Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

January 6, 2001

Dr. Brian, I don't think you are being aggressive in this discussion at all. In fact, you have had the most reasonable view of this (from both sides) I have seen in such discussions. Kudos to you

Ksak,

Not meaning to be offensive here, but I don't think you have fully read the dozen or so posts I have made in this thread very well. I have answered each of your questions, as best as I can, but I will sum up those answers again...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's easy enough to create extreme, mocking analogies but as the game's creator why not take some genuine responsibility and define EXACTLY what constitutes an unacceptable, ahistorical tactic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is nothing "exact" here. Nothing is ever Black and White. We are talking about extremes. There are thin lines that can be crossed, which moves a tactic from Historically Accurate, to Uncommon but Historically Accurate, to Ahistorical and not Historically Accurate, all the way to Totally Unrealistic. Making matters more complex is that it isn't as simple as saying A = B, B = C, therefore A = C. Context is as important as the tactic itself. And since context is a highly variable thing, so too is the definition of "gamey".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since you did not automatically kill off every crewmember when a vehicle or gun was destroyed, and instead left them armed and functioning, I assume that you had a purpose in mind. What EXACTLY was that purpose? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been stated before, but I will say it clearly here...

Our choices for the simulation of bailed out crews is as follows...

1. remove crews the second they bail like magic.

2. put the crews on the map, then have the AI move them off the map.

3. put crews on the map, then encourrage the player to move them off the map.

Clearly #1 is totally unrealitic, so that was easily scratched off the list. #2 is also an easy one to scratch off since it is doubtfull that the AI would be able to intelligently move crews off the map to the expectations of the human player. But also it would eliminate even reasonable, historically accurate, uses of bailed out crews by the human player. So this leaves only #3. We have put in a whole bunch of disincentives for ahistorical crew use, but it looks like we need to do more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since you keep trying to beat me up...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sorry you feel that way. I am simply disagreeing with you and challenging you to look at this issue from a different perspective. I have not been insulting in the least (so far as I know), and have not reacted badly to some rather questionable comments made in my direction.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...with it I'll field the catch and toss it back at you. Are you willing to put your reputation on the line that for the 30 minutes or so that a scenario represents, that vehicle crews and gun crews in WWII did not engage in offensive or defensive operations of any kind?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This challenge clearly shows that you have not really read my previous posts very well. I have not, ever, said anything of this sort. Nor would I since it is entirely untrue. Infact, I have several times stated that crews were used for various forms of ground combat. What I absolutely disagree with is that this was an automatic given when a crew was bailed out. On the contrary, the far more normal case was for the crew to go to the rear without delay and with great haste.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What exactly do you suppose they did?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get the Hell out of the imediate combat zone and get back to its parent unit to be reoutfitted with a new gun or vehicle, then get back into combat as soon as humanly possible. What else should they do? Banzi charges at MG nests to draw fire?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If your response is that they probably did "something' then define EXACTLY what part of that something is acceptable to a Simulation Gamer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you have obviously not read my previous posts very well if you thought I was not going to be specific. As for what the Simulation Gamer should do... it depends on the situation. There is NO one right answer. But in general, the Simulation Gamer should get his crews off map ASAP. The game rewards this behavior no matter who is playing (i.e. you get more points if you do this than if they get killed). A Simulation Gamer might also take to using crews to guard prisoners or even, in specific circumstances, take on an enemy unit (like a Bazooka team, not a Rifle Squad).

What are those "specific circumstances"? There is no exact answer, but I would say if the Bazooka was 20m away from the tank it killed without friendly infantry support, and the crew bailed out without its own friendly infantry support, and it was no more risk to go after the Bazooka team than to retreat, then I see no problem with this. I have read a few historical cases just like this. But the crew, upon getting their "revenge" beat it back to the rear as fast as their legs could take them there. They did not go on to see if they could take out something else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What is your official opinion on the historical accuracy of a player rotating the screen 180 to see what his positions look like from the enemy's perspective? Why was that feature built into the game? Is it OK for a Simulation Gamer to do it during a scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apples to oranges. If you start comparing things like this, NOTHING in Combat Mission is "historically accurate". Such black and white thinking can only come to this conclusion. As I said earlier, there are some abstractions (ahistorical aspects) that are built into Combat Mission because otherwise it would not be a game. Being able to look at the whole battlefield is just such a feature. Some abstractions (ahistorical aspects) are not built in, but are unavoiable due to hardware limiations, limited time, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I think it's cheating and do not do it. In fact I make a point of never going Level 1 beyond my most forward unit because there are no eyeballs beyond that point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While it is interesting that you play the game this way, it is no more or less cheating than looking at the game the way it was intended to be played. Why? Because what commander to you know is able to magically see through the eyes of each of his units at the same exact moment (i.e. when the game is paused during the Orders Phase)? If you look through two units that are facing slightly different ways, but looking at the same area, you are escentially doing the same thing as if you were looking from above. Yes, it is certainly much more difficult playing the way you described, but it is not really more historically accurate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is not a clear cut issue and you are not providing any legitimate help to the many people that have posted in this thread looking for some answers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I have been quite clear all along and have in fact tried to describe the basic behavior that is not realistic on the battlefield. There is no one right answer, however there is definately wrong ones. Example:

Charging one crew, a short distance, at one unit, in one game is probably not ahistorical. Charging 5 crews, as part of a cohesive plan, in even one game has most likely crossed the line. Doing this in pretty much every game, in order to "win", certainly has.

The "Play to Win" folks clearly state that they will do this, or whatever else they can think up, if they think it will give them an edge. The "Simulation" folks do not do this, but instead try to stay within the confines of what a real WWII situation would yield. Not perfect, but it is certainly the opposite of the "Play to Win" philosophy. And to restate the often repeated sentiment here... there is NOHTING wrong with this.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-05-2001).]

Henri · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

In most but not all cases they retreated to safety, to be able to take over another tank in the next battle. They rescued their comrades. Troop and Squadron leaders took over another tank and continued to command their unit.

End of story.

How about the case shown in the Patton movie where his tankers ran out of gas and they and the German tankers fought hand to hand? Was that ahistorical?

Henri

"Godammit, war is beautiful!" (Patton)

January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ksak:

Why assume that every crew is a tank crew? What did they do in the cases that were part of that "but all" phrase?

What did they do if there was no clear line of withdrawal? What did they do if the nearby infantry batallion commander drafted them?

And since you know so much you can certainly tell me the number of incidents you researched on this specific issue, and the percentages of each type of behaviour upon which you base your "end of story" certainty.

1. Does not matter that much to me, I am mostly concerned with tank crews.

2. They got a medal, or killed, or both.

3. There always is a rear.

4. Why would they - the Infantry BN CO has no authority over them. Never heard of that happening anyway. I have read of a case (Toland - Battle of the Bulge) where the crews just left the battle, and the infantry took over the tanks, and of another (Ganter - Roll me over) where the armour Co just refused to follow infantry orders to engage. Seems to me they were pretty independent minded.

5. I don't have numbers , read post 75 to see why I don't think these are important - I have read the unit histories of UK 11th AD, 3rd ID, 49th ID, 9th RTR, 7th AD, 4th&8th AB, the History of the Canadian Army 1939-1945, an autobiography by Brendan Phibbs, MO of CCB 12th US AD, Dobler 'Closing with the enemy', Carver's 'History of the British Army in the 20th Century', Lucas, 'War on the Eastern Front', lots of AARs on the net and various other stuff I can not remember off the top of my head. Nowhere did it strike me that crews were regularly used as Insta-Infantry.

So where exactly did you come across it? Names of authors and book titles woudl be appreciated. I am eager to learn.

Edit - the crews in the Toland example left before they had to engage the enemy. They had not even seen him. Just did not feel like going to battle that day

Now Ksak, any evidence of historical research on your part would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise I suggest you get a new Username and start afresh, because you would have made a perfect fool of yourself.

Have a nice day.

Edit end.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-05-2001).]

January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Henri:

How about the case shown in the Patton movie where his tankers ran out of gas and they and the German tankers fought hand to hand? Was that ahistorical?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know, but it is a movie - not a history book. Do you have any other proof than Hollywood?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

January 6, 2001

Ksak,

Unfortunately, you are just lashing out now. Why not try to answer some of the same questions you are asking. They are rather easy to address:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why assume that every crew is a tank crew? What did they do in the cases that were part of that "but all" phrase?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being a Tank crew is irrelvant. A crew from a knocked out 57mm AT gun would do the same basic thing as a crew from a Pershing. They would try to get a hold of the weapon they were trained for, and then put it to good use against the enemy. This is, of course, that they are mentally and physically capable of doing so at the particular time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What did they do if there was no clear line of withdrawal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hide and wait for one to happen? Surrender? Make a break for the most likely best path to safety? All these are very possible. But running around trying to draw fire so as to distract the enemy's gunners is certainly not something high up on the list of probably behavior.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What did they do if the nearby infantry batallion commander drafted them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends. If the batallion commander ordered them to run at a MG Bunker so something else could flank it, I think the unit would express its opinion in rather vulgar and straight forward manner If the Batallion commander said "OK, stay close to me for now because we might get overrun and we need every man here" they would likely comply.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And since you know so much you can certainly tell me the number of incidents you researched on this specific issue, and the percentages of each type of behaviour upon which you base your "end of story" certainty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is your idea of how historical research is done, I think we should just end the discussion right now. Unless you care to do exactly the same thing to support your line of reasoning.

In that light... what is your line of reasoning? How would you answer the very questions you are asking? All I know about your position thus far is that you think crews were used as cannon fodder. Or at least that is the only conclusion I can come to right now.

Steve

January 6, 2001

Henri,

You have the answer to that rhetorical question of yours in your own quote!!

In MOST, but NOT ALL cases....

Too many people here are trying to find wierd exceptions to the norm, in some attempt to prove that they happened often enough to be considered Standard Operating Procedure.

Stop trying to "win the argument", and look at this objectively...

Ksak · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

where the armour Co just refused to follow infantry orders to engage

You have made my case. With your own words you tell us that your thorough research has proven that WWII infantry commanders gave orders to armor personnel to engage as infantry. To establish once and for all that crews (armor or otherwise) did in fact engage as infantry we have to only accept the conclusion that some enlisted men did comply with those orders rather than read the declaration of soldiers' rights to the Standartenführer.

It was your pontificating rudeness that drew me into this thread and with that revelation I am exercising the better part of valor and withdrawing from what has rapidly become a fuitless discourse.

CavScout · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Henri:

How about the case shown in the Patton movie where his tankers ran out of gas and they and the German tankers fought hand to hand? Was that ahistorical?

No, just typical movie making.

CavScout · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ksak:

You have made my case. With your own words you tell us that your thorough research has proven that WWII infantry commanders gave orders to armor personnel to engage as infantry. To establish once and for all that crews (armor or otherwise) did in fact engage as infantry we have to only accept the conclusion that some enlisted men did comply with those orders rather than read the declaration of soldiers' rights to the Standartenführer.

His research has shown one infantry commander ordering a bailed crew. To base any more is insane.

Be that as it may, using your "logic" it would appear that NO bailed crews listened to an infantry commander. How can you assume some bailed crews did?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

It was your pontificating rudeness that drew me into this thread and with that revelation I am exercising the better part of valor and withdrawing from what has rapidly become a fuitless discourse.

There is no valor in running away when the beatings have begun.

Cav

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

"Maneuverists have a bad case of what may be called, to borrow from a sister social science, 'Wehrmact penis envy.'"--D. Bolger

Co-Chairman of the CM Jihad Brigade

"AS far as Steve and BTS (mostly Steve) are concerned, you are either a CM die-hard supporter, or you are dirt. If you question the game, implementation, or data models they used, you are some kind of neo-Nazi wanna-be, and become an open target for CavScout, SlippySlapDragon, and all the other sycophants who hang on Steves every word."-- Jeff Heidman [comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical]

aka_tom_w · January 6, 2001

Holly Crap,

Did I never miss alot of postings on this issue in the last 3 days.

Still trying to catch up.

-tom w

Bastables · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

I have been reading this topic for a little while now and I have one general comment:

Is tactical innovation gamey?

My god! The gall of those Swiss farmers, actually standing up against cavalry instead of scattering to be slaughtered like good little peasants.

That devilsh Erwin Rommel. How dare he use the divisional AA battalion to blunt the counterattack at Arras.

I could continue, but I think my point is clear. One man's gamey tactic is another man's tactical revolution.

WWB

German AA units were issued AP ammo for a reason. Rommel could not have 'innovated' if he'd had to rely on 2cm and even 8,8cm guns firing HE shells. And if some deskjocky had decided before the German army went into combat that AA guns should also be given stocks of AP ammo on hand, well its not really a tactical revolution is it?

The 1st time that a bunch of european farmers standing up to mounted troops would be French 1s during the intial Islamic mounted invasion of France. The reason why farmers were not to good at standing up for themselves was due to the old ingrained Rum (Rome) laws to insure that private individuals could not manufacture, own or train with arms. The Swiss and the French relearnt what pre Roman state defended farmers had done, stand up for themselves. If relearning is called innovation then so be it. But somehow that just does not jive with me.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-05-2001).]

Major Tom · January 6, 2001

Nobody is denying that crews NEVER performed infantry actions. The thing that Steve, Germanboy, and most of us are trying to say is that they didn't ALWAYS. There were certain circumstances where a crew would perform as an Infantry group. However, they were by no means as effective. They didn't carry the same amount of ammunition, nor firepower that a regular squad had, nor did they have any combat experience as Infantry men. Most troops were scared sh*tless after having their tank/gun blown out from under them. They rarely got on their feet and joined the infantry on a followup advance, more likely they would retire, or, if the front moved beyond them (ie. their front advanced) they would probably stick around their tank.

Rarely would advancing Infantry want to grab these guys to join them in action, unless the situation was desperate, and desperate being 'the enemy is about to break through' NOT 'we need some extra troops to bust through their lines'. Most instances of non-Infantry forces being sent to join the Grunts would take place well before the battle (ie. rear-area personell sent to join extablished units). Even in Patton's 3rd Army I am willing to bet that dismounted Crews rarely, if ever, participated in offensive actions. The odd accounts of crews doing brave actions rarely occured well after their AFV/Gun was knocked out. Usually it happened just after (ie. out of immediate need/desperation) and was out of necessity to survive.

Massing crews and merging them with the infantry, or in front of the infantry as a screen is not only unhistoric, but, pretty gamey. Sometimes the loss of crews is offset by destroying enemy squads AND attaining VP's. This can be done if your regular squads advance unscathed while the enemy ones waste their ammunition on crews. When close action occurs, your enemy is at a severe disadvantage (due to low ammo and attrition).

HOWEVER, most people support the idea about having crews participate in Prisoner watching and Defensive operations. This happened much more often than offensive actions with crews.

I am pretty sure that most Allied and German MP's weren't shooting/arresting crews on site. Hitler Fanaticism wasn't quite as rampant within most ranks of the German Army, and the Allies were well aware of their troop shortage. The worst thing that could happen to them is to be issued another tank and sent back to the front.

Major Tom · January 6, 2001

Also, using crews in this way isn't innovative. It is exploiting a feature of humanity (ie. not being able to see the big picture of your orders!) that CM (and all games) is lacking. There is NO way that the Crew knows that the orders you are giving it will result in them engaging the enemy. In reality, if you were to order a crew of troops to do an offensive action you will probably just get a few bewildered looks at you.

Innovation is doing something WITHIN the restraints of reality. It is innovative to defeat your enemy using some real, or new tactic that can be replicated in reality (ie. creeping barrage, quick tank strike, etc...). It is not so by doing every little thing that the game allows you to do. The exploitation of an unrealistic feature isn't innovative, its easy.

January 6, 2001

Ksak wrote"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You have made my case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And by latching onto that example, and blowing it out of all logical and rational proportions, while neatly dodging every other statement which runs completely contrary (including direct answers to your "challenge"), you have proved my case; That you have not been discussing this with an open mind, have not really bothered to read and understand what other people have said, and simply decided to hold to your own perception of "reality" without even bothering to examine it.

OK, I'd say the case is closed on this one. Moving on...

I was just reminded that another reason why this stuff becomes so contentious is that we, BTS, actively attempt to limit ahistorical ("gamey") aspects of Combat Mission. The funny thing is that we find resistance to this from the same people that claim they want realism. Therefore, the only counter argument to proposed changes (or house rules in lieu of changes) is to attempt to argue that such and such is not ahistorical ("gamey"). We have seen this now with three major proposed changes:

1. "Gamey Recon" - 500+ posts in one thread attempting to show that what we were planning on doing was not only harmful to game play, but would be ahistorically restrictive. That sewing up a hole in CM's fabric of reality would remove the ability to "innovative", tactical speaking. And yes, the flawed "innovation" argument was brought up then as well. We made the change, yet nobody has complained about ahistorical restrictions on information gathering.

2. "Ahistorical Vehicle Use" - I shudder at how many times I had to state that a proposed new feature for CM was OPTIONAL. This feature would largely restrict people to purchasing (for the most part) common vehicles as a rule and Pershings and King Tigers as exceptions. OPTIONALLY. Same resistance, with a little extra from "Simulation" gamers who wanted to still play with silly combos of vehicles once and a while. Although this feature is not yet in, I think the vast majority are really looking forward to having this additional OPTION.

3. "Insta-Infantry Crews" - this debate has been going on for at least 2 years here. People have complained about crews not being armed with their theoretical armaments (wrongly in most cases), but other than that few complaints from the "Play to Win" crowd. And on balance, few complaints from the "Simulation" crowd too. However, one significant problem remains, and that is the end game "crew assault" tactics that some "Play to Win" folks employ. So our solution is to make a stronger form of Autosurrender, which still allows the "Play to Win" crowd to have that last man standing style game (provided both players wish to do this). Hopefully this will remove some of the self-erected barriers between the "Simulation" and "Play to Win" groups by allowing Combat Mission to be the impartial arbitrator. When this feature is implemented both camps should be made happy by it.

And with the implementation of all three of these things (and others)... Combat Mission will become that much more realistic. More importantly, it will not reduce the level of "fun" and "excitement" in the game. On the contrary, we expect it will introduce a whole new level of challenges and tactical variety. So far our track record for delivering on such vision is hard to criticize IMHO, so both sides of the ahistorical/gamey debate should trust us. We do a pretty good job making everybody happy

Steve

DanE · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ksak:

It was your pontificating rudeness that drew me into this thread and with that revelation I am exercising the better part of valor and withdrawing from what has rapidly become a fuitless discourse.

Ksak,

Since you have proven your point on the correct historical use of tank/gun crews so well, I have another question for you.

If you have 4 posts in this thread (one of which declares BTS' stance on crew usage total BS) before Germanboy's first post, by what reasoning do you claim that Germanboy "drew" you into this discussion?

Just curious...

January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ksak:

Originally posted by Germanboy:
where the armour Co just refused to follow infantry orders to engage
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have made my case. With your own words you tell us that your thorough research has proven that WWII infantry commanders gave orders to armor personnel to engage as infantry.

You know Ksak, you are so unbelievably thick, it is almost funny. The armour CO in question was still in his tank, as were all his crews, they had not seen the enemy yet. He just did not feel like following an infantry CO trying to order him around and left the PBI to do the job by themselves.

Pick up the book and check it. Ah why bother, you would not see reason if it came along and introduced yourself to it with a card and a smile. But you are very good at making a fool of yourself.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

Vanir · January 6, 2001

There have been some statements to the effect that it is ahistorical to use crews in an offensive manner, except in select cases such as against AT teams or FOs, but not in a defensive manner. Does this mean it's ok to put them on the front line if you're defending against an assault, or is it more selective, as in offence. Would anyone like to elaborate?

This knowledge could come in handy if I were to play someone who asked for a historical game.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

CavScout · January 6, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

There have been some statements to the effect that it is ahistorical to use crews in an offensive manner, except in select cases such as against AT teams or FOs, but not in a defensive manner. Does this mean it's ok to put them on the front line if you're defending against an assault, or is it more selective, as in offence. Would anyone like to elaborate?

This knowledge could come in handy if I were to play someone who asked for a historical game.

I would think that defensive use would be more "historical" than any offensive use.

Major Tom · January 6, 2001

Defensive uses of these crews would follow more on the 'we just got knocked out, the enemy is 50m from us, we fight or die' aspect. Usually people would only use crews in a defensive position in a desperate situation (as, they are easily lost and cause you pains in the VP and global morale areas).

Mark IV · January 6, 2001

If I am defending and the crew is nowhere near the main action, it's straight off the board they go, unless it isn't safe to move them; then it's Hide until I can (and I guess if you stumble over them while they are Hiding, whatever happens happens, just as in RL).

If they are near enough to the action and can safely rally to a rearward point (usually a bulding, near a VL, near my CO), I sometimes will send them there. This is when I've "declared Alamo" as some other poster once aptly described it. They go in the building and Hide. This will generally occur in somewhat desperate but not-yet-lost situations late in the game.

Then, if some badly-chewed enemy infantry barges into my building, he will get a little hail of pistol bullets and may leave.

This fits MY little notion of what might happen in such a situation. It is intellectually consistent with my interpretation of the crew's and commander's psychology. It might suck, but that is my reasoning.

If one of my Hiding crews had the opportunity to whack a lone enemy FO, the most hated and softest of targets, I do believe they would.

They would never participate in an infantry offense. Using them for spotting is pure BS, as they not only have no radio, but would be far less adept at communicating through battlefield expedients than real infantry.

So that is my crew doctrine. What one member seems to want is an Absolute Code of Conduct for Crews and other "borderline" situations, which I don't really think can or should be created, but if you need one, there it is. Sign below and return.

I PBEM quite a bit and this has never been a real problem; I've seen a crew rush or two but I killed them. Recommend you do the same.

retarded_keydet · January 6, 2001

Geez I didn't realize people think crews are so decisive in Combat Mission. Heh luckily BTS is a lot more patient than I am or else customer complaints would just be answered with "piss off!" well actually that sorta sounds like my answering machine message

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

There was a long silence of rememberance for the dead, to which I added these names:

Ernst Neubach, Lensen, Wiener, Wesreidau, Prinz, Solma, Hoth, Olensheim, Sperlovski, Smellens, Dunde, Kellerman, Freivitch, Ballers, Frosch, Woortenbeck, Siemenlies...

I refuse to add Paula to that list, and I shall never forget the names of Hals, or Lindberg, or Pferham, or Wollers. Their memory lves within me.

There is another man, whom I must forget. He was called Guy Sajer.

Dr. Brian · January 8, 2001

WOW! What a lot of reading. Man, such a verbose group of lads!

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

And with the implementation of all three of these things (and others)...

[snip]

... On the contrary, we expect it will introduce a whole new level of challenges and tactical variety. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

I'm sure the "gamer" crowd will find something else that will cause another 1000+-post thread. Therefore, you have something to look forward too.

I actually welcome the changes. It'll just give me more opportunities to try different, unorthodox, and innovative ways to win. Should be fun!

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

January 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

]

German AA units were issued AP ammo for a reason. Rommel could not have 'innovated' if he'd had to rely on 2cm and even 8,8cm guns firing HE shells. And if some deskjocky had decided before the German army went into combat that AA guns should also be given stocks of AP ammo on hand, well its not really a tactical revolution is it?

The 1st time that a bunch of european farmers standing up to mounted troops would be French 1s during the intial Islamic mounted invasion of France. The reason why farmers were not to good at standing up for themselves was due to the old ingrained Rum (Rome) laws to insure that private individuals could not manufacture, own or train with arms. The Swiss and the French relearnt what pre Roman state defended farmers had done, stand up for themselves. If relearning is called innovation then so be it. But somehow that just does not jive with me.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-05-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I was being general and alliterative to prove a point and be brief. Second, I am at work and working from memory here.

Rommel: Yes, the clerk's decision was critical. But the AA units were issued AP with the presumption that they would be Luftwaffe units defending the airbase, or as a last ditch effort. They were not supposed to be thrown into the front lines directly in front of the enemy's main effort. Kinda like MG Jeeps. . .

European Farmers: The battle to which you refer is Poitiers (732), fought in South-western France. There the Merovingian Major Domo Chales Martel (grandfather of Charlemagne) led his massed frankish infantry against the Islamic horse. While no one is sure, it is very unlikely that these were bands of peasants pulled from the field. More likely they were a very hardcore, but unmounted, Frankish war band. One must remeber that Charles spent nearly every summer in the field, tangling with Lombards, Vikings, Saxons and Avars.

Also, by 732 Roman rule, and Roman law with it, had been unheard of north of the Po for nearly three centuries. While it was so entrenched that many vestages survive (even into the modern day), I don't think that one roman law banning an armed peasantry made the european farmers timid and unable to defend themselves.

Not to mention that one can go alot farther back and find examples of euorpean peasantry holding solid against cavalry. Greek mercenaries were treasured throughout the ancient near east because they would stand solid against anything. See Xenophon's march of the 10,000 for vivid examples, c. 300 B.C.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

Terence · January 8, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

You know Ksak, you are so unbelievably thick, it is almost funny. The armour CO in question was still in his tank, as were all his crews, they had not seen the enemy yet.

Im glad I read your post. I was about to say that the tanker was still INSISDE the tank. And it seems to me that there's a similar episode in Company Commander as well. Have you run across any other such instances, and if you have, why do you think they did?

Was it because infantry commanders had innacurate expectations of what the tanks could accomplish and the tankers saw the requests as suicide?

[This message has been edited by Terence (edited 01-08-2001).]

jshandorf · January 8, 2001

I for one try to never use my crews unrealistically. When the tank gets hit and the crew bails I usually just leave them alone and forget about them, that is if they are in my rear area. If they are up front I usually always withdraw them.

But there are times when I have been on defense that my crews are with my remaining troops and the CO and they end up fighting with them but it rarely happens.

I just hate it when I see opponents use crews in an offensive manner. And in the future I plan on calling them on it when it happens.

Jeff

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

I once killed a six pack just to watch it die.

Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

Recommended Posts

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest *Captain Foobar*

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Big Time Software

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Germanboy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest wwb_99

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements

Guest Captain Foobar