage that would befall your more effective troops is gamey.

If you choose A in desperate measures, I would probably play you again, since your more than likely only increasing my margin of

victory. If you choose B, then I probably wouldn't play you again.

[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 08-12-2000).]

[asl]

I gotta say, all the discussions of what's "gamey" I find amusing. The rules is the rules. A wargame, like a game of chess, is black and white. Somebody wins and somebody loses. Leave the "That's not fair" to your children. All moves are legal until the code is rewritten.

[Mikeydz]

That sounds like some of the things I heard about in my Star Fleet Battle days. "Nothing in the rule book says I can't do this, ect.."

And what happened? That "rule book" became a huge tome filled with rules, sub rules, and sub rules to the sub rules. And what did all those rules inspire? Rules lawyers looking for loopholes "in the code" to exploit to win.

Winning by any means necesarry, including exploits or "gamey" actions, just seems hollow to me.

Mikey

[asl]

The rule book is published by BTS.

Either you can do it or you can't. I don't the anyone Germans raised they're hands at Kursk saying "That's not fair!!"

Jon

[asl]

too much rum...

"I don't think any German's raised they're hands at Kursk saying "That's not fair""

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rule book is published by BTS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you noticed this fact...

The whole "gamey" issue basically goes back to honoring BTS design goals for CM. In making CM, BTS made a fevered attempt to stomp out or render ineffective as many "gamey" tactics as possible. The problem is that it is impossible to program a game that can prevent any and all possible effective gamey tactics. There are to many creative players out there that tinker to come up with tactics that can win, but violate the spirit of the game. My example of the Star Fleet Battles rulebook (those who have seen the thing know what I mean) was to show that no matter how many rules and subrules to but into a game, whether in computer games, or in paper and pencil board games, you can't create a rule to forsee every eventuallity.

The way I see it, BTS has tried hard to prevent gameiness issues, so I'm gonna honor that design philosophy by not using gamey tactics, even if I could. If you choose not to honor that, then that 's your choice.

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All moves are legal until the code is rewritten. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the point in recognizing gamey tactics. I do not want BTS to spend all of its time and energy recoding the program to prevent gamey situations. Their time is better spent improving the game or working on CM2 instead of trying to close all of the gamey loopholes.

I am not telling you that you can not use such tactics. You bought the game so you can play it however you like.

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

Dan