Kubelwagens as scout vehicles ?

[hoolaman]

Even with relative spotting there is still the player's god's eye hovering over the battle so yes it is gamey to advance something deliverately unupported without any hope of survival.

Even the very dangerous job of advance recce was done in enough force to fight or disengage from whatever was found. Maybe one jeep is gamey but two armed jeeps is ok .

I do feel that this should be agreed to beforehand though. It used to be someone would declare "I try to play realistically" when agreeing a setup. If you discover halfway that your opponent is beinga d1ck, cross him off the list.

[noob]

Even with relative spotting there is still the player's god's eye hovering over the battle so yes it is gamey to advance something deliverately unupported without any hope of survival.

Even the very dangerous job of advance recce was done in enough force to fight or disengage from whatever was found. Maybe one jeep is gamey but two armed jeeps is ok .

I do feel that this should be agreed to beforehand though. It used to be someone would declare "I try to play realistically" when agreeing a setup. If you discover halfway that your opponent is beinga d1ck, cross him off the list.

I would say that as long as the vehicle is armed and moves cautiously one would be acceptable.

[LJFHutch]

Where you draw the line of "gamey" is a bit subjective though. I usually play quite "aggressively" which is probably considered gamey - you know: drop your ordnance, rush the objectives/advantageous positions and set up to grab any advantage I can.

[noob]

Where you draw the line of "gamey" is a bit subjective though. I usually play quite "aggressively" which is probably considered gamey - you know: drop your ordnance, rush the objectives/advantageous positions and set up to grab any advantage I can.

Any advance with units that can fight seems fine to me, it's when people use expendable unarmed vehicles to trigger combat units that i use the term "gamey".

[Vanir Ausf B]

That seems reasonable to me. But you look back in this thread and you see one poster state that even a Sherman tank sent out like that would be gamey in his view. Inevitably these discussions just reveal that what is gamey and what is not is far more subjective than some would like to think.

[noob]

That seems reasonable to me. But you look back in this thread and you see one poster state that even a Sherman tank sent out like that would be gamey in his view. Inevitably these discussions just reveal that what is gamey and what is not is far more subjective than some would like to think.

Just wait until the Eastern front module, then every player playing the Russians will claim their lone unarmed jeep speeding towards the enemy lines was a penal unit, and they would have a point

[gunnergoz]

Just wait until the Eastern front module, then every player playing the Russians will claim their lone unarmed jeep speeding towards the enemy lines was a penal unit, and they would have a point

I'll wager few penal battalion troops ever enjoyed the luxury of riding anything remotely like a jeep. A herd of them goes into a few dozen rail cars to the front and then its miles of marching to their fate. If they scout on foot on the way, though, that's fine by me.

[argie]

That seems reasonable to me. But you look back in this thread and you see one poster state that even a Sherman tank sent out like that would be gamey in his view. Inevitably these discussions just reveal that what is gamey and what is not is far more subjective than some would like to think.

And that was me. The point is that if you send whatever unit to certain dead just to see from where the dead came, is because the game allows it to you, not because is something you would do in a regular basis in RL.

There always be a point man or vehicle in any unit going to contact, but in no way the objective of that is to make it run all the way to the "flag" (another, though unavoidable, game abstraction) to see what or who will kill it.

It is done in an appropriate way, with SOP thought to keep every single warm body, well, just warm, not cold nor explosion like hot.

[Narsus]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic here. It appears that you are trying to justify a gamey tactic by comparing it to a bad tactic. But that would be asinine, and I'm almost certain that couldn't be a good description of either you or your ability to debate a topic.

Could you clarify what you meant please.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt... I think.

Just giving Jaws an example of men following orders to die a certain death, which I believe helps to refute the general statement that "driving your jeep into the front lines of your enemy to see the disposition of his forces even though you know it means certain death for your jeep" is unrealistic in the sense that your men wouldnt obey your orders. Not historical maybe.... but that is a different point.

Question, not to get you guys off topic but if you have a platoon of guys and the HQ gets knocked out, there goes your incentive to keep them together. Is it gamey to spread them out? or just not historical? I see two different subjects here, things related to history and things related to how we are given certain advantages by the game itself. only thing I can see as gamey is the god like vision of the battle field and which makes scouting a bit of an interesting subject.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And on a related note, if a tank gets knocked out do you use the escaped crew to spot for other tanks? They can dismount their tank and scout ahead anyway, so when their tank is destroyed they are just permanently dismounted.

[Bastables]

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt... I think.

Just giving Jaws an example of men following orders to die a certain death, which I believe helps to refute the general statement that "driving your jeep into the front lines of your enemy to see the disposition of his forces even though you know it means certain death for your jeep" is unrealistic in the sense that your men wouldnt obey your orders. Not historical maybe.... but that is a different point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies_(1917)

The thing is after experimenting with going over the top and attempting to outspend the enemies munitions with the bodies of ones peasants it did tend to backfire and affect ones ability to command and lead armies. It did take a while for troops and commanders to learn that walking towards MG fire was a silly idea and would lead to certain death, after they found out they stopped doing it. In severe case were the strategy was repeated it lead to mutiny. . .

Note the French High command was the organisation that doubled down on cannon fodder towards MG lines strategy=mutiny. The Germans after Vurdun went on the defensive appalled at the cost, and stayed on the defence until putting the Russians away. The Empire after the catastrophe at the Somme began doubling down on set piece battle and increasing the number and effectiveness of artillery then tanks. Please read a book or Wikipedia.

Or in the case of commanders the loss of everything (two sons) and then ritual suicide when the coast was clear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maresuke_Nogi

Your point is as JonS intimated asinine.

[Fetchez la Vache]

And on a related note, if a tank gets knocked out do you use the escaped crew to spot for other tanks? They can dismount their tank and scout ahead anyway, so when their tank is destroyed they are just permanently dismounted.

That would be 'gamey' in my own personal scale of measuring such things. A crew that has had a tank shot from beneath them is going to be in no fit state to act as infantry scouts. Player should move them back to the set-up zone...

IMO. :-)

[Michael Emrys]

Once I get this game, I expect I'll be doing the same thing.

You may find yourself doing it even more so. I noticed that with 1-to-1 representation I found each casualty more wrenching than I had in the older game, to the extent that for the first week or two I was playing too timidly for fear of getting some of my men waxed. I finally steeled myself to the task as every wartime commander must but when one team or squad has taken casualties, I do tend to not use it to lead any more, but rotate a fresh unit up.

Michael

[Blazing 88's]

You do know that German recce was often conducted with Kubelwagens? Isn't that the purpose of sending them out? If the defenders have poor fire discipline (no covered arcs) then the attacker finds out where they are located and radio it back.

Do we need to have a list of gamey behavior? C'mon. Man up.

After reading Panzer Aces I, II and III i was amazed at the amount of dismounted recon that was done by the commanders of German tanks.

This brings up a question, in CMBN can tank crews dismount or bail out, then go on a foot recon and then return to mount up again? Not sure i would use this tactic in CM, just curious if it is possible.

[argie]

It's possible. And exactly for being possible to do is that mindless running recon by being killed is even more gamey than before.

[Michael Emrys]

Even the very dangerous job of advance recce was done in enough force to fight or disengage from whatever was found. Maybe one jeep is gamey but two armed jeeps is ok .

Or even better, an armed jeep with at least an armored car providing overwatch. Even better would be an armed jeep backed up by two light tanks. But the key thing is to have some firepower with an LOS to the area they are investigating. That way, they in a position to provide some suppressive firepower so that there is at least a chance that the jeep crews might escape.

Michael

[Blackcat]

Bastables,

You really should actually read up on WWI before posting, what was your word, oh yes, "asinine" comments about what went on.

As a very small example you may wish to read-up on the tactics the French used in their part of the Somme on 1st July 1916. Compare and contrast those used by Rawlinson in the Britsh sector and consider why the respective decisions were made.

P.S. You might also want to compare British Infantry Casualties in Normandy with those of the big battles of WWI, not in bald terms but on a per capita basis.

[Michael Emrys]

And on a related note, if a tank gets knocked out do you use the escaped crew to spot for other tanks? They can dismount their tank and scout ahead anyway, so when their tank is destroyed they are just permanently dismounted.

I think there may be an important distinction to be made here. In the case of deliberate dismounting for scouting purposes, it is my understanding that normally only the TC got out. The rest of the crew would remain with the tank, keeping it in a state of readiness to advance, fight, or bug out. The TC would usually stay within voice or hand signal range to the rest of the crew, and in some cases even kept his headset connected on a long cord to the intercom so as to be able to report on what he was seeing. If this in turn could be patched in to the radio, he could even keep his unit commander informed.

When a crew has had their tank shot out from under them, they may be wounded and shocked and more concerned with survival than with scouting the enemy or even more carrying the fight to him. This could be highly variable depending on the personalities of the crew and especially the dominant member as well as external circumstances. I would rate it as unlikely. Historical accounts seem to indicate that their first priority was to go get themselves a new tank. They were trained as tankers and that is how they preferred to fight.

Michael

[Bastables]

Bastables,

You really should actually read up on WWI before posting, what was your word, oh yes, "asinine" comments about what went on.

As a very small example you may wish to read-up on the tactics the French used in their part of the Somme on 1st July 1916. Compare and contrast those used by Rawlinson in the Britsh sector and consider why the respective decisions were made.

P.S. You might also want to compare British Infantry Casualties in Normandy with those of the big battles of WWI, not in bald terms but on a per capita basis.

The Somme, you mean the first offensive of the new "Kitchener New Army." Their first battle where they lernt what Rawlinson had advocated (bite and Hold or later on set piece attacks) was the correct methodology as opposed to the Haig ideal of decisive penetration.

Joffre's XX corp with it's experienced artillery making much better head way does not excuse Nivelle's reliance on infantry elan at the end of Verdun nor his "Nivelle offensives" in 1917 that caused the mutiny's.

1944 vurses 1910's, your point? What would such a comparison do to an already tenuous argument about using bad tactics to excuse gamey tactics?

[Childress]

In the case of deliberate dismounting for scouting purposes, it is my understanding that normally only the TC got out. The rest of the crew would remain with the tank, keeping it in a state of readiness to advance, fight, or bug out.

If BFC coded that in, we'd all be dumping our -2 Commanders.

[Michael Emrys]

If BFC coded that in, we'd all be dumping our -2 Commanders.

Now there's a good case for fragging. Remember back in the old days of SL when a -2 commander was a desired thing?

Michael

[Fetchez la Vache]

I think that shooting a TC in the back with a 75mm shell might be tricky for the crew to explain away...

"I was just tapping my foot to a song I heard on the radio last night and I accidently hit the fire pedal... honest".

[Blackcat]

Bastables,

My apologies. I thought from your post that I commented on you were talking about tactics and casualties. I now see that you were talking about about the operational art. Sorry.