jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I couldn't agree more. AHHHHHH!!!! I am gonna shoot myself. Jeff ------------------ When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: AHHHHHH!!!! I am gonna shoot myself. Jeff Chill out, dude! Sorry for being so brusque; I obviously wasn't getting what you were saying - I post from work with prying eyes around me. You didn't help yourself with the "Get Real" comment and general tone, but we are now on the same page - I think. I am still not convinced of the value of modelling that at present - once we hav hardware capable of all those calculations, it would be a natural. For now, as pointed out, there are other things to concentrate on. The jeep crew firing away does seem silly, but I can live with it - remember that the graphics on the screen don't show exactly what is happening in the game engine. I don't know if that can be used in this case to explain this away, but it helps me sleep at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 As to tanks running over their own guys: I recall in an old WWII Sherman tanker memoire an anecdote about a Sherman accidentally running over a line of wounded paratroopers laid out on stretchers along the roadside, just off the beach. Horrible. As to tanks running over enemy: I think this SHOULD be modeled for CM2. The KV heavies or T34 drivers would often drive over German AT guns instead of shooting simply because the guys in the turret were practically blind while buttoned up! Only the drivers could see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: Or how about vehicles driving fast and buttoned in the fog or night? They can collide head on. Also how about in town fighting? You tell your HT to race up the street and hang a left. As it drives up there is gets buttoned and then as it turns the corner it runs headon into a tank going the other way. What then? Currently in the game now the tank will just push the other vehicle backwards until something else happens. I am proposing that the HT just abandons, because that would be the closest thing to reality, atleast compared to what we have now. Jeff I think you also need to realize that the top speed of an armoured halftrack is quite low; so whipping around a corner wouldn't result in high speed collisions; I drive M35 trucks for the Army up here and I think most drivers are pretty conservative with regards to speed. US HTs were especially bad for shedding tracks at speed IIRC and German HTs were slightly underpowered - I don't know what top speed was but it was nowhere near 55 mph, and probably closer to 35 or so (Jason?) You make a good point - such collisons are destined to happen. I would guess it is more a question of processing ability in current hardware than anything else. For the very few times this is likely to happen blah blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Chill out, dude! Sorry for being so brusque; I obviously wasn't getting what you were saying - I post from work with prying eyes around me. You didn't help yourself with the "Get Real" comment and general tone, but we are now on the same page - I think. I am still not convinced of the value of modelling that at present - once we hav hardware capable of all those calculations, it would be a natural. For now, as pointed out, there are other things to concentrate on. The jeep crew firing away does seem silly, but I can live with it - remember that the graphics on the screen don't show exactly what is happening in the game engine. I don't know if that can be used in this case to explain this away, but it helps me sleep at night. I geuss I just over-react too much since it seems one cannot mention, let alone, suggest some minor change without people jumping in runnin off with the idea in directions you never intended and then prompty attack your suggestion from positions you never suggested. Now if you understand that, I'm amazed since after reading it myself I am confused. Bah... I have thrown in my two cents. I am headed back to the pool, where I am "understood". Feh. Jeff ------------------ When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: If you were the two guys in the jeep the first thing you would have done when you relized that you had just ran head on into a JpIV would be to RUN LIKE HELL! Thus the jeep would abandon. I don't think that the tank would necessarily roll over the jeep. That depends on the placement of the treads. Unless the tank has big all-terrain forward-facing treads, the tank is more likely to ram the jeep. As I understand it, the treads of WWII tanks were pretty well covered up, to minimize immobilizing track hits. Given the relatively low speeds involved in a tank/jeep ram, the jeep is likely going to slide and get dented a bit, but would probably still be drivable. Abandon the jeep? You can abandon it if you want. But if I were in a jeep that was just rammed by an enemy tank, I would rather try to drive away in the jeep, rather than get out and take my chances on foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Since this is a wargame we'd need ramming rules: -Tanks can only ram bogged trucks (both sides). -Tanks can crush AT guns and artilery pieces. -Tanks cannot run over individual troops. -Ramming other tanks will (most of the time) immobilize both tanks,and (sonetime) wreck both guns. -Tanks can 'enter light buildings for cover o& concealment BUT occassionally the building will collapse, immobilizing the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by Leonidas: Abandon the jeep? You can abandon it if you want. But if I were in a jeep that was just rammed by an enemy tank, I would rather try to drive away in the jeep, rather than get out and take my chances on foot. Heh! I am pretty sure that if I were in a jeep that was about to be run over/crushed/otherwise forcibly rearranged by a large, heavily armored vehicle, I would proceed posthaste by the clearest path that was nearest 90° from the angle of approach of said heavily armored vehicle, on foot thank you just the same. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: In reality I would say that the jeep crew would abandon at the least. I'd say in reality they'd drive out of the way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: Or how about vehicles driving fast and buttoned in the fog or night? They can collide head on. Also how about in town fighting? You tell your HT to race up the street and hang a left. As it drives up there is gets buttoned and then as it turns the corner it runs headon into a tank going the other way. What then? Currently in the game now the tank will just push the other vehicle backwards until something else happens. I am proposing that the HT just abandons, because that would be the closest thing to reality, atleast compared to what we have now. Why not have the vehicle drive out of the way or reverse out of the way. That seems more realistic then giving a tank a kill. Perhaps the AI should react better than doing what you propose. Could you imagine the new use for gun damaged tanks if you could kill vehicles by ramming? Bleh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: I'd say in reality they'd drive out of the way.... Ahhh.. once again Cavscout chimes in with a comment completely off the point of the discussion. The situation is... Vehicle A and Vehicle B have already collided. Therefore one vehicle cannot automatically drive off. The situation needs to be resolved better then it currently is. Jeff ------------------ When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: I'd say in reality they'd drive out of the way.... Assuming they kept their wits. On a peacetime exercise, I was codriver in a 6/4 ton truck; another 6/4 ton was backing up, and my buddy at the wheel froze. It was night time, and instead of going by the regs, the other driver wasn't using a ground guide, but backing up blind. Buddy saw the truck coming right for him - instead of honking the horn, he starts to yell "stop" through a closed window. One blast on the horn would have done it, but he panicked. The truck backed into us, with no damage - the other driver, a MWO, was not impressed, and had to lower himelf to filling out an accident report! But if someone can freeze up like that in a benign environment, I'd be loathe to say with 100 percent certainty what one driver would or would not do with a 30 ton tank bearing down on him - there is a wide range of options (from "s**t" to "go blind"), and the beauty of CM is that in many situations, this full range is often portrayed (often to our dismay and the detriment of the unit involved!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: Why not have the vehicle drive out of the way or reverse out of the way. That seems more realistic then giving a tank a kill. Perhaps the AI should react better than doing what you propose. Could you imagine the new use for gun damaged tanks if you could kill vehicles by ramming? Bleh! Okay, I can see the point on people purposely driving their gun damaged tanks into other vehicles trying to knock them out, but then again if you wanted to do that, why shouldn't you be allowed to? If the game is modeled correctly then on average one should be punished by adverse effects of trying to use ones tanks for battering rams. Now tell me, if you ran into a tank head on you would just "back up"? What? That would be crazy! With the main gun and the machine guns blazing away at ya the whole time. Yeah, right. I would think abandoning would be a better choice. Jeff ------------------ When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 All this because some German AFV got killed by a jeep... *SNIFF* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudeLover Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Actually, IIRC tanks can run over guns and mortars, but not anything else. ...perhaps I should try this now to see if that's right, but I'm at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: Okay, I can see the point on people purposely driving their gun damaged tanks into other vehicles trying to knock them out, but then again if you wanted to do that, why shouldn't you be allowed to? If the game is modeled correctly then on average one should be punished by adverse effects of trying to use ones tanks for battering rams. Now tell me, if you ran into a tank head on you would just "back up"? What? That would be crazy! With the main gun and the machine guns blazing away at ya the whole time. Yeah, right. I would think abandoning would be a better choice. Jeff Just make it easy. Any tank seen makes crews bail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: Now tell me, if you ran into a tank head on you would just "back up"? What? That would be crazy! With the main gun and the machine guns blazing away at ya the whole time. Yeah, right. I would think abandoning would be a better choice. I wouldn't jump out and run. That just makes you a target on foot. What's scarier, hit in a jeep or run over on foot. Reverse isn't the only option, trying to the sides is just as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Assuming they kept their wits. On a peacetime exercise, I was codriver in a 6/4 ton truck; another 6/4 ton was backing up, and my buddy at the wheel froze. It was night time, and instead of going by the regs, the other driver wasn't using a ground guide, but backing up blind. Buddy saw the truck coming right for him - instead of honking the horn, he starts to yell "stop" through a closed window. One blast on the horn would have done it, but he panicked. The truck backed into us, with no damage - the other driver, a MWO, was not impressed, and had to lower himelf to filling out an accident report! But if someone can freeze up like that in a benign environment, I'd be loathe to say with 100 percent certainty what one driver would or would not do with a 30 ton tank bearing down on him - there is a wide range of options (from "s**t" to "go blind"), and the beauty of CM is that in many situations, this full range is often portrayed (often to our dismay and the detriment of the unit involved!) And you can find just as many, if not more, "instances" of people not "freezing" at the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: Just make it easy. Any tank seen makes crews bail. You are hopeless. You cannot even admit there is a problem let alone be serious on a solution. Why do you even participate in these discussions? You seriously add nothing constructive nor positive to the discussion. Currently if a jeep and a tank collide headon nothing happens. I am proposing a realistic and easy solution of just having the jeep abandon. Having it back up and drive off is silly at best since it will die a horrible death regardless. Not to mention that more often then not the jeep will be immobilized. Which doesn't even happen now. Cavscout, if you are not going to contribute positively to the discussion then just leave. Jeff ------------------ When nuclear weapons are frozen then only freezers will have nuclear weapons. [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 02-27-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted February 27, 2001 Author Share Posted February 27, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: All this because some German AFV got killed by a jeep... *SNIFF* No... not just a German AFV. A JpIV. And the fact that the jeep just sat there being pushed backwards by the JpIV was silly at best and completely unrealistic at worst. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: And you can find just as many, if not more, "instances" of people not "freezing" at the wheel. Exactly. Hence my comments regarding range of reactions, and not assigning just one of them to any given event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: I'd say in reality they'd drive out of the way.... Sometimes they can't get out of the way. As CM models so beautifully, making decisions and acting on them takes time. So even if the jeep sees the JPZIV lumber out of the darkness headed straight at them, it will take time to 1) realize the imminent danger, 2) get the jeep pointed in a better direction, and 3) accelerate. Any of those steps could take a good 5-10 seconds, which is plenty of time for the collision. I still don't agree on the abandonment issue. It would be unusual for a tank to do much damage to a jeep in a collision. Sure, the jeep would get banged up, but the tanks generally didn't have forward facing all-terrain treads. The treads were protected so they wouldn't get hurt. I suppose there is a tradeoff in tank design in the amount of tread visible from the front. The more front tread, the easier time the tank would have climbing things. The less tank tread, the less chance of immobilization. I think they favored the latter. So imagine a hulking multi-ton tank lumbering along at 25 mph or less, running into a jeep. The jeep is pretty light and sturdy. The tank isn't moving very fast. The tank will just scoot the jeep along or out of the way, just like tanks can currently push aside abandoned vehicles. The collision might immobilize the jeep, but might not. It would depend on the angle of collision, and the relative vectors of the jeep and tank. Michael Emrys, I don't think you really would bail out of that jeep. Imagine that you're driving your car down a narrow one way road, and you see a drunk coming slowly down the other direction. He's going to hit you in ten seconds. There's a car behind you, so you can't back up. There is no way to avoid the imminent wreck. Will you spend those ten seconds 1) stopping the car and jumping out, knowing that you could get hit while half-in and half-out, or 2) bracing for impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Exactly. Hence my comments regarding range of reactions, and not assigning just one of them to any given event. I think AI should be improved to avoid these collisions over an auto bail for jeeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by jshandorf: No... not just a German AFV. A JpIV. And the fact that the jeep just sat there being pushed backwards by the JpIV was silly at best and completely unrealistic at worst. A German AFV dying is hardly reason to create an auto-bail for jeeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by Leonidas: Sometimes they can't get out of the way. As CM models so beautifully, making decisions and acting on them takes time. So even if the jeep sees the JPZIV lumber out of the darkness headed straight at them, it will take time to 1) realize the imminent danger, 2) get the jeep pointed in a better direction, and 3) accelerate. Any of those steps could take a good 5-10 seconds, which is plenty of time for the collision. With your view one reaction time, one wonders how I drive to work everyday.... I still don't agree on the abandonment issue. It would be unusual for a tank to do much damage to a jeep in a collision. Sure, the jeep would get banged up, but the tanks generally didn't have forward facing all-terrain treads. The treads were protected so they wouldn't get hurt. I suppose there is a tradeoff in tank design in the amount of tread visible from the front. The more front tread, the easier time the tank would have climbing things. The less tank tread, the less chance of immobilization. I think they favored the latter. So imagine a hulking multi-ton tank lumbering along at 25 mph or less, running into a jeep. The jeep is pretty light and sturdy. The tank isn't moving very fast. The tank will just scoot the jeep along or out of the way, just like tanks can currently push aside abandoned vehicles. The collision might immobilize the jeep, but might not. It would depend on the angle of collision, and the relative vectors of the jeep and tank. I agree. Just having jeep crews bail is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts