Bye CMAK, good but flawed

[dalem]

Originally posted by Other Means:

Is that the tank you whittled out of soap to try to get yourself out of prison or summfink?

Looks like a 15mm miniature to me.

-dale

[flamingknives]

Nah, 6mm. not enough detail for 15mm

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

You know I've always wondered whether the driver would bump his head against the main gun if the turret turned.

I read about such an incident in a U.S. division's training. A Sherman driver (or assistant, I suppose) got pinned against his hatch cover when the turret swiveled unexpectedly. Broken ribs, etc.; don't remember if he died.

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

unbuttoning is not something the TacAI likes to do.

The more you screw up, the more the TacAI comes into play.

Steve

I had this behaviour recently with late war soviet assault guns and T34/85, I knew I was getting near a "hot" zone, ordered them to button up (I had toasted the overwatch tanks), and they oppened, lost no one but having to tell them to close up each turn is a drag.

It just happens, too often for my liking.

[Kellysheroes]

Can I have your stuff? Oh wait, that's in a mmorpg when someone says they are quitting. hehe

[Battlefront.com]

I no longer remember the logic for unbuttoning, but I am pretty sure that if the vehicle can't see much the TC is more likely to pop up. In the real world, that is generally where the TC is. Even in combat situations. Someone here probably knows of a study conducted of Israeli TC losses during one of the wars it found itself in (not sure which one).

Yes, drivers being injured and/or killed by turret activity is a reality. I recently heard something about an Abrams? driver getting badly busted up from a sudden change of the turret. There is also the problem of the driver not being able to evacuate if the gun is in the wrong position. Many a driver was lost to the unfortunate final position of the gun. Reality stuff like this kinda takes some of the fun out of being a tank driver

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I no longer remember the logic for unbuttoning, but I am pretty sure that if the vehicle can't see much the TC is more likely to pop up. In the real world, that is generally where the TC is. Even in combat situations. Someone here probably knows of a study conducted of Israeli TC losses during one of the wars it found itself in (not sure which one).

Yes, drivers being injured and/or killed by turret activity is a reality. I recently heard something about an Abrams? driver getting badly busted up from a sudden change of the turret. There is also the problem of the driver not being able to evacuate if the gun is in the wrong position. Many a driver was lost to the unfortunate final position of the gun. Reality stuff like this kinda takes some of the fun out of being a tank driver

Steve

To ignore the really saddening RL stuff - why don't TC's pop-up in 10 sec segments? That would seem more natural to me. I'd pop-up, get SA & duck. I would imagine IRL would be the same.

[John Kettler]

The IDF TCs sustained heavy casualties because they found they were far more effective fighting unbuttoned. This led to some vehicle modifications

in later tanks. U.S. Army studies and field trials found that an unbuttoned tank was 50% more combat effective than a buttoned one. That is why the M1 tank series has an ingenious hatch design providing overhead protection and almost 360 degree unimpeded view--with the hatch cracked!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hey John. When are you going to update your sign-off section with mention of your inclusion in ROW IV?

Regards

Jim R.

[dieseltaylor]

So there we have it. Tanks are more effective if unbuttoned - something most of us probably knew. Killing tank commanders with snipers - yep we knew that was their primary mission.

So automatic behaviour should be unbuttoned both in RL and the game. Tanks button under machine gun fire mortar fire etc but snipers could button a force for too long if left to a revamped AI. Borg spotting gives too many benefits as it is so this seems an elegant solution to gamey people who would drive around buttoned ahistorically.

Throwing your toys out of the pram ........

"Playing against the AI as in the demo is really only an introduction. Playing against a real human being by PBEM takes the game to another level. I'm a fussy picky bastard but this game gets me going [smile]"

[dangerousdave]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Thats it, no more games, at least for a while. The final straw involved the TacAI, surprise surprise, tank commnader ordered to keep buttoned up, TacAI says unbutton, sniper shoots commander. Two tanks out of five stuffed by gamey snipers and the game has hardly begun :mad:

The TacAI is way too intrusive, in some situations the game you are supposed to be playing is taken over by the TacAI, and usually stuffed up in the process.

That plus the restricted artillery, the over emphasis of infantry survival on terrain type, the bomb proof Matilda tank.....

Great effort though, what else comes close, really looking forward to the next generation game Which will be out, say again?

You mean you don't have total divine control over your forces? Obviously they don't respect you enough. I suggest a few arbitrary executions to teach them a lesson.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

This seems like a good place to ask a question I always was afraid to ask. Is there a difference spotting wise between a tank with a dead TC and one with a buttoned TC? I'd asume with a cupola there's a marked difference, but without one? Not that I have noticed anyway. Has borg spotting hidden the difference from me?

[junk2drive]

My experience seems to be that tanks with dead TCs back up and go away.

[Seanachai]

Ah, another Australian who's doubtless buggered off in fear of having me crush him in a battle.

Must be that, no one could whine about something so inconsequential without looking like a poodle.

[JonS]

The only thing you crush, Seanachai, are the chairs you make out of the used match sticks you sometimes manage to hustle out of homeless drunks.

[John Kettler]

KR,

Thanks for the reminder! Kept noticing it, meaning to do something about it, then forgetting. Should be fixed now, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by JonS:

The only thing you crush, Seanachai, are the chairs you make out of the used match sticks you sometimes manage to hustle out of homeless drunks.

I'm a bloody wizard, me. You think it's easy hustling things out of homeless drunks?

Don't mock, boyo, until you've done as much!

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

If you unbutton and re-button them each turn this won't happen. Ever. So I'm thinking you messed up, not your Tac AI tankers.

Play 'Opening Moments' and you will begin to understand what he means...

Yes, how the unbuttoning is handeled is not only extremely unrealistically, it also is very frustrating to micromanage that.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Play 'Opening Moments' and you will begin to understand what he means...

Yes, how the unbuttoning is handeled is not only extremely unrealistically, it also is very frustrating to micromanage that.

Oh, bugger it. The fact is, a buttoned tank is a blind tank. Frankly, the ability of a buttoned tank to take out enemies in the game is probably over-modeled. This whinging about tanks unbuttoning is stupid. A tank at this period in history that wants to actually achieve anything in combat unbuttons. You want the AI to know as much as you do about what's going on? Micro-manage the bugger. Want it to behave like a tank that wants to achieve something? Risk getting your TC kacked. Want it to stay buttoned? That'll happen once your TC gets whacked.

So you want your TC to know as much about the battlefield and it's threats as you do, in every locale, under every circumstance? Even though that's sometimes utterly unrealistic? And yet you still want the AI to react with lightening reflexes to the passing of those threats?

What a bunch of silly ****e. 'Micro-manage', piss, or get off the pity pot.

I agree, that the CM model is utterly ridiculous. Because, don't you know, Tank Commanders had one of the lowest mortality rates in the entire war. Hell, rear-echelon types involved with graves registration had a higher mortality rate than those gravy buggers commanding tanks in combat!

What I'm hearing here is 'my chess pieces never have their heads blown off in combat'.

Try dominoes. They never button up, or un-button at the wrong moment.

Shortly a wonderful, knowledgeable Grognard with a winning attitude will show up to explain this to you in detail, possibly with diagrams, footnotes, and cited sources. Immediately thereafter, another equally wonderful Grognard will show up to acknowledge your arguments and bitter remonstrations about how the 'game engine' doesn't correctly reflect life.

Won't change the fact that in modeling combat within the game, you've gotta take an active hand in making sure people don't have their heads blown off. An occupational hazard in wartime, I'm told.

It's all the same whinging we heard in earlier incarnations of the game when a tank would button, and stay buttoned, and miss that perfectly obvious and beautiful kill shot into the side of that enemy AFV because the tank was buttoned and apparently didn't spot that perfect shot!

Won't change the fact that I've won games with every single tank buttoned, because that utter bastard Berli had taken out every single crack TC with green sharpshooters and MG fire, at one time or another.

'Mom! I don't like these cards! I want different ones!'

[GreenAsJade]

All that just so he could slip in the bit that he has actually won a game at some stage!

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

All that just so he could slip in the bit that he has actually won a game at some stage!

Yeah, but I almost always win against Berli. God hates Satan. Nothing else could explain the wins I've pulled off against him.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

All that just so he could slip in the bit that he has actually won a game at some stage!

Here, you bugger. Where's your diagrams, footnotes, and cited references? Don't you have anything to contribute?!

[junk2drive]

From Use of armour in Vietnam an article at ktroop dot com. The last sentence is for this thread.

The US Army, in particular had a long history in WWII and Korea of the aggressive use of armor and this carried over to Vietnam where by its ability to force the pace and outmaneuver the enemy units were of considerable value. However, as Starry points out, whereas in previous wars armored units had been used as the forces which probed and outflanked the enemy, in Vietnam, "armor was used as a fixing force," essentially engaging the enemy and bringing him to battle, "while air mobile infantry became the encircling maneuver element."(14)

Whereas the French, in the previous Indochina war, against the communist Viet Minh had suffered severe casualties within their armored units whenever they had been ambushed, the US and allied forces found that usually, "the armored force, led by tanks, had sufficient combat power to withstand the massed ambush until supporting artillery, air, and infantry could brought in to destroy the enemy."(15) So throughout the war, engagements for armored forces usually took place with the armor forcing or creating the fight, often through invasion of the enemy's "safe areas" and infantry being used to reinforce or encircle were typical.

Perhaps the only real success for armor from the outset amongst the Americans and ARVN was the way in which mounted combat came to the fore for infantry in the form of the ACAV (Armored Cavalry Assault Vehicle). Until Vietnam, the US Army's doctrine had been that infantry units should dismount before assaulting an enemy position. However, as the ARVN discovered, this meant that when facing the massive amounts of firepower that the NLF or VPA could bring to bear during a firefight, the infantry was exposed to needless casualties, as well as losing the momentum of the attack.(16) Indeed it was the ARVN which pioneered the use of mounted tactics from APC's when they first deployed the M113 in 1962. They were also the first to discover the need for increased firepower on the vehicle by mounting an extra .30 Cal. MMG beside the commander, fired by an exposed prone soldier lying on the roof of the vehicle. Perhaps more importantly, they also discovered the vulnerability of the exposed track commander when manning the pintle mounted .50 Cal. HMG during the battle of Ap Bac where 14 out of 17 commanders became casualties.(17)

[sand digger]

Interesting responses, read em all. Love the 'like us of fluck off' ones, so tribal stereotypical

Playing QB ME's I found that against a good opponent the result usually hinged on who had the best end of the map, which got a bit tedious and predictable.

A bit surprising that most seem happy with the TacAI, one of the worst aspects of the game IMHO, the snipers knocking off tank commanders who were 'ordered' to button up concerned a Sherman and a Valentine IIRC. With this TacAI an order is not an order, a peculiar situation in war I would have thought.

Anyway, looking forward to the newie, right now a change of pace with Call of Duty. Hey, enjoy your games you all

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Interesting responses, read em all. Love the 'like us of fluck off' ones, so tribal stereotypical

Hey, enjoy your games you all

No, no! Keep posting until everyone agrees with you. Perseverance is important. I'm sure with enough repetitions your opinions will win out.