Why horse transport not modeled?

[jbertles]

It always seemed to me that the lack of horse transport for Germans was an odd omission in CMBO. Even as late as the Falaise Gap battles accounts mention the wreckage of horse transport.

But now that CMBB brings us even earlier in time I feel that omitting horse transport is not accurate. Perhaps in set-piece battles the horses would drop off their loads out of range of battle (esp if they are arty), but what about ambushes? It would be nice to have the option.

Looking at those fascinating pictures taken by Otto in the Ostfront (see other thread), it becomes clear that horses were a major form of transportation (esp comment that in '42 winter they didn't have proper snow transport and only horses were reliable).

Admittedly, no one wants to see game pix of Old Paint or the Black Stallion slaughtered and lying around, but if the game purports to be accurate then horse transport should at least be modeled.

[JaegerMeister]

Yeah i agree, i think the lack of horse drawn transport is a major ommission in the eastern front, merely for trying to recreate hundreds of scenarios where convoys were ambushed/protected, escaping from kessels etc...endless possibilities.

Is there a 'code' reason for this? or is it a 'humane'thing showing loads of dead horses?

[jbertles]

Further into Otto pictures now - narration states that horse is the only reliable transport in deep mud conditions.

[Andreas]

1) They could not have done it well enough

2) It would have required a new morale model for animals

3) On the tactical combat scale it was not relevant enough to warrant the time needed to achieve 1 & 2 seeing that other things were more important.

You can also do a search in the archives on this one.

[Monty's Double]

Animal mutilation is a crime.

[Panzer Leader]

And if you had these horses, what would you do with them? They are not combat vehicles, that is why they're not modelled. They have no place on the battlefield.

Now, if we're talking about cavalry, well that's a different story...

[Bruno Weiss]

True, but you could strap em to the side of T-60's and T-70's to deflect anti-tank mines and add additional protection to the armor.

[JaegerMeister]

"What would we do with them"?..err, protect them, ambush them, escort them, charge with them, patrol with them,...anything else wiseguy!

..read anybook, see almost any photo..horses were there in abundance, in 'combat' situations.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

read anybook, see almost any photo..horses were there in abundance, in 'combat' situations.

A bit more specific maybe? Which books are you talking about, and which pictures that are not staged?

How does that impact on the 'it is less important than remodelling (insert important area here)' argument BTW?

[Panzer Leader]

So were civilians, but I don't think we'll see those modelled anytime soon. And as for usefullness on the battlefield, I would say horses and civilains are of about equal 'usefullness.'

[JaegerMeister]

'Staged pictures'..you are joking?...'erm yep, you 500 cossacks, would you mind just lining up for a photo and then charge into some retreating infantry while we take photos'...oh and lets pretend that horse drawn convoys were never used then shall we, 'stage' a few photos of shot-up/crushed wagons and teams for the benefit of mankind.

I'm not arguing about their importance level, just that they were there in the thousands. The whole reason that pockets formed so often were slow moving infantry divisions with predominantly horse drawn transport being cut off by (and then rescuing by) mechanised forces...plenty of scenario options there dont you think?! And cossack divisions were there on both sides as well as the Florian Geyer division.

[MikeyD]

Horses and motorcycles were both debated during the Beta. The consensus, if memory serves, was they were both of VERY limited tactical value once shooting starts. Even those oft-repeated Polish Cavalry charges at the start of WWII are little more than a propaganda myth. CM has cavalry units, when you make a new scenario just mention that the horses were left back out of mortar range or something.

A second problem would be HOW you'd use them. with this game engine you can't sub-sub divide combat teams down to individuals to place them onto horses. So would one horse 'represent' three horses? Ditto for cycles.

And thirdly, the amount of labor it would've taken to write them into the program and construct useable polygons would've been much too high in proportion to their value to the game.

As a side-note, rumor has it that you were lucky to even get trucks! Matt's no truck grog, that's a fact, and he considers 'em almost as tacticaly useless at the game scale as horses & bicycles. If it weren't for their occassional utility towing guns they may not have been included either.

[ December 05, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Scipio]

I don't agree to the simple arguments 'can't be modeled' and 'not usefull'.

First, I don't speak about cavalery. They maybe had some moments at the EF, but...you know?

Horses as transport could enhance speed of heavy support weapons up to normal 'infantry walking speed'. Also in terrain that normal vehicels can't enter ( I assume that also in heavy woods are pathes, even if they are only abstracted in the game).

Can't be modeled? Well, it might be difficult to display horses, for several reasons. But as abstraction? I see two simple ways (speaking as somebody who don't need to hardcode that, of course)

1) Horses are only displayed in the description, for example of a gun. If they get lost, by whatever reason, the weapon looses all or most mobility.

2) Instead of horses, display a simple wooden wagon with a driver on it. This might look a bit odd, but damn, it's just an abstraction, and we all known what is meant.

Is a special 'moral' for animals needed? I don't think so. If a horse panics, it runs away and is gone until the battle is over, I don't think that a normal person is able or willing to catch it and bring it back while the bullets are flying. If something happens that makes the crew panic, you can be sure that the horse panics as well.

On the tactical combat scale, it makes a difference if you need 1 minute or 10 minutes to move a short distance.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scipio:

On the tactical combat scale, it makes a difference if you need 1 minute or 10 minutes to move a short distance.

I am always interested in tactical movement of artillery by horse. If that was done so regularly, I look forward to you finding all the examples. I also look forward to your explanation why the Wehrmacht had special harnesses for the gun crews of the IG18 and other light guns to move the gun in a tactical combat situation.

This is how tactical movement of guns in a combat situation was supposed to look like:

and

Where are the horses? Yes, movement could be enhanced - it could also be enhanced by anti-gravitational fields, and that would be about as realistic.

Regarding your other arguments, you obviously have not thought about this very much. What if the horse panicks while it is in harness? Will the gun be gone too if the horses run off? What if one horse dies, but the others are still alive? Slow down movement? Disallow movement?

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

And if you had these horses, what would you do with them? They are not combat vehicles, that is why they're not modelled. They have no place on the battlefield.

Now, if we're talking about cavalry, well that's a different story...

------------------------------------

Yeah...and russsian cavalry DID charged on retreating german columns during winter offensive in 41.

Anyway they usually dismounted while threatened by direct fire, but as maps in CMBB can have several kilometers it would be interesting to model them (we have skies after all as means of transportation)to outmaneuver enemy!!!

--------------------------

Am I right Beta-Andreas? Or not?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

I'm not arguing about their importance level, just that they were there in the thousands.

Fine, we are in total agreement then. They were there in their thousands, 6,033 in a German infantry division of the 3rd Wave for example. Better make that millions then.

They were also unimportant enough on the tactical combat level to not warrant their inclusion in CMBB. Too much hassle for little gain.

And yes, staged pictures. The ones where propaganda correspondents come along and ask soldiers to pretend to do things after the combat is over, or before it begins.

But as I said, do a search, and you will get BFC's official explanation, and the same arguments you are reading here, on both sides.

[Andreas]

There is no dispute from me that charges happened (the most strange one must have been a camel charge that Rauss relates). But what is the likely outcome?

Let's see:

1) Charge suprises Germans, Germans die.

2) Charge does not surprise Germans, charging cavalry dies.

3) There is no 3.

That makes for such riveting battles that I am amazed that BFC decided to not include horses just to model these two options. Yep, big blunder, I see it now.

Some examples - charge on the Vazuza during Mars (Soviets died). Charges on retreating/fleeing columns (Germans died). Camel cavalry during 'Winterstorm' (Soviets died). Belov's corp breaking out across Olenino road - I think (no tactical combat).

Movement on map - use trucks.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Let's make it clear.

I agree on difficulties modeling typical horses used for transportantion in a similar way than trucks did. And perhaps Andreas is right that on tactical scale (direct combat) they were used rarely as equipement carrying assets. But Russians did have large cavalry units

and as personal carriers for cavalry units...I think thaey might be an asset in next battlefront engine.

regards

[Egbert]

The reason there is no horse in the game is that the AI would Always backup before taking the first shot...

It was a bug.

If that's your chief complaint, buy a second copy of the game, ya ninny.

{Edited to emphasize just how goofy a complaint it is.}

[ December 05, 2002, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Egbert ]

[Scipio]

Well, Andreas, I see the problem. But your arguments rises other questions : why can a (light) gun not 'run' (well, move a bit faster) as shown on one of your pics? Where are the 50 shells on you pics? Finally, why does a gun/mortar crew not tire when moving? Or have I missed this feature?

[JaegerMeister]

Well i agree with some of the comments here and not with others, i just dont buy Andreas comments that horses were not in tactical situations, wether by choice or not. But i for one would have enjoyed the challenge on a big map of trying to retreat a vulnerable horse drawn convoy from one side to the other, fending off enemy attacks or rushing to the rescue with some armour. Battles like Demyansk and Cherkassy could be simulated in this way.

MikeyD has given the reasons and thats the way it is, i guess.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Well, Andreas, I see the problem. But your arguments rises other questions : why can a (light) gun not 'run' (well, move a bit faster) as shown on one of your pics? Where are the 50 shells on you pics? Finally, why does a gun/mortar crew not tire when moving? Or have I missed this feature?

According to my grandfather (who is one of the guys in the first picture), you could do this for at most 100m (when you are fit, healthy, and on decent ground), and then you would break down exhausted. The second picture was an official postcard, I leave it up to the viewer to judge how 'real' it was.

The slow movement in the game is due to the abstraction of carrying the ammunition back and forth. It is heavily abstracted in game, and I hope it will be looked at for the engine rewrite.

[jbertles]

Well, it is interesting to read the responses. And I did look through the archives and found that much of this ground has been covered before.

But it is also indicative that there seems to be (even now) much disagreement about this. I think that much of this argument wouldn't take place if the game did not tout itself so strongly on the reality aspect. After all, a game that includes sturmtigers (with a grand total of 10+- produced) should include horse transport in their millions.

Even a cheesy abstraction like creating a truck unit with sharply limited mobility and labelling it as "horse/truck" would be sufficient. I don't need the nice images, just the tactical possibility.

[rune]

You ignore a simple point, Sturmtigers were at the front and were used...horses were NOT expected to be on the front line. CMBB is the actual attacks...was there a rare time or two where a column came under attack? Yep. However, this is NOT the norm, and there is no way to program for every situation. I did a battle at an airfield, should I be upset that there isn't aircraft wreckage I can place? Of course not...

Horses are out of the scope of the game, too hard to model, and don't forget you have to animate them. All that time coding for a once in a blue moon circumstance just won't happen... at the cost that something else would not have been coded.

You have people asking now why the road wheels on the StuG are the same as on teh StuH. Imagine the grog outcry if horses wre trucks...

Rune

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Well, Andreas, I see the problem. But your arguments rises other questions : why can a (light) gun not 'run' (well, move a bit faster) as shown on one of your pics? Where are the 50 shells on you pics? Finally, why does a gun/mortar crew not tire when moving? Or have I missed this feature?

According to my grandfather (who is one of the guys in the first picture), you could do this for at most 100m (when you are fit, healthy, and on decent ground), and then you would break down exhausted. The second picture was an official postcard, I leave it up to the viewer to judge how 'real' it was.

The slow movement in the game is due to the abstraction of carrying the ammunition back and forth. It is heavily abstracted in game, and I hope it will be looked at for the engine rewrite.</font>