Crew/Bail out Questions

[Erik Springelkamp]

IIRC (I'm in work) the "Bail" command isn't mapped in the alternative hotkeys - you have to select it with the mouse.

You can just add it yourself if you think you need it.

[YankeeDog]

... Drawing from an increasingly erratic memory, I think we had to take the sights (both the dial sight and the telescopic sight – indirect/direct fire respectively), the gunners quadrant (a bit of kit that in a push, combined with the iron sights on the gun, could be used to give a direct fire capability) and a few other bits and pieces with us as we legged it away from the threat. All of these bits and bobs could be taken off and put back on the gun in less than a minute and passed amongst the crew for ease of carrying...

Interesting. Perhaps one way of allowing gun crews to abandon and re-crew without creating the potential for too much gameyness would be to require the crew to re-setup the gun each time they re-crewed, simulating the crew replacing the sighting equipment, as you describe. This would mean that the gun couldn't be fired immediately after re-crewing -- it would take a minute or two.

If recrewing guns were made too easy, I can envision players yo-yoing the crew on and off of an AT gun between shots in an attempt to avoid casualties from return fire. But such a re-setup delay would largely fix this problem.

[gunnergoz]

I wonder if there is a game engine issue with dismounted guns being abandoned by their crews and not being able to re-crew in game? I'm no programmer (obviously!) but I have a hunch it might be. Alternately, as YD has suggested, it may be imposed as a restriction just to prevent gamey behavior.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Interesting. Perhaps one way of allowing gun crews to abandon and re-crew without creating the potential for too much gameyness would be to require the crew to re-setup the gun each time they re-crewed, simulating the crew replacing the sighting equipment, as you describe. This would mean that the gun couldn't be fired immediately after re-crewing -- it would take a minute or two.

If recrewing guns were made too easy, I can envision players yo-yoing the crew on and off of an AT gun between shots in an attempt to avoid casualties from return fire. But such a re-setup delay would largely fix this problem.

Isn't that what often happened: during the prep bombardment of an attack, defending weapons crews would be in the trench shelters, to quickly re-man their weapons when the barrage was lifted?

[YankeeDog]

I wonder if there is a game engine issue with dismounted guns being abandoned by their crews and not being able to re-crew in game? I'm no programmer (obviously!) but I have a hunch it might be. Alternately, as YD has suggested, it may be imposed as a restriction just to prevent gamey behavior.

It would be strange if the game code were able to handle vehicle crews abandoning and re-crewing, but could not do the same for guns; the requirements should be fundamentally similar. Though, as always, I am sure there would be some adjustments and debug time required to extend re-crew capability to guns.

Without any statements from BFC, it's difficult to say for sure why things are as they are right now, and how many coding and debug hours it would take to get gun re-crewing in the game, if BFC decided to make this a priority. Would it be as difficult as adding a major new feature like flame weapons and burning buildings/terrain? Almost certainly not. But also certainly not as trivial as just "flipping a switch".

Isn't that what often happened: during the prep bombardment of an attack, defending weapons crews would be in the trench shelters, to quickly re-man their weapons when the barrage was lifted?

Well, yes. But then you need to consider how relevant this is to the CM-scale engagement. Large prep barrages are usually better represented in CM as having occurred immediately prior to the start of the scenario. So most of the time, you could assume that the gun crew has just returned to the gun (at the option of the scenario designer, with casualties from the barrage), and is ready to fight the gun.

It's a balance. I don't think it's a good idea to allow the player to bounce a gun crew on and off the gun willy-nilly. At the same time, it does seem to me that there are situations where abandoning and re-crewing guns within the timeframe of a CM scenario would be realistic, and it would be nice to see this in the game, eventually.

[Comandante]

With respect, I put it to you that if a gun crew runs away or routs from their piece, they're not stopping to do anything fancy to their gun.

A very strange design decision that is obviously going to be objected to by a large majority of players.

Why not just reverse it now, or at least list it for the first patch?

[Comandante]

It's a shame that you cannot swap or combine the tank crews. I had a couple of instances in CMSF where I had a full crew who bailed out from a destroyed tank and a partial crew in an intact tank (usually the commander was dead), and I really wanted to swap them. If Battlefront could allow us to swap crews it would be appreciated! I have read plenty of anecdotes where commanders swapped tanks so they could still lead and on the radio net.

It was common practice for the senior tank commander to take over an adjacent vehicle if his own tank was put out of action for any reason. Maybe it still is?

[Baneman]

Interesting. Perhaps one way of allowing gun crews to abandon and re-crew without creating the potential for too much gameyness would be to require the crew to re-setup the gun each time they re-crewed, simulating the crew replacing the sighting equipment, as you describe. This would mean that the gun couldn't be fired immediately after re-crewing -- it would take a minute or two.

If recrewing guns were made too easy, I can envision players yo-yoing the crew on and off of an AT gun between shots in an attempt to avoid casualties from return fire. But such a re-setup delay would largely fix this problem.

This sounds eminently reasonable.

Hopefully BF will be able to make this possible at some stage in the future.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting. Perhaps one way of allowing gun crews to abandon and re-crew without creating the potential for too much gameyness...

That is part of it. But here's the more immediate reason...

I wonder if there is a game engine issue with dismounted guns being abandoned by their crews and not being able to re-crew in game? I'm no programmer (obviously!) but I have a hunch it might be.

Good hunch Vehicles are their own entities and can exist without any crew at all. Guns are basically infantry units with a big weapon. One does not exist without the other, in game engine terms. There are programming reasons why it is this way. Could they be worked around? Yes, of course. With enough time and effort they could be. But then this gets us to the question of if that's a good use of our time. Because not only would we have to get the physical capability coded into the game, but we'd also have to test out various ways to combat gamey behavior.

Since abandoning a weapon should be done only in extreme emergencies, and often in real life would mean disabling the weapon before leaving (grenade down or up the spout), we felt the best thing to do is make abandonment permanent.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

A very strange design decision that is obviously going to be objected to by a large majority of players.

Why not just reverse it now, or at least list it for the first patch?

You mean go back to the CMx1 behavior where you could never abandon a gun, and therefore would lose your ability to get them out of harms way? That doesn't sound like a step forward.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

All that said, is this something on your 'Like to do if we've got the time' list or is it something realistically just isn't going to happen with time and resources you have?

Just asking because I'm curious as usual. I'm strictly in the if it happens it happens if it don't it don't camp but I do like to keep a mental list of possibilities regarding the game.

[Battlefront.com]

Sure, we would like to get it so people could voluntarily and temporarily abandon a gun and then recrew. But we have to weigh the efforts to support that with the need. We don't think the need is very high. The need for voluntarily and permanently abandoning a gun... that's a significant need and that's why we do support it.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I believe in the U.S. Army gun crews are legally liable for their guns. Strange, I know. Even today I've heard of wounded Iraq veterans being charged for the cost of their missing (blood-stained) body armor after they got home. So one does not casually walk away from such an expensive piece of equipment, especially if the enemy can turn it on you afterward if they get hold of it. Think of it as simulating the gun being abandoned only under extreme duress and that the gun gets 'spiked' somehow to make it useless.

[TheVulture]

Sure, we would like to get it so people could voluntarily and temporarily abandon a gun and then recrew. But we have to weigh the efforts to support that with the need. We don't think the need is very high. The need for voluntarily and permanently abandoning a gun... that's a significant need and that's why we do support it.

Steve

And of course you can guarantee that somone will find some weird benefit to abandoning a gun and recrewing, which will lead to it being standard behaviour to leaving guns lying around uncrewed and just rushing the crew up when there is a vehicle nearby (see also cow meat shield or starting fires deliberately....)

[Blackcat]

Isn't that what often happened: during the prep bombardment of an attack, defending weapons crews would be in the trench shelters, to quickly re-man their weapons when the barrage was lifted?

I am sure it was but the prep bombardment phase, like the recce phase, is really outside the scope of CM fights.

[Vein]

Guns are basically infantry units with a big weapon.

If the Gun is tagged as an infantry weapon (like the support weapons?), then for another team, or the same team, to acquire it couldn't you theoretically use the same code/animations that are used in CMSF to acquire support weapons from downed squad mates.

This takes a certain amount of time (where the guy does the 'looking for his specs' animation). This would prevent it from being too gamey, as you would need to have your team fiddling around with the Gun for an amount of time before they got it working again. Which would be risky for them.

I'm OK with it either way. Just a brain fart.

[Dadekster88]

I believe in the U.S. Army gun crews are legally liable for their guns. Strange, I know. Even today I've heard of wounded Iraq veterans being charged for the cost of their missing (blood-stained) body armor after they got home. So one does not casually walk away from such an expensive piece of equipment, especially if the enemy can turn it on you afterward if they get hold of it. Think of it as simulating the gun being abandoned only under extreme duress and that the gun gets 'spiked' somehow to make it useless.

The absolute worst thing you could do at the NTC while on rotation was to lose/misplace your rifle, gps, night gear or MILES gear. They'd get the whole freakin Squadron at their looking for your lost sh!t and guys would wish they'd gotten lost instead of their gear. Man I still remember forming up a line to literally comb the fn desert.

So yes, you were held accountable for your trash and when you ETS's you turned in all your stuff as well, although having a good supply SGT was always nice

[gunnergoz]

I believe in the U.S. Army gun crews are legally liable for their guns. Strange, I know. Even today I've heard of wounded Iraq veterans being charged for the cost of their missing (blood-stained) body armor after they got home. So one does not casually walk away from such an expensive piece of equipment, especially if the enemy can turn it on you afterward if they get hold of it. Think of it as simulating the gun being abandoned only under extreme duress and that the gun gets 'spiked' somehow to make it useless.

Why do you think navy captains go down with their ships?

[Battlefront.com]

If the Gun is tagged as an infantry weapon (like the support weapons?), then for another team, or the same team, to acquire it couldn't you theoretically use the same code/animations that are used in CMSF to acquire support weapons from downed squad mates.

No, because it's not that simple Plus, we wouldn't want that anyway because the only Teams that should be manning a heavy weapon (possible exception, MGs) should be those that are trained on them. Random infantry trying to use an AT Gun or a Mortar? Oh... I'm sure it happened here and there, but definitely nothing we should put into the game.

Again, anything is possible to do given enough time and energy. At present we don't see this as being worthy of that. The important thing is that you can preserve your crews when the enemy is likely to overrun your positions.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

...AFV crews certainly would sometimes spike the gun or otherwise permanently disable the vehicle when abandoning.

In fact, weren't thermite grenades, or something equivalent, standard equipment in case there was a danger of the vehicle falling into enemy hands?

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

No more "a Battery Commander, his batman and a cook"?

Keeping a gun in action was a big priority for a commander but now it becomes unusable if the crew is ever driven off? Excuse me while I look at you with disapproval, Steve.

*glares*

[Other Means]

Not for CMBN

*makes mental note to check when home*

I can confirm that in the "alternative hotkeys" file there's no key for bailing out, so it has to be selected from the menu.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I can confirm that in the "alternative hotkeys" file there's no key for bailing out, so it has to be selected from the menu.

It is right between dismount and vehicle open up

<E>' // dismount

<E> // bail out

<E>O // vehicle open up

[Other Means]

It is right between dismount and vehicle open up

<E>' // dismount

<E> // bail out

<E>O // vehicle open up

I created the "alternative" hotkeys that are shipping with CMBN. I'm just confirming, in answer to a question on the first page, that I didn't map anything to "bail out" in order to avoid involuntary key presses.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I created the "alternative" hotkeys that are shipping with CMBN. I'm just confirming, in answer to a question on the first page, that I didn't map anything to "bail out" in order to avoid involuntary key presses.

OK, I misunderstood.

But if anybody should wish to attach a hot key to the action, he can do so in his own hotkeys.txt.

As the snippet from my own file shows, I left it empty as well.

Maybe one of the !@#$%^&*() keys, that require the shift key, is an appropriate choice.