Humvees

[Fenix]

@Pandur: Really? Never noticed that. In fact, i suspected that BF modified the button-unbutton issue to increase survival of tank commanders... If you are right, then i don't understand why they had to change the behaviour of gunners.

[Pandur]

i suspected that BF modified the button-unbutton issue to increase survival of tank commanders... If you are right, then i don't understand why they had to change the behaviour of gunners.

ovcourse you are right, a patch at one point corrected this BUT the thing is befor the patch, if i remember correct, they didnt do "anything" by themselfs. so the only way to get em to dive in WEGO, as example, was to wait a minute and order them. people where still bragging about selfpreservation and all this and so it was changed to what it is now. hell its better then befor, no question, but could it be easylie much much better, also no question, i would say yes.

EDIT:

yes, important thing is even when the TC buttons now, after the patch, after several salvos of smal arms, he "does not" button after a single shot of any large caliber gun if you get me.

TCs would need to button as soon as they "spott" a tank. simple. they can stay outside a bit with rifle fire, im ok with this, but the problem is that the tanks fight tanks or attrackt large caliber weapons naturally, and the TC behaviour of buttoning "after" some shots is not quiet in order here.

to add, if they dont see the enemy tank, and it fires on them, nothing to do the TC is down, however he should be that smart to button when he sees the tank befor it fires.

[hcrof]

I can confirm what Pandur said, I have seen Red tank commanders stay out of the hatch, even when under quite a lot of small arms fire!

[Fenix]

Heh, Tank Commanders with suicidal tendencies (or perhaps with the guts that gunners lack?) xD. Then the solution should be easy: change the behaviour between TC and gunners. I'd rather have a suicidal Humvee gunner than a coward one.

[Wengart]

So I was bored an ran a couple of test ambushes with Humvees. I'm just going to give you a quick summary of my tests, and I will do more extensive ones tomorrow. Anyway, I found that in a multi-angle ambush where the road does a Z (with the middle line being straight vertically) the following:

1. at high speeds the gunners position does not matter, as they are usually killed before finding a target. (although in one test a lone gunner managed to route or kill all enemy forces, unfortunately he was killed by a grenade, from a fleeing fighter)

2. buttoned up the number of RPG kills increased from 1 Humvee, while the others had there operators shot, to 3.

3. while moving at normal speed gunners have time to select targets, without being fired on from all directions, and this greatly increased survivability. Although the convoy was still largely destroyed, a single humvee survived with crew. The convoy lasted longer, and killed a larger portion of the attackers.

The ambushers were made up of fighters

For some reason a single crew in the test was conscript while another was crack, all the rest were veterans. There were 4 humvees in the ambush.

[Pandur]

what does that tell us? or should tell us?

any conclusion?

[Wengart]

Well I did a few more tests of an ambush situation, and the results seem to suggest that Pandur is correct. Not once did I see a gunner button up when he had a target. However, they would often button up when no targets were available. Furthermore this seems like the correct behavior for CM:SF, as gunners have a very high mortality rate.

[Guinnessman]

Well I did a few more tests of an ambush situation, and the results seem to suggest that Pandur is correct. Not once did I see a gunner button up when he had a target. However, they would often button up when no targets were available. Furthermore this seems like the correct behavior for CM:SF, as gunners have a very high mortality rate.

Agreed, this summarises the behaviour of my Humvee gunners in the 3:10 to Yuma scenario - they would quite happily blast away at visible enemies but when there were no visible enemies, they would button up. And gunner casualties were pretty much 100% for me in that scenario.

[Rustman]

Quicker solution: adjust the roof-mounted station gunners' behavior to reflect that which was present in v.1.10 given that it was far more realistic than what we have now. Personally, Seabee, I love your suggestion, but don't hold your breath.

Humvees in v1.11 are scarcely worth more than REDFOR target practice, transports for a box or two of virtual 5.56 and a means to claim the game has accurate TO&E's. CMSF CAAT teams and Army gunners do not reflect their real-life potential in-game.

Below are some examples from Evan Wright's account of '1114 gunners in the 1st Recon Battlion (USMC) during the initial march to Baghdad in 2003. If you are going to brand your product as a "Tactical Ground Combat Simulation" I would think there would be a desire to get this stuff right, correct?

That's right folks, they drove into some very close range firefights. In reality, these teams do not have the luxury of "outranging" OPFOR systems. You fight your way out of a killzone - assuming the fetal postion makes you useless and gets your team killed.

Out of the hatch, all of the time...

The gun is "up."

Inbound, automatic 23 mike mike - the gunner is out of the hatch and returning fire. You will not see this in v.1.11 of CMSF.

They are under fire. Guess what platform those Mk19's are mounted on? M1114's, go figure.

Close range ambush, no chance to "outrange" here. That .50cal. returning fire in order to break the ambush, yeah, it's mounted on...the roof of a Humvee. Replicate this behavior in the "Tactical Ground Combat Simulation."

At this point in CMSF your virtual gunners are filling their pants while the rest of the platoon gets aired out.

Come on guys, this should be an easy one. Honestly, I just do not understand the type of pleading that seemingly has to take place to get these types of obvious things noticed and addressed.

Yes...gunners are always out. Our 1114's in Iraq couldn't button up...the turret door was either locked open, or just removed completely. At no point does the gunner ever leave his position...except when he's shot...then somone else gets into it.

For the record though, 1st Recon didn't even have 1114's and neither did most of the invading force for that matter..I have a friend of mine that rolled into Baghdad in a HMMWV that didn't even have crew doors mounted on it. The only troops that had 1114's were upper echilon officers..."why?" do you ask? Because the models that come stock with armor also come stock with air conditioning. The newer electronics packages require it. That's it. The colonels and generals need A/C. Most of the invading force had 998's, 1025's, and 1097's.

[Wengart]

I would like to point out that CM:SF does not reproduce "blind fire". The gunner will only fire at known enemy targets, rather than hosing down likely fire positions. Often times our virtual gunners are being shot to hell without offering any return fire at all. Whereas a real gunner could at least return fire, if inaccurately, causing some suppression.

Also, I am not sure how prevalent this is, but passengers do not fire out of their windows either. This, combined with the lack of "blind fire" for gunners severely depletes a 1114's suppression ability.

However, I cannot help but think something is up with 1114 gunners. Especially considering their near 100% casualty rate. Unless used in a purely supporting fire roll.

[Apocal]

Also, I am not sure how prevalent this is, but passengers do not fire out of their windows either. This, combined with the lack of "blind fire" for gunners severely depletes a 1114's suppression ability.

Also Steve mentioned that they decided against a purely realistic modelling of suppression, because it would lead to longer, less decisive battles overall. Which would put off many (most?) casual wargamers.