remanning field guns

[l3w53r]

I was just wondering,why crews couldn't man their weapons (like AT-guns or tanks) again after abandoning them. Like maybe after getting into contact with an hq.like the HQ goes, "man that gun for goodness sake,the enemy tanks are full broadside to it and no enemy infantry has a clear shot at it!move it!..."

or why cant crews abandon mg's? I mean they can no longer move after getting 3,4 casualties and are just waiting there for the enemy to overrun them.

just some thoughts

[Seanachai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

I was just wondering,why crews couldn't man their weapons (like AT-guns or tanks) again after abandoning them. Like maybe after getting into contact with an hq.like the HQ goes, "man that gun for goodness sake,the enemy tanks are full broadside to it and no enemy infantry has a clear shot at it!move it!..."

or why cant crews abandon mg's? I mean they can no longer move after getting 3,4 casualties and are just waiting there for the enemy to overrun them.

just some thoughts<hr></blockquote>

Jesus Wept.

You know, the incredibly intelligent game developers, untold beta testers, and horribly demanding and rabid thousands of posters have pondered this very same question.

And now, in the interest of not being an arsehole, I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps, those who want an answer, could do a bit more reading on this forum.

[chrisl]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

or why cant crews abandon mg's? I mean they can no longer move after getting 3,4 casualties and are just waiting there for the enemy to overrun them.

<hr></blockquote>

They can abandon mgs, but only under very limited circumstances, and the result is that they become zombie troops. Not a pretty sight at all, though I have been witness to such an event. Much less funny than the armored clown car.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Seanachai:

And now, in the interest of not being an arsehole,<hr></blockquote>

Too late. The question is legitimate, it was politely put, and not everyone should be expected to sift through thousands of posts. Ergo...

Now personally I would love to see troops remanning weapons, even the enemy's captured weapons, arriving by parachute, withdrawing (and even routing) along preplanned withdrawal routes, porting ammo between positions, understanding that they are in decent cover when prone behind a stone wall (even if they are in an open ground hex, sorry, tile, picking up the dead guy's bazooka, finding the rounds lost when the other zook-guy got hit 50 yards away and putting the rocket right up the bore of a gun, boobytrapping their foxholes before withdrawing, interrogating prisoners and forcing them to clip a path through barbed wire with their teeth, calling in the dead spotters' arty modules with a field telephone repaired with some parts from a WWI tank wreck discovered in an overgrown patch of blackberries, laying and cutting field telephone wire (with CC benefits/penalties), knowing to fire at a faster rate whenever I would deem it beneficial to do so, running out of a burning building with some semblance of order when they're on MY side, and like chickens with their heads cut off when their on the OTHER guy's side, being able to call in a limited amount of their remaining arty, like, say in increments of four rounds, or at least a full FFE being whatever was praxis and not just shoot till the end of the current minute, crawling into abandoned tanks to get HE shells to rig and bury nose-up as improvised AT mines and just generally doing all kinds of cool stuff.

As for the question, I'm not sure of the correct answer but one possiblity would be that abandoning a gun must be a pretty traumatic experience for a crew, given that they are trained to man it and fight dammit. So if they've bugged out they're likely to consider that fighting positions untenable for the time being, even if they revert to 'ok' status.

[Sergei]

I think it was to prevent gamey behaviour, such as rushing with a crew back to the abandoned gun just in case you might be able to take one extra shot. It is in line with the penalties you have for scouting with crews. In Steel Panthers you can re-man abandoned vehicles and crewed weapons, and it's a two-barreled shotgun there.

Still, I wouldn't mind having crews to re-man their weapons if there weren't any enemies in LOS and conditions seemed otherwise okay. It's just difficult to code properly.

[Andreas]

An abandoned gun is deemed out of service for the remainder of a battle. In operations, it can be remanned between battles.

When abandoning guns, crews were trained to make them unservicable, by e.g. removing the breech block, or firing pin or whatever there is that you can do to a gun to make it no longer go 'boom'. This was expressly done to prevent the enemy from using the gun. Since this was SOP, it can be assumed that this is one reason why you can not recrew guns with Heinie, the wily Kraut (in the case of an Allied gun), or the Man on the Clapham Omnibus (in the case of a German gun).

[themaltese]

The thing is, guns are mostly abandoned because of some non-recoverable damage. In the scope of a scenario, it wouldn't be correct to re-man the gun. In the scope of an operation, on the other hand, repairs can be made.

What gets me is not having the ability of switching crews for both vehicles and guns when they are NOT damaged. I mentioned this in a post before... For example, the Villers-Bocage scenario could be more realistic if you can station the Allied tank crews outside of their vehicles at the beginning of the scenario, and then have them man the vehicles as an order (during the real battle, Wittmann literally caught the Allies with their pants down). Also, again using Villers-Bocage, Wittmann tore into the town on one tank, ran out of ammo and fuel, left his Tiger there, and then ran back to get another Tiger. With this, it would be reasonable to expect to switch crews in operational vehicles. Fellow members on here have argued against being able to do this for reasons that individualized the crew members. I don't think that's an argument since CM represents an entire crew with one figure. Hence, if you have an elite crew with one dead, and a fully staffed green crew, I'd rather have the elite crew man a vehicle.

[Stoffel]

Buy and play Opereation Flashpoint if you want to go through all that.

leaving your vehicle and get back in it,using other members and enemy weapons

I think the reasons why we dont have this are explained before

So you can do a search first,but on the other hand the question was indeed polite asked so there is no need to be harsh against this fellow

[Mattias]

I have read, time and again, about Soviet AT-gun crews momentarily abandoning their guns when the counter fire became to heavy, only to re-man it once the fire lifted. Looking at drawings of German field works one notices that there are short stumps of trenches directly connecting to the gun pit, obviously there to give the crew protection in the case of heavy incoming fire.

One might argue that this is depicted by entrenching the gun but temporarily abandoning the gun and take full cover would give the crew yet another level of protection.

Obviously you don't destroy the gun under these conditions and gamey behavior would not be an issue if one crew was linked to one weapon, the crew would never be as valuable as when manning the gun. As for one crew being shot up, abandoning the gun, rally and then come back to take up the fight again, it did happen more than once and should not prevent the ability do temporarily leave the gun and then re-man it.

It could be considered to unimportant to depict, but I fail to see how it could be wrong or problematic to do so..

M.

[Yeknodathon]

Just I thought....

When guns come under fire, the little blighters duck and lay prone.. does this means they're taking cover? Abandoning a gun seems something more catastrophic has happened.

Yeknod

[-Havermeyer-]

Yes, I thought the gun abandonment was similar to tank abandonment. Perhaps something is broke, that can't fixed during the time of a single battle, but over an op can be...

In the pre-release days, we were all wide eyed kids prying the clasp off the bra-- our education was much more merciful. In fact I was educated on this aspect of gun abandoment in those kinder, gentler pre-release days.

I insisted my crew reman the uber-150 in VOT. I'd walk them right over to it, and they'd just stand around the Abandoned Gun. Reman it you lazy, cowardly sluggards-- your standing right next to it and the stinking enemy are no where near us anymore!!!

Take a pill C-Nacho.

[Bruce Robert]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by l3w53r:

I was just wondering,why crews couldn't man their weapons (like AT-guns or tanks) again after abandoning them. Like maybe after getting into contact with an hq.like the HQ goes, "man that gun for goodness sake,the enemy tanks are full broadside to it and no enemy infantry has a clear shot at it!move it!..."

or why cant crews abandon mg's? I mean they can no longer move after getting 3,4 casualties and are just waiting there for the enemy to overrun them.

just some thoughts<hr></blockquote>

It sounds reasonable, and certainly there are times when it would be tactically desireable. But a big question we, meaning other miniature gamers had to consider with any rule is overall importance of this effect to the "muddying up the game mechanics". We found many rules to bog down the game far more than was justified by any statistical significance. And of course, this became a decision that was made by the rules writer(s)-always a fine line between realism and playability.

Assuming that this is not a playability issue with comp. games, it could be an interesting addition. Especially the order to leave a gun/position and return to it later: as was sometimes done during a large bombardment.

It was usually the fine line issues that caused the most discussions with are WWII micro-armor group. But those games wouldn't have felt right without at least one "my version of reality/what's important vs yours"

[ASL Veteran]

BTS stated that one of the reasons motorcycles will not be included in CMBB was that the engine was not capable of having something that is 'abandoned' being remanned (bunkers, tanks, guns, mortars, etc). There really isn't any metaphysical, hocus pocus, or doctrinal explanation for why remanning isn't allowed. The engine just doesn't allow it- it's just that simple.

Additionally, Steve said that the engine didn't allow for the 'picking up' or the 'dropping' of items by a unit (although I can't presently recall the circumstances behind that remark).

[l3w53r]

oh, thanks then. And sorry, guess should have done a search first. ,hehe, oops.=)