Horses & Transport

[Scipio]

It's well known that we don't have horses in CM:BO and also not in CM:BB. The usual answer is: real cavallary action was rarly seen in WWII, like the suicide attacks on German tanks in Poland. Okay.

But of course it is also well known that the normal role of horses in WWII were not cavalery, but drawing carts and guns. Indeed was the horse-drawn cart the most used transport in WWII, not trucks or HTs.

So what about carts and transport horses in general?

[ May 22, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Kingfish]

Are you asking for horse drawn carts to be included? If so, for what?

[Scipio]

Carts were used for nearly evering. Heavy MG, mortars...and for a lot of abstracted things out of the CM scope like ammo, wounded...

Guns were mostly drawn by horses. Don't nail me down on numbers, but I assume it was more then 50%.

They were of course not so fast like trucks, but I assume they can speed up the transport.

[Thin Red Line]

I think it has also been previously explained said that although widely used for transport, horses were not often involved directly in battles, so they don't fall in the scope of CMBB

(like kitchen units, ambulances, etc...).

[Bruno Weiss]

Must be 500 megs of dialog on this topic somewhere's in the database. If recollection serves me correctly, BTS said too much programming would have to be devoted to correctly present horse power for something that was not a major item in CM's scope. Somefink like that.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Must be 500 megs of dialog on this topic somewhere's in the database. If recollection serves me correctly, BTS said too much programming would have to be devoted to correctly present horse power for something that was not a major item in CM's scope. Somefink like that.

Really? The horses were not that far away from gun positions, cause they had to move the gun out of the danger zone if necessary. And they were of course also used to bring the guns in position. Even under fire.

And what's the issue with the coding effort? All this can be abstracted. 4 horses in the units description, a change of the movment speed, maybe a small symbol somwhere to show that this gun is horse drawn. The same would work for carts.

[ May 22, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[edgars]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I think it has also been previously explained said that although widely used for transport, horses were not often involved directly in battles, so they don't fall in the scope of CMBB

(like kitchen units, ambulances, etc...).

So are trucks, but they're in CMBO.

[Scipio]

P.S.: Of course this has been discussed already. Every aspect of CM has been discussed already. But do we have something better to do until CM:BB is out?

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by ciks:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

I think it has also been previously explained said that although widely used for transport, horses were not often involved directly in battles, so they don't fall in the scope of CMBB

(like kitchen units, ambulances, etc...).

So are trucks, but they're in CMBO.</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

But trucks don't panic and bolt under fire or take incremental casualties.

Funnily enough infantry units do both.

Why not model them using an ordinary infantry units as a base instead of a truck or other vehicle. For example a team of four horses could be possibly done using a team of 4 souped up men as a base unit. That way the unit would have both the load carrying capacity and all the morale and other aspects related with the beasts of burden under fire.

NOTE: there were veteran horses which were more stable under fire than conscript horses.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Offwhite:

But trucks don't panic and bolt under fire or take incremental casualties.

Funnily enough infantry units do both.

Why not model them using an ordinary infantry units as a base instead of a truck or other vehicle. For example a team of four horses could be possibly done using a team of 4 souped up men as a base unit. That way the unit would have both the load carrying capacity and all the morale and other aspects related with the beasts of burden under fire.

NOTE: there were veteran horses which were more stable under fire than conscript horses.

So were Finnish horses uber-equines, then?

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

But trucks don't panic and bolt under fire or take incremental casualties.

Right, but that is not the point. We have trucks and HTs as transport, but indeed were horses and carts much more common then motorized transport. And as I said, with a bit abstraction they could be modeled relative easy.

[ May 22, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Keke]

So were Finnish horses uber-equines, then?

Neighing of Finnish horses used to route Russian infantry right away.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by tero:

Funnily enough infantry units do both.

I wasn't clear enough. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: in CMBO, vehicles have one set of characteristics (such as discrete location, binary dead/alive status, transport capacity) and infantry have a completely different set of characteristics (such as area footprint, incremental casualties, no transport capacity).

No unit in the game blends these attributes now, and my guess (yes, just a guess) is that vehicles and infantry are coded so fundamentally different in the program that a unit like horses, which would require combining some infantry attributes with some vehicle attributes, cannot "relative[ly] easy be modeled."

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

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

Funnily enough infantry units do both.

I wasn't clear enough. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: in CMBO, vehicles have one set of characteristics (such as discrete location, binary dead/alive status, transport capacity) and infantry have a completely different set of characteristics (such as area footprint, incremental casualties, no transport capacity).

No unit in the game blends these attributes now, and my guess (yes, just a guess) is that vehicles and infantry are coded so fundamentally different in the program that a unit like horses, which would require combining some infantry attributes with some vehicle attributes, cannot "relative[ly] easy be modeled."</font>

[Priest]

There is another fundamental difference between trucks and HTs versus horses. HTs (especially) were ridden into combat (although as stated dismounted before engagement) and then at times used for local infantry support. Trucks were already something being coded in for the Allied side, giving them to the Germans was easy, they are the same unit, either side. HTs are in for a good reason, trucks are in because they are easy. Horses are out because there is no good reason and that they are not easy, if they were Charles would take care of it. Charles and Steve say they are not, so they are not. See plain as day!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Priest:

There is another fundamental difference between trucks and HTs versus horses. HTs (especially) were ridden into combat (although as stated dismounted before engagement) and then at times used for local infantry support. Trucks were already something being coded in for the Allied side, giving them to the Germans was easy, they are the same unit, either side. HTs are in for a good reason, trucks are in because they are easy. Horses are out because there is no good reason and that they are not easy, if they were Charles would take care of it. Charles and Steve say they are not, so they are not. See plain as day!

Must I do everything on my own?

[Priest]

YES!

[Runyan99]

Scipio, I tend to agree with you. The horses should be in there on some level. They are out for CMBB, but I am sure we will see horses in the future of the Combat Mission series. Perhaps for CM4 - The Early War?

[Kingfish]

Want to see what a scenario with horses would be like? Take a huge map, add a few trucks as substitutes for the horses. Now hitch a few guns onto the trucks and have them transport the guns from one end of the map to the other. There, you've just played a artillery hauling scenario with horses in it.

Want some variety? Take the same map and trucks, but this time remove the guns. Once again,

run the trucks from one end of the map to the other. There, you've just played a resupply scenario with horses.

Think of any others?

[Priest]

For added reality, use only reverse for the trucks to limit their "gamey" speed!

[tailz]

Would one of the members of the pro-horse camp explain exactly why they want horses on the battlefield? (not to be insulting, I'd just like to know why and what they would do with them... bearing in mind, I don't play battles with trucks, or drag artillery around the battlefield either.)

tailz

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

So were Finnish horses uber-equines, then?

Not really.

I have read the life expectancy of equines in the German army in the Eastern Front for example was not very good. Winters were really the bane of German horses.

Some (most ?) Finnish horses survived years of service during the war.

[Dan5681]

good food when youre out of supplies. But they wouldnt kill them would they, I mean

if they get killed, we eat em...cool.

if they live they carry everything and we eat em when we really need em in leningrad...sweet

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Want to see what a scenario with horses would be like? Take a huge map, add a few trucks as substitutes for the horses. Now hitch a few guns onto the trucks and have them transport the guns from one end of the map to the other. There, you've just played a artillery hauling scenario with horses in it.

Want some variety? Take the same map and trucks, but this time remove the guns. Once again,

run the trucks from one end of the map to the other. There, you've just played a resupply scenario with horses.

Think of any others?

The question is not what we want, but what is historical correct.