MrPeng Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 I want horses with tripods stuck to 'em. And blood. Lots of blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 I think horses should be included, along with soldiers stepping in "stuff" wherever the horses have been. That would have a negative affect on morale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Woould those be poo-dads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Road apples, meadow muffins. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 I explain them the same way i explain cavalry or trucks...used to move the units. There are kitchen details in the to&e also, but I don't expect them to be on the front line. Easy enough... Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Yes, it is a simple formula: they have no combat value, and so are not modelled. Trucks have very little combat value, but they can move troops and other units so their value is worthwhile. Horses could theoretically move guns during combat but that is far-fetched enough not to warrent the work. I for one am rooting for mounted cavalry though, as justified by my "doctored" photos on page one - which by the way were taken from Glantz' "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat" and recounts ACTUAL MOUNTED CAVALRY ATTACKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Originally posted by rune: I explain them the same way i explain cavalry or trucks...used to move the units. There are kitchen details in the to&e also, but I don't expect them to be on the front line. Easy enough... RuneI don't think so. A platoon has no kitchen. But horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: Andreas, I know about the 'ammo movement' abstraction. I wonder what your Grandfather (he is hopefully still in our dimension) can tell us about it!? Rune, if horses were not at the frontline, how do you explaine the TO&E of the (for example) Platoons 1-3, German Light Jäger Company (July 44): 1 Platoon Leader 2 Messengers 1 Wagon Driver (two horses & Panje wagon with MG34 carriage) Groups (all together): 3 Group leaders 30 Riflemen/MG-Gunners 3 Infantry carts & 3 horses 3 Infantry cards, hand drawn.Scipio, my grandfather only got trained on the IG, he never got to use it, because he ended up in a counter-battery unit. I'll ask him anyway over Christmas. Your point about the horses in the Jaeger platoon, that should be easy enough. I would expect them to stay behind the frontline far enough to not get hurt (probably BN CP). Basically the same place where the trucks in motorised units would be. Out of harm's way I have a very detailed study of the attack of 101. Jaeger into the Soviet bridgehead near Barvenkovo May 1942 - no mention of horses there IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio: Andreas, I know about the 'ammo movement' abstraction. I wonder what your Grandfather (he is hopefully still in our dimension) can tell us about it!? Rune, if horses were not at the frontline, how do you explaine the TO&E of the (for example) Platoons 1-3, German Light Jäger Company (July 44): 1 Platoon Leader 2 Messengers 1 Wagon Driver (two horses & Panje wagon with MG34 carriage) Groups (all together): 3 Group leaders 30 Riflemen/MG-Gunners 3 Infantry carts & 3 horses 3 Infantry cards, hand drawn.Scipio, my grandfather only got trained on the IG, he never got to use it, because he ended up in a counter-battery unit. I'll ask him anyway over Christmas. Your point about the horses in the Jaeger platoon, that should be easy enough. I would expect them to stay behind the frontline far enough to not get hurt (probably BN CP). Basically the same place where the trucks in motorised units would be. Out of harm's way I have a very detailed study of the attack of 101. Jaeger into the Soviet bridgehead near Barvenkovo May 1942 - no mention of horses there IIRC.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: Mh - how many trucks are mentioned? Good point well made - I don't know, but my immediate thought is 'none'. I think horses would have a better chance to register with me so I am less certain on trucks. I'll have a look at it again when I get around to it. They mention the Radfahrschwadron a lot though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Cut and paste from a 2000 post arguing against Horses unlimbering gun in direct enemy fire 1944 Western front. "Well Mr I want change the ascendant argument but have no proof to back my thesis. Taken from http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/index.html I personally don’t believe that Horse drawn artillery cruised the front lines limbered up looking for some action. Therefore I’ll confine my self to the Battalions integral mortar (GrW), IG and PaK support for the German Infantry Divisions during Normandy in this I ignore the Fus Batt and Pion batt/coy since they posse no IG at all: 77: 45 GrW, 8 IG, 12 PaK38 5cm half with Mot transport, 12 Pak40 7,5cm all with Mot. 85: 72 GrW, 12 IG, 4 sIG, 25 PaK40 all Mot. 91: ? Although on the 27 of June the report stated that it had PaK40 Mot, 21 StuG (from? 902 StuG abt) and 10 PaK40 sf (Marder III or maybe a French lash up). 243: 70 GrW, 12 7,62cm Russian guns, 12 Marder III, 10 StuG. 265: only a mobile Kampfgruppe saw action totalling around a regt, 16 GrW, 6 7,62cm Russian. 266: Kampfgruppe, heavy weapons unknown. 272: Of interest in that the total number of Guns/howitzers/IG’s is listed as well as the total number of towing veh, 91 and 71 respectively. 54 GrW, 32 sGrW, 19 IG, 9 sIG. The horse (4000) apparently did something eles 275: only a Kampgruppe saw action (It should be noted that the creation of Kampgruppes for the infantry division was based on the available number of motorised transport, in affect the remainder of the division whether in central France or the Netherlands became a static formation) 18 GrW, 2 IG, 2 sIG. 276:? 277: 58 GrW, 19 IG, 6 sIG. 326: 56 GrW, IG ? sIG? 14 Marder III, 10 StuG, 8 PaK40 mot. 331: 72 GrW, 12 IG, 4 sIG, 14 Marder III, 10 StuG, 12 FlaK 38 mot. 346: unknown number of GrW. 13 kp (aka the IG one) is listed as GrW armed. 352: 72 GrW, 14 IG, 8 sIG, 13 Marder III, 10 StuG. 353: 72 GrW, 14 IG, 6 sIG, 14 Marder III, 10 StuG 708: Static div aka its all horse drawn no 13 kp (IG’s included) 709: 71 GrW, no 13 Kp, all PaK mot 711: Static, no Kampagruppes detached, no 13 Kp listed or reported. 716: idiosyncratic in that it’s the only div which posses no motorised transport for the 14 Kp, no 13 Kp. It should be realised that the 13 Kp was considered a Regt level resources, as opposed to the mortars (GrW), which were Battalion level and tended to be kept away from the front lines. This work by old Nick has also surprised me in that the majority of the PaK’s and IG’s were to have been mot and equipped as such. What do you have to indicate roving batteries of horse drawn leFH 10,5cm looking to engage the enemy in direct fire actually occurred? Lets compare the game to reality shall we?" One of the hilarious things is that inspite of the build-up in '44 France the area was still considered an Army backwater and therefore received less vehs and fuel relative to the Russian front. [ December 05, 2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 See, this is why the replacements sent into veteran line units were shunned by the old vets. It wasn't just because making friends and then watching them die was hard, it was ofcourse, but it was also because the old guys had seen it all and heard it all before. After the 200th time of hearing; But sarge, why can't I stand up in the foxhole at night and light a cigerette?, one simply turned the other way and let the poor bastage find out on his own. Kapow! One less replacement to worry about. This probably makes about the 200th time someone runs through the forum door all excited with what they figure must for sure be a new idea and then finds to their amazement that everyone doesn't just jump up and cheer. It doesn't matter if horses were in battle or not, were on the front line or not, or were in the soup kettle or not. BTS has said they ain't gonna model em, and they've stated why they ain't gonna model em, and like the ole sarge after explaining it a hundred times they probably ain't gonna say it again. So go ahead kids, smoke em if ya got em. [ December 05, 2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 When we use the Wayback Machine to make BFC include horses what shall we have them remove from the game? Or do we force them (how many commandos are being sent?) to delay the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Jerkov Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Yep, horses, lots of horses, and motorcycles.. well and bicycles.. heh, among other viable transport. Although it wouldnt have been too bad to see them occassionaly, but I can understand the omission and there use was primarily transport, we got jeeps,trucks and halftracks to tote stuff around if neccessary. I would love to run into a platoon of ss-bicyclewerfennerfers with some kv-1's, however. But if you miss those other modes of transport, try EFI&II by TS, to see what your missing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Originally posted by Major Jerkov: Yep, horses, lots of horses, and motorcycles.. well and bicycles.. heh, among other viable transport. Although it wouldnt have been too bad to see them occassionaly, but I can understand the omission and there use was primarily transport, we got jeeps,trucks and halftracks to tote stuff around if neccessary. I would love to run into a platoon of ss-bicyclewerfennerfers with some kv-1's, however. But if you miss those other modes of transport, try EFI&II by TS, to see what your missing...Don't forget Field kitchens, there were more of them in WWII than T34s and Shermans put together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Yes, it is a simple formula: they have no combat value, and so are not modelled. Trucks have very little combat value, but they can move troops and other units so their value is worthwhile. Horses could theoretically move guns during combat but that is far-fetched enough not to warrent the work. I for one am rooting for mounted cavalry though, as justified by my "doctored" photos on page one - which by the way were taken from Glantz' "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat" and recounts ACTUAL MOUNTED CAVALRY ATTACKS.The next time you go on about this, and post that damn picture yet again, I swear to God I will drive to your trailer park and kill you. NO CAVALRY ATTACKS FOR YOU! NO CAVALRY ATTACKS EVER! Take up Napoleonics, Panzer Leader. Your strange obsessions are wasted here, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 I thought the reason horses weren't modeled was that it was too much hassle for the programmers to work out all teh code for looking after them - you'd need partial casualties for teams much like squads have now, provision for horse holders, tracking horse-less riders (for cavalry), and riderless horses, new animations, more pixels on the screen (hence lower graphic performance) etc. There's plenty of fighting to go on with in the mean time without having to add all that stuff for the sake of a few cavalry charges or wagon trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Not to mention the difficulty of managing the little girl being reunited with Flicka in every scenario. Seriously, you lot, I thought only teenage girls got this hung up about horses? On the other hand, after you've waded through enough of these posts, there must surely be a pony in here somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sitting Duck Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 You guys really just don't understand. I need those damn horses to tow my bogged Tigers out of the scattered woods up to front lines where they can do some good. I wonder how big the horse icon would be that would be able to embark the Tiger? We'd probably need the option to turn off the 300th horse (like we do for the 3rd man in a squad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Edited out because I didn't realise there was a Page 2 and Bastables already gave the same quote. [ December 06, 2002, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 It would be totaly sweet if the horses could make use of sewer movement too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Panzerleader, Yes, it is a simple formula: they have no combat value, and so are not modelled. Completely wrong ! Tracks and engine on a tank have no combat value so they could be left out the same without distorting the game according to your definition, which is of course complete nonsense. A horse equipped platoon is much more manouverable just the same the guns in tanks are. (Since a tanks is a moving armored gun) Of course horses are quite brittle when shot at, but that's not the point. Fighting in the east without horses was unthinkable ! Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Originally posted by TSword: Fighting in the east without horses was unthinkable ! BFC of course realised that, and hence they are in the game. Just not on-map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted December 6, 2002 Share Posted December 6, 2002 Originally posted by Seanachai: Seriously, you lot, I thought only teenage girls got this hung up about horses? Oh yea of limited imagination - and what's wrong with teenage girls eh??!! Why do you think I take my boys (aged 6 and 8) to riding lessons? And even take a few myself? Eh? eh? nudge nudge, wink wink!! Don't you think CM would benefit from having a few lasses hanging around? :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts