Combat Bonuses for AFVs and Inf Guns.

[Bad Monkey!]

I initially posted this to the thread about long-range tank gun accuracy, but it seems that it should have it's own thread.

I think it would be a good idea to give AFVs and on-map guns combat bonuses, much like the bonuses HQ units get. This would be good way to represent the respective skills of the individual crewmembers, and to add more variety.

Driver's Bonus- This represents driver skill. The AFV is quicker to get moving and is less likely to get bogged or immobilized.

Loader's Bonus- Faster main gun reloading time.

Gunners Bonus- All around accuracy improvement.

Commander's Bonus- More effective spotting, but also a "holistic" effect on other tank functions. A good commander will be better able to direct his driver in bad terrain, and is quicker to assess when the tank needs to move, so there should be somewhat of a Driver's Bonus also. And since the commander, in addition to spotting targets for the gunner, is also responsible for initial range estimates (esp unbuttoned, maybe this ties in with the discussion about rangefinders for the elite panzer and jagdpanzer units?) and tracking/spotting the fall of shot, an accuracy bonus for the gunner should also be in line.

I feel these bonuses can also be applied to infantry anti-tank and on map artillery pieces. The only real change would be the Driver's Bonus, which I think could be changed to a more generic Mobility Bonus, which represents the gun crews expertise at limbering/unlimbering the gun and shifting it around.

So, what think you? Good idea? Bad? Is there a better way of accomplishing the same task, or is the current method sufficient? Discuss.

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder if there isn't something like this already in the game but invisible, as I think perhaps it should be. I've definitely noticed a fair amount of variability between tank crews of the same experience level. Some seem to hit the target right on, others can't seem to find it. I think your idea is worth exploring though.

Michael

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Jarmo]

A great idea.

I think ME has been reading patterns from randomness. Doubt there's anything like this in the game.

[M Hofbauer]

A very very commendable, splendid idea. It would move the game away from generic "Sherman M4A1, type regular" tanks to more individualized units, which is a realistic and fun thing to do.

For example, Tanks with "regular" quality would still retain a certain "regular" standard but with a few traces of personality here and there, just like it is implemented already with the HQ units.

I'm all for it.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I wonder if there isn't something like this already in the game but invisible, as I think perhaps it should be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a good commander tries hard to know very well the strengths and weaknesses of the people under his command. his job is to try to employ the personnel in a way so as to maximize their strengths and minimize their deficiencies.

maybe in reality he wouldn't always know all of them. but if you're going down that lane, don't forget he wouldn't be hovering around the battlefield with a 100% omnipresence and terrain knowledge either.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

a good commander tries hard to know very well the strengths and weaknesses of the people under his command. his job is to try to employ the personnel in a way so as to maximize their strengths and minimize their deficiencies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

I agree with you, but I was thinking also of troops that do not rigidly behave in the way their commander expects them to. I guess there are various ways to handle this by throwing in a random factor here and there. I'm just not sure that at the end of the day things would look very much differently from the way they do now.

Michael

[Fangorn]

A great idea to CMBB, or CM II. Hope Steve and Co. are reading the boards.

[Mud]

Would there also be penalties or a lower baseline, or is having only bonuses preferred because AFVs are in general currently undermodeled?

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Bad,

Have you tried the game Panzer Commander? It has what you are thinking about. However you are a tank Platoon commander and that is it.

It can be an interesting game when you use it with a Voice Command system and add all of the patches.

By the way, Pz Comm and Sid's Gettysburg are the only other games I have wanted to play since receiving CMBO more than a year ago. And then played Pz Comm and Gettys only for a few hrs each. Probably have logged more than a thousand hours on CMBO and the Forum in the past year.

Basking Toad

[Louie the Toad]

Michael,

Didn't we hear that CMBB will have tank HQ with bonuses system similar to the infantry platoons and HQ system we now have?

IMHO there is a perception among many players that the single tank vehicle and its crew constitue an entire combat unit which operates independently from any other command. I know that the way CM is set up tends to enable this thinking. But the truth is, as many know, that each tank is part of a larger unit and should be treated, in terms of command control, more like an infantry squad is treated in CM now.

Irwin Toad

[Bad Monkey!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mud:

Would there also be penalties or a lower baseline, or is having only bonuses preferred because AFVs are in general currently undermodeled?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would expect that it would be modeled exactly like HQs are now. My main concern isn't to rectify any inadequacies in the models, but to represent the variations of skill in the seperate crewmen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael Emrys

I agree with you, but I was thinking also of troops that do not rigidly behave in the way their commander expects them to. I guess there are various ways to handle this by throwing in a random factor here and there. I'm just not sure that at the end of the day things would look very much differently from the way they do now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose one could also make the same arguments for the way HQs are treated now. Would you prefer it if the HQ units didn't have any visible bonuses, and that aspect was kept hidden in the game engine?

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Bad Monkey! ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Michael,

Didn't we hear that CMBB will have tank HQ with bonuses system similar to the infantry platoons and HQ system we now have?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. That's how I recall it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMHO there is a perception among many players that the single tank vehicle and its crew constitue an entire combat unit which operates independently from any other command. I know that the way CM is set up tends to enable this thinking. But the truth is, as many know, that each tank is part of a larger unit and should be treated, in terms of command control, more like an infantry squad is treated in CM now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that there needs to be more pressure on the player to maintain unit cohesion with his armored and other vehicles, particularly in those armies where radios were scarce. In CMBO, radios in vehicles were common and therefore permit greater flexibility in deployment, but it seems to me that at present the game goes a little too far in that regard. Tank commanders liked to have their subordinates within LOS even when they could talk to them. It's a lot faster to follow the course of the battle with your own eyes than to call somebody up and wait until they are not too busy to report.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bad Monkey!:

I suppose one could also make the same arguments for the way HQs are treated now. Would you prefer it if the HQ units didn't have any visible bonuses, and that aspect was kept hidden in the game engine?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to me that differences in leadership of a whole unit are more worth depicting than differences in capability among members of crews. I admit that is a judgement call, but I can't avoid the sense that leadership qualities generally had a more consistent and far-reaching effect.

Michael

[Louie the Toad]

I agree:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Seems to me that differences in leadership of a whole unit are more worth

depicting than differences in capability among members of crews. I admit that is a

judgement call, but I can't avoid the sense that leadership qualities generally had a more consistent and far-reaching effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An important part of this game for me is choosing tasks for units based on the commander's capabilities. As a player, each of us is a commander at least one command level higher than the highest ranking unit on the map. For the MOST part, commanders know the abilities of their subordinates. If we had long campaign games where there was time between battles to "assess" a commander's abilities in the previous engagement then having commanders with unknown abilities and commanders with abilities that grew better or worse might make for an even better game.

Alas, we do not have a game where units increase or decrease their battle effectiveness, except thru casualties.

Still satisfied, Toad