Please disarm all crews

[Dr. Brian]

My take ...

If you want to use crews for any purpose, go right ahead.

If you want to use AFVs in suicide rushes, go right ahead. If you want to use AT-teams or sharpshooters as scouts, go right ahead.

You are trying to win the game, and I respect that. You are plaing a game (a game, a game, a game) and using the tools of the GAME, to win the GAME.

I respect your talent and your use of every weapons platform available to you.

In chess (another war game), it is certainly "unrealistic" to have your queen enter "battle," but they do it anyway. Using crews/sharpshooters/AT teams, etc., in CM is no different.

If that doesn't bother you, then using your CM game peices in any way to win shouldn't bother you either. Just remember that they are both games, and you'll be fine.

If you're still stuck on "realism," then maybe you should just join up some army or mercenary outfit, and find a war somewhere in the world. That'll give you the realism you want.

It's a game people. Enjoy it as a game. It's not real, or is it meant to be "real."

Okay, slam away.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Tiger]

Almost all of your units have no way of communicating all the information they see/hear back to you, not just bailed crews. Why is it therefore gamey for just crews and not other units? My other point is that there is no commander high above in a balloon directing the battle, nor does he teleport around the battlefield to have a look-see. All the units in the game are basically on their own once the battle starts. You sitting there in real life directing them take the place of A) the battle plan, individual units' own initiative, modified greatly by the tac ai and the unit qualities programmed into the game, and C)limited role as direct commander, due to the fact you have much information you normally would not have.

Tank gets hit, crew bails and I put them in hiding or have them crawl up to the nearby ridge top to see what's around. This is not their "commander telling them to do this" via a radio, this is me the player having them do this as what I think they may or may not do in that situation.

If you wish to say what a certain unit can or can not do and lable it as gamey or not,then you'd better get busy doing the same for each and every unit in the game.

In a fierce battle where their tank gets taken out in the midst of fighting it would not be unrealistic to have the crew get caught up in the infantry battle, esp if trying to run would get you shot quicker.

john

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Actually, I have a picture of my grandfather being harnessed into the predecessor to the 75mm IG (will post it in a couple of days).

(snip)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas,

I always knew you had a bit of horse's ass in you. Of course, if you were Mace, it would be the other way around...

For the record, it is clear that any tank crew that was unhorsed would dismount it's HMG and run to the nearest abandoned mortar, which it would then fire at any M3A1s carrying a full squad.

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

Ethan

-----------

"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

It's a game people. Enjoy it as a game. It's not real, or is it meant to be "real."

Okay, slam away.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not disagreeing with you, BUT I think it is fair to say it is the intention of Steve and Charles to make their Combat Mission, as realistic as possible. It is really supposed to be a highly detailed REALISTIC WWII combat simulation.

That said it is still a video game or computer game and their are LOTS of video game fans out their that like to play the game as a game to win within the "rules" of the game as it is coded.

And that includes the heartless and brutal use of the bailed crews as cannon foder to make the opponent waste ammo so that the main fresh force of infantry can then take out the now depleted ammo OPFOR.

But that;s life.

I am also a fan of the suicide light tank rush, not realistic but at times (if you get lucky) HIGHLY effective.

again there is still a large differece of opinion on this gamey use of gamey tactics to try to win, because for some here it is really NOT just another videogame.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Jarmo]

What the hell do you mean my men are not real!

I've been living with my men for a year! And I sure as hell won't lead

them to their deaths just because "IT'S NOT REAL"!!!

[Bruno Weiss]

Now wait a second. Every one is talking like all the crews (even if most), are nothing more than two guys with a P-38 or Colt 45. Tain't so. The Flakpanzer 37mm crew as well as the Sdkfz 251/9? (Mortar), crews are fairly well armed, and as I've demonstrated to a couple of my opponents, quite capable of holding their own upon losing their vehicle. (If, not mangled in the process that is). And, I don't see a thing wrong with that.

Six to eight guys (nearly a full German infantry squad), pretty well armed who may have lost a vehicle due to a blown tire, thrown tread, out of gas, or some other non-fatal reason, would not realistically in my opinion automatically high tail it to the rear.

Particularly later in the war when the SS, and Heer Police (American MP's also, but they were slightly nicer about it and didn't shoot you), took a rather dim view of those heading in the opposite direction of the guns. And even more so if you were carrying arms (and you'd better be if caught in one of those SS check points). Good way to end up in a disiplinary battalion if not shot on the spot.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Tiger]

warning: bloody dead cmbo corpse ahead. View at your own displeasure.

yes Jarmo, I'm afraid your men are real.

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Doug Beman]

It seems there will always be a sharp division between those who seek to replicate historical tactics and those who don't. I fear this will lead to separate camps, etc, and people who will say "I would have won if he'd 'played by the rules.'"

Using a gentleman's agreement might work sometimes, but many players will come away from a game feeling the other guy broke the agreement, whatever it was.

It's like the designated hitter rule; it makes it hard to compare the skills of two opponents on even ground.

Please note I've said nothing for/against using vehicle crews as infantry in this post. I don't care if you do or don't, cause I am not the boss of you. Yes, CM is a game.

However, the reason that I (and I'm willing to bet most of us) play is to relive history, and if you knowingly break with historical practice I believe you're muddying the historical fiction (I also believe that losing crews used in infantry maneuvers will lower your game scores)

DjB

[David Aitken]

Historical accuracy and gamey tactics aside, I say, whatever you do I'll give you a good seeing to. If you buy Royal Tigers and nothing else I'll knock them out. If you attack me with a horde of bailed crews I'll mow them down. If you send your crews out scouting I'll hunt them and shoot them. In other words, no matter how "gamey" someone's tactics are, that doesn't mean they have an advantage. =)

[Bruno Weiss]

I think that says it well David. A quick look see of the search word "gamey" reveals enough debate to fill the Library of Congress, which means of course, ever one has their own opinion. Translating into, everyone plays CM a little differently. Using large, basically well armed crews to hold a good firing position is not gamey to me. It's more realistic than not, to me. To someone else, it might seem gamey. Maybe though that someone else thinks nothing of racing a jeep or truck down the highway at full tilt to see what pops at it. All a matter of opinion.

I would say though, a little curious to me, the topic read: "Please disarm all crews". And then we launched into a serious debate as to what is and is not realistic. Hmmm, crews were armed, whether for defense or offense, or to hunt jack rabbits, the fact is they were "really" armed. So, to disarm them would be what? Ah huh, unrealistic. So we would then ask for an unrealistic alteration to the game to provide what in someone's opinion is an imbalance cause by someone else's opinion as to what is realistic, based upon someone elses notion that realistically it wouldn't have happened.

Where's them hanging chads?

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Major Tom]

Unfortunately, CM does not represent everything that could happen in a historical battle, currently no game can. Crews weren't necessarily acting on commands, but their own initiative. It was their decision to retreat or to attack. The circumstances of this being able to happen were due to experience, morale, casualties, enemy strength and circumstance of the course of battle. In most circumstances the crews will probably retreat. Most players will retreat their crews either off the map, or use them as rearguard/prisoner wardens.

Possibly crews should be completely under computer command (either behaving aggressively or passively, determined by the factors I mentioned) UNTIL they get in the command radius of a HQ unit (ie. MP's). This might then result in complaints that too many of their squads went on suicide missions, or, broke and fled when they were needed most. There is NO good solution that will meet the desires of every player.

Personally, I see Crews constantly used in offensive actions as gamey. Their occasional use, to exploit an immediate opportunity (ie kill the Zook that nailed your tank or to accompany a platoon to make its numbers look larger) is not gamey, but, grouping all crews together to act as a human wave IS gamey (ie didn't happen). There are many accounts of groups of crews being used in prepared defences, but, I have yet to hear of a group of crews performing as a major part of an offensive.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>David Aitken

Sorry, pet hate. If this had been translated properly it would read "vehicle". "Panzer" is no more appropriate – it simply means "armoured". PanzerKampfwagen / PzKpfw / Armoured Fighting Vehicle / AFV. "Wagen" does not translate to "wagon", although this seems to be an American favourite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We does the best we can . Unfortunately with repect to translated work we American must take what we can get. I pitty the poor fellow who translated "Tigerfibel". The rhyms and lyrics must have been particularly challenging.

I did find it interesting that "wagon" was consistently employed throughout the book whenever it was refering to the MkIV's employed by the 7th. First time I saw the word used I thought perhaps it was refering to a Horse drawn cart . I had to reread the sentence twice to figure out the intended meaning.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dr. Brian wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's a game people. Enjoy it as a game. It's not real, or is it meant to be "real." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Tom did a good job answering this, but I will just state for the record...

Combat Mission is not "just a game". Yes, it is obviously a game in many respects, but it is also painstakingly designed to be a simulation.

Simulations, by their very definition, are supposed to recreate some sort of environment as realistically as possible. Combat Mission, therefore, is more of a simulation than a game by design, just as Panzer General was designed to be a game more than a simulation. Therefore, if an aspect of CM's simulation "fails" to recreate a particular historical reality we bend over backwards to make corrections to make it closer to the ideal of absolute realism. Obviously, for a bunch of reasons, there is NO SUCH THING as "absolute realism" so the best we can do is try to reach it. This sets CM apart from other wargames, like Panzer General.

The illegitimate use of crews as cannon fodder has been a concern of ours since we first conceived of Combat Mission. We have done many things to reduce the traditional problems with crews. Overall, we feel they are pretty effective. However... not perfect. This thread was started after just such failing of the system to curtail ahistorical (otherwise called "gamey") use of bailed out crews. So obviously we need to do more. And we are planning on it...

We aren't exactly sure what will go into CM2 to make ahistorical use of crews even tougher, but I can tell you that we have some rather interesting ideas. Combined with the existing disincentives, CM2 should not only reduce (hopefully elimiate) effective use of bailed out crews, but also take a huge bite out of two other semi-related "gamey" problems:

1. No surprises after a certain point - in a Quick Battle, at least, one knows that after a certainl point in a battle pretty much exactly what the other player has AND (VERY importantly) that significant additional units will not appear before the game ends. Depending on the circumstances, one can execute a wide range of actions that no sane battlefield commander would EVER make because of the uncertainty of what enemy forces might appear at any second.

This is not so much a problem for a double blind human made scenario, since there is uncertainty (how many 1st time German players were surprised in Last Defense by those Hellcats?).

2. Time to Go for Broke - At some point in a QB one side decides that it is "do or die" time. The player can marshal his last remaining forces and gamble, based on the knowledge noted in #1 above, that he can overtake the enemy just in time for the game to end. The more "gamey" the player, the more crews are used in this last push effort. Less "gamey" players often try a more modest, and therefore more realistic, last attempt and call it quits when it fails to work.

For CM2 we plan on introducing some new game features that will, hopefully, reduce these three semi-related problems cleanly and fairly. Although this might preclude the effective use of some "gamey" tactics (that is the design goal after all ) it will raise the bar for realistic and competitive gameplay overall.

Steve

[Guest Napoleon1944]

The problem isn't the crews, but the AI chosing them as targets. The AI needs to be fine tuned, especially for firing at small formations like AT teams and mortar teams as well as crews.

[Bruno Weiss]

Thanks Steve, this is good to know.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Rommel22]

I know I am one of those people on the list. I played against Babs, and I used crews to rush him, but along with my infantry.

I did it because me plattoons were already mauled badly, some were tired. So I had 3 crew units, so I sent them in too. I don't see what the big deal is? I would guess in real life tank crews would fight in the battle, most likely in a limited way but maybe not.

My moto is, all men to arms!!! So if I have any troops at my disposal, I use them!!!

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

"If you are a Republican under 30 you have no heart! If you are not a Republican and over 30, you have no brain!"

Winston Churchill

[Tiger]

One solution that may please everyone would be to place all crews under AI control for the remainder of the battle. The AI still could have crews bail and get a chance to do stuff like engage nearby AT that took their vehicle/gun out, just as the TacAi does on its own now; or run for the rear areas or stay put and hide.

john

[David Aitken]

Tiger wrote:

> One solution that may please everyone would be to place all crews under AI control for the remainder of the battle.

Not likely. You need control of your crews to get them to safety. Having the AI control them would be to have them operating in a vacuum – they wouldn't notice friendly troops or the actual battle, only whether enemy troops were nearby.

[Juju]

What about a 'move order restriction' for crews, similar to the already existing 'withdraw command'.

Meaning, that crews can ONLY move in a limited arc, and ONLY to the rear. Just a thought.

Sounds reasonable though...

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

I prefer an enemy who's willing to die for his country. That way both him and me have the same aim in mind.

[David Aitken]

Juju wrote:

> Meaning, that crews can ONLY move in a limited arc, and ONLY to the rear.

Been suggested before. What happens if your crew is on the forward edge of an open field? Their only option is to run across the field instead of moving forward to cover and then going around the side. And of course, what if their vehicle was taken out from the rear? They can only move straight into the enemy's arms.

[aka_tom_w]

Any new rules or changes or modifications of the code that make the game even MORE realistic are always welcomed by me.

(and welcomed by most people here I would presume)

But after that I still prefer to play without any house rules or side agreements.

Let the game stand on its own.

Steve has now stated that they are concerned that the rushing of crews to be used as cannon fodder should be dealt with. In the past they have ALWAYS looked at issues like this and provided fair and balanced solutions. I'm sure they will look at and tweak this issue further.

In the mean time we should acknowlegde the HUGE effort already on their part to agree that this gamey use of crews is something they intend to discourage and they have shown us they are more than capable of dealing with it by modifing the code to better model crew action after bail outs and their reactions in new and more realistic ways.

Here's a good question, Name just ONE other game or game designer that has gone to this length to balance real life realism and deal with "gamey" use of crews?

any games come to mind?

None that I know of.

Their attention to the gamey use of bailed crews is a concern, and has been, since they started to design the game. I think it is pretty darn GOOD right now and I think we can count on it getting better.

Thanks again for the GREAT game....

(I think the TCP/IP head to head action is the BEST part to be honest, Lately I've won a few so it feels good! )

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rommel22 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My moto is, all men to arms!!! So if I have any troops at my disposal, I use them!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which in real life might very well get you a court martial (if you survived). Yes, in some situations bailed out crews were used to help with the fight. This is one of the MAJOR reasons we do not put bailed out crews under AI control (like Close Combat). But the systemic use of them as cannon fodder runs contrary to doctrine, good leadership qualities, and above all strategic interests.

This has been discussed each and every time crews have been brought up, and I feel like a broken record repeating myself. Gun/vehicle crews were specialists, very often highly trained and experienced specialists. First of all, NO soldier should be treated as cannon fodder (OK folks, let us forget about the Eastern Front for a sec ), but especially not specialists that have value to your formation far in excess of their ability to shoot a pistol or a rifle. Think about it. If you knew that you would have to fight the enemy in another hour's time, would you send your mortar crews off to near certain death and therefore have no chance of mortar cover for a couple of days? No. And if you ordered some tank company's veteran crews to do draw fire in the open, what do you think would happen to your sorry ass once the armored formation found out about your actions?

Here is the key piece of information that needs to be focused on...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> did it because me plattoons were already mauled badly, some were tired. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this situation you have already LOST. Meaning, the game should end and you should withdraw from the field with "honor" still intact. Doing a mad last-ditched assault with every unit still able to take an order is not realistic nor is it likey to be effective.

Our solutions for CM2 are going to focus on this type of situation. Instead of allowing the player to attempt such a unrealistc and final swing at the enemy, we are looking at ways to clearly indicate that the game is over. If two players want to fight it out to the last man of the last crew, fine. But it should be optional [note: I accidentally said "shouldn't". DOH ] and not allow the possibility of victory shifting over to the player using such tactics.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-02-2001).]

[Guest Rommel22]

Ok, I see your point, but doesn't his game represent you as the General. I as the the commander should make any desicions I see fit, being moral or imoral.

I don't think of it as gamey, but it is wrong for me to send specilist to battle(crews). I am not the only one who fight to the last man, I een other people I play against do the same. and I don't care that is their way and my way of fighting.

You are right that it would end badly in the long run, by sending your crews to their death and later having no crews for your armor. But Like i said, Me or anyone as the commander and in control of the units should should be able to make any desicion he wants being it moral or imoral.

Whatever decision BTS makes will be good as always!

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

"If you are a Republican under 30 you have no heart! If you are not a Republican and over 30, you have no brain!"

Winston Churchill

[Vanir]

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

Any new rules or changes or modifications of the code that make the game even MORE realistic are always welcomed by me.

(and welcomed by most people here I would presume)

But after that I still prefer to play without any house rules or side agreements.

Let the game stand on its own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve wrote:

The more "gamey" the player, the more crews are used in this last push effort. Less "gamey" players often try a more modest, and therefore more realistic, last attempt and call it quits when it fails to work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think these two statement sum up the fundamental differences here.

It's not so much that people are against making the game so you can't use ahistorical tactics (as long as it's done right), as it is a resistance to adhering to an unspoken set of House Rules where they are expected to limit their play in ways beyond what the game does.

Calling a person a gamey player may not be quite as bad as accusing them of cheating, but is essentially saying they are dishonorable (a view that Steve hinted at himself). This is a bit harsh unless there was a gentleman's agreement violated, which was openly made, not to do certain things. Expecting an opponent to stick to an unspoken standard of acceptable tactics (which varies greatly from person to person) and then crying "GAMEY!" when they don't and you lose is unfair and smells of sour grapes. This is especially true when the gamey tactic used is of dubious value, as in the case of crew rushes.

I honestly don't know what the best solution is, but I trust that BTS will figure something out. If control is to be given over to the TacAI there will have to be some serious improvements made here, as the TacAI is a bit gamey itself at times when it makes units do blatantly suicidal things, as people have pointed out above.

Lastly, I feel, as some others here, that this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Bailed crews are so weak and ineffective now that if you use them in an attack you are just giving your opponent points. If a player loses after being the "victim" of such an attack, they would have lost anyway.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 01-02-2001).]

[DraGoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Our solutions for CM2 are going to focus on this type of situation. Instead of allowing the player to attempt such a unrealistc and final swing at the enemy, we are looking at ways to clearly indicate that the game is over. If two players want to fight it out to the last man of the last crew, fine. But it should be optional [note: I accidentally said "shouldn't". DOH ] and not allow the possibility of victory shifting over to the player using such tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This I like, allow those who want to battle it out to have that option, but please don't cripple crews any further.

RANT

Before I say any more I will state that I do not and would not use my crews deliberately as Infantry, (as someone said already they are not up to that), I even provide an extra M5 HT in my Operations to be used as the Sqn Ambulance for collecting crews and ferrying them to safety (this is realistic and yes Germanboy I have researched it) (wish I could set the ammo at 0 though).

However I hate to see these 'highly trained soldiers' abandon a lightly damaged or immobilised vehicle and debus in a routed state, unable to defend themselves. I mentioned specific examples contrary to this behaviour in a previous thread on this subject.

Everyone has the following option, if you don't like the tactics (and I use the term loosely) employed by your opponent, vote with your feet, don't play the b*gger again. I play mainly on the LAN (God Bless CM TCP/IP) or v the 'Puter. It concerns me that in such illustrious company (this forum ) so many cases of gamey tactics are apparent.

I would not like to see realistic elements of CM crippled or dumbed down just to prevent their misuse by some gamey individuals. /RANT