infantry weapons

[sebastian]

is it realistic, that AT-teams or arty-spotters don't have any rifles, SMGs or even pistols? or is this an abstraction?

will this be different in CMBB?

[Soddball]

15 posts in 2 1/2 years? :eek:

lurk award

beep

beep

lurk award

I don't know - I just felt I ought to draw everyone's attention to this.

[M Hofbauer]

talking a can of pandora here...

to give you the short version:

No, it's not realistic, but it was done by BTS because they felt that it was neccessary to prevent gamey use of these specialized troops as ad-hoc combat teams and scouts after they expended their primary mission ammo.

It's not even a new concern, by far not. I'ld give you the link to an old 99 thread where this was discussed in depth even back then BEFORE the game came out, but the SEARCH thing seems broken (once again).

[JonS]

Moving on to CMBB; wpns teams will have a small self-defence capability.

[sebastian]

No, it's not realistic, but it was done by BTS because they felt that it was neccessary to prevent gamey use of these specialized troops as ad-hoc combat teams and scouts after they expended their primary mission ammo.

well, as a gamey bastard i use them as scouts anyway. an AT-team with no AT-ammo a no other weapons is usless. it provokes me even more to send them on sucidial recon-missions.

even vechicle crews have pistols, and can defend themself. but AT-teams waste their AT-ammo against infantry. but i guess this all has been said before.

[ April 18, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

[Michael Emrys]

I observed something a several days ago that I hadn't seen before and had to look again to convince myself that I wasn't imagining it. One of my 60mm mortar crews came under fire and abandoned their weapon. Afterwards I noticed that they were now armed with pistols and LOW ammunition. Other crews who had fired off all their mortar ammo had no pistols.

Now the former case makes pefect sense to me as it is consistent with vehicle crews who abandon their vehicles. But the latter case I can make no sense of at all. While I too would not wish to encourage the use of these crews in a non-historic employment, I think they should have some minimal level of self-protection.

Michael

[russellmz]

Originally posted by JonS:

Moving on to CMBB; wpns teams will have a small self-defence capability.

hehe yeah, i thikn they said it would be something ridiculous like 1 or something. they would be better off using their zook as a club...

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by sebastian:

well, as a gamey bastard i use them as scouts anyway. an AT-team with no AT-ammo a no other weapons is usless. it provokes me even more to send them on sucidial recon-missions.

even vechicle crews have pistols, and can defend themself. but AT-teams waste their AT-ammo against infantry. but i guess this all has been said before.

well, let me re-phrase that then, BTS decided to not give them small arms to *discourage* use of these units as regular combat units / scouts after they expended their ammunition.

If you look at the screenshots in the pre-release public AAR by Fionn and Moon you will notice that in one picture there's an AFV crew armed with a Thompson (IIRC).

Even though in reality they *were* armed, every tank crew had SMGs even, and gun crews had regular infantry rifles, it was an honorable idea by BTS for a compromise on this unsolvable issue. Give them their regular weapon loadout then the player will use them as combat teams, which is unrealistic because these highlyspecialized teams would not *regularly* be active in such a role. Make them uncontrollable and unarmed is also obviously unrealistic because it takes away too much acting choices which in reality they had.

Michael,

yes, abandoning crews are armed at low ammo, while the weapon-serving crews do not show small arms.

odd enough. however, mortar crews etc. who are with their mortar still can fight considerably in close combat, so I'm wondering whether those pistols are modeled even though they are not shown (pre-abandonment), maybe at least as part of the close-combat value these units have?

[Andreas]

Markus, it is either a 'can of worms', or 'Pandora's Box' which you open. Seeing that the ancient Greeks did not have can-openers, the world would have been spared a thing or two if it had been 'Pandora's Can' (unless it had one of these convenient integrated opening mechanisms, of course, like a can of coke, or somefink - I had to say that to guard myself from the Wrath of the Cangrogs[tm]).

I'll go and eat worms now.

[Tero]

How's this for an idea:

give the FO limited command ability so they can rally and lead leaderless infantry squads around them.

Reasoning: the FO team is usually the best informed unit in the field, given their better than average communications.

[Doug Beman]

There's a big difference between being a skilled FO and leading infantry troops in combat.

DjB

[Caesar]

You could perhaps provide crews etc with their historical weapons and limited ammo (5 - 10 perhaps) and then reduce them to conscript in abilities etc. This would not make them entirely defenceless but the delays in commanding them, their low firepower and their useless spotting abilities would make them fairly unuseable for the gamey among us.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

There's a big difference between being a skilled FO and leading infantry troops in combat.

DjB

Knowledge is power. Especially in the battle field.

I do agree, actual command ability the FO's is dubious. That is why I said "limited command capability".

Having information about the overall situation and conveying that to infantry units should not be beyond the FO's.

I am assuming the cut of infantry squads have received rudimentary training and they have received a standard amount of info and intel concerning their overall mission. Cut off from the command unit increases their command delay. I think it is fair to assume being in contact with a FO unit with lines of communication open would decrease that command delay as they could be thought to be in contact with a higher HQ using that FO teams com link.

I know, they will propably be using a different net. But an experienced FO can deduct very much by the fire mission data he hears over that net. He is in the know about how the battle is going and could convey that knowledge to the infantry. IMO that knowledge would translate to shorter command delays almost as effectively as being in direct contact with a HQ unit.

[ April 19, 2002, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[CMplayer]

I agree with Tero. And while we're at it, plain HQs should be able to call in fire missions as well...though with more of a delay.

Theoretically all officers should be able to lead a platoon in a pinch, just like support troops should be able to fight.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by sebastian:

i use them [AT teams] as scouts

Hey good trick! Didja pick that up from the AI?

[sebastian]

if i could split 2 men from a infantry squad, i would use them as scouts instead of AT-teams.

IMHO the prevention of using crews for fighting, was solved in the later CC-games in a much better way. after bailing out they ran for cover and hide there. they ingnored movement orders but defended themselfs.

[sturner]

[ April 19, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: sturner ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Markus, it is either a 'can of worms', or 'Pandora's Box' which you open. Seeing that the ancient Greeks did not have can-openers, the world would have been spared a thing or two if it had been 'Pandora's Can' (unless it had one of these convenient integrated opening mechanisms, of course, like a can of coke, or somefink - I had to say that to guard myself from the Wrath of the Cangrogs[tm]).

I'll go and eat worms now.

Andreas - I *know*.

It was an intended neologism of proverbs, a medley of metaphors so to speak. It was supposed to be funny.

I am (or, rather, used to be) well familiar with Greek mythology and remember well the story about that box which contained all those plagues including that worst of all evils, *hope*.

Btw, what do you think of the inconsistency Mr Emrys pointed out?

[Chupacabra]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Markus, it is either a 'can of worms', or 'Pandora's Box' which you open. Seeing that the ancient Greeks did not have can-openers, the world would have been spared a thing or two if it had been 'Pandora's Can' (unless it had one of these convenient integrated opening mechanisms, of course, like a can of coke, or somefink - I had to say that to guard myself from the Wrath of the Cangrogs[tm]).

I'll go and eat worms now.

Unless you're talking about Pandora's cans.

Which were spectacular. Rrowr.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

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

i use them [AT teams] as scouts

Hey good trick! Didja pick that up from the AI?</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

however, mortar crews etc. who are with their mortar still can fight considerably in close combat, so I'm wondering whether those pistols are modeled even though they are not shown (pre-abandonment), maybe at least as part of the close-combat value these units have?

This is my thought too, but two things weigh against it. One, trivial perhaps, is that the unit information screen showed pistols for the crew that had jumped ship but not for the one that stayed with their mortar after it ran out of ammo. But this could just be an oversight on the part of the program.

More significantly, I ran the crew with pistols back to a VL flag and that put it in my possession. When I tried the same gambit with the crew that had retained their mortar, it didn't work. There were no enemy troops within a couple hundred meters of either VL.

Soooo...I don't know what's going on here. BTS fix or do sumfink!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sebastian:

if i could split 2 men from a infantry squad, i would use them as scouts instead of AT-teams.

Hear, hear!

IMHO the prevention of using crews for fighting, was solved in the later CC-games in a much better way. after bailing out they ran for cover and hide there. they ingnored movement orders but defended themselfs.

Something like that might work. Another solution more consistent with the "CM way of doing things" might be to jack up the victory point cost of crews captured, wounded, or killed to the point where players are more careful with them. Call this the "Free Market Solution" if you like.

Michael

[gatpr]

Go carefully first self defense second cavalry charges. A slippery slope!

[Michael Emrys]

Gatpr, gatpr! There's nothing at all to worry about, my friend!

Here, smoke this.

Michael

[L4Pilot]

And yet another way to model bailed out crews, mortar teams without their weapons and "spent" FO's would be to model their weapons correctly, but limit their morale to never better than "cautious". You know - slow to react (except to withdraw), slow to fire and prone to panic.