Polo Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I am currently playing one of the well designed scenarios from the repository. Unfortunately, it has a big default! I wanted to share the issue in order to influence scenario design. I was playing with Germans. One of the group (3rd platoon) was a fusilier platoon with light armored vehicules attached (one 20mm AC and a 75mm HT). At a given turn, the platoon was taking a beating (40-50% casulties in the inf squads) and the 20mm got killed by a 105mm shell, while the platoon team only took one casualty, being only "nervous". The destruction of the AC in front of the men was impressing them badly. At the next turn, two Pz IV and two HT with infantry (part of it attached to the Bn, part of it to the 3rd Plt). The two Pz were attached to 3rd platoon (a bit of an oddity, BTW). I give them fast movement orders for the next turn. Then, the next turn: none of the tanks moved: one was "panicked", the other "shaken". From the inf teams, the ones attached to the Bn were OK, the rest at least "rattled". The tanks were not even arrived, already panicking! Apart from the fact their reaction was a bit violent (the situation was not so critical...), it is clearly a design flaw. So general rule, please: except for lone vehicules, maybe. DO NOT ATTACH REINFORCEMENTS TO HQs ALREADY ON MAP (and choose this HQ). General rule, at least take a look at the issue while design in your scenario. Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Excellent Information to be aware of. I have been doing some testing with assigning Assault guns to an infantry company HQ (all initially deployed).. and what is impressive, as the company takes casualties (with no enemy armor present) the Assault guns will withdraw as the infantry becomes panicked and shaken, etc... this is sort of true to form. But there are so many items to consider during design, thanks for the posting, it was something I hadnt considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Indeed, a good thing to know! I have taken this issue and added a related one of my own and plopped them in a new thread on the general CMBN board, where I hope BF will be more likely to see it, as I think this is an engine deficiency which needs to be addressed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Fredrock, you have 4 scenarios for downloadiing on your site? Why aren't you advertising more, or uploading to the Repository? They sound like good ones! And I agree with stoex and polo regarding those issues, by thw way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Fredrock, you have 4 scenarios for downloadiing on your site? Why aren't you advertising more, or uploading to the Repository? They sound like good ones! Thanx, but only 2 are ready to d/l, the other 2 I have in Author mode, and then I like to get them play tested before posing at a repository... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Good to know, Fredrock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The original post really describes three issues: 1) Big strong tanks get panicked about casualties in other units. 2) Reinforcements show up already panicked due to events before their arrival. 3) Tanks arrive attached to an infantry platoon HQ. I don't think number 2 is actually a problem at all. Presumably those reinforcements panicked because they heard (or even saw, or heard over the radio) something that disturbed them enough to affect their morale. The fact that they weren't on the map is irrelevant: since they arrived the next turn, they were very close to the action when the Bad Thing happened. I like that they are affected by events even if they are not yet visible on the map. Now, if an event happened and they were still panicked upon arrival many turns later, that would be a problem. But it sounds to me like they were close enough to be affected. As for number 1, I'm not sure it's a problem either. Maybe the tankers heard the vehicle getting blown up, or saw the explosion. A 105 is a big blast, and it could kill a tank as well as an armored car, so they might be right to be nervous. If there's a problem with tankers overreacting to events that can't harm them, I would worry. But I haven't seen that happen in my games yet. Number 3 is clearly a scenario-design issue rather than a game engine issue. Maybe it's wrong for tanks to be attached to a fusilier platoon, but maybe they are attached for a reason. Does the scenario description give any clue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The original post really describes three issues: 1) Big strong tanks get panicked about casualties in other units. I agree with Martyr ans #1 and #2 are really not problems and add to realism. Also, on #1: Historical references and first-person tanker accounts from Normandy are full of anecdotes describing how tanks frequently retreated or left the field whenever they lost their supporting infantry or felt exposed because they didn't have sufficient infantry protection. It made the infantrymen furious, because they often felt the tanks fled prematurely and "deserted" them. But the tankers were justifiably paranoid about bazookas or panzerfausts lurking in the bocage, and doctrine (US doctrine, at least) required the infantry to lead and clear the way for the armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Martyr and Broadsword, I agree in general terms that units should suffer morale blows when they witness bad things happening to other units, for sure. However, please see my example in this thread why I think the implementation could use some reviewing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakai007 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I had not noticed this yet, but some great information here. I agree as above, #1 and #2 are excellent in my eyes, and really add a lot to an already amazing game. Certainly adds to the immersion factor and to any role playing the user wants to have along with his wargaming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Good advice polo thankyou, and yes that was a mistake. I will probably drop a new file for any future d/l. The intent was attachments were to fall under the battalion commander. But they were attaching to the last platoon selected. Its clear to me now. in keeping with the other comments, As for a German tank team attached to a light infantry Battalion HQ. This could be legit in the latewar German army depending on the situation, You need only look at Falaise Breakout, Warsaw, Casino, Hammelburg etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted June 4, 2011 Author Share Posted June 4, 2011 You are welcome, nik. I prefered to make it a general case, but you indeed recognized your scenario. Pretty hard one, BTW, even with the Pz IVs. Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.