Capturing enemy tanks

[benpark]

I see in the set of screens up on the blog that a crew of a Cromwell abandons their vehicle to take over a Tiger tank that had been abandonded.

Please make "Cannot crew enemy vehicles" an option.

Guns are one thing, but having a bunch of tanks driving around regardless of the side the crew is on or training is something that makes me...unhappy. If the AI doesn't do this, I suppose it's up to the player, which is fine for SP. MP is another story.

[whaco]

A little gamey if you ask me. Granted I know it did happen, but how many times really did an enemy capture a take only to use it against the enemy in that same battle. Sounds like this game may be getting dummied down to appeal to the 10 yr old in all of us. Come to think of it maybe a Rambo type crew is what I need to take me away from reality.

[John Kettler]

benpark,

4th AD used to operate quite a collection of captured German softskins and AFVs. The Russians captured enough Panzer IIIs that they set up a production line to make some 300 SU-76i SPs. Later in the war, they had an entire company of captured Panthers and even a few King Tigers. 21 PD was awash in captured French armor, to include flamethrower armed Char Bs, and Das Reich had a bunch of captured T-34s at Kursk. While these are certainly not typical, they all happened. Nor is this list even close to exhaustive. My personal favorite is the strength return of one of the Panzer divisions in the middle of the first winter in Russia. Tank strength, total, was one T-34 and two KV-1.

In general, though, I think that there would be significant degrades in a crew stepping into a foreign, maybe almost alien, tank. German tank sights were set up differently than American ones, for example. OTOH, there's a lot of similarity between a Russian T-26 and a Polish 7TP. Heaven help the German suddenly faced with driving a T-34 or KV. Coming from driver's heaven, it would be a descent into hell.

AFVs are generally abandoned for good reasons like

disabling battle damage, a fire which can't be put out, failed transmission, engine seizure, unrepairable (under combat conditions) track or running gear damage. Of course, with supply lines cut and such, running out of fuel was a real issue. The last category should be destroyed after abandonment, unless counterattack allowing recovery was imminent. An exception to the general rule would be early war T-34s and KV series, where poorly trained crews often abandoned

perfectly functional tanks simply because the rattle and clang of projectiles hitting the armor freaked them out.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ August 19, 2006, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[benpark]

Agreed that captured equipment was used at times, albeit well after the point of capture. Repainting, and sometimes restructuring these vehicles kept those driving them from confused friendly fire, however.

Does anyone have any accounts of an AFV crew hopping into an enemy tank and using it on an active battlefield during WW2? How about enough instances to warrant it being a part of a game that has been touted as having a degree of "realism"? I realize this game is going to be a bit more on the "fun" side than the "realism" side, but this just presents too many odd situations, and seems like something you would find in a run of the mill RTS.

[Moon]

benpark, actually now that you mention it, I have never seen the AI capture one of my tanks. What it does is recrew its own equipment on occasion (though I have to admit that I have only ever seen this happen with anti-tank guns and not tanks). So yeah, it's largely up to the player if he wants to do this or not.

Again, please keep in mind that the current screens are meant to highlight various features and possibilities of the game. They do not necessarily represent "typical" gameplay. Often there are very good reasons NOT to run around the map trying to capture enemy equipment, and often enough while trying to make screenshots I have paid dearly for it as my guys were mowed down from nearby infantry after trying to approach some enemy equipment. Another good reason not to do it is that it's often not as effective as using your own equipment, and having an infantry private trying to use a tank cannon will likely end up in a lot of wasted ammo on missed shots, very long loading times and so forth.

What this feature does though (as unrealistic as it might be if exploited by the player) is allow for some very tense moments in TOW. Matt has described some of those in his previous postings and interviews, and the ability to "create" heroes in desperate moments of a battle is a very unique feature of TOW unlike any other game I have seen. It's perhaps somewhat similar to the Close Combat series, but the 3D presentation and the high detail make it far more immersive and really leads to some great and rewarding moments during gameplay.

Martin

[tools4fools]

Shoot up your own abandoned tanks/AT guns until they burn and no more recrewing by enemy...

****

[Waycool]

Shoot it till it burns I like that

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Moon:

Another good reason not to do it is that it's often not as effective as using your own equipment, and having an infantry private trying to use a tank cannon will likely end up in a lot of wasted ammo on missed shots, very long loading times and so forth.

I am wondering, I guess the *first* shot fired (incl. loading, traverse, sighting etc.) from unknown equipment should take *really* long, already the next and all subsequent shots much faster.

Its not like he hast to figure out all the buttons and wheels anew for each shot.

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Shoot up your own abandoned AT guns until they burn

I guess AT guns tend to dislike catching fire.

[benpark]

Thanks, Moon. I'm just trying to figure out what a "typical" game might consist of, and if this isn't part of it-good enough for me.

[WindyCity]

Originally posted by whaco:

A little gamey if you ask me. Granted I know it did happen, but how many times really did an enemy capture a take only to use it against the enemy in that same battle. Sounds like this game may be getting dummied down to appeal to the 10 yr old in all of us. Come to think of it maybe a Rambo type crew is what I need to take me away from reality.

This from a EYSA fanboy

[whaco]

Please reread my post about EYSA Windbag with your glasses on this time. Never do I mention was I fanboy, quite to the contrary. Nor did I ever condone bashing CM.

BTW look who's calling the kettle black. Too funny.

[WindyCity]

You got it tuffguy

[MeatEtr]

Hehe, back to the topic.

So the player and the enemy can crew the others abandoned vehicles in the current battle, is that correct? I sure hope not, too cheesy and unrealistic IMHO. I understand having the captured vehicle available to you the next battle, but not in the middle of the current battle. That ability is too much like all the other million WWII RTS games out there. But more importantly, not historically accurate.

Since it's been said already, I'll quote my hopes:

Originally posted by benpark:

Please make "Cannot crew enemy vehicles" an option.

Pretty please!

[RMC]

Why does this need an option? Moon has already indicated that the AI does not initiate this on its own and that the crews are reluctant to do so anyway. Too little payoff. It's simply a function of the level of detail already modelled. There's no reason troops can't enter an abandoned, immobilized, whatever tank. It could be done.

People seem to be assuming that there is going to be musical tanks on a massive scale. It won't. Players abandoning functioning Cromwells in the hopes that manning a Tiger is going to turn the tide are going to lose.

[whaco]

Originally posted by RMC:

People seem to be assuming that there is going to be musical tanks on a massive scale. It won't.

Not to be condescending, but actually that is what I thought it would be. Thank you RMC for clearing that up.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by RMC:

Why does this need an option?

Why not? Unless of course if it would be a major ordeal to make it an option, then forget it. But odds are, something like this wouldn't. IMO, the more options to customize a battle or game the better. For example, look at IL2's toggle able realism settings or all the different changeable parameters for a CM QB. Grant it, we won't be getting a feature like the QB in ToW.

More options = more freedom

Less options = more restrictive

Not that this is a make or break feature for the game. I'll be buying it anyway.

[RMC]

Oh, sure. Having more options is always better, but in this case it's a non-issue. The AI ain't going to do it on it's own and players can simply not give the order to occupy an abandoned enemy vehicle.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by RMC:

...players can simply not give the order to occupy an abandoned enemy vehicle.

Which is exactly why it is an issue, at least for mp.

Also, judging from Moons post, it does sound like it can be effective even with the negative impacts(long reloads, poor accuracy, etc).

Originally posted by Moon:

What this feature does though (as unrealistic as it might be if exploited by the player) is allow for some very tense moments in TOW. ..the ability to "create" heroes in desperate moments of a battle ...

Martin

I just cringe at the idea that Billy Bob from Missouri who's been through basics and can use the M1 Garand pretty good decides to hop into a tank and save the day.

[ww2steel]

Musical tanks, sounds like a game set around... maybe... 1942.

I like to do a lot of SP games. My ranch is in the middle of nowhere and I don't want to throw down $100+ a month for a satelite ISP. Anyway, I know that's a minority of gamers by far these days. What I'm getting at is if I can do it, I would expect to see the AI do it. If some random grünt wants to get into my abandoned sherman and pop artillery off so be it. I strongly dislike it when I feel I have a gamey advantage (over a human brain) against the AI. (Like many old games that never move artillery for instance.)

Maybe I misunderstood, but aside from picking up infantry weapons, how is crewing an enemy piece of heavy equipment like any of the Close Combat games. (or is light weaponry all Moon is refering to?) I think that that is a REALLY cool feature that I certainly miss from CC.

See ya,

Mike

[RMC]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

I just cringe at the idea that Billy Bob from Missouri who's been through basics and can use the M1 Garand pretty good decides to hop into a tank and save the day.

He won't decide to do that unless the player tells him to.

In any case, it's not so far-fetched.

Ambrose: "In January 1945, Capt Belton Cooper of the 3rd Armored Division got thrity-five replacements to help crew the seventeen new tanks the division had received. 'These men had just unloaded from the boat in Antwerp a few hours earlier,' Cooper said. 'They had received no previous indoctrination on what they were to do.' Not one had any previous experience with tanks. 'Most of them had never even been in a tank or even close to one.'

Cooper gave them a brief verbal orientation. Then his mechanics took small groups into tanks where each recruit got to fire the main gun 3 times. 'This was all the training time permitted,' Cooper remembered, because the guides came to take the tanks to their assignments to the various units.

The previous night, the thrirty-five replacements had been in Antwerp. At 1500 they lumbered off in a convoy of seventeen tanks headed for the front. Two hours later, fifteen of the seventeen were knocked out by German panzers firing 88s."

[benpark]

[/QB]Originally posted by RMC:

Two hours later, fifteen of the seventeen were knocked out by German panzers firing 88s." [/QB]

That sounds about right for men with minimal training. That situation overall is still a totally seperate issue from men crewing enemy tanks in the middle of a firefight.

The demo should allow us to see enough of how this will work.

[MeatEtr]

Not trying to be a smartass or anything. But your example of throwing raw recruits into a battle with little to no training is completely different from what we're talking about(ex. 1-5 soldiers from a rifle squad hopping into an enemy tank). In the middle of a battle nonetheless. Which obviously is far fetched. Sure, I bet someone could find some examples of something like this actually happening. But how common was this on the battlefield?

I think this definitely needs to be an option. At least certainly for multiplayer since players, even as Moon stated, could exploit it.

Or not, we'll all find out alot more once we get our hands on the demo. Which should be within a couple of weeks, supposedly. (fingers crossed)

[Jussi Köhler]

Im fuming that time to code something like this has been spent on the expense of mortars or fixing camera-angles on enterable houses.

Who is this game aimed at?

[Markus86]

If the facts, no enterable buildings and no mortars, annoy you so much, why are you hanging around here? :confused: There are other games out, which have the features, which seem to be so important.

Posting for the twentieth time, this topic doesn't change anything or did I miss something?

[Jussi Köhler]

Yep.

Ive hung around here for years, dont know of any other places to be.