jeep Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Seems like a simple thing. Arty is coming in, the crew abandons the gun and runs for cover. After the smoke clears they come back and start plinking tanks again. Why can't we? Another thing.... Please fix the tank bail out command in WEGO. If you accidentally hit it there is no way to cancel the command. Lost a few tanks that way... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Well you can at least have the crews jump back into tanks they've bailed out of. I wish you could recrew abandoned AT guns. At least by their own crew. Would make a big difference and also be more realistic - Ive heard accounts of the crew going to ground near the gun and coming back up to man the gun after a barrage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Recrewing AT guns would be very useful. Not sure why it can't be done similar to tank crews. Presumably not a programming issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Seems like a simple thing. Arty is coming in, the crew abandons the gun and runs for cover. After the smoke clears they come back and start plinking tanks again. Why can't we? Simple answer: because programming it that way was more complicated to manage than the way BFC have implemented. Another thing.... Please fix the tank bail out command in WEGO. If you accidentally hit it there is no way to cancel the command. Lost a few tanks that way... Use the alternate hotkeys. Hard to hit it automatically then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Recrewing AT guns would be very useful. Not sure why it can't be done similar to tank crews. Presumably not a programming issue. Actually, yes; it is a programming issue. As I understand Steve's comments on this subject, heavy weapons infantry teams like MGs, mortars, and guns are considered by the code to be an infantry team with a single primary weapon, and are not handled by the code the same way as vehicles are. For some technical reason, this makes it difficult to code them to be re-crewed after they abandon (unlike vehicle crews, who can bail out and re-crew repeatedly). So, while not impossible, it would have required substantial additional coding to make infantry heavy weapons re-crewable, meaning either other game features would have to be set aside to make time for this in the development schedule, and/or the release date would have to be delayed A secondary issue is that allowing heavy weapons to be re-crewed would also require some careful modeling considerations that would require further coding and beta testing time to get right. For example, if a gun crew abandons a gun due to panic caused by enemy fire, and this gun crew later rallies, should they always be allowed to re-crew, or should the game consider the crew to have spiked or otherwise disabled the gun before abandoning, as crews were trained to do if they thought their gun position was about to be overrun? End result was that BFC decided to give us the ability to abandon guns, since this could be fairly easily done without further prolonging the development schedule. We'll have to wait for a future game family to get heavy weapons re-crewing. (And I do hope in gets in by the East Front module!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 End result was that BFC decided to give us the ability to abandon guns, since this could be fairly easily done without further prolonging the development schedule. We'll have to wait for a future game family to get heavy weapons re-crewing. (And I do hope in gets in by the East Front module!) So what's the benefit of being able to abandon guns if you can't recrew? Is it just to save the crew? If playing a campaign, will an abandon crew get it's gun back on the next battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 So what's the benefit of being able to abandon guns if you can't recrew? Is it just to save the crew? If playing a campaign, will an abandon crew get it's gun back on the next battle? Yep; saves lives (and, therefore, usually points). Not sure what happens in campaigns... my SWAG is that you don't get the gun back in later battles in campaigns, though maybe you do if you've got good supply er sumfink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Actually, yes; it is a programming issue. At the end of the day EVERYTHING to do with CM is a coding issue. Claiming it isn't is just ... odd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJMaybe Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I know you can recrew a tank but you can't put a crew in a different tank. E.g. Tank 1 is abandoned and the crew killed, Tank 2 is knocked out but the crew is still active. Why can't Crew 2 get in Tank 1? Even when tanks 1 and 2 are the same model. Or can you do this and I've just been doing it wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Crews cant interchange with different tanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread Head Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 "Crews cant interchange with different tanks" Another shortcoming of this game and another historical mistake. This happened a lot in war. I have read accounts were crews would take over other tanks multiple time in one battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I know you can recrew a tank but you can't put a crew in a different tank. E.g. Tank 1 is abandoned and the crew killed, Tank 2 is knocked out but the crew is still active. Why can't Crew 2 get in Tank 1? Even when tanks 1 and 2 are the same model. Or can you do this and I've just been doing it wrong? This one is more a design decision than a coding one, I think. It's to stop the 'gamey' replacement of a 'lesser' tank's crew by a 'better' crew that's lost their mount. It's considered in the 'gamey' column because although it occurred very occasionally in history, it was by no means common practice, in BFC's estimation*. Yet if it were possible, given the nature of game players, it would become commonplace and this is one of the criteria they assess whether to include a particular behaviour in the coding plan/game design. There's also the matter of recrewing variants. If you could freely swap crews around, you could buy experienced crews in cheap (less potent) tanks, and swap them into better ones bought at a discount with inexperienced crew. So you have to restrict crew swapping. Say you restrict it to only exactly the same model people will still call it "unrealistic" that a crew from a "Sherman M4A1 (mid)" can't swap to a "late" or "early" model. Yes you could probably code up some sort of 'compatibility' list for each model of vehicle, but is it really worth the extra delay on the release date? And is that more important than some other minor feature? * And BFC have done a lot of research on armoured warfare in the period '41 to '45. If you want to argue with them, you have to provide figures, not anecdotes because anecdotes are generally considered to be unrepresentative by their very nature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Very good points raised by Womble. Eventually, I would like the Platoon commanders of homogenous armored platoons to have the ability to crew an alternate vehicle from their own platoon. 95% of the anecdotes I have read about an AFV crew swapping rides involve a platoon commander displacing one of the other TCs in his platoon when his own AFV becomes damaged or is otherwise hors de combat. But I see this very limited type of ride-swapping as an the exception to the rule; this is the only area where I really think this behavior is merited in a WWII tactical simulation. As has been noted, allowing vehicle crews to re-crew alternate vehicles more broadly could actually lead to gamey abuse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I never even thought about the issues that Womble raised. Dam, there are some crafty, gamey bastids out there! Ideally, I suppose it would be nice if there were a toggle for things like that since many of us play vs the AI, I am less concerned about that sort of sneaky behavior by the AI. It is frustrating to not be able to mount (non-sexually of course) certain vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 It is frustrating to not be able to mount (non-sexually of course) certain vehicles. I don't know man, some of those vehicle models are pretty hot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Hope the Russian Front module has female soldiers (to keep things "realistic" of course). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread Head Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 "This one is more a design decision than a coding one, I think. It's to stop the 'gamey' replacement ......" OK, Carius and Barkmann to just name a few.. I have read accounts of tank commanders jumping tanks (with his gunner) many times and it is not at all gamey. I am sick of BFC groupies throwing up "BFC's estimation". Who cares what some programmer read on wikpedia? Who decided to put this in the "gamey column"? LOL.... On a personal note: As a former tanker, it is a given that if the plt ldr's (or plt sgt) tank throws a track of loses a transmission before or DURING battle that the low man will be giving up his tank if it is at all tactically possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 "This one is more a design decision than a coding one, I think. It's to stop the 'gamey' replacement ......" OK, Carius and Barkmann to just name a few. Y'know, reading the rest of the post would save you plenty of typing. There's no point arguing with me, it's BFC's decision. There's no point posting "famous tankers who bumped other crews" if you're trying to argue BFC's decision, because they [gasp] already know about Barkmann and Carius and all the other famous tankers. They frickin live and breathe this stuff, you know. Sure, it's not gamey to have a tank platoon's commander take over another tank if their ride is hors de combat. That makes sense. In the real world. In the world of wargames you have to be ultra careful to stop people finding the gamey way of abusing the facilities that the designers have kindly made available for honest chaps like your good self to accurately simulate armoured platoon SOP. And that's a fat wodge of code that BFC have decided isn't worth the time it would take to implement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I was hoping that was an attempt to draw Steve -the vicious rabbit (look at the bones!!) out of his den. He's been too quiet lately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statisoris Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 I was hoping that was an attempt to draw Steve -the vicious rabbit (look at the bones!!) out of his den. He's been too quiet lately. Your people call your name Steve! Come forth and address us, your unclean followers, we need your guidance! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 When Steve disappears from the Forum for an extended period, it usually means that he is hard at work on the next title(s). Alternatively, he may be on a long drunk. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread Head Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Maybe Steve was deep in his WW2 research and a stack of rare and amazing books and records fell on him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Hubble, bubble, toil and trouble 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 When Steve disappears from the Forum for an extended period, it usually means that he is hard at work on the next title(s). Alternatively, he may be on a long drunk. Michael Yes, Steve has been conspicuously absent since July, with a few rare sightings here and there. As Mr. Emrys mentioned, after a long period in absentia, Steve returns with a patch, a new module, or a new game. However, our Sponsor's absence this time "feels" different. I suspect that he may be in Quebec, lounging in the sand along the banks of the St. Lawrence river, ogling Canadian lasses while quaffing warm Moosehead. Heck, CMBN sold like hotcakes, so can you blame him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Maybe Steve was deep in his WW2 research and a stack of rare and amazing books and records fell on him? Now that's how I'd like to go out 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.