Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 I agree, Bruno, that we SHOULD be able to hide behind dead vehicles...or at least partially. I imagine that it's hard to hide an entire squad behind a tank, but they should get some cover. Hopefully it will be included in CM2. I searched (!) but couldn't find the old thread that includes BTS' reasoning behind their decision to not have dead tanks provide cover. Anyone else out there recall why this decision was made? It's a bit puzzling... 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 Mannheim Tanker: Anyone else out there recall why this decision was made? It's a bit puzzling...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CPU hit when you have to track LOS effects of moving vehicles. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Big difference between gamey and unrealistic, Polar. Using a gun-damaged tank is not gamey (isn't exploiting flaws in the game engine), but I'll argue that it's really unrealistic in most circumstances. Unless the crew is really confident that there are no enemy tanks in the area, you can bet your hiney that they'll be heading for the motor pool as soon as that main gun is knocked out. As a former tanker (still in contact with several guys that still are tankers), I can tell you that we'd tell any commander to get *&%$#ed if he ordered us into a tank battle without a main gun! Your car comment is apples and oranges, BTW. You won't get your car blown out from under you on your way to work just because the door doesn't work <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I wish you gamey/ahistoirical/unrealistic people would settle on a term... I'm getting tired of having to change the symantic tack of my discussion every time a new word comes up. How many times do I have to point out that games tend to represent the more brilliant moments in warfare... if they didn't, where are all the potato-peeling sims? To force a unit to retreat under all the conditions mentioned on this site, you would essentially remove all control of the battle after the first few minutes of fighting. At some point you want to have fun right? Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 this is someone elses comment.. I dont know how to do quotes sorry... "As a former tanker (still in contact with several guys that still are tankers), I can tell you that we'd tell any commander to get *&%$#ed if he ordered us into a tank battle without a main gun!" Ummm. In WWII if you told any commander to get *&%$#ed, they'd shoot you. After careful evaluation I would say "sir yes sir!" and figure I would at least be obeying orders. You are so full of it. [This message has been edited by Slyss (edited 01-17-2001).] 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 Polar: Well, I wish you gamey/ahistoirical/unrealistic people would settle on a term... I'm getting tired of having to change the symantic tack of my discussion every time a new word comes up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe you should just display the flexibility of mind to realise that there are no 'gamey/ahistoirical/unrealistic people' as a coherent group except for in your imagination. That several people don't agree with you on something says nothing more than (you guessed it) they don't agree with you. In fact there is a wide variety of argument behind this disagreement, and I resent being thrown in with the sore losers who cry 'gamey' all the time. Just a suggestion, and you are of course free to display as much ignorance with regard to it as you like. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slyss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 whoops... I don't know how to quote someone elses comment. The top part isn't what i wrote. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 THe thing that gets ge is that nobody has a problem with halftracks that START with MGs sticking their nose out when "there could be tanks around"... I would assume they'd be pretty POed to see a Jumbo retreating when it is STILL more capable then they are. Why not just have all allied forces run all the time... since according to many on this boar, the Allied main guns shouldn't effect German tanks anyway. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Well, maybe you should just display the flexibility of mind to realise that there are no 'gamey/ahistoirical/unrealistic people' as a coherent group except for in your imagination. That several people don't agree with you on something says nothing more than (you guessed it) they don't agree with you. In fact there is a wide variety of argument behind this disagreement, and I resent being thrown in with the sore losers who cry 'gamey' all the time. Just a suggestion, and you are of course free to display as much ignorance with regard to it as you like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Silly Germanboy... I have no dillusions that these players are a cohesive group... I am asking that they BECOME a cohesive group and settle on a term that best reflects what is essentially a unified theme. Which is, essentially: Nothing turns out the way they expect it should. As it is, they are individually muddying a good subject with symantic trash. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saru3000 Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Click the paper-with-arrow icon at the top of the post you wish to quote. [This message has been edited by saru3000 (edited 01-17-2001).] 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 Polar: Which is, essentially: Nothing turns out the way they expect it should. As it is, they are individually muddying a good subject with symantic trash. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which one was that? And as I said - try flexibility of mind, it helps coping with diversity. Trust me. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 So, I'm full of it, eh? Obviously you wouldn't tell an officer to stick it right to his face, but there are ways to disregard stupid orders and still allow the officer to save face. If you think a tank crew is going to mindlessly obey a dumb order, than I'd have to say that you are full of it. But you are entitled to that opinion if it makes you feel better commanding your electronic men to their deaths Polar: I don't think anyone has changed the distinction between gamey and unrealistic. BTS has gone into great detail several times making this distinction, but it still baffles me that so many people insist on lumping the two together. I can go on and on calling a Puma a tank, but it just ain't so. Oh - and I refuse to join any Organization of Anti-gamey Players (we need to come up with a catchy acronym for this one! LOL!). I've never cried foul in any of my PBEMS - but I might disagree with you on your definition of fun. If I have to sit and fend off the charge of a dozen suicidal jeeps and gunless tanks, what's the point of the PBEM? It's much more fun to wax a competent enemy's fully-functional tanks in a more accurate representation of a real battle! If you take joy in this, however, nobody is stopping you. Later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Polar, forgot one point. As far as removing your units shortly into a fight: if you insist on keeping a half-dead tank in a fight where it can't defend itself, a competent opponent WILL remove it for you in short time Someone made a great comment above, that the best thing to do is to pull it back into town (out of sight, basically) and save it for infantry support. This IS realistic. Nobody said to drive it straight off the map... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Which one was that? And as I said - try flexibility of mind, it helps coping with diversity. Trust me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is funny Germanboy... I defend anyone who chooses to use there forces as they see fit, and question anyone who demands that such descisions be taken out of the gamers hands... and I'M inflexible? I think it is your inability to be flexible with my flexibilility that makes it impossible for you to cope with my coping techniques. So in future, rememebr... I have a different view than you do, and a different way of expressing myself than you may be accustomed to. If you don't like what I say or how I say it, maybe you should be a bit more flexible. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Edit - what's the point? You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about your desire to win at all cost instead of attempting historical play, so I should really stop feeding your inferiority complex. Have a nice day. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: That is funny Germanboy... I defend anyone who chooses to use there forces as they see fit, and question anyone who demands that such descisions be taken out of the gamers hands... and I'M inflexible? I think it is your inability to be flexible with my flexibilility that makes it impossible for you to cope with my coping techniques. So in future, rememebr... I have a different view than you do, and a different way of expressing myself than you may be accustomed to. If you don't like what I say or how I say it, maybe you should be a bit more flexible. Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just figured out this quote feature. Nice touch! Anyway, nobody is demanding that ANY decisions be removed from the gamer. Why did you ever think this? Someone simply asked if using a damaged tank in a tank battle is realistic. Some of us responded that IN OUR OPINIONS, it was best to beat feet to cover rather than lose the tank altogether. Nowhere in there do I see someone saying "You MUST move your tanks - and while you're at it, BTS, recode this into the game!" Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Edit - what's the point? You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about your desire to win at all cost instead of attempting historical play, so I should really stop feeding your inferiority complex. Have a nice day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Attempting historical play"? What kind of BS is that? You know next to jack squat about what was and wasn't done in any given pitched battle in the war. This is along the lines of all other "historical accuracey" argument... first sign of trouble, you should run. I have no interest in "playing historically" if by that you mean I need to bow to your whim on what you think I should do with my troops... esspecially those that still have value on the battlefield. Again, your personal attacks are showing your inflexibility in these matters. Nothing short of flying tanks and martian ray guns are "ahistorical" or "gamey". Wild sacrifices for miniscule objectives, incredible chance, and outrageous fortunes were all part of WW II on all fronts. THe push to "play more historical" and define "gameyness" is all just an attemp to remove chance and play out only the more mundane episodes in the war. I'm sure there would be cries of gameyness if I sent a single soldier up a hill to silence a fortified German possition... esspecially if he succeeded. But it happened. This only bothers me because of previous threads where people were discussing their lists of people they wouldn't play because they use such-and-such tactics in a battle. Now it's geting to the point where players with combat fit tanks feel the need to come here and ask if its ok to use them. It's not like we're talking about a mobile artillery piece here... there are pleanty of situations (this sounds like one of them) that it is more beneficial for a tank minus it's main gun to stay in and support the troops... depending on the battle, the tank is probably just as (or more) likely to get sniped in retreat as it is to stay in and support the infantry. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Just figured out this quote feature. Nice touch! Anyway, nobody is demanding that ANY decisions be removed from the gamer. Why did you ever think this? Someone simply asked if using a damaged tank in a tank battle is realistic. Some of us responded that IN OUR OPINIONS, it was best to beat feet to cover rather than lose the tank altogether. Nowhere in there do I see someone saying "You MUST move your tanks - and while you're at it, BTS, recode this into the game!" Sheesh! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed MT... rarely does anyone with you opinion put it quite the level of dignified uncertainty as you do. But what is the point of saving the tank if you lose the battle? It really is a matter of importance. There are infinite numbers of grey areas that would contribute to the descision to fight to the last man, or committ armor that isn't 100% field ready... but CM doesn't model any of that. SO in absence of a good reason not to, there is no good reason not to. Maybe if CM adds a campaign mode where you can deduce that damaged tanks aren't needed given the degree of importance... or even the ability to supply/repair that tank, we should discuss the gameness of risking a tank in an attemp to save a few infantry squads... but we don't have that. If the battle was important, the tank would have been used. You decide how important it is for your forces to win and play accordingly. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Good points, Polar. The only thing I might add is that in the context of the game, losing that damaged tank will cost you points! All Real Life considerations aside, I'd rather keep the tank alive (and the points that go with it) than lose it for no gain. Glad to see that you're not taking my debating points personally. Since this forum is for DEBATING CM issues, I'm not sure why some people see an argument as threatening (not directing this at anyone in particular...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ksak Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 If the High Priest of History didn't read about it, then it could not have happened! WWII involved a couple hundred million people over five continents and lasted for at least seven years...any somebody is going to tell us what actually happened during every 30 minutes of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Germanboy wrote: (In response to why BTS allows for transparent knockedout armor hulls - edit/my syntax) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CPU hit when you have to track LOS effects of moving vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Germanboy, please translate. What is that supposed to mean? Appreciate. ------------------ "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...
karch Posted January 17, 2001 Author Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beer_n_Pretzels: BTW, Great PBEM Game. I think my hull-Sherman will be toast, unless that Hetzer has a reeealllllyyyy slow ROF <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the Hetzer was a bad shot AND had a really slow ROF. Guess I don't have to worry about driving HIM into town to support my infantry with his MG.... hey, maybe I'll rush down my crew into town to help with the fighting. The'd do that, right? (ducking and running) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 In a wartime report on conducting desert warfare Patton stated that machineguns on a tank were far more valuable in combat than the cannon. If he was talking about those 1942 Stuart solid-shot-only 37mm cannons he may have been had a point! Still, it wasn't until the end of WWII that anybody considered deleting the bow mg (Centurion) and that was as a grudging concession to armor protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 Polar wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SO in absence of a good reason not to, there is no good reason not to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now, I agree with you fully Polar, and you can look back at my posts. Not using a weapon based on some notion of theoretical sportsmanship is not something you'll find me doing. Furthermore there seems to be a degree of variance between "what" CM is supposed to do, and "what" at least I've seen it do (bullets bouncing off a knockedout MkIV hull while Mannheim's independent lab testing and I guess, BTS programming says it ain't so). And I thought that so cool and realistic... But due to the illumination of this entire conversation, I can now think of at least one very good reason not to risk getting a tank knocked out. It thereafter becomes transparent, and then bullets will completely ignore the laws of physics and whiz right through the now transparent hull where as a moment before when the engine was running, they couldn't. Not that that would keep me from using a gun damaged tank for anti-personnel support, nor hiding behind it after it is knockedout (more carefully now, thanks to Mann-you might have saved me something there Mann), but I guess I can't help but wonder how we got this cart hitched up to the front of the horse. Now wait a minute. We're onto something here. Since gamey is using the mechanics of the game to your advantage, and knockedout hulls are transparent allowing for a suspension of the laws of physics, then it follows that attempting to keep your tank alive and capable of blocking bullets would then have to be gamey. Ah ha, there you go. To be truely authentic, one should not worry about getting their tank knocked out because to do so is avoiding its ultimate fate of disguising itself as a mirage. Whew, glad we've resolved that. ------------------ "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...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 17, 2001 Share Posted January 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karch: Well, the Hetzer was a bad shot AND had a really slow ROF. Guess I don't have to worry about driving HIM into town to support my infantry with his MG.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah but my Archer got shocked by one your MG42's as soon as it poked its long snout around the corner..Hey BTS, I don't want my Archers to be shocked, so can you please change it so they are invincible (for those with no sense of humour, this is an attempt at sarcasm and also a poke at all those "Hey BTS, you gotta change this!!!" threads...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 And while you're at it, go ahead and give my Hetzers a few more mm of armor TankDawg LOVES bouncing rounds off on my TDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts