Vehicles/Armor without ammo can't hold VLs

[Pak40]

In a recent QB I had an armored car that had expended all of it's ammo try to hold a VL. The VL remained neutral. There was not a single enemy unit that came within 300 meters of the VL the entire game.

What's even worse is that if the armored car were knocked out or abandoned I could have used the crew to hold the VL. So in effect, a crew can't hold a VL while in an ammoless vehicle but once they get out of the vehicle they can. Seems kind of absurd.

[Redwolf]

Same for a shocked vehicles with ammo, they don't count. If the same reduced number of men gets abanonds the vehicle it counts for holding.

To make the game design coherent I hereby demand that we can AT-shoot at friendly vehicles

[Sarge Saunders]

I noticed this also with a shocked halftrack. It could not hold the VL. This doesn't make much sense really. I could understand how people could be gamey by driving vehicles around to VLs in order to take control. But, as Pak40 says, if there are no enemy units nearby then a VL should be controled by ammoless/shocked vehicles IMHO.

-Sarge

[Frunze]

I think FOs can't hold VLs either.

[Kingfish]

How can a vehicle with no ammo control an objective?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

How can a vehicle with no ammo control an objective?

I think the question is, how can the crew outside the vehicle, carrying only weapons that were with the vehicle all along.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Frunze:

I think FOs can't hold VLs either.

Yes, I was going to mention this also. In my case, the objective was behind my lines about 200 meters. The 105mm FO had plenty of ammo and was prepared to sit in the top story of the objective building and call fire missions on anyone seeking to advance on his position.

Why not award the FO control of the VL?

[ December 07, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

How can a vehicle with no ammo control an objective?

In the case of a shocked vehicle that can't fire maybe I could understand. But Pak40 mentioned a situation where a vehicle fires off ALL it's ammo. This could lead to serious gamey abuse. All I have to do to an enemy vehicle seeking to control a far VL is to keep it engaged and run it out of ammunition!? :confused:

Doesn't seem right to me.

-Sarge

[Kingfish]

In the case of a shocked vehicle that can't fire maybe I could understand. But Pak40 mentioned a situation where a vehicle fires off ALL it's ammo.

IMO, both should be treated the same way. Neither one has any way of defending the VL if it is contested, so why should they be rewarded the VL?

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In the case of a shocked vehicle that can't fire maybe I could understand. But Pak40 mentioned a situation where a vehicle fires off ALL it's ammo.

IMO, both should be treated the same way. Neither one has any way of defending the VL if it is contested, so why should they be rewarded the VL?</font>

[Kingfish]

But the difference is that Pak40's vehicle has already defended the VL and used up ammo in the process. After all was said and done, his unit was on the VL and the enemy's units were not. IMO the defending vehicle should be awarded a VL.

But that unit is no longer able to control the VL. For it to do so it must have the means in which to deny the enemy (whether 2 meters or 2 miles away) from contesting that control. A vehicle without ammo no longer has the means to do so.

If the enemy wants to then attack a "defenseless" VL by sending units there to contest/control it I have no problem with that. But what we are talking about is no enemy units around the VL. Could a vehicle with one round of ammo really defend a VL from a serious attack better than a completely ammo-less one?

Yes, because that one round has a chance (however slim) from denying the enemy control. A vehicle without ammo has no chance at all. It is no more effective than a truck.

[CombinedArms]

This was also true of CMBO, btw. I think it's debatable whether this ought to be the case, but the important thing is to know that it is the case.

If you know that vehicles w/o ammo can't hold VLs, and the VL is really safe from attack, you can probably find some unit or other who's poking around in your rear area who can go claim the VL. It might cost you a few points in one game before you learn this, but that's just part of the learning curve of CM.

[Sgt CDAT]

If you ask me a VL should be controled by who ever had control of it last ie you take control of a VL then move your line forward. you should not lose the VL unless the other side moves in to take it from you. This would take care of having to leave someone on VL behind your line!

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

But the difference is that Pak40's vehicle has already defended the VL and used up ammo in the process. After all was said and done, his unit was on the VL and the enemy's units were not. IMO the defending vehicle should be awarded a VL.

If the enemy wants to then attack a "defenseless" VL by sending units there to contest/control it I have no problem with that.

It is up to an opponent to actually contest the VL, not the AI to determine that it can't be defended with what is there!

Sarge

I disagree. The issue is (to the computer, and real-life). Does anyone OWN AND CONTROL the VL? If it is an ammoless truck, standing on top of the hill, the answer is: NO ONE OWNS IT .

It would be as if I, Terrapin, got transported to 1945 and snuck up into some abandoned library in Berlin and yelled out "I'M HERE, I'M QUE...", oh wait, off-topic, "I'M HERE AND I CONTROL THE LIBRARY!". Well, of course, I don't control it. I'm just there .

It doesn't matter if no one else is around. You don't have the capability to control it, and the only reason you have it is no one is there to notice you.

It's like the CMBB version of defensive indifference in Baseball, when a team doesn't care if second base is stolen, and the other team "steals" the base. The statician does not give a steal to that player.

[Sarge Saunders]

Some interesting counter-arguments given. Food for thought....

Now: What about the Artillery/Mortar FO. Why can't they control a VL with the above logic? They can certainly keep enemy units away if used properly.....depending on LOS.

BTW, being a pragmatic man I agree most of all with Combined Arms. Thus said, once you know it works a certain way it is easy to find some platoon HQ or half-squad to sit on a VL and control it.

-Sarge

[ December 07, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In the case of a shocked vehicle that can't fire maybe I could understand. But Pak40 mentioned a situation where a vehicle fires off ALL it's ammo.

IMO, both should be treated the same way. Neither one has any way of defending the VL if it is contested, so why should they be rewarded the VL?</font>

[Terrapin]

In a theoretical sense I agree with Eden. You shouldn't have to keep a guy with a rifle on every point, if you've eliminated the enemy from the region.

The problem is, how do you, at that point, determine a change in ownership (of the now "controlled" but vacant VL). Can the enemy just drop a jeep off on top, or some lone person and claim control? Because if you did that, you get into REALLY gamey problems, that would mimic the "Assault" forms of gameplay you see in Tribes 2 or Quake, where simply standing on the flag gives you the area. So you may have guys in fast jeeps just running around claiming vacant VLs for themselves (ever played Tony Hawk Pro Skater's "graffiti" mode? )

And, if you don't do that, and say "well, you have to at LEAST put a half-squad on board" (or come up with some imaginary firepower rating say), you are back where we started.

The way it is NOW leaves the least amount of problems. Changing it screws up a lot more. Isn't this the way ALL of these problems are? Nothing is ever simple. Sigh.

[Tarquelne]

It is up to an opponent to actually contest the VL, not the AI to determine that it can't be defended with what is there!

And your opponent won't necessarily know that unit at the VL is out of ammo.

Well, unless they notice that the Flag isn't flying your colors...

[Kingfish]

IMHO a flag should remain as it was last claimed until some enemy force threatens it- if my entire battalion was there, yet now there is only my empty mortar guy with a 45 (let alone nobody), then what is the implication? That I am highly confident that the enemy is not coming by anytime soon.

But can you honestly say you control the objective just because your battalion has passed thru the area and left no one to guard it?

To look at the question of whether it *could* be defended against an *imaginary* sizeable enemy seems to me somewhat bass ackwards. If the opponent feels that my little Crew guy is insufficiently powerful, then the opponent should feel free to attack- let the cards fall where they may.

We are debating two different things here. In your example you have a unit on the objective that is capable of defending itself, and thus the terrain it occupies as well.

In the original post Pak40 was referring to a unit that cannot defend itself. So how is this unit able to 'control' the objective?

This makes a big difference in tiny force size battles on nonetheless medium sized maps, (something I've been doing in QB lately). The logic as it stands now begs the player to make artificial, gamey, unnatural decisions about who to 'leave behind to guard the flag'.

Securing an objective is unnatural and gamey??? :confused:

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

But can you honestly say you control the objective just because your battalion has passed thru the area and left no one to guard it?

Yes, I can honestly say that, and I can say it very often- the enemy is before me, my battalion is advancing...

Once again "guard it"... AGAINST WHAT? You are putting the onus on me to have the ability to defend that flag against an imaginary enemy force in it's proximity. I refute that, and I deny that I (the more recent battalion in proximity) have that responsibility. It is much more natural to put that onus on 'you', the complainant, the opponent who feels that my force on that flag is insufficient. If your force is not imaginary, then bring it on. If it is imaginary, then so is the idea that you threaten the flag.

In the original post Pak40 was referring to a unit that cannot defend itself. So how is this unit able to 'control' the objective?

You're correct- Pak's example is a proper subset of my objection, so in re that I admit that I am hijacking the thread to at least consider the more general case, or the underlying supposition that we always need mighty force there in the first place.

How do I 'control' that objective? I will tell you exactly how- by denying it to the enemy with force between he and it. That does not require a halftrack on the exact location of the flag.

Securing an objective is unnatural and gamey??? :confused:

Please don't confuse the word 'secure'- I do not deny that force is needed to *secure*, id est "claim" a flag, but I don't agree that I need force points directly ON the flag for the flag to be "secure", id est unthreatened.

Does "secure" mean unassailable by the enemy? Then YES, that flag is secure, even with just a peon on it, even with nobody on it. Disagree? Prove it.

This is not the biggest issue in CM, not even for me, and most who don't play 'micro-force' games like I'm doing now won't even notice it. But yes, I do think it introduces gamieness to say that I must keep breaking off half-squads to sit on that exact pixel, when in RL his best interest would have been elsewhere, helping his comrades to *further* the control over that area already gained. Eh?

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Terrapin:

Can the enemy just drop a jeep off on top, or some lone person and claim control?

The way it already is, BFC has said that there's a *threshold* in order to claim a flag... Just bringing two rounds of Ruger up there won't do it, it takes some certain amount of real stuff.

Eden

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

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

But can you honestly say you control the objective just because your battalion has passed thru the area and left no one to guard it?

Yes, I can honestly say that, and I can say it very often- the enemy is before me, my battalion is advancing...

Once again "guard it"... AGAINST WHAT? You are putting the onus on me to have the ability to defend that flag against an imaginary enemy force in it's proximity. I refute that, and I deny that I (the more recent battalion in proximity) have that responsibility. It is much more natural to put that onus on 'you', the complainant, the opponent who feels that my force on that flag is insufficient. If your force is not imaginary, then bring it on. If it is imaginary, then so is the idea that you threaten the flag.</font>

[xerxes]

I suspect the decision on the ability to contest has a lot more to do with gamey "flag rush" tactics. For example, rushing your "no ammo" armored car in the last 20 seconds into the village to contest a flag. The AC probably won't die in the short span of time you exposed him and you could neutralize a flag.

Rather annoying.

I agree it is artificial, but quite frankly, flags themselves are really gamey.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the difference is that Pak40's vehicle has already defended the VL and used up ammo in the process. After all was said and done, his unit was on the VL and the enemy's units were not. IMO the defending vehicle should be awarded a VL.

But that unit is no longer able to control the VL. For it to do so it must have the means in which to deny the enemy (whether 2 meters or 2 miles away) from contesting that control. A vehicle without ammo no longer has the means to do so.

QB]</font>

[Slappy]

A particularly annonyin subset of Pak's point:

A mortar with no ammo cannot hold a flag.

A crew that has abandond its mortar can because it is now elibible to use its pistols.

I don't think that a vehicle or other unit should ever have less control over a VL than it's dismouted crew would.