CM feature idea : "abandon heavy weapon" order

[Jack Carr]

I think this would be a great addition to the game.

[Wisbech_lad]

Nice, but fiendishly complex. For example, in position "Snipe" ISTR that the CO reallocated crews as guns in his AT battery got knocked out, to ensure the remaining ones had full crews. Think I've read the same happening in 25 pdr batteries.

But this would mean tagging each crew as, say, HMG or mortar or 6 pdr AT gun crew.

As for the small arms for AFV crew, how likely would crew be to grab weapons from a rack, when the vehicle is being abandoned under fire? Maybe if vehicle is abandoned due bogging, but in any other case, the crew woould probably only have their side arms. Fear of another 88mm round is a powerful motivator to get out fast.

I would guess that the LMG in SP guns would be for perimeter security when set up in indirect fire mode?

Yes, the TO&E of German AT gun platoons did have LMG. But this would have been used as security against enemy infantry by members of the platoon who weren't assigned as ATG gun crew, doesn't mean an AT gun had a LMG strapped on, that the crew would use once the gun was kaputt.

[Engel]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

Fear of another 88mm round is a powerful motivator to get out fast.

If the tank was abandoned under enemy fire, they'd probably take their SMG's if they thought they had the time (ie. were not actually on fire), since they'd probably expect to fight off some enemy infantry, and would probably like to do it with something more useful than just a pistol.

Given the way no quarter was generally given in those situations, a SMG would slightly increase your chances of survival after bailing out.

[tar]

On the original idea: I also support it. Perhaps as a variant on the "Withdraw" command? If it could be done like the "Use Main Gun" targetting command that would be ideal. I suppose for programming convenience, making it an integral part of the withdraw command for heavy weapons would also work.

As for recrewing, I don't really buy it as a viable tactic. As noted, most crews when abandoning their weapons would try to disable them. This can be rather easy to do in many cases. Throwing the firing pin away from the mortar, the breach/bolt from a machine gun, etc. In a pinch spiking artillery with a grenade. All of these would be quick to accomplish and difficult to remedy in a short period of time (like in a CM battle).

As for better crew weapons, IIRC there have been numerous changes to the way vehicle and weapons crews behave. They have always been changes that reduced their combat effectiveness in order to reduce the tendency for players to use their crews in unrealistic ways. Tank crews used for spotting were one thing. Being able to use them as wonderful SMG-equipped assault troops is really going way too far. This won't work because players will misuse their newly upgraded crews as infantry.

[Engel]

Originally posted by tar:

Being able to use them as wonderful SMG-equipped assault troops is really going way too far.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. Having a tank crew equipped with SMG's with reduced firepower and effectiveness (like being permanently low on ammo) won't certainly lead to gamey usage, but would allow them to be withdrawn with better chances of survival, and also to be used as inferior fighting units in a desperate pinch; hardly gamey.

[tar]

I would have to disagree.

The problem with putting the ability to do things that may have (rarely) happened in real life into the game is that players will use the ability much more frequently. It would then cease to be the rare or "in a pinch" desparation maneuver but a normal part of the tactical repertoire.

That is usually because the game is not able to really represent the various reasons that such actions were not taken in real life.

Now if you want to give the crews better weapons, but have them controlled only by the AI, then it would be perhaps a suggestion I could live with. As it is, forces often get used in ahistorical fashion because players don't feel a need to conserve their forces since a) they aren't real men who you actually know and can see bleed and there's no tomorrow. This is even true, although to a slightly lesser extent, in campaign games, where you don' t have to worry about preserving your forces for later.

For example, players will almost never engage in a general retreat off the map to preserve their forces. There is nothing in the game which would motivate them to pull back if getting soundly defeated.

[Engel]

Originally posted by tar:

For example, players will almost never engage in a general retreat off the map to preserve their forces.

The incentive exists in operations, but the same rules apply to more involved players as for gamey scenario players. If only there were two different rule sets, one for single-shot scenarios which would prevent gamists from abusing the system by artificial restraints, and another set of rules for more involved game, where the restraints were only imposed by programming.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by tar:

Being able to use them as wonderful SMG-equipped assault troops is really going way too far.

I bet on several occasions crews did fight as infantry. If they did not fight it was there value which kept commanders from pressing them into infantry service.

And BFC did it exactly right:

Losing crew members is very expensive in the AAR. This penalty is enough. If some gamey players don't realize that - great.

PS: Additional LMGs for ATGs are modelled in GE ATG plts as extra teams.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

IMO people are fretting a bit too much about the recrewing issue. Think about it: under what circumstances will a crew abandon their weapon? When they need to cut and run, right?

Now you're forgetting the instances in which you'd like to use the crew for scouting and then have them return to their weapon (if they survive).

[von Paulus]

Humm it's an interesting topic but it looks like programmers don't care about it ... just tell us about your choices, please

However there's no problem ...

Paulus