CMBB Command Needed: Assault Vehicle

[Col Deadmarsh]

I know there's gonna be a new command in CMBB which will allow your infantry to follow an infantry target but I think we also need an "Assault Vehicle" command. This would allow your infantry squad to rush towards a vehicle, even follow it if it's both necessary and reasonably safe for the squad, and then assault the vehicle with whatever means necessary to kill it.

I also think a graphical display should be added to show the men on top of the tank, trying to throw a grenade down a hatch or firing a gun into the mg slit, something to show that the tank is being assaulted. As it is now, you can never tell and only see the end result. BTS, just give us a simple animation to show this command carried out so we know what's going on.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[The Commissar]

Well, it does look like vehicle assault will be the only way Soviet troops will be able to take out enemy armor (I dont think they had many AT weapons besides the AT Rifle - am I mistaken in this?), so a command like this could see use. I just don't see it being given to conscripts and greens though - I know you couldn't tell me to climb on a tank and try to find somewhere to stick a grenade if I don't know which way to point a gun yet.

[Specterx]

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

I know there's gonna be a new command in CMBB which will allow your infantry to follow a target but I think we also need an "Assault Vehicle" command. This would allow your infantry squad to rush towards a vehicle, even follow it if necessary and if it's safe, and then assault the vehicle with whatever means necessary to kill it.

<hr></blockquote>

This seems like a good idea. It'd be nice to be able to have your inf assault the vehicle with one command rather than having to manually send them over the top.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I also think a graphical display should be added to show the men on top of the tank, trying to throw a grenade down a hatch or firing a gun into the mg slit, something to show that the tank is being assaulted. As it is now, you can never tell and only see the end result. BTS, just give us a simple animation to show this command carried out so we know what's going on.<hr></blockquote>

I think the sort of animations you describe would be pretty hard to implement. However, if you look closely you can already see visual evidence of an assault in progress in the form of flying grenades/panzerfausts/demo charges/etc.

[Chad Harrison]

as it is now, you can order your men out into the open (or whatever) and target the tank. then you watch as the tank backs up and hosses down all off your men now in the open. it is even very hard to take out a single unsupported halftrack with an entire platoon (with only grenades).

as was stated above, the russians will need something to get those vehicles in the streets a little more effective than now.

good idea.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

I think the sort of animations you describe would be pretty hard to implement. However, if you look closely you can already see visual evidence of an assault in progress in the form of flying grenades/panzerfausts/demo charges/etc.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not asking for anything complicated but you would need some kind of graphic or animation to show that the men have carried out your command. Otherwise, you wouldn't know whether they're assaulting the vehicle or if they ignored you and are instead doing something else.

I really think this order is needed as the way things are right now, no one knows what to do when trying to assault a vehicle. No one knows where to place their men in relation to the vehicle and if the vehicle moves, then you're really screwed.

[Moon]

Irregardless if such a command would make it in or not, assaulting a vehicle will NEVER be an automatic success and will ALWAYS be a very dangerous thing to do. It's what they got medals for durin WWII. Any tank, if just barely supported by another pair of eyes and a gun watching over it can be a deadly trap to an assaulting squad or team. Having said that, unsupported vehicles will be much easier to knock out due to the new vehicle morale. Such vehicles might try to get the heck out of there (if they can), or maybe even surrender? Ever seen a big ol' Tiger running like a little pussy from a bunch of conscript Russians?

[Patgod]

if it did that, then after the battle(ie when i win) i would have the crew shot. assuming the russians didnt do it for me.

[The Commissar]

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

Irregardless if such a command would make it in or not, assaulting a vehicle will NEVER be an automatic success and will ALWAYS be a very dangerous thing to do. It's what they got medals for durin WWII. <hr></blockquote>

Moon, you better watch it there buddyboy. If you're not careful about all this "dangerous" and "unsuccessful" talk, you're just going to get stomped on by a bunch of uber-finns.

In fact, if BTS does not include such a command, all the uber-finns on this board will go into a raving frenzy because sooner or later one of their Finnish half squads will actually fail to destroy an enemy tank from close up. Hell, we might even see such grand historical inaccuracies like Finnish teams armed with nothing but a can opener and an angry hedgehog being repulsed by a battalion of Soviet BT class tanks.

I think all of us here want the crew of BTS alive and well to code us more CM games. I say appease the Finns - give us "assault vehicle" commands!

[Pzman]

Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more.

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[aka_tom_w]

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

Irregardless if such a command would make it in or not, assaulting a vehicle will NEVER be an automatic success and will ALWAYS be a very dangerous thing to do. It's what they got medals for durin WWII. Any tank, if just barely supported by another pair of eyes and a gun watching over it can be a deadly trap to an assaulting squad or team. Having said that, unsupported vehicles will be much easier to knock out due to the new vehicle morale. Such vehicles might try to get the heck out of there (if they can), or maybe even surrender? Ever seen a big ol' Tiger running like a little pussy from a bunch of conscript Russians? <hr></blockquote>

um.....

Just my personal pet peeve, sorry

I know that we have generally agreed that there is unspoken protocol here not to mention spelling errors anf grammar and since I have the greatest respect for Mr. Moon (General Moon ) I

post this comment with the greatest of reluctance.

however....

I feel compelled to point out the "word" irregardless is not a word that can be found in any english dictionary.

I might suggest the use of the word irrespective or simply regardless instead. (The positive form of the word is "regard" if you would like to imply lack of regard (in the case

above) then regardless is the correct use of the word. For those that like the sound of a word the begins with "irr" I would suggest you use "irrespective")

Again my sincere apologies for the grammar lesson.

Please continue the debate regarding the close assault of vehicles. Aside from the comment on the use of the word irregardless I agree completely with Moon's point and post.

-tom w

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Andrew H.]

There already is a close assault animation: the troops throw grenades and stuff at whatever it is that they are close assaulting. This is as dramatic as showing men swarming over the enemy tanks, but it does let you know that your troops are (or are not) close assaulting.

It would be cool if in CMBB the grenades for close assaulting were molotovs with little burning fuses, though. :cool:

[Schrullenhaft]

This comes from an online version of Merriam Webster's Dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com ):

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less

Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s

Function: adverb

Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless

Date: circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Moon will always speak better German than I ever will be able to. And ending that last sentence in a preposition should be a telling statement on my use of English too.

[Chad Harrison]

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

Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more.

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Panzerman ]<hr></blockquote>

i think we are looking for a more specific oder for the troops to make a point of assaulting the said vehicle.

as it is now, you can order them to run out there, but with just hand grenades, they are almost always completely ineffective.

the russians dont get any fausts or rifle grenades, so it would be nice to see this improved upon for city battles ect.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

i think we are looking for a more specific oder for the troops to make a point of assaulting the said vehicle.

as it is now, you can order them to run out there, but with just hand grenades, they are almost always completely ineffective.

.<hr></blockquote>

I think that's the point, they're supposed to be ineffective. Infantry close assaulting tanks was not a major reason for AFV losses. If any of those makeshifts petrol bombs and parachute granades that the german military produced through '41 '42 was of any effect vs Soviet tanks there would have been no reason for the development and then deployment of Panzerfaust.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Bastables ]</p>

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more.

<hr></blockquote>

It sounds to me like you didn't read my post clearly. The main thing I'm asking for is an actual command "Assault Vehicle" so the infantry squad will advance towards and follow if necessary (and possible) the vehicle it's trying to kill. I don't want to have to order my men to a certain spot only to find they have picked a new target and are getting shot up by the vehicle in the mean time.

There might be a make-shift way of doing this now if you target the vehicle with your infantry team and then charge them towards the vehicle but I'm not sure how effective this is. Why not just have a seperate command for assaulting vehicles? Just something for BTS to think about...

[CMplayer]

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

Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more.

<hr></blockquote>

What he's referring to is that if you order infantry to approach an AFV and it just backs up a few meters, then they are sitting there in the open and don't understand to pursue it. They get chewed up by MGs to no purpose at all. It's a case where an ordinary movement order isn't sufficient, since the POINT of the order is actually to carry out an assault on the vehicle, not to occupy that particular point of ground. Since the tacAI can't figure that out for you, the result is poor, given the order-giving structure of the game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That would be a command I would be extremely reluctant to use if it were in the game. If the other player decided to move his tank a large distance that turn your men could end up chasing it quite a ways over open terrain getting chewed up the whole time.

[Tero]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Moon, you better watch it there buddyboy. If you're not careful about all this "dangerous" and "unsuccessful" talk, you're just going to get stomped on by a bunch of uber-finns.

Dangerous, yes. Unsuccesful, not always. The entire matter is too dependant on prevailing circumstances.

In fact, if BTS does not include such a command, all the uber-finns on this board will go into a raving frenzy because sooner or later one of their Finnish half squads will actually fail to destroy an enemy tank from close up.

I'd say the raving frenzy will be more likely brought on by an ahistorical Finnish OOB.

During Winter War platoons and companies formed special tank killer teams (which BTW had a close to 90% casualty rate but never lacked volunteers). The other units tackeled the infantry while the tank killer teams took care of the tanks stripped of their infantry cover. This worked reasonably well until the Soviet revised their armour/infantry co-operation tactics. After that it became virtually impossible to approach the tanks to count coup. Nevertheless a considerable amount of the ~1200 tanks the Red Army lost to combat related causes in the Isthmus alone were taken out by close assaulting AT teams using Molotovs coctails and satchel charges (which had glue panels attached to make them stick to the armour).

The practise of keeping separate infantry AT teams as an integral part of the OOB was continued after Winter War. In 1944 both the Pzschreck and the Pzfausts were operated by separate teams and they were not officially distributed to form an integrated part of the infantry squads arsenal.

Hell, we might even see such grand historical inaccuracies like Finnish teams armed with nothing but a can opener and an angry hedgehog being repulsed by a battalion of Soviet BT class tanks.

You'd be surprised what kind of a mess an angry hedgehog makes.

There is a clitch in the www.winterwar.com. When it is back up you can see the official Soviet figures on the tank losses in the Karelian Istmus. ~1200 tanks to combat related causes, 3000 tanks to all causes does not indicate a battalion of Soviet BT class tanks alone ever repulsed Finnish teams, if the conditions were right. The BT's did form the backbone of several Red Army units encirceled in the forest wilderness north of the Lake Ladoga. IIRC hundreds were captured when such mottis collapsed but most of them could not be transferred out before the peace came because they had been dug in and there was no fuel so they were returned to their original owners minus gun, optics and other assorted removable items.

I think all of us here want the crew of BTS alive and well to code us more CM games. I say appease the Finns - give us "assault vehicle" commands!

I am actually apprehensive about this kind of a command. I'd rather see an "Evade Vehicle" command that would make the infantry squad "invisible" to the tank (the men would actively seek spots in the tanks blind spots and keep out of its field s of fire) while maintaining its current position and opposed to the Hide command the squad would still engage non-vehicle targets.

By Bastables:

I think that's the point, they're supposed to be ineffective.

That is just it. They were not ineffective as such, they were dangerous to the user because in order to use them you had to expose yourself to the battlefield elements.

Infantry close assaulting tanks was not a major reason for AFV losses. If any of those makeshifts petrol bombs and parachute granades that the german military produced through '41 '42 was of any effect vs Soviet tanks there would have been no reason for the development and then deployment of Panzerfaust.

[/qb]

The hand thrown weapons were not ineffective due to tech spec (admittedly the Molotov did become less effective when the engine air intakes were redesigned to prevent them from damaging the engine). Most of them were ineffective because you had to get very close or actually cout coup to be able to take the tank out. A stand-off weapon was called for. ATR was too expensive, cumbersome and ineffective. To get the penetration power you had to use a shaped charge. The Hohlhaftladung was good enough but you had to stick it on the tank while with the Pzfaust you could keep your distance (initially 30 meters).

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Bastables:

If any of those makeshifts petrol bombs and parachute granades that the german military produced through '41 '42 was of any effect vs Soviet tanks there would have been no reason for the development and then deployment of Panzerfaust.

As Tero said: range. What would you prefer - run into the open close to a tank to throw your whatever or attach a magnetic charges, or shot from 100m away with a Panzerfaust or -schreck while in cover?

And - close attacks were indeed effective, that's why the German developed the Zimmerit coating. The only unlogic thing was that the German were the only nation that made great use of magnetic charges.

[ April 07, 2002, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Moon]

In fact, big thanks, Tom! My english can only improve!

And thanks to Schrulli also. Looks like my english is better than I suspected

[Pzman]

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

What he's referring to is that if you order infantry to approach an AFV and it just backs up a few meters, then they are sitting there in the open and don't understand to pursue it. They get chewed up by MGs to no purpose at all. It's a case where an ordinary movement order isn't sufficient, since the POINT of the order is actually to carry out an assault on the vehicle, not to occupy that particular point of ground. Since the tacAI can't figure that out for you, the result is poor, given the order-giving structure of the game.<hr></blockquote>

Thats funny because last night I attacked a Panther with a Canadian Rifle squad and without any special command they destroyed it. But I think I see your point more clearly now. I could be wrong, but it could be that Canadian Rifle squads are gamey...hehe

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Scipio]

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

Whats the point of the said command. Men already assault tanks and/or vehicles if they are close. It sounds to me like you want BTS to make a graphical display of the action, nothing more.

<hr></blockquote>

I don't agree. You can order your men to run close to a tank - and then you can pray that they will do the right thing.

[Pzman]

Do you think that having a new command will change this? Your men when they attack the tank will still be in the open. The tank can still move faster in most cases, and yes they can still shoot at your men. I think it would be more aproperat to ask for a fallow AFVs type command, so your infantry will just follow a vehicle. This type of command could also be used to follow ones own AFVs as well.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Panzerman ]</p>

[Scipio]

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

Do you think that having a new command will change this? Your men when they attack the tank will still be in the open. The tank can still move faster in most cases, and yes they can still shoot at your men. I think it would be more aproperat to ask for a fallow AFVs type command, so your infantry will just follow a vehicle. This type of command could also be used to follow ones own AFVs as well.<hr></blockquote>

Indeed I think so.

'My men in the open' - Well, what does this mean? I wouldn't send them over 500m of open terrain to attack a tank. But close to wood? Or in a city? In a trench or foxhole?

Of course can a tank move faster - if he is ordered to move. Of course he can shoot my men - if he has spotted them. A buttoned tank is nearly blind, especially to close infantry from the sides or from behind. Yes, I think a 'assault vehicel' makes sense in very much cases.

Nevertheless, a 'Follow vehicel' order would make sense, too, or any other command to order vehicels/infantry to move together at the same speed to cover each other.

[Bastables]

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

As Tero said: range. What would you prefer - run into the open close to a tank to throw your whatever or attach a magnetic charges, or shot from 100m away with a Panzerfaust or -schreck while in cover?

And - close attacks were indeed effective, that's why the German developed the Zimmerit coating. The only unlogic thing was that the German were the only nation that made great use of magnetic charges. <hr></blockquote>

Could you give me listing of the success of German 'Magnetic' charges because from what I've read they were quite ineffective.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Bastables ]</p>