Gunny Bunny Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 I ran my Piat into a light building one floor. I was sharing the buildling with a Panzerschreck.... Neither of them fought each other, they just continued to seek out armour. Of course this is not realistic and should be corrected so they fight each other or one run's away...OR SOMETHING. Thx, Gunny Bunny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 :Yawn: Well, at least you weren't complaining about how snipers don't fight each other. What did you expect them to do, beat each other over the head with their rocket launchers? ------------------ The Last Defense- Made any scenarios? Send them here! Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Still, BTS PLEASE FIX, OR DO SOMEFINK! ------------------ If your enemy comes to speak bearing a sword, open your door to him and speak, but keep your own sword at hand. If he comes to you empty-handed, greet him the same way. But if he comes to you bearing gifts, stand on your walls and cast stones down on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 The obvious fix to this unrealistic behaviour is to arm AT teams with small arms for local defense purposes. 1x pistol 1x SMG Same for mortars AND AT/infantry gun crews WHISLT still manning their equipment. 3 man mortar crew: 2x pistol 1x smg Six man AT/Infantry gun: 3x pistol 2x rifle 1x smg All with 10 rounds of ammo only. This would increase the price of all these units slightly I would imagine. It is stupid and unrealistic to think that a 6 man gun crew wouldn't have a single firearm between them for fighting off close assualts. Also snipers should carry a pistol with *LOW* ammo for local defense. Pretty crazy when 2 enemy snipers are in the same building *ignoring* each other because their weapons arnt meant for anything less than 100m. The tac AI would simply decide which weapon to fire like it does now for tanks. As for possably *gamey* behaviour... well its up to the players to make the rules. Personally I state "crews have to hide or withdraw and can only be used for local defense if needed" to any1 I play. This stops crews being used as scouts or drawing fire whilst assualting flags etc. Thats what I'd change to fix this problem anyways [This message has been edited by KiwiJoe (edited 03-24-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizen Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Haven't you ever close assaulted a Mortar team and taken casualties even when they are still crewing their mortar? Try it sometime! Oh, and they do have a few pistols. As soon as they feel threatened enough, they'll ditch the tube and fire their pistols instead. By the way, buildings have interior walls despite the fact that they are not seen on screen. The game engine assumes that most troops cannot see through walls. No patch needed here. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 You have totally missed the point. I know there are walls and such inside buildings. But if you check LOS most units can clearly see each other when inside a building on the same floor. Try putting 2 snipers or AT teams 5m apart in the open... they just sit there with clear LOS yawning. Realistically they would have small arms to defend with. Mortar crews having pistols AFTER ditching the mortar isnt much help when they are being attacked WHILST still in control of the mortar.... which is my point. Basically if infantry are, say, 50m away they cant use there mortar and have no side arms to defend themselves... pretty unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 I am in a PBEM right now where a bazooka team and a schreck team ended up in the same clump of trees. They started firing AT rounds at each other. Never seen it before, and it looked pretty wierd, but there they were only 5m apart "wooshing" rockets as fast as they could load them. The bazooka team eliminated the schreck team on this occasion. I don't know why the guys in the building didn't do the same thing, perhaps they decided not to. OberGrupenStompinFuhrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Originally posted by OGSF: I don't know why the guys in the building didn't do the same thing, perhaps they decided not to. Maybe they knew it would set the building on fire. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abuassad Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 maybe it was a case of i don't c u, u don't c me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted March 25, 2001 Share Posted March 25, 2001 Well, I'm no expert and I hate people always making like of another person's questions or problems, but on this one I think I can answer why they don't shoot at each other. Can you imagine what would happen if either one of them would fire their weapons. I don't know who would get hurt worst. The guy he was shooting at or him. That back blast would do the shooter in. Now, they should have pistols however. They sure do in real life. I was playing a game just the other day when my bazooka team ran across a HQ unit. He was about 5 -10 yards away in woods or brush and blasted the crap out of them. It was so cool. I think, not sure that the HQ was low on men, however so that could explain how they beat ( killed ) them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 At very least they should be able to close assualt each other... fists, head butts, biting, spitting etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 /begin imitation Oh no my blah blah blah blah blah blah yada yada yada yada yada! Yap yap yap yap? DO SOMEFINK!! BTS!! BTS!! blah blah blah blah. /end imitation * * * /begin rant can't you people take a clue? CMBO updates are OVER! that means done, finished, completed, no more. SO STOP COMPLAINING! /end rant ------------------ shadow@jagdtiger.de Canada For CM I AM CANADIAN! Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Yes but these ideas could very well be implemented into CM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Well then, I want my money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosehead Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Originally posted by KiwiJoe: The obvious fix to this unrealistic behaviour is to arm AT teams with small arms for local defense purposes. 1x pistol 1x SMG Same for mortars AND AT/infantry gun crews WHISLT still manning their equipment. I agree here, I find it hard to believe anyone in a battle wouldnt at least have a pistol. Even the cook would use his butcher knife if he had to defend himself. Is there any documentation on whether crews were pistoless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 The caption reads: "A U.S. anti-tank crew fires on Nazis who machine gunned their vehicle, somewhere in Holland." You can clearly see the AT gun in the back ground plus a transport vehicle with a .50 cal on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 This 1 reads: "Two anti-tank Infantrymen of the 101st Infantry Regiment, dash past a blazing German gasoline trailer in square of Kronach, Germany." Clearly shows them holding firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 GREAT PICS!!! I've found wallpaper for my new puter!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Yes but these ideas could very well be implemented into CM2. I totally agree with the fact that something needs to be done about this. In my opinion, these teams should carry other weapons for close-fighting and when that's not possible, they should engage in hand to hand combat. Would be great to see this in CM2 with backwards compatibility with CM1 of course. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Originally posted by KiwiJoe: The caption reads: "A U.S. anti-tank crew fires on Nazis who machine gunned their vehicle, somewhere in Holland." You can clearly see the AT gun in the back ground plus a transport vehicle with a .50 cal on it. The guy on the right has an M1 Carbine. However, some of the other guys are using German K98k rifles. The guy second from the left for sure (although he has a holster on as well), and also the guy second from the right, I think. Looks like they might have picked this stuff up around them. :^) But I do agree, AT teams ought to be capable of small arms fire. Something for CM2, eh? OberGrupenStompinFuhrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Yeah I hope so. Also that photo brings up another issue. It looks to me that the AT gun crew were setting up when they came under HMG fire. At that point they picked up their firearms and abandoned the AT gun for nearby cover. One would assume that if they killed the HMG crew, or fored them to withdraw, they would then re-man the AT gun. I doubt they would say "well we did abandon our gun and it could be considered gamey to re-man it so we'll just run around with our side arms and leave the gun here". I think abandoning and re-maning of un-damaged guns should be allowed for CM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosehead Posted March 26, 2001 Share Posted March 26, 2001 Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Yeah I hope so. I think abandoning and re-maning of un-damaged guns should be allowed for CM2. Another very good point. Also, I have recaptured some of my troops. But they are unarmed. i am sure they could find a gun somewhere, with all the dead and wounded lying around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts