CMBB Command Needed: Assault Vehicle

[Shriker]

re: above.

It's true that an "assault vehicle" command would not be perfect in all situations. Perhaps there would need to be more coding added; possibly aborting the squad's order to assault if the vehicle moved X distance from its position at the start of that turn.

In the scenario I'm envisioning (and have done) I generally try to attack a vehicle from opposite sides or at least have two or more squads (or a split squad) spaced apart while they're rushing the vehicle. Thus the vehicle itself probably can only shoot at one of the attackers, possibly sending them back from whence they came, before the other squads have closed to attack range.

Additionally, I have attacked buttoned vehicles from behind and so they may not even be aware of my squads until they're right on top of it (and so wouldn't be shooting at them as they closed).

Naysayers are correct that this proposed order type may cause unwanted results, but the current lack of an "assault vehicle" command is certainly doing that already and (again) I've had it happen more than once. I'd still rather have it added, and can decide then if I want to use it in a given situation. I don't know for certain, but would suspect there may be ways to prevent an attacking squad from pursuing a vehicle that'll end up too far away to attack (i.e. like mentioned above).

Still just my 2 cents. It's an imperfect game (but aren't they all <G>), but it comes as close to prefection and with realistic results as I've seen, and this command would allow me to do what I've wanted to do in the past.

Regards,

-Steve

[Keith]

Sorry for being so trollish guys. I just like to be the devil's advocate sometimes.

[Tero]

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

Err, the production numbers from LdW say that 8,500 were produced in 1942. I believe this would have been a pilot run, and mass production taking off in the last few months. Then you have to get it to the front. I somehow doubt that they would have reached the front in significant numbers before late Jan 1943 at the earliest.<hr></blockquote>

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. The forgot to state that by "it" I meant the entire Panzerhandmine/HHL family.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>First use of the PzHM 3 was in the battles at the Wolchow in russia in May 1942; production and destruction figures are unknown.<hr></blockquote>

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

This "Assault Vehicle" idea is bad because:

4) I would never use the command.

<hr></blockquote>

What was I thinking? I completely forgot to check with you first Keith to see if you'd use the command before submitting it to the rest of the forum.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

It's true that an "assault vehicle" command would not be perfect in all situations. Perhaps there would need to be more coding added; possibly aborting the squad's order to assault if the vehicle moved X distance from its position at the start of that turn.

<hr></blockquote>

In addition to Shriker's comment about having a maximum distance the squad will chase, I think it should also be alerted to the enemy squads in the area in that it will only chase the vehicle if it is not under heavy fire. Of course, the term "heavy fire" is a matter of semantics and would be determind by BTS.

What I'm also thinking is that the squad ordered to attack will know whether or not they are faster than the vehicle so they will know whether or not to rush the vehicle or whether to seek cover if the vehicle moves away. (This would be the same as when your Greyhound climbs over a hill to see a Tiger tank staring it down from 500 meters away. It doesn't take more than a few seconds before the Greyhound's commander orders the crew to descend back down the hill and seek cover so they don't get their heads blown off.)

As far as the opponents of the command...you all seem to be envisioning a worse-case scenario when a naive or newbie player would carelessly order his infantry squad to attack a vehicle while trying to dodge enemy fire from 3 squads nearby. If the player is stupid enough to try to do this, then that squad should indeed be mowed down while attempting to assault the vehicle.

I think some of you are missing the point. The command would only be used when the vehicle is not supported by a good deal of enemy infantry (at least to the player's knowledge) and the player doesn't have any AT teams at his disposal. This is not uncommon in games and it's scenarios like these which warrant a command like the one I'm proposing. In this case, I WOULD want my squad to attack the vehicle and even pursue it for a few meters trying to kill it while I feel reasonably safe that there is no heavy infantry in the area there to defend the vehicle.

Two scenarios which come to mind: (1)Flanking a tank in the enemy's rear area where there is no supporting infantry to protect it. (2) Assaulting a vehicle at the end of a battle when enemy infantry is scarce.

Keith, are you beginning to see the light...?

[Pzman]

One more question from me then I'll leave you alown, for now. Andreas points are good ones.

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

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle.

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry and stays, and dies.

Option 2: The vehicle does spot the infantry, moves off, the infantry sits there gets shot at, and dies.

Future (after a 'follow vehicle' command has been coded in)

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry, stays and dies

Option 2: The vehicle spots the infantry, moves off, stops after, say, 20m. The infantry follows. The vehicle observes the movement (remember, it has spotted the threat last round) and moves off another 20m. The infantry follows (in the meantime everyone and their second cousin has seen the infantry and is busy killing it a lot). The infantry dies. <hr></blockquote>

Now after reading this again think about it. All that he is say about the new idea for a command in the second half of that post is about 90% likely to happen ever time. I would give this command if it got in, which I don't think is should or will, a 10% success rate. Oh look that may be 5% higher then the current system. Not worth BTS time to code in other words.

[Andreas]

First off, all the things that have been outlibnned here for the command to be working (e.g. alert to infantry - ever heard of FOW; speed of vehicle vs. speed of squad - how many vehicles in the game will be slower than an infantry squad; and of course - never mind the newbie) indicate to me that this is really not a serious proposition. Also, I would like to hear some historical examples where squads chased enemy vehicles. I can think of none. What you are asking for is different from what I understand how tanks were killed in close combat (by letting it come to you, and then ambush it by losing cover when it is extremely close). Have a look at this German tank destruction manual that can be found on the web.

Yes, I find it frustrating when I order a squad to go to a vehicle to kill it in openish ground, but then the vehicle fails to oblige, moves off and the squad dies. I have found the perfect way to avoid it, I don't order it anymore, because I believe it is ahistorical as an order and the dead squad is a fair historical result. OTOH I have been very successful stalking tanks in cities (remember Nijmegen Aaraon?) and scattered trees.

There is the celebrated case of the lone KV-1 stopping the German advance - it was not killed by the infantry, although it had no infantry support at all. There are a number of cases where unsupported Soviet heavies crashed into the German lines in the border battles of 1941. They were not killed by infantry, but either by 88s, or by their own technical problems, or lack of fuel. THe example of Tankodesantnikyi (sp?) is badly chosen, because they were there to support tanks attacking a position against the Germans in that position, by suppressing them. As I said above, that is different from ordering your men to stalk a tank.

All these conditions that Col_Deadmarsh outlined in his last post indicate to me that this is a command that should not be in CMBB, because it somehow does not gel with the whole design philosophy of the CM series.

Finally, while it is all well to ignore new players because they do stupid things - does anyone want a guess at the amount of threads this command is going to create that will be titled 'BTS - my elite SS Squad used your Assault Vehicle command and died horribly. Your game is broken, fix or somefink'.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

You are right, infantry does not follow a tank to destroy it. The usage of the HHL (for example) was a)build a barricade to stop the tank and then attack or b)sit in your hole, let the tank drive over it and attach the HHL from below. This has been shown very realistic in the German film 'Stalingrad'. And now everyone can understand why this was not very beloved by the troops.

The problem of the current system is IMO another: the target command for infantry is working a bit strange. When you order your infantry to target a tank, it will 100% sure NOT use it's AT weapons. It will use them only if you do NOT order them to target the tank, so all you can do is to order them to move close enough to the tank and leave the rest to the AI. And this doesn't makes sense to me. The late Axis had Fausts with 60 or even 100m range, the Allied rifle grenade had a range from 30-50m (I'm not sure), and even close AT weapons like satchel charges can be thrown over 10-30 meters. Bud I've never seen a squad fire it's Faust on a tank 60m away, and if I order them to target the tank, then they only use the small arms. So the range opportunity given by the weapon system is negated by the game engine (as it seems).

I guess Scipio's idea goes in the right direction. It would be enough if I can select to use the extra weapons or only small arms. Combine this with the new 'Cover arc' command, and you can have the realistic infantry vs tanks tactic: ambush.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I guess Scipio's idea goes in the right direction. It would be enough if I can select to use the extra weapons or only small arms. Combine this with the new 'Cover arc' command, and you can have the realistic infantry vs tanks tactic: ambush.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I never had problems getting my squads to use their Panzerfaust. The 30m is mostly used on infantry, but both the 60m and the 100m version I have seen used against tanks, the 100m at ranges out to IIRC 80m, and successfully. As to splitting the order menu between small arms and extra gear, I am not sure I like that. It is probably a matter of taste, but I like to go and see the uncertainty inherent in the system.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

...It is probably a matter of taste, but I like to go and see the uncertainty inherent in the system.<hr></blockquote>

I think there is enough uncertainty within the system. I already ordered guns to fire on a tank, and they didn't fire a single shot during the whole turn (with enough AP ammo in stock, and the tank hasn't moved an inch). To give an order doesn't mean that it will be executed, but I prefer that I can give the order that I want give instead of searching the right way to make the game engine do what I want to have done.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I think there is enough uncertainty within the system. I already ordered guns to fire on a tank, and they didn't fire a single shot during the whole turn (with enough AP ammo in stock, and the tank hasn't moved an inch). To give an order doesn't mean that it will be executed, but I prefer that I can give the order that I want give instead of searching the right way to make the game engine do what I want to have done.<hr></blockquote>

Were the guns themselves under fire? Suppressed? Panicked?

As for 'searching' - I did not need to search for any special way, it all works beautifully as it is now if you don't expect unrealistic heroism. Some examples: tank went too close (30-40m, can't remember) to previously hidden (i.e. unsuppressed, non-panicked) German squad with PF-60 (reg). Woosh, boom, end of tank. Pommy tank stayed close to wall of building, send German squad (vet or reg, can't remember) into building, satchel charge flies, kaboom, end of tank. Next turn, same building, Sexton does not make it out fast enough, handgrenades fly, end of Sexton. One of my first games with the beta demo, (Last Defense) - German HT about 30m from two-story building, platoon HQ (reg) lets handgrenades fly, one lands in the HT, end of HT.

I just don't seem to have these problems, and I think that is because I don't expect my men to be German Mutant Ninjas with a death wish, or maybe it is because I seem to believe differently from others here, namely that there was a reason medals were given for single-handed (!) tank destruction. IMO that was because it was a rare thing that took some special courage.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Were the guns themselves under fire? Suppressed? Panicked? <hr></blockquote>

Nothing of this. Perfect conditions. They just didn't followed their orderes in this turn.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As for 'searching' - I did not need to search for any special way, it all works beautifully as it is...<hr></blockquote>

Well, then you had more luck then me. I needed several month til I found out that the AT weapons are only used when I give no target order.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>...namely that there was a reason medals were given for single-handed (!) tank destruction. IMO that was because it was a rare thing that took some special courage.<hr></blockquote>

Well, the soldier with the most badges had destroyed 21(!) enemy tanks with hand weapons. So it doesn't seem to be that difficult.

Anyway Andreas, I still don't see why you are so against a clear command.

If you think you don't need it, don't use it. I for example have never used the 'retreat' command in the year I play CM.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Well, the soldier with the most badges had destroyed 21(!) enemy tanks with hand weapons. So it doesn't seem to be that difficult.<hr></blockquote>

Err, Oberst Rudel claims to have killed 500 tanks from his plane, does that also mean it is not difficult? Somehow I don't follow your logic here. How many of these badges were awarded, and what were the circumstances of the kills? Also, armies don't tend to award special badges for things that are not difficult. My grandfather got awarded the EK I., but I have yet to see his Potato-peeling badge.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

Anyway Andreas, I still don't see why you are so against a clear command.

<hr></blockquote>

I don't like it as a matter of taste and that's that, if we talk about the specific 'use AT weapon' command. The 'follow-vehicle' idea I think would give unrealistic results, lead to unrealistic use of infantry, and is a total no-no in my opinion.

I like the use of weapons random and uncontrollable as it is. I like it when the faust is 'wasted' against infantry. I think this unpredictability and lack of control is historically quite accurate, and I enjoy it in play.

Different strokes for different folks. You see, I can not understand why you are so much for it.

As for your gun problem, I never have seen something like it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

As for your gun problem, I never have seen something like it.<hr></blockquote>

The only time I have ever seen an unsuppressed gun not fire at a targeted tank is if it has little or no chance of penetration.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I had better said 'that rare' instead of difficult.

An additional command will not hinder the random use of a weapon. But I think it would clear things and offer new and realistic possibilitys. For example, how about PFs fired on a pillbox or a satchel charge thrown into a building?

The 'chase vehicel' would be indeed BS and unhistoric.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I had better said 'that rare' instead of difficult. <hr></blockquote>

Before coming to that conclusion based on one guy with 21 of these badges, I would like to get an idea of the total number of awards, and of how rigorous the process was of awarding these throughout the years. To give you an example, towards the end of the war you could get an EK I for almost anything, provided the officers had one lying around, judging from a few stories I have heard (Festung Brest is an example). At the beginning to the middle period it was a very serious award (Unlike the EK II, which you got for being around long enough and not falling foul of your Feldwebel in many cases, according to my grandfather).

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Award Criteria

The tank destruction badge was awarded to soldiers who destroyed an enemy tank single handedly by a hand held weapon. Anti-tank units were not eligible for this award.

Silver Award: The single handed destruction of an enemy tank by use of hand held weapons such as a hand grenade, panzerfaust, satchel charge, etc.

Gold Award: The single handed destruction of five enemy tanks using hand held weapons such as a hand grenade, panzerefaust, satchel charge, etc.

Well, if a gold award was necessary, I assume it was not extremly rare that someone had killed 5 vehicels. Sorry, I can't find a number of total awards. BTW, the award was granted for confirmed kills.

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

[Andrew H.]

I'm pretty happy with how close assaults/panzerfaust usage works now. I have had good success with close assaults on tanks in historically realistic settings. That is, the tank is parked next to a building, I send someone inside the building from the other side to move adjacent to the tank. The same is true of a tank parked next to woods. In these cases, my units have almost always close assaulted the the tank or fired a pf, and the men were almost always successful. These appear to be the same situations Andreas was discussing.

On the other hand, when I've tried assaulting tanks in the open -- even immobilized tanks not that far in the open -- my efforts are usually greeted with failure, esp. if I don't have a Pf or rifle grenade left. Occasionally my efforts are greeted with spectacular failure, as when an immobilzed StuG with Nahverteidigungswaffe caused 10 times as many casualties to the close assaulters as it caused to all my other units combined.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Why not just alter the normal attack command? Just something like this: when I order an infantry unit to target a vehicle (or maybe even any other target) a request pops up like 'Attempt destruction yes/no', so we can directly order if we just want to shoot the tank with rifles, so it must just close the hatches, or if we want to try to destroy it, so the troop attacks with everything available until the tank is detroyed, out of range or the squad is out.

<hr></blockquote>

This is exactly why we need a command like this--to provide a clear order on what to do in this scenario.

Does this sound like a realistic situation to you?

Sarge: Okay boys, you see that hill up there with the tank on top? Well, I want you to run up there till you're right next to the tank.

Private: I don't understand Sarge. Do you want us to try to put a grenade down the hatch?

Sarge: Oh, I don't know. I hadn't really thought about it. Why don't you just run up there to the tank and then we'll play it by ear...

I don't know about you but if I'm that private, I'm getting out of that detail. This command that's being proposed is not to take out any randomness in the game. It's to clear up confusion on the player's part about what his orders are.

Maybe having your infantry squad chase a slower moving vehicle is too much to code for CMBB and too hard to do. I think though that when you send your squad to attack an enemy vehicle that they need to know whether to button it up with gunfire or to physically assault it my climbing on top of it. In this case, I'm not up for any "randomness." I want to give a clear order and if my men screw it up, then that's fine. But I want to be in control of giving them the command, (as risky as it may be) of attempting to assault the vehicle.

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]</p>

[l3w53r]

Maybe a pause command for every waypoint oughta do the trick. Or maybe something like a "Do the best you can to kill the wretched thing, but PLEASE, don't get youself kiled doing it" command.

You know like:

Sarge: Here's THE PLAN, we assualt the tank, shove explosives and stuff down every hole we can find, then get back here, in our nice, relatively cozy cover. NOBODY stays out in the open for more than 15 secs ok? and oh yes, this is a tank we're talkin 'bout, not a whore OK?

Something like that, sorry for the pathetic attempt at humor, it's way past 3 am here.

[Andreas]

Well, all I can say is that even if you rewrite the story with the tank on the hill to include an assault tank command, it does not sound very realistic to me. It fails that realism test at 'run over there'. I find that wholly unconvincing, and as a private, that would be the part where I would look for a way out.

If you ask your squads to do things they are capable of doing, as Andrew and I described, they accomplish them at the moment. I am still not convinced that the problem is a missing order, it seems to me it is unrealistic expectations.

[Andreas]

Puff, thanks for digging that up. I did not know it applied to the PF too. Sort of skews the picture a bit for what we are discussing here. Anyways, I still think that some numbers of badges awarded before the introduction of the PF would be helpful to understand how much of an issue this was.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

The silver award was instituted in March 42, but the gold award not before Dezember 43. This let me assume that the rate of destroyed tanks strongly rised after the PF reached the troops. I guess this makes sense.

Well, this thing with the tank on the hill is indeed not the best example. But what I hate is my squad hidden in a foxhole. A tank is close enough to be destroyed with a PF. Now I order to stop hidding. But instead of targeting the tank, the troop fires on some units far away, because the game-engine set the importance of a target. I'm not able to tell the squad that the tank is the primary target, not the Bazooka or MG 150m away.

IMO that is something beyond natural uncertainty, it's a programed obstruction of my tactics.

[Andreas]

Puff, thanks again.

Regarding your foxhole example - the PF is used independently of the other squad weapons, so if the tank is close enough, there is a chance that they will use it although they blast away at something else. Having said that, the real problem is that you use a PF only if you are either in a very good position to get away from, or you really long to die-a-lot quickly for Adolf. I have a book in which a German Feldwebel recounts how in April 1945 in the Harz, he and his troop of HJ all armed with PF lay behind a hedge, less than ten meters away from a Sherman column. He ordered them to just lie there until the Shermans were gone and not fire. Because if they had fired, they would have gotten some Shermans, but then they would all have died. Now imagine the same situation with CMBO, you as the player would scream at the screen, and maybe come here shouting 'fix or somefink'. But it happened like that. Not all soldiers are heroes, in fact, most of them are not. They just want to go home alive. Firing a PF at a tank is not conducive to the achievement of that goal, which may go some way to explain their hesitation in the game.

[Phantom Rocker]

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

BTS is going to release the game in this quarter so the chance of getting in new features is exactly 0%<hr></blockquote>

It has been stated by BTS in mid December that the game is already 95% completed. Now we know for sure that the game will not show up before March. They needed 'only' 1 year for 95%, now they ave 2 additional month. This sounds to me like a enough time to include several new features.