Hakko Ichiu Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I don't know about the rest of you, but I like my tang a little gamey. Hmmm, stinky tang, snrfl, snrf...*drool* ------------------ Ethan ----------- "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 LOL! If it ain't gamey, it ain't tang [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Using a tank w/gun damage for infantry support? Hell yeah thats gamey! Just like it's gamey for a soldier to pick up a gun off a dead soldier to defend himself. Know whats even more gamey? A soldier urinating on a rag and using it as a crude gas mask when his standard one is dropped or destroyed. Soldiers were often court martialed for what I just stated! War sucks, its deadly, and its hell on earth...use what ever works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 "Use whatever works" I know what you mean... but that's the rub. I want to act historically correct... even if it isn't doesn't always help me win. Not always, but some games where we go out of our way to pick historical unit mixes, I'd like to make sure I am using them historically too. If the rule 90% of the time was to retreat back to the motor pool, then that's what I will do. I know it's picking nits... Scott [This message has been edited by karch (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Yeah I know what you mean karch. I just meant that in real life, I could very easily see a tank with a damaged gun being used for infantry support. Especially if times were desparate, as they usually are in war. The way I see it is if CM lets you do it (exception: bug issues), then it probably was done at one point or another during the war-within reason of course ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 That's the funny thing, Guy w/gun, having been a tanker in Real Life , I would NOT have stuck around in a tank battle if I lost my main weapon. Screw the infantry! LOL! What good are you going to do the infantry if you're dead 10 seconds later from that enemy tank that you can't touch...a little common sense here If all of the enemy's tanks in the area are dead, however...look out crunchies, here I come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 What an amazing thread. Zukmuk wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kind of off topic but I have a question. In CM, does it allow for infantry to take cover behind a knocked out tank?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I assure you Zukmuk, nothing is off topic in this thread. Someone said no to your question, and maybe they meant no it won't stop all the bullets, which would I think be dependent upon a whole lot of angle variables, but anyway unless that is a 1.1 change, then yes, you can take cover behind knocked out tanks, (hehe, and it's only gamey if it helps you win, otherwise your opponent is gamey for firing on your knocked out tank). A game or so back, I hid a MG42 close in to the treads of a knocked out MkIV, and watched in satisfaction as a Vickers MG peppered the MkIV's hull with richochets' attempting to get the MG42, to absolutely no avail. So, to my thinking they make pretty big metal rocks. ------------------ "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 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Just reread my last post. I don't want you to think that I adamantly disagree with you Guy. I just meant that most of the time, you won't last long anyway without a gun, so why stick around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Actually, Bruno, unless BTS changed this in a patch, dead vehicles stop nothing. A burning vehicle can obscure visibility, but IIRC they provide zero cover...wish they did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Mannheim Tanker wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, Bruno, unless BTS changed this in a patch, dead vehicles stop nothing. A burning vehicle can obscure visibility, but IIRC they provide zero cover...wish they did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know if they changed it or not, or if so when, (this was in 1.05), but otherwise then I guess I imagined all of that. I imagine then my opponent was pretty surprised also. Since it makes all of the sense in the world to me, I regularly hide units behind knocked out vehicles if and when the situation warrants or on the way to somewhere else, as well as peep around the corners of them to spot, and so far in any game, not one of them has been brought down by fire, most of the time not being seen. Not sure about the BTS mechanism protocols, but since it seems to work, I think I'll just keep on doing it. ------------------ "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 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Maybe I should try it too. This might call for an experiment to find out one way or another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Oh it's no problem tanker. If in command and I had a Sherman that lost a gun and the field was swarming with panthers, I'd tell him to get lost before he bit the bullet as well. I just meant that in WWII if the need was there for infantry support, and the tank wasn't in immediate danger, it seems logical that they would be used that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Dunno Mannheim, only know particularly in the case of that MG42, he was positioned prone, hidden, up against the tread of the knocked out MkIV, and dead ahead at about 200 meters was a Vickers just peppering the devil out of the position, and the bullets were pinging off the MkIV's hull like hornets. That was the best thing I've seen, otherwise when I have someone going hether thether and there is a knocked out wreck inbetween, I'll pause them behind it for cover, or sometimes to peep around the corner of it. I've never seen any of them get hit at that point from any incomming fire. If I'd known about all this, maybe I wouldn't have tried it at all. Hehe, think I'll put the manual away in the desk. ------------------ "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 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 I know the post was not specific to my situation.. but the mortar round came in around turn 4, and none of his tanks have been taken out yet. To be prudent and still use as much FP as I can, I could back the JdPzIV back down the reverse slope and leave him there until I, hopefully, kill all his tanks.. then run up the JdPzIV over the hill and down into town to support my infantry. Still feels a little questionable if is was SOP. I'm sure it was done from time to time, but I'd bet they would retire more often than not. Especially if it was at the beginning of an attack and you hadn't even left your own starting line. You'd probably call it good/bad luck and go back to get fixed. If he keeps firing his mortars and gets a couple top hits, it may be a moot point anyway! karch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Just completed my little experiment, Bruno. You might want to try it out yourself to verify the results, but I'm pretty confident in my conclusions. I set up a QB (hotseat) with the German infantry defending behind some armor set up for a quick death by fire. The M10s made quick work of the tanks and HTs I set up, and then backed off to allow the American infantry to attack. The results: The Germans fired back - and were fired upon - THROUGH the wrecks. This included both an abandoned vehicle and a burning one. I also try it from different angles, with the same results. In fact, the Germans often beat feet for some cover (scattered trees) when things got too hot. I tried this with 1.1, so it appears that no patch has been made to correct this - that means you have the luckiest grunts in the world! [This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Okay Mann, whatever. I mean don't get me wrong. I don't doubt your test, I can only tell you what I've seen happen while playing. And them Vickers bullets were pinging on that MkIV hull like hail on a tin roof. I guess until I see it isn't working for me, why would I change? I mean I ain't so much worried about proving which way the river flows, my problem is to cross over it. Thanks though Mann for running the test. You can believe I'll be a lot more careful about it from now on. Wait a second though. I had to think about this for a couple. Through the midsts of all the debates over what is, what isn't, could be, might be, probably was, thought to be, and Uncle Joe said, page 458.5 said, someone's training doctrine is thought to have said, or gee, if they'd a had it they'd a used it arguments and rationalizations, if not presumptions towards what is and is not historic, what gets included and what does not get included, much less what is gamey, ...and knocked out armored vehicles do not stop bullets as they surely would in reality? Hehe, okaydoke. Thanks Mann, really. If I were in any doubt about my reality check, it's just been removed. ------------------ "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 01-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Hehe...wasn't trying to prove you wrong, Bruno. To the contrary - I was REALLY hoping that BTS had changed the modeling to include vehicle "sheltering" from the storm. Alas...I'll have to stick to the woods for now as I'm not as charmed as you Too bad, as there never seems to a short supply of burning vehicles on my side of the lines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterk Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Of course it's not gamey! At the beginning of the war, the Germans used to disguise unarmored unarmed vehicles up as tanks and drive them into battle. Stuka crews were instructed (by Rommel himself) to keep diving even after they had run out of bombs and ammo just to scare the hell out of the poor fellows on the ground. Go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 No Mann, no offense taken at all. You didn't prove me wrong, you proved me right. But, just about something else is all. Anyway, I know what happened with the MG42 and the MkIV, saw it happen, and my opponent saw it also, just neither one of us made a big deal out of it on account of it was actually a realistic thing. Guess maybe, we should have. ------------------ "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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 One problem in CM with trying to fake your opponent into thinking you have an operable main gun.. is that the damage reporting might be a little too accurate, especially at longer ranges. I know that it's not always right, but from 500yd, it's hard to imagine you would know the difference between ANY turret hit, and a gun hit, let alone know if the gun is damaged. Not a big problem, but I think we know a little more about our opponent's tanks than we really might in war. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 As far as I know Karch, one need only as you say, read the armor hit data, to see that. Though I don't believe it shows up under the labels thereafter. So an opponent might lose track of which one had the damage. But in a larger picture, IMO it is increasingly silly to (not pointing at anyone in particular), to continue to debate all the nuisances of what is, and what is not gamey, when there are aspects of the game itself which are gamey. It's like debating what is and what is not malfeasance while playing monopoly. If a knocked out armored vehicle's hull magically turns transparent when its crew abandons it, unlike the reality of physics that says it would not, then worrying about whether or not its use up to that point without a main gun was gamey, I should think, is worrying about something born out of a hopeful desire for the game to be more realistic that it really is. The more important point to debate being, is it gamey to have knocked out armor vehicles not stop small arms fire after their realistic or gamey use has left them knocked out. ------------------ "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 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I'm not looking to get anyone upset, nor stir up a flame war, but I'm just laughing here in amazement. We had that whole discussion why crew use was "gamey" because it was unrealistic. Many of the same people above that said crew use was ahistorical have just said it's okay to leave an AFV w/o a main armament (MA) in play. If that ain't ahistorical, I don't know what is. When the MA is disabled, any TC is going to leave the battlefield at the first opportunity, otherwise, they stand the chance of finding themselves in a gun duel, without a gun. As the all knowing player (and thereby knowing your opponent's TO&E), you are using "gamey" knowledge knowing there are no weapons to knock out your AFV. Something a tank commander wouldn't necessarily know. You guys crack me up sometimes. In any event, I consider it "gamey" and a tactic worthy or use in any of my games. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Sorry Karch, i just woke up! I then wrote a 5 page reply, only to lose it because my computer froze...grrr In a nutshell, If you can get the back to cover you can then use it as mobile MG nest to support your grunts in the town... BTW, Great PBEM Game. I think my hull-Sherman will be toast, unless that Hetzer has a reeealllllyyyy slow ROF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: As the all knowing player (and thereby knowing your opponent's TO&E), you are using "gamey" knowledge knowing there are no weapons to knock out your AFV. Something a tank commander wouldn't necessarily know. You guys crack me up sometimes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bit of a chip on the old shoulder, eh? Well - I did say that crew use is ahistorical (mind you, not gamey), and I said here that I think that using a tank like this is ahistorical. Having said that - if you do insist, I believe that the benefit of using a crew in a wasteful manner compared to the point-cost is much higher than if you waste your 200 point Tiger in that way, because more likely than not you will not win the game anymore. The same can not be said for ahistorical use of crews. So the game punishes you adequately for ahistorical use in one case, and not in the other. Not really comparable cases, if you spend a second thinking about it, once you have come down from your fit of laughter. Have a nice day. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karch: One problem in CM with trying to fake your opponent into thinking you have an operable main gun.. is that the damage reporting might be a little too accurate, especially at longer ranges. S<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually Karch, I had no idea about the damaged gun, as I had the 'detailed armoured hits' turned of...I just watched the fall of shot and heard a great big CLANG as the round hit the tank! I actually thought the 4.2" mortar round took out your tank commander... Mind you, I hope we are talking about the same tank, otherwise my last turn move could be a a real FUBAR I do agree that detailed armoured hits does provide a lot of information. I'll add that as an option to the PBEM template. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts