suggestion for game to Battlefront

[slysniper]

While I was testing My first scenario design in the new game, I noticed while trying this tactic it did not workout. I wanted my AT crew to abandon a good AT gun and hide in foxholes that were in better cover and concealment and wait to man the gun once the enemy made a attempt to attack this area of the battlefield. I found that sure does not work in the game.

I thought maybe since we are now able to collect ammo and other soilders weapons, or jump into empty trucks and such. that I could have a crew stay out of harms way and then run and man a AT gun when the time was needed. Nope, I just lost the gun with that move. Seems like that might be able to be programmed in without much effort since it is within other aspects of the game.

Am I correct or did I just miss something here as to how the game allows it.

[gunnergoz]

Steve has said that there are programming issues (regarding the game engine and action spots) with re-manning a gun that has been abandoned by crew and these are substantial enough to remedy that the issue is taking a back seat to other alterations they will make. In other words, fixing this is not a priority right now. Perhaps down the road it may get addressed but not in the near future.

[slysniper]

Well at least it is one that is known then and will likely get addressed at some point. I know they cannot do everything, but they sure do try to provide as much as possible with the skill that they have. I figure this is one that can be corrected in their coding that they use.

[theFightingSeabee]

I don't think it will change (or be fixed). BFC thinks it will lead to a lot of "gamey" play. I tried to argue my point, but they refused. Bottom line is... "take your guns to town, Bill, don't leave your guns at home son, take your guns to town."

[Mattias]

I don't think it will change (or be fixed). BFC thinks it will lead to a lot of "gamey" play. I tried to argue my point, but they refused. Bottom line is... "take your guns to town, Bill, don't leave your guns at home son, take your guns to town."

Thinking about it I find myself unable to coming up with any gamey and unrealistic tactics. Or is just too early in the morning?

Leaving the gun makes sense in a number of situations, to scout or to take cover for example. The price you pay, in all cases, is the same as for the tank crews getting out on foot, you loose the ability to quickly use that crucial long range fire power. It seems to me that that price should outweigh the benefits of potential gamey exploits, instead making it a a viable tactical alternative...

M.

[theFightingSeabee]

I agree with you 100% Mattias. I don't really understand how it could be "gamey" with the proper penalties associated with leaving a weapon. I pushed my arguments with Steve and Charles as much as I could without making myself a nuissance, but they didn't buy it .

[lookeylou]

IF my memory serves me correctly i read in the manual you can unmount a tank and get back in, but not AT gun.

[gunnergoz]

Yes, I mis-remembered Steve's response. Here it is:

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

Thread link: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96335&highlight=gun+crews&page=4 #34

So no we will not see this capability in the game by BFC's choice on the matter. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

[nachinus]

Mmmh. I must admit that I can't see how this can be gamey with guns and not gamey with vehicles.

Is it too crazy to suggest that is a normal realistic behavior to abandon a gun under a solid mortar/arty barrage and get back to it once it has stopped? (if the gun is still operative, that is).

I guess that the real problem is not if this is reasonable or not, but that the change in code is too significant to be cost-effective.

[TrailApe]

I can see where crews might jump into trenches that they have constructed, but these would be very close to the gun - almost in touching distance. I can't see any circumstances apart from bugging out, where a gun crew would remove themselves from a gun over any appreciable distance or time period.

I agree that in the Napolionic wars, gunners would leave the guns and retire into the infantry squares when pressed by cavalry and then return to their pieces when the Hay Burners had been seen off, however these guns were not as sophisticated as the WW2 guns and its unlikely that a bunch of Hussars or Lancers would carry a gun spiking kit in their cartouche.

Actually, as a former gunner, I find remarks like “abandon a good AT gun” blasphemous and felt slightly dizzy when reading the comments. Good God man – you don’t desert the Colours! :eek:

More seriously, if you managed to inveigle the powers that be to allow gunners to leave their guns, I think it would only be right that the guns can be spiked if any enemy go past them – and on Iron settings – rendered useless if even your own troops go past an untenanted gun (thieving b*st*rds will knick anything that’s shiny).

[slysniper]

Yes, I mis-remembered Steve's response. Here it is:

Thread link: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96335&highlight=gun+crews&page=4 #34

So no we will not see this capability in the game by BFC's choice on the matter. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

OK, so maybe we will not be seeing this in the future, but it sounds more like they just do not want to spend the effort to put such a feature in the game.

As for the tactic and the concept. I am not wanting a debate, it was not uncommon to have fox holes or trenches somewhere close enough to the gun to watch and protect it, but seek cover from direct fire and wait out in safety likely enemy measures. I was not refering to hiding a half mile away and hoping to find the gun in one piece when one comes back. But I do think it is a incorrect concept to wreck the gun every time a crew walks away from it.

I would like to see the crew get killed, the enemy overrun the gun, turn it around and fire it themselves, with it either blowing up, if the troops are fools or raising hell on its own troops if a smart group manages to get ahold of it, like a tank crew with nothing else to do.

[TrailApe]

I would like to see the crew get killed, the enemy overrun the gun, turn it around and fire it themselves, with it either blowing up, if the troops are fools or raising hell on its own troops if a smart group manages to get ahold of it, like a tank crew with nothing else to do.

That would, I admit, be a really neat concept. Can you imagine overunning an 88, manning it and begin firing at the Panzers only to watch your pixel truppen break their arms and lose fingers trying to get it to work.

I think the Ozzie infantry at Tobruk collected together a motley assortment of artillery guns and used them against their previous owners (and no - not the British!)

[Michael Emrys]

I think the Ozzie infantry at Tobruk collected together a motley assortment of artillery guns and used them against their previous owners (and no - not the British!)

Yes, this kind of thing was done. God knows, the Germans used enormous quantities of captured arms, often against their previous owners. But these were not guns captured in the midst of battle and turned to use by soldiers not specifically trained in their use. What people are asking for here, perhaps without realizing it, are outlier behaviors. Yeah, it might have happened now and again here or there, but it was nowhere near typical of the combat BFC wants to model with CM. I don't think it's going to happen. And I find it odd that anybody would be so bored with CM as it exists that they demand "cool" features that might only get used once or twice in a gamer's career.

Michael

[slysniper]

Yes, this kind of thing was done. God knows, the Germans used enormous quantities of captured arms, often against their previous owners. But these were not guns captured in the midst of battle and turned to use by soldiers not specifically trained in their use. What people are asking for here, perhaps without realizing it, are outlier behaviors. Yeah, it might have happened now and again here or there, but it was nowhere near typical of the combat BFC wants to model with CM. I don't think it's going to happen. And I find it odd that anybody would be so bored with CM as it exists that they demand "cool" features that might only get used once or twice in a gamer's career.

Michael

Hey, it is not just guns that this concept is a possible factor, just a general truck would be nice. The enemy is fleeing and trucks are sitting around still, why not be able to drive one or get the enemy equipment off of it.

I just brought up the concept because maybe the programming was already somewhat set in place for that type of thing. but from the sounds of it, it is not that easy of a thing to change in the game, so this is more of just wishes being placed that will likely never come.

[TrailApe]

demand "cool" features

Nay lad, not demand - more like dream.

Actually, being a former gunner and a former Trade Unionist, I would trigger a Wildcat Strike over Demarcation if German/US infantry used Artillery weapons. Purely on the grounds of Health & Safety of course, and purely to ensure that the infantry don't attempt to carry out 'skilled' occupations which their pay and conditions do not give them commensurate reward.

Nothing to do with grunts putting their dirty hands on our beautiful guns and using them in a cavalier manner, no sir, no way.

[YankeeDog]

I agree that in the Napolionic wars, gunners would leave the guns and retire into the infantry squares when pressed by cavalry and then return to their pieces when the Hay Burners had been seen off, however these guns were not as sophisticated as the WW2 guns and its unlikely that a bunch of Hussars or Lancers would carry a gun spiking kit in their cartouche.

Actually, Napoleonic cavalry did sometimes carry a hammer and spikes, specifically to ram into the touch hole and thus disable a gun.

But as to capturing or disabling WWII guns and so on, I can certainly live with things the way they are now; there are big improvement over how on-map guns were handled in CMx1 and I'm very happy with these changes.

But while it's not necessarily a high priority new feature for me, I would like to eventually see gun crews able to move away from a gun and then re-man, or start a scenario off the gun, and then move to man the gun later. It's a tactic that the Russians, at least, seem to have used fairly often on the East Front. Primary reason seems to have been to reduce casualties from artillery prep barrages -- that is, shelter in a foxhole or trench a couple of hundred meters away from gun, then run to forward gun position once the big barrage was over. I guess guns are substantially less vulnerable to artillery fire than the soft things that man them...

As long as properly implemented, I don't think it would be overly gamey.

I'm not so into the idea of being able to man enemy guns. Usually, this seems to me to be more an operational, or even strategic thing than a low-level tactical thing -- maybe once in a while a few riflemen might have managed to swing a gun around and use it right then and there (IIRC, one famous incident where this did actually happen was at Pegasus Bridge, where the Brit Paras took over a 50mm ATG near the bridge). But this would be very rare, I think. More likely I see equipment being captured in more or less good order, and then used to re-equip units some days, weeks, or even months later (as the Germans did on the East Front).

Theoretically, in campaigns it might be fun if you could capture enemy guns and other heavy equipment, and then have this equipment them show up in your TOE a few battles down the road. But not a feature I see as high priority at all.

Another option might be to allow scenario designers to award victory points for the capture of enemy equipment like guns that are in good order. Again, kind of marginal, but might add an interesting flavor to some tactical situations. Once again, something I see as more relevant to the East Front, where at times and places both sides experienced serious equipment shortages, and units had to make do with what they could scrounge.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I think what we need are heavy weapon foxholes. I haven't done tests, but I am under the impression from playing that foxholes don't seem to give adequate cover for field guns. That and a Armour Cover Arc would make AT guns a much more terrifying foe. At the moment I can just let an AT gun open up on PBI and then simply whack it with mortars until it goes quiet. Too easy I think.

I don't have a problem with crews leaving their tanks. I've read a few accounts of them doing exactly that in order to do a quick scout to check on LOS and visual recon just ahead of the AFV.

[YankeeDog]

Agree completely; Cover Armor arc or some other way of getting AT assets to focus on their intended targets, and addition of gun and mortar pits are much higher priority additions for me than being able to re-man guns after abandonment.

[Lucky_Strike]

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

Yes, I mis-remembered Steve's response. Here it is:

Thread link: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96335&highlight=gun+crews&page=4 #34

So no we will not see this capability in the game by BFC's choice on the matter. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

Seems to me that 'gamey behaviour' is a bit of a red herring here. I've read plenty of accounts of gun crews moving into trenches, bunkers, cover etc to avoid indirect and direct fire, without spiking their guns, and returning to their weapons to use them, if undamaged, when it's a bit safer, is that 'gamey' real life? And if so, IMHO it's just as 'gamey' to have a tank crew abandon their near shattered vehicle, losing two of their colleagues on the way, and then five minutes later to have the ability to make them remount their vehicle and go on to take out a half dozen enemy tanks - seen this several times now!

The only 'gamey behaviours' that need to be addressed re gun crews are not letting anyone other than the original crew, and other crews of same weapon types, use the weapon. And to impose some sort of time/spotting penalty to prevent crews hopping on and off their guns constantly in quick succession just to fire on enemy threats.

I understand this is more of a coding/time/cost/priorities issue, and gaminess is perhaps mostly in the eyes of the creators.

My tuppence

LS

[Fetchez la Vache]

I think the gamey aspect might be because unmanning a gun might break direct targeting? Also I could foresee some extreme 'temporary' (say moving crew 200m away) unmanning at the start of a turn to avoid preparatory artillery barrages? Basically the unrealistic stuff.

[YankeeDog]

I think the gamey aspect might be because unmanning a gun might break direct targeting? Also I could foresee some extreme 'temporary' (say moving crew 200m away) unmanning at the start of a turn to avoid preparatory artillery barrages? Basically the unrealistic stuff.

As I noted above, this is a realistic tactic, for which there is documented RL use.

The direct targeting thing doesn't seem to like it would be too difficult to handle. You can already target abandoned, but otherwise healthy enemy vehicles. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Fairy snuff, I didn't think that tactic was taken to extremes. To be honest I can't think of any other particularly gamey uses of unmanning guns off the top of my head. Hmmm. Except maybe the crew popping up 50 yards away, blowing a raspberry or flashing a moon, causing suitably enraged tank to charge down, only to scurry back to their AT gun and proceed to perforate said tank? Not sure the game could model that though.

[slysniper]

Seems to me that 'gamey behaviour' is a bit of a red herring here. I've read plenty of accounts of gun crews moving into trenches, bunkers, cover etc to avoid indirect and direct fire, without spiking their guns, and returning to their weapons to use them, if undamaged, when it's a bit safer, is that 'gamey' real life? And if so, IMHO it's just as 'gamey' to have a tank crew abandon their near shattered vehicle, losing two of their colleagues on the way, and then five minutes later to have the ability to make them remount their vehicle and go on to take out a half dozen enemy tanks - seen this several times now!

The only 'gamey behaviours' that need to be addressed re gun crews are not letting anyone other than the original crew, and other crews of same weapon types, use the weapon. And to impose some sort of time/spotting penalty to prevent crews hopping on and off their guns constantly in quick succession just to fire on enemy threats.

I understand this is more of a coding/time/cost/priorities issue, and gaminess is perhaps mostly in the eyes of the creators.

My tuppence

LS

THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT !! It sounds like it will need to become a practice to move up and fire on abandon enemy tanks until they brew, then try that tactic. But I cannot wait to try that nasty little gamey tactic, because as far as I am concerned, all is fare in Love & War

Plus remaning a tank was not all that uncommon in my reading also.

[Baneman]

Heh, BF should code it so we can "Buddy-Aid" the gun and thus "pick it up" again if it's regarded as an Inf heavy weapon. This buddy aid could take 2-3 turns even.

C'est la vie/guerre, guess we'll just have to live with it as implemented.