Abandoning immobilized vehicles

[Tiger]

I hope that BTS will include either a % chance and a command to have the crew abandon an immobilized vehicle. Why? For historical reasons and to give players a chance to save crews (esp in multi-battle scenarios).

Picture: Your tank is hit and immobilized. There's a percent chance that the crew will abandon the tank on their own (based on exp and fitness, command) and if they don't, the player can decide whether or not to have them stay put as an immobile pillbox or have the crew abandon it and run them back behind the lines.

Once vehicle is abandoned, the vehicle suffers a killing-blow which may just knock the frame off-kilter or cause the vehicle to blow up, like any normal killing shot we see now. The crew appears and are treated like any other vehicle-less crew.

-john

[Thermopylae]

In the same spirit as an abandon Machinegun or AT gun command...and mortars do it well enough without prompting. Nice to see you back by the way Tiger.

[Herr Kruger]

Once when playing a human opponent in Chance Encounter (demo) an enemy Sherman had suffered gun damage from artillery, became immobilized, and was thus abandoned shortly after becoming immobilized...

I think the gun damge happened in a previous turn, but seconds after it became immobile, the crew got out...

It would be nice to have a command though.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Tiger:

I hope that BTS will include either a % chance and a command to have the crew abandon an immobilized vehicle. Why? For historical reasons and to give players a chance to save crews (esp in multi-battle scenarios).

Picture: Your tank is hit and immobilized. There's a percent chance that the crew will abandon the tank on their own (based on exp and fitness, command) and if they don't, the player can decide whether or not to have them stay put as an immobile pillbox or have the crew abandon it and run them back behind the lines.

Once vehicle is abandoned, the vehicle suffers a killing-blow which may just knock the frame off-kilter or cause the vehicle to blow up, like any normal killing shot we see now. The crew appears and are treated like any other vehicle-less crew.

-john

Has this been fixed in CMBB?

I thought (I could be wrong) that I had read there was a new command in CMBB to abandon crewed weapons... Anyone else remember this?

Did they mention the abandon vehicle addition to this command??

just wondering

-tom w

[ February 09, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Louie the Toad]

My visualization of CMBB tank battles is that you will want to be sure of a KILL against every enemy tank. My assumption comes from reading about the ploy of 'playing possum' among knocked out tanks, also that immobilization like gun damage may be a bit too much information to convey to the enemy. I thought I had read that BTS would be increasing the FOW in this regard.

Hit 'em again, Hit 'em again Harder, Harder ... Toad

[Tiger]

What's FoW got to do with it? If one of my tanks, for example, gets immobilized, I'd like a chance for the crew to bail on their own, and if not I'd like to be able to tell my own crew to abandon the damaged tank if possible.

Mainly for historical reasons and to try and save the crew. I've read constant accounts of tankers, etc., getting immobilized and having to abandon their vehicle, standard SOP was to disable the gun of the tank or set it on fire before the crew heads back to their lines. Usually what you see in CMBO is the crew stays with the damaged vehicle even after immobilization or gun hits, until it get blown to bits, which is ok for kamikaze vehicle crews I guess.

It's just a suggestion and not a big deal. Lord knows BTS probably has this already taken care of either way ;p

-john

[The Commissar]

That would be rather silly, IMO.

I guess you don't play multiplayer much, Tiger. You see, in many QB's, there are times when an AT gun with a small caliber and high ROF (or maybe there's a few guns firing) gets a lucky hit on a tank it cannot hope to destroy and immobilizes that tank.

Churchills VIII are prone to this, especially, from nasty things like 20mm flak guns. If my Churchill crew decided to abandon its tank just because it threw a track to a little pop gun I would throw a fit and come on this forum to curse BTS' name. An immobilized tanks is still perfectly fit to fight, just not to move. In fact, I doubt many crews would even KNOW if they were immobilized or not unless they tried to move, so an immediate "abandon tank" role just wouldn't make any sense.

Now granted, there won't be any Churchill VIII's on the Eastern Front. However, Im sure there will be other tanks that will be prone to immobilization from light weapons (or bad weather) but still perfectly able to carry on the fight and play a part in winning the battle.

[ February 09, 2002, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

That would be rather silly, IMO.

I guess you don't play multiplayer much, Tiger. You see, in many QB's, there are times when an AT gun with a small caliber and high ROF (or maybe there's a few guns firing) gets a lucky hit on a tank it cannot hope to destroy and immobilizes that tank.

Churchills VIII are prone to this, especially, from nasty things like 20mm flak guns. If my Churchill crew decided to abandon its tank just because it threw a track to a little pop gun I would throw a fit and come on this forum to curse BTS' name. An immobilized tanks is still perfectly fit to fight, just not to move. In fact, I doubt many crews would even KNOW if they were immobilized or not unless they tried to move, so an immediate "abandon tank" role just wouldn't make any sense.

Now granted, there won't be any Churchill VIII's on the Eastern Front. However, Im sure there will be other tanks that will be prone to immobilization from light weapons (or bad weather) but still perfectly able to carry on the fight and play a part in winning the battle.

Possibly irrelevant (since the crews had nowhere to go even if they did bail out) but of all the Churchill tanks at Dieppe, not a single one was penetrated by anti-tank fire. Many were immobilized by the chert beach breaking the tracks, or else bogging them, but in the majority of cases, the crews stayed in their vehicles - and most crewmen were taken prisoner because they stayed at their posts so long providing cover fire the for the infantrymen who withdrew to the landing craft for evacuation. They fired their guns til the ammunition gave out.

[Tiger]

If my Churchill crew decided to abandon its tank just because it threw a track to a little pop gun I would throw a fit and come on this forum to curse BTS' name. An immobilized tanks is still perfectly fit to fight, just not to move. In fact, I doubt many crews would even KNOW if they were immobilized or not unless they tried to move, so an immediate "abandon tank" role just wouldn't make any sense.

Surely all Brits and Commonwealth never abandoned their tanks... gallantly fighting to the end and such

Many accounts of fighting on the Eastern front reveal that quite alot (no, not all) of tank crews on both sides would abandon their vehicles when immobilzed, esp during an assault where they would be subject to more fire upon their now sitting-duck vehicle. Alot of this depended on whether they thought the vehicle could be recovered and repaired or not. Many crews were lost when they attempted to repair their disabled tanks under fire. If they found their situation hopeless, however, SOP was to make sure your vehicle was put out of action for good so that the enemy could not use it and then head back to your lines asap. Sometimes this was not possible, some of the times it was.

Not every crew is going to abandon their vehicle and this was never suggested. I think a small percent chance (based on crew experience?)would be realistic or at the very least there should be a command "option" to have crews abandon their vehicle if the player wants.

IIRC BTS has mentioned something about there's going to be a vehicle "morale" (?-- which makes this whole discussion here moot point anyways ) in CMBB anyway so would you be against this as well since it may make your tanks do something you didn't want?

In reference to the "you don't play multiplayer very much" comment, actually I have played many MP games. I guess what you are suggesting is that in MP players don't care about historical accuracy and want to win at all costs so they would never want a crew to abandon their immobilized or gun-hit vehicle. Me, I'd rather save the crew once in awhile if I saw that to leave them there would do no good.

-john

[ February 10, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Tiger ]

[Midnight Warrior]

There is also the reverse of this where abandoned tanks are re-occupied. IIRC, there was a famous case (I beleive in Clark's Barbarossa)of this where a Russian arty FO hid in an abandoned Russian tank (actually the tank crew were all dead) and called on devastating arty fire on the Germans for some hours before the Germans realize where the arty fire was being called from.

[Louie the Toad]

Tiger,

What I was trying to explain was that if I am firing at you and I see you have stopped shooting or appeared to have buttoned up and stopped, I am going to keep shooting at you until I see a kill. Furthermore the AI should not tell me if you become immobilized or have gun damage. I should have to figure that out by your tank's 'body language'.

I like the idea of having some control regarding bailing out but it should not be full control, just as we don't have full control of any unit now.

bail bail bail stroke stroke stroke Toad

[mensch]

Originally posted by Tiger:

Mainly for historical reasons and to try and save the crew. I've read constant accounts of tankers, etc., getting immobilized and having to abandon their vehicle, standard SOP was to disable the gun of the tank or set it on fire before the crew heads back to their lines. Usually what you see in CMBO is the crew stays with the damaged vehicle even after immobilization or gun hits, until it get blown to bits, which is ok for kamikaze vehicle crews I guess.

-john

I would have to agree with Tiger on this one. I have had a many battles where the opponent did not even know of the tank, and it was immobilized.

Very frustrating that the crew would sit in a tank that is so much a sucker to get wacked by some AT equipment.

I just feel also the "abandon" order would be vital, just because the code says the crew sits in the tank wistling and twiddling their thumbs does not mean it's correct.

And after being a crew member of a armoured vehicle, I can tell you. OK in Peace time you stick with your vehicle and await a recovery vehicle. In war time, we would bail and report the loss and head off back to camp if possible.

[mensch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Possibly irrelevant (since the crews had nowhere to go even if they did bail out) but of all the Churchill tanks at Dieppe, not a single one was penetrated by anti-tank fire. Many were immobilized by the chert beach breaking the tracks, or else bogging them, but in the majority of cases, the crews stayed in their vehicles - and most crewmen were taken prisoner because they stayed at their posts so long providing cover fire the for the infantrymen who withdrew to the landing craft for evacuation. They fired their guns til the ammunition gave out.

Michael thats just being plain intelligent!! I'm sure that could be coded in if they wanted to.

Just like you give your infantry troops to run to a house with a HMG in it doesn't mean they will, they will just sit there knowing the better "death awaits us over that wall" and just like a abandon order for a tank crew maybe they will bail maybe not depending how heavy the fighting is around them. THEN again if our boys on that beach saw TANK after TANK brew up from some AT weapon I could damn assure you the commander would give the order to bail or the crew the choice to stay or have a chance on that beach to survive.

I saw the beach last year Michael, wow.. wonderful city too! the streets are so damn narrow, if our lads ever did make a breakthrough they would have had a bitch of a time in the streets. The Brits should have given us more support, and I bet my Grandmothers Cousin thought so too as he was lost on those very same beaches.

[illo]

YES, for abandon command.

Too many times my guns without ammo have been overrun by enemy and crews got slaughtered. I want to command them withdraw leaving their equipment behind.

[Thin Red Line]

Illo,

Why didn't you tow the guns and leave the exposed place ?

[illo]

Sometimes there is not anything to tow guns with. And i wouldnt risk a truck if gun was under fire.

In last scenario i shot my 20mm flak empty. And there they(crew)were until artillery barrage finished them off. If i had moved the flak enemy infantry would have shot it dead and i think it would have been too slow anyway. I just wished gun would be knocked out without crew casualties so i could run my crew to safety.

[ February 11, 2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[flamingknives]

It would be nice if the crew tried to fix the tank sometime, especially if not under fire. It's so annoying to have a Churchill/Pershing/Firefly, ie big expensive tank, get itself immobilised before it crests a hill and engages the enemy and spends the rest of the battle twiddling it's thumbs in perfect cover.

It's almost enough to make you want to shoot them for cowardice, they should be out there fixing that thrown track.