Vehicle crew decimation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Vehicle crew decimation

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Vehicle crew decimation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Vehicle crew decimation - 11/17/2010 9:44:49 PM

dbz

Posts: 37
Joined: 11/2/2010
Status: offline

If a vehicle is undamaged and the crew has suffered a loss of more than 50%;

Doe the vehicle return to the force pool or is it lost?

Post #: 1

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 11/19/2010 9:18:41 PM

dbz

Posts: 37
Joined: 11/2/2010
Status: offline

My observation is that a vehicle with crew count=2 has no change of deployment status after losing 1 crew-member.

< Message edited by dbz -- 11/19/2010 9:22:13 PM >

(in reply to dbz)

Post #: 2

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 11/22/2010 12:50:50 AM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

There are two glaring errors in 17.6 (p.56), the section of the game manual applicable to this issue.

1. "Any infantry unit that has 50% or more of its soldiers killed or seriously wounded is disbanded and its survivors are either sent to other units or rotated to the rear." should be revised to - Any infantry unit that has more than 50% of its soldiers killed or seriously wounded is disbanded and its survivors are either sent to other units or rotated to the rear.

Teams are only disbanded when they have lost more than 50% of the personnel they had at the start of the battle.

2. "Infantry units that take less than the 50% losses are assumed to find replacement men from disbanded infantry units or from new men brought up from the rear."

This statement is an inaccuracy leftover from previous versions when replacements were automatic. In LSA, casualties within teams are generally not replaced between battles.

(in reply to dbz)

Post #: 3

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 11/23/2010 7:52:25 AM

dbz

Posts: 37
Joined: 11/2/2010
Status: offline

Are disbanded units made into snipers, what other unit types may be created?

< Message edited by dbz -- 11/23/2010 7:55:18 AM >

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 4

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 12/11/2010 11:24:41 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

the manual is written very poorly.....allot of inaccuracies and some misinformation, confusing to read at times. perhaps a rewrite may be in order? think that might happen? [ soory about my syntax and spelling

]

(in reply to dbz)

Post #: 5

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 12/13/2010 2:30:22 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Thanks for the suggestions Stiener. So that we may improve them to your standards, what specific parts of the manual do you find confusing?

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 6

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 12/13/2010 10:19:59 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2577653

lets start here with that post i made a while ago.....a bunch of questions and some feed back from steve [ RD Knights X ], yourself and the other steve and of course Mick, who says he has a laundry list if you want it.
its a good place to start. and of course Micks post above and many others that he has posted with inaccuracies in the manual. im sure you can find them.

i love the sarcasm too......my standards wont be meet until something is done with the a/t gun survivability and the power of the mortor.

< Message edited by STIENER -- 12/13/2010 10:33:05 PM >

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 7

RE: Vehicle crew decimation - 12/14/2010 11:36:53 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

No sarcasm intended. There are a variety of ways a manual can be approached and have seen such in other titles. All of them effective for how they were intended. Some include the most basic set of information to get users started while others attempt to explain every last detail and nuance. The CC manuals have always been somewhere in between. While going further than most manuals there have always been details left out. Not saying there shouldn't be more detail just saying it set a precedent and was followed. It's neither here nor there from my standpoint the manuals have always worked fine for me. I need practical examples and reading about them, at some point. does me little good. I need to see them in practice. So if adding detail is important to someone else (i.e. their standards) then it's important to me and we will take every opportunity to make those improvements.

Knights had been in contact with Mick and we have a copy of Micks suggestions and Knights has reviewed them. I'm sure he'll incorporate them as is practicable and what he has time for. Thanks for checking.

And for some reason I'd thought your question in that thread had been answered and your final response sounded somewhat unsure. I put it in the tracking system.

Thanks again for your dedication and help Stiener.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 8