a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Melvin -> a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/6/2004 12:53:28 PM)

If all the tanks weapons are broken it can't make overrun attacks...

Is this a hardcoded thing or is there a way to do something about it?
(maybe give tanks a melee weapon [:D])

It's kinda annoying because you could at least use busted tanks to clean out
routed infantry...

//Melvin



Hexed Gamer -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/6/2004 9:39:17 PM)

A tank was always rated 4 FP in ASL just by virtue of it's mass.

But to actively charge about in a broken tank would require the crew have a greater than realistic desire to get killed.



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/6/2004 11:41:47 PM)

Do u hear yourself U just said clean out routed infantry? I personally use my weopon disabled tanks as carriers of crews for my own wrecked troops to retreat and only consider an armed vehicle for cleaning up anything, what happens when the routed units come out of routed statis and use the weopons they still may have on your poor gunless tank?
Keep tryin new kid, but use more commin sence U'll have way fewer casualties RT



KG Erwin -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/7/2004 1:58:44 AM)

As has been mentioned often, the learning curve in this game is pretty steep, so give the newbies a break. After playing awhile, the common-sense principles will sink in. An unarmed tank is just a target for infantry doing close -assaults. The tank itself may survive, but the crew will be toast. If your tank loses all its weapons, then get the hell out of there--period. Trust me on this. Otherwise, your tank will go [sm=00000959.gif]



Melvin -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/7/2004 9:20:15 AM)

right... well I guess it's still just a *game* to me :/

sorry if it's too arcade for you...
I guess i'll go play Super Mario 17: The Return to Marioland 4 on my gamecube. :P

what I mean is I personnally don't go for such high level of realism. if a tank-assault
succeeds but one tank has broken weapons why couldn't it run over nearby infantry?

however you probably shouldn't call people "kid" or "newbie" unless you know what you're
talking about (I'm neither). to me common sense is playing the way you enjoy it...

//Melvin



Wild Bill -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/7/2004 6:53:52 PM)

Different strokes, Melvin. Some folks like 'em realistic, some go for the more unlikely, unbelievable possibilities. Lord of the Rings is a good example.

No one meant to offend you, I'm sure.

Wild Bill



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/7/2004 7:14:45 PM)

Hey Melvin, I didn't mean to get your neck hair up, I'm just ribbin ya.
And yes I suppose I do take it a little personal I was almost killed by orders when a Lvt. from PPCLI was fighting forest fires in Vernon B.C. He, our officer got lost and started cryin because the wind had shifted and my platoon got an 8 Km. run down a burning mountain. This refers to the game to me because I take casualties very seriously in all of life. I love the ability to have the audience of the forums for all our use and didn't mean to jurk your chain......RT
Guess I do sweat the small stuff and it's not like I give a crumb to the stats, I Just want all us to suceed, I just dropped a mess of para's on the Italians in a full defend of El Agilia and I can respect playin the odds,but I try to keep as many alive as possible.



Muzrub -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/8/2004 9:57:13 AM)

I dont run squads over............

But I do use damaged tanks to weed out anti-tank guns, or to bluff my PBEM opponent into thinking I'm on the charge[;)] But seriously I use them for anti-tank spotting and recon once their battle is over.

But I do like the idea of ferrying troops.



Melvin -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/8/2004 10:39:12 AM)

no offence taken, relax :)

this is one reason I like the game: it represents something a bit different
to everyone. you can play it the way you like, be it serious or adventurous.
I think sometimes we just need a bit lighter heart for some of the more crazier things...

I actually play it different ways too. in MCSE I try to make it as real as possible
and keep the guys alive and well. but on my ongoing long WW2 campaign I want
to push the envelope and use everything in every effective way I can.

//Melvin



vulkansanex -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/8/2004 6:31:03 PM)

I always figured that, since a hex quite large - a tank assault is not only milling around trying to mow down infantry with the treads but also firing close range with mgs and whatnot.

So if you visualize it that way - It all makes sense.

Vulkan
35 year old kid who personally favours realism :)



Hunpecked -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/8/2004 9:34:19 PM)

I think vulkan has it right. In an "overrun" a tank doesn't "run over" anyone, it just closes to point blank range, exposing the enemy to much more effective fire. Note that overrun consumes both movement and shots. I can just see a disarmed tank trying to overrun an infantry squad: tank chasing futilely after scampering individuals, constantly distracted by taunts of "Nyah-nyah, you ca-an't catch me!" from all sides. [:D]



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/8/2004 10:14:22 PM)

Correction, I just watched the movie Stalingrad, made by the germans about all eastern front,and they mension that they had to pivit turn on the foxholes and gun pits after november,to quote,use the frozen entrenchments to grind them into phsycological retreat. This came up in the movie as they discovered the russians had been told to let the german columns pass over their holes and "hit them in the toosh.The doctrine of the eastern front did make the tank a rather gory tool EH....! RT
Have any of the rest of you thought that the drivers moral could be checked and damage assessed before you decide to overrun? IF THE DRIVER WAS RAGEING I COULD SEE IT.



Melvin -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/9/2004 9:38:22 AM)

Vulkan:
You might be right. That'd explain the shooting sounds during overrun attack.

I recall from Sven Hassel books that the russian used to crush infantry with tanks to shatter the German morale when they didn't have any antitank weapons left. I know that Hassel is "fictionalized history" by the least, but somehow I can see that happening in the eastern front.

Yet another question:
Is there an upper limit to casualties caused by overrun? I played some older campaign on 8.2 and it bugged so that all the soviet paratroops from the planes "fell" on a single hex (scenario feature I guess) ... right next to my StuG III. as they were suppressed I moved in with the tank and made an overrun attack. the casualties were staggering:
first run 87 casualties, second run 93 [X(]
is there an upper limit and how are the casualties calculated?

//Melvin



vulkansanex -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/9/2004 11:38:52 AM)

I'm sure "running over" happened quite a lot. But real crews cant right-click on the enemy to see what weapons they have - and a simple mine on the track would have them all killed.

I've got a collection of armor magazines from the fourties and in them there is a great series of a german tankers "combat memoirs" In one of the chapters he states that their instructor tells his men : "If you find yourself close to an At gun - Dont waste time aiming your guns - as there might not be time - Just run over the wretched thing."

This proves that it is part of the doctrine to use the tank to run over stuff - And it would be part of the overrun. But again an UNARMED tank in enemy territory would contain a very nervous crew. (And probably wounded and shaken after taking a beating) And without weapons to back up a close assult I would bet my bottom dollar the event would be so rare that its negligable in SPWAW.


Have you heard the rumor that it was Sven Hassels WIFE that wrote much of his books?

Speaking of shaken and beaten - have you all noticed how many tankers miss teeth on photographs? Brr.. Lots of sharp edges in a tank and no face protection. (I had the pleasure of trying all the seats in a PzIIIn once.)



Melvin -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/9/2004 12:59:45 PM)

true it'd be neglible on real life standards, but the line in game is pretty thin:
1. if a tank loses all but the coax-MG and rallies -> it's back in the action.
2. if it loses all weapons and rallies -> no combat use.
the point: in both cases the unit is rallied. not shaken or scared but in "ready" state.

in real life both of those situations might cause an MBT to disengage and head back. but as were talking about a game it shouldn't be impossible because of it's unlikeliness in real life. imho it falls to the same category as a sniper blowing up an IS2. possible: yes. likely: no. worth the risk: maybe, maybe not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vulkansanex
Have you heard the rumor that it was Sven Hassels WIFE that wrote much of his books?


I haven't heard that one. There's also another one:
http://home.tiscali.dk/haaest/Hassel-Hazel/Texts/English/00table.htm

according to that Hassel isn't at all who he says he is...
to me it makes no difference, I enjoy the books anyway. it'd still be intriguing to know the truth though...

//Melvin *trying hard NOT to think of all the ways teeth can be knocked out ... ouch*



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/9/2004 7:26:04 PM)

I like this "unlikely but possible",line we've got on to, so I'll start with a couple of game flukes that I've had.
How many of u have had a FO assault and kill a tank on their own?? was sitting in the only building on the map,desert,and a PzrIIc drove right by?.Considered the Brit FO got his pistol in a view slit??!!
Also once had a team of engineers in a rubber assault boat 1/2 way across a river and a japanese anphib tank made a panicd ford right into the assault boats mid river, the reason I think this is unlikely is that the engineers appeared not to dismount the boat before the tank was attacked?did they paddle right up to it???
And why is it that when I run assault, the tanks that get FUBAR in the minefields,only a few of the crews dismount their disabled tanks and look to clear the mines? Whats the determining factor in the game for this because I've looked and it does'nt seem to just be the experienced crews?? RT



Voriax -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/9/2004 9:09:46 PM)

Fo assault isn't really a game fluke. It is a small chance but the reasoning behind lightly armed troops making assaults is that there is a possibility they have scrounged up a satchel charge or something. It doesn't show in weapons list but as such thing could happen...
As for the rubber boats, guess it is still flagged as an infantry unit (of sorts) so it is allowed to assault.
You could dismount your tank crews manually but you'd have to move them away from the tank as they'd remount the tank next turn. Hmm..I'd think that if I'd find my tank inside a minefied I'd start walking back, following track trails very carefully. Instrad of starting to search for mines [:'(]

Voriax



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/10/2004 3:12:17 AM)

No,Voriax I ment some of the crews automatically remove the mines in their hexes after they bail and others in the same area of front won't why is that?Thanksfor the info on FO and the assault boat thing wasn't an issue but I liked the result[:D]
Hey Gunny U could probablly relay a few Marine stories of them using the dozer Shermans to burrry those stinkin caves,SEAL EM IN AND DRIVE ON



chief -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/10/2004 6:37:53 AM)

Riun:
I can verify that in 1956 while in Kwajelein Atoll the CBs were expanding the telephone system and were excavating when they ran across quite a few "spider nests" of buried alive Japanese soldiers. (They were given a proper burial by a Japanese Shinto Priest later) They were very well preserved I might add. They did bury quite few of the "Emperors Children" that way in the island campaigns of the Pacific. I tried that manuver in my early days of SPwaw with a Sherman Dozer........yeah, I lost the dozer. a dozer can crush but not bury.



Major Destruction -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/10/2004 6:55:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vulkansanex

I've got a collection of armor magazines from the fourties and in them there is a great series of a german tankers "combat memoirs" In one of the chapters he states that their instructor tells his men : "If you find yourself close to an At gun - Dont waste time aiming your guns - as there might not be time - Just run over the wretched thing."


I read an account of a Canadian Sherman tank that found itself high-centred on a German anti-tank gun and left all alone in German territory overnight. The tank was able to defend itself against numerous attemps to knock it out. fortunately the Germans had no anti-tank weapons to bring to bear. But the tank crew had a very busy night with no sleep.
The rest of the troop advanced to their rescue in the morning.



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/10/2004 7:39:06 PM)

Ive got a question?!!! Watched FULL METAL JACKET last night,WHO has a date for me on when they started putting fieldphones on the back of tanks?? what year? RT



rrockw -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/11/2004 1:15:32 AM)

1968!

Rich



Voriax -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/11/2004 2:49:45 AM)

Riun T, check this: http://home.hccnet.nl/l.meulstee/supplement/supplement5.html

Voriax



Riun T -> RE: a "funny" thing I noticed about tanks (9/11/2004 4:14:47 AM)

Thanks,about the Tanks, good pictures RT



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875