Please disarm all crews

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

The missing link to realism there, is that CM allows a battle to continue on until the last man is standing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't. Enough losses and your men autosurrender.

One of us is missing something obvious...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bruno wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM in it's present form, invites the use of crews in the manner in which some are doing, others are complaining about, and still others say they don't really care much about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say that CM "invites" the use, rather certain players are either used to playing this way or spy what they think is a chance to get around the fact that, from a realism standpoint, the battle is over. This is inspite of a bunch of disincentives we have built into the game, which is the opposite of inviting something. As has been stated here before, some people THINK they are gaining an advantage from the ahistorical use of crews, when in fact they might be handing the other side a stronger victory rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact is, if CM had been envisioned to handle the problem in the first place, then the battle or a battle would be ended by the AI when a certain percentage of causalities had been reached by one side or the other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what the Autosurrender feature does However, it was built with some flaws and shortcomings (see below).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't see where CM is broke. Are we declaring it so?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some gamers certainly are, but more importantly WE (meaning BTS) are. As Jumbo pointed out, a system to end a game prior to the last turn already exists. It works sometimes, but it has flaws. The major flaw is that we were purposefully generous with the conditions for declaring an early end to the battle. Because of some design shortcomings we feel there is a need to revisit this feature and redesign it to be "smarter". That will happen for CM2.

Jackal wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While reading a book covering the Korean war it mentioned many occasions to where officers and NCO's would collect as many men as possible to take up weapons and fight. Drivers, medics, . . .etc. it didn't matter, the man still had the potential to aim and shoot!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This happened in WWII fairly often too. Especially on the Eastern Front where the entire fighting strength of a large formation could be eliminated in a couple of hours. The issues we have with this is that these situations were done only under DIRE emergencies or inbetween engagements (i.e. formed into units while no bullets were flying). In both situations the rounded up "extras" were used for DEFENSIVE purposes and, once the crisis was passed, released back to their previous positions. They were not used as cannon fodder either. Since some gamers regullarly use even crews, on the spot, for offensive purposes, with NO regard to future employment (realistc abstraction)... it is safe to say that defense of crew use in combat is not realistic even when taking into account things like you read about happening in Korea.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-03-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

Well, I stand corrected on the "auto-surrender" feature. I was not aware of that, and therefore I suppose I can then declare myself and my opponents "realistic" players in as much as none of us ever experienced it, and sleep much more soundly tonight knowing everyone on this hear board approves.

It's your game feller, and your company, if you want to say that the "crew" issue makes CM broke, thems your words, not mine. As I said, its just fine and dandy to me and a bunch of other folks as well, and IMO the entire issue of crews in combat, at least in the context of what we have been discussing here is a much-a-do over nothing.

I've had opponents use them against me, (so what, wah), I've used them in a limited fashion, generally spotting in some hidden area near or behind their vehicle, and the larger crews I've used to engage, either providing them with a good firing position, or again near their vehicles. That is not IMO cannon fodder, and it is not IMO gamey. What is gamey to me is a jeep or truck flying down the road to see what will fire at it. (Much more of a worrisome gamey glitch than the issue of crews). Let's eliminate jeeps and trucks?

Again, like I said before. This thread started with the proposition of "Please disarm the crews", all in the name of realism, and overlooking the point that crews were armed, like it or not, and to disarm them would be...unrealistic. There are a bunch of unrealistic things that could be done to modify or alter CM in the name of attempting to fit it into this fellow or that fellows perception of what is or isn't realistic. Where might that approach end up?

Anyway, great do what you want with it, you own the copyright, I'd just suggest concentrating on more important issues is all. But, eh, don't let me stop ya.

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

"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 Big Time Software]

Bruno:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway, great do what you want with it, you own the copyright, I'd just suggest concentrating on more important issues is all. But, eh, don't let me stop ya. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, we won't I could think up a bunch of "realism" things that the MAJORITY of people playing CM wouldn't have missed if we hadn't included them. If we had run them by this wider crowd most would have said "don't bother, spend time on something else". However, if we removed these same features now the majority would probably miss them and call for them to be put back in. In other words, you might THINK that it is a non-issue, but maybe after you play with the feature you will find out that it is at least somewhat better with it. Realism fans, of course, will most likely like it more, but each to their own.

And that is the message here. What we are proposing on doing will NOT impact a mutally agreed to "fight to the death" game. Some sort of dialog will probably come up and say "Such and such a side has been declared the winner. Do you wish to fight on to the last man?" If one of the players is satisfied with the game's conclusions as is, the game ends. Babra and I, if we were playing each other, most likely would both agree to end it here. If the game was played between Babra and Dr. Brian, perhaps only Babra would elect to end the game, which would in fact end it. But if Bruno and Dr. Brian were playing, perhaps both of you would elect to continue the fight. All three situations are OK in my book, and therefore whatever solution we come up with should make everybody happy.

Steve

P.S. The reworking of the Autosurrender thing shouldn't take too much coding work, and therefore not a big deal from a development standpoint.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi

sorry All

I have been away from the board and the internet for about 2.5 days so I just wanted to bump this on to the top to keep track of it.

You Really MISSES a heck of alot if you don't read this board for 72 hours, I don't know how Steve and Charles keep up with it

Good to be back

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

This is still agreat Thread!

-tom w

[Jarmo]

But there's not too much to add to what has already been said.

What I'd see as the perfect solution, would be to arm the crews

with realistic™ weaponry, and then have some sort of compelling

incentive to not fodderize™ them.

Campaigns?

Realistic means different weapons for tank crews, and different

for mortarmen.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I'd see as the perfect solution, would be to arm the crews with realistic™ weaponry, and then have some sort of compelling incentive to not fodderize™ them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out this informative thread on crews:

On tanks and crews, a case example

[Slapdragon]

I mentioned this on an earlier thread, but it may stand a repeat. While 90% of the time a tank crew will run away and nothing is gained by sacrificing them, historically there are instances of tank crews making startling advances in the face of the enemy. One, at Vic-Sur-Seille, had the crews of 6 knocked out Shermans take up their SMGs and charge a line of 88 AT guns defended buy Volkstrum covering a roadblock. The tankers captured the position and the three guns.

The difference here is that the tankers were fanatics, they were armed with more than pistols (US tanks carried M3 SMGs used mostly for guard duty when in logger) they were one of the best tank units in ETO and they faced a group of poorly trained German Volstrum who folded when part of their line was taken and the guns lost rather than counter attacking.

I use this point though to illustrate that tank crews, expended mortars, battalion HQs, and empty FOs should not be used to attack enemy positions in a vain attempt at victory. The rush at the road block at Vic-Sur-Seille was so unusual that few in command would believe it happened that way despite evidence that it did, and even fewer commanders thought expending trained tank crews in infantry charges was a smart use of resources. If they are still alive, they will be in another tank in a few days -- specialists without infantry training are only used in the front during absolute emergencies.

[Tiger]

I just had a 75mm inf gun crew lose their gun then they became ok! a turn later and proceeded to shoot it out in front of their position, actually in front of my whole line, for the rest of the battle, with their pistols (they lived). I didn't ever give them commands after they abandoned their gun. I'm guessing with BTS's new auto-surrender tweak they would have routed or surrendered as soon as they lost their gun

john

ps~ I agree with Bruno, in that I kept thinking this crew should have had at least one submachinegun/machinepistol instead of just pistols.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tiger,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm guessing with BTS's new auto-surrender tweak they would have routed or surrendered as soon as they lost their gun <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends. If that was their last combat effective unit, and the enemy was in much better shape, then it is possible the game would end earlier. But losing the last significant non-infantry based unit won't mean a surrender all by itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ps~ I agree with Bruno, in that I kept thinking this crew should have had at least one submachinegun/machinepistol instead of just pistols.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been brought up many times in the past. It is realistic for non-vehicle crews to have something more than pistols, but it is probably on the whole realistic to have vehicle crews with nothing more than pistols. When one has 5 seconds to abandon a vehicle the last thing you think of doing is unstrapping a SMG and finding the ammo pouches. But in any case, crews don't have more than pistols to help reduce their effectiveness as infantry. It is very hard to direct people away from abusing crews so this will remain until we figure out a system that can do without it.

Steve

[Tiger]

Well this was a gun crew,as opposed to a tank crew. I figured the officer in charge or NCO would carry a submachinepistol/gun on his person so there'd be nothing to "grab" as they abandoned their gun.

Maybe a solution could be to have crew have a % chance to ignore a player's orders (say, out of command) each turn, based on crew experience.

Conscript or green crews: 25% chance they would ignore any orders the player gives them and act under tacai. i.e. 75% chance the player could order them around.

Regular crews: 50% chance they would ignore.

Veteran crews: 75% chance they ignore player's orders.

Cracvk & Elite: 99% chance they ignore player's orders.

Now, ignoring player's orders means that the crew remains under tacai or remains panicked/routed, whichever one you think is best. Notice the greater experience of the crews, the less likely they are to do what the player tells them.

Reason: the more experience a crew has the more likely they will want to head for the rear areas.

This way conscript and green crews would be more likely to do something stupid (like assault enemy positions). Moving up the experience chain you find your crews more and more unwilling to follow your orders and remain alive instead.

Now this would be checked each turn, with any crew units being "in command" or "out of command". Try to "crew rush" with this and it becomes more likely each turn you'll end up in disaster, even more so with more experienced crews. Try to scout using crews and you run into the same potential problems very quickly.

Now if having crews remain under tacai like this is a problem as has been hinted, fix by making tacai crews go into hiding automatically every turn (the stop and drop till they get away routine). The only thing that would affect this hiding is if enemy were close enough the crew would want to shoot back, like normal tacai acts.

john

ps~yeah I am delirious with flu so this is prolly really whacky idea

[MadmaN]

hehe this reminds me. i was playing a scenario i had made myself the other day, and i had a lynx flying through a clearing in the scattered trees. it was a risk to try to get behind the lines and blast one someones tailpipe. then the lynx ran into a Jeep carrying a bazooka team. the lynx messed the jeep up, i dont know what ahppened to the driver, but the 2 bazooka team members survived. They screwed up my lynx, then i ordered the lynx crew over to where the bazooka team was. then they went over and had about 2 turns of hand to hnd combat, my lynx crew won. bhwahahah. it was 2 bazooka team members vs 3 tank crew(3 for the lynx crew).

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tiger, not all of what you wrote is "really whacky" Much of what you wrote does make sense, but for various reasons we can not (not "will not") arm crews with anything but pistols through at least CM2. When we rewrite the game engine we will definitely do things differently.

Thanks,

Steve

[Jarmo]

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

for various reasons we can not (not "will not") arm crews with anything but pistols through at least CM2. When we rewrite the game engine we will definitely do things differently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good enough for me.

Until the next big thread about this.

[Slapdragon]

bump

[Tiger]

Oh I understand about not giving anything but pistols, was just reasoning out-loud I guess

john

[Dr. Brian]

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

Some sort of dialog will probably come up and say "Such and such a side has been declared the winner. Do you wish to fight on to the last man?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

I see where you're coming from, and I think it's a start for a "good" compromise to meet the needs to both the "simulators" and the "gamers."

However, I know that I get enjoyment by pulling a win out of almost utter defeat. For example, in the case you mentioned, where due to some "auto surrender" one player is "declared" the winner.

Let's say we both agree to fight on. However, by some true, innovative play, the "original" loser manages to become the new "winner." I'd like to request that you just make sure CM will be able to actually re-determine the new winner. That's part of the fun, of being a "gamer" as opposed to being someone that is a straight "simulator."

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!