Using surviving tank crews to act as spotters: gamey or actual?

[Louie the Toad]

Originally posted just before the crash. If a unit acts as a team, wouldnt spare crews be used to sneak a peak over the next rise to help out the unit? Lets not talk about using infantry here.

"Go see what that is..." - Oliver Hardy

[Michael Emrys]

Definitely gamey. Except in rare circumstances, a tank crew should be hustling to the rear to pick up a new tank. That's what they are trained for, not to act as LRRPs.

Michael

[Bog]

Besides being gamey, those crews will have little or no spotting power. The game was designed (read in the manual) so that crews would have limited spotting capibility. Also, they'll be Rattled and have Low ammo. Sending them to recon/spot is just asking for extra casualties.

[Jarmo]

And in real life the crews wouldn't have radios to

report their seeings anyway.

Of course, in war pretty much everything happened.

There were tank commanders with medals to

prove they whacked tanks after they bailed out.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Of course, in war pretty much everything happened.

There were tank commanders with medals to

prove they whacked tanks after they bailed out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite on topic but I was also reading recently in Charles MacDonald's excellent book on the Battle of the Bulge (A Time for Trumpets) about a US artillery spotter who killed a tank with a bazooka. Also, platoon leaders killing tanks with bazookas and US infantry in general picking up whatever extra heavy weapons they could accumulate: zooks, MGs, BARs, etc. And captured US troops who slipped away and brought tanks in to KO their captors. In short, soldiers in real life were gamey, gamey, gamey!

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Yes, I agree with the notion that soilders

were indeed very gamey, especially the U.S.

Their innovation/adaptivness was one of the

biggest advantages they had. I don't think

it's gamey just because your opponet didn't

think of it and plan for it.

Later,

WARHAMMER :cool:

[Michael Emrys]

Unless I am mistaken, the game has been designed so that dead tankers and gun crews cost you more victory points than dead grunts.

Michael

[Afkamm]

... and they can't see very far either. BS saw that this might happen and so made them all short-sighted <g>

Marc

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Unless I am mistaken, the game has been designed so that dead tankers and gun crews cost you more victory points than dead grunts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, 6 points regular crewmember (tanks and mortars/guns alike) and 8 veteran.

Infantry is squad cost devided by number of men. So if the squad has many automatic weapons they are more expensive, typical value is 3 points/men.

Plus crews surrender easily, which doubles points for the opponent. And they even seem to be easier to spot (didn't really test).

In my opinion, it is OK to use vehicle crews for spotting if the vehicle was a recon vehicle (not determined by vehicle type, but usage at that point in game), since real world recon was made by dismounted crews that left their vehicle behind and later remanned it. Crews from guns/mortars or fighting vehicles (again, by deployment) should be evacuated.

A proper understanding of CMBO's victory point system puts a limit on crew abuse, so I don't think it is that much of a big deal.

[Louie the Toad]

Thanks for the info.

[Louie the Toad]

" since real world recon was made by dismounted crews that left

their vehicle behind and later" - Redwolf

This would be a great feature to have in the game. Would certainly make recon units more effective and less vulnerable.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

" since real world recon was made by dismounted crews that left

their vehicle behind and later" - Redwolf

This would be a great feature to have in the game. Would certainly make recon units more effective and less vulnerable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We also need that for things like British 3" mortar and univeral carrier. The carrier drivers are part of the mortar crew in reality. But since CMBO does not model mounting/dismounting of vehicle crews, the mortar tean has only 3 men and is quite cheap accordingly.

I also missed an "abadon weapon" command lately since I had a 17 pounder gun that was useless and it was clear that it would be overrun. I could have saved the valuable crew, but as it was the whole thing with all men went into captivity.

[tenfive2]

Well, I use my crews wherever I can...

[imported_WARHAMMER]

Thanks for the info Louie. I guess I don't

care about the point system. I like my games

to go untill one side surenders. On the QB games, I up the number of turns way beyond

what I know the game will take. My idea of

realism is either you surender or you win!

Later,

WARHAMMER :cool:

[Immolator]

I like to use the crews if necessary. I had one crew move forward and take out a panzerschreck team that was messing with my TD. It was sweet revenge for the crew and saved the TD whose protective platoon happened to be in a panic since their HQ was gone. I think using crews is certainly OK since the points system places added risk for the player using them.

[Thermopylae]

Perhaps bailed crews shouldn't be placed under direct control of the player? In real life, they would be more or less on their own, with a basic notion of survival being their main goal, especially since that notion would have been infintely heightened by having their vehicle turned into a flaming pyre of death.

[PiggDogg]

Crews are also good for occupying captured, but bypassed flags. Personally, i think that the game allows them more abilities than they probably would have had in real life. but rear area flag sitting is a good use for them. Richadr

[tar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thermopylae:

Perhaps bailed crews shouldn't be placed under direct control of the player?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really like this suggestion. The crews should just be handled by the game system (and generally try to move toward the rear area.

[Moriarty]

The only time I'll use crews is if there is no other option available because they are caught in a defensive situation where there is no route open to move them to the rear. Then they're stuck with the grunts, but I'll usually try to find a building or some cover for them to hide in. Using them in combat is the last resort.

There were indeed real-life instances where bailed out crews did remarkable things on their own after their tanks were immobilized, mortars put out of action, etc. But, these crews acted of their own volition ... they were not ordered, nor do I believe there were standing orders to the effect that "If you lose your tank, find the nearest dead bazookaman, pick up his weapon and ammo, which you may or may not know how to use, and go forth and slay an enemy AFV, or, if you can't do that charge the AT team with your .45s and carbines."

In essence, this is what the CM player does. You, as commander, are ordering into battle a crew that is ill-equipped and ill-trained for the mission. Tactically, I don't find that to be supported by life.

For this reason, I consider the use of crews gamey.

Would I quit a game because of it? No. If it works into the tactical plan I will hunt them down and eliminate them ... more points for me. If it doesn't work into the plan, oh well, c'est la guerre.

Just my 2 cents.

[Moriarty]

double post.

nothing to see here. move along, please.

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[CrapGame]

I used to think that this was a really gamey tactic, until the AI used it on me in a scenario. Using an extremely well-planned and executed bazooka ambush, I had an HQ unit and 2 bazooka teams in 2 different buildings proceed to knock out in order: a MkIV(J), a StuH and finally, a Panther A, upon which the AI controlled crew of the Panther got out of their wreck, and proceeded to exterminate both bazooka teams and the HQ unit in order. No runs, no drips, no errors. Watching from up close camera 1, it was the hand-to-hand combat sound too, not the usual gunfire.

After seeing that, I figured if the AI's brain can do it, then I can too. To hell with gamey.

Crapgame

[Louie the Toad]

In my original post I simply asked if anyone thought crews of knocked out tanks should be able to OBSERVE for their comrades. With no attached infantry would they be ordered to sneak up and take a peek over the next hill?

Would this be teamwork or team spirit.

[tfdodo]

Thermo, tar, I'm sure thats largely why they start off [and iirc stay?] Rattled - to dissuade commanders from taking the Mick too much with them. [i also think tankers would feel pretty unenthusiastic continuing the fray without tank].

The 'no radios' thing is tough as it exploits a known game issue [universal spotting]. But we can't change that till the game engine changes, so I suppose may as well roll with it.

[Subvet]

I have a picture in The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II on page 211 that shows a crew wielding a PIAT. The caption says "Here the crew of a knocked-out British tank are covering their position armed with a PIAT until a recovery vehicle can arrive to retrieve the damaged vehicle. The men are from the 13/18th Hussars, and the location is near Mount Pincon, northern France, July 1944."

Now I'm not suggesting that BTS arm bailed crews with PIATs of course. But to say that all crews should just head back toward the rear area as soon as their vehicle is disabled seems a bit extreme. I also don't think BTS intended this or why would they even let them be armed? Sure using crews to spring ambushes, find landmines, and charge machineguns is gamey. No question about that. I just don't think suggesting that everyone should do the other extreme is always correct or even historical.

Louie the Toad, to answer your question I'd say that depends on what exactly your suggesting. If you are asking if it's ok to hide a group of vehicles on the backside of a hill and have a crew peek over the top of that hill to see what's coming then I don't have a problem with that. But if you are sending the crew forward to the next hill in advance of any infantry, all by themselves, then I'd say yes it's very gamey. Of course that's just my opinion which doesn't mean a heck of a lot in your games.

[Dr. Brian]

100% gamey, but I do it all the time, as I'm not a "realism" zealot.