Suggestion for crews (Full Version)

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



Message

Antonius -> Suggestion for crews (7/4/2000 10:34:00 PM)

Would it be possible for crews of destroyed vehicules and guns to be permanently routed ? This would avoiding having them used (both by the AI and human players) for recon and assaulting. It would also help preserving crews in campaigns: now they usually are stuck with and objective and thus can't be retreated to rear areas and safety



Tankhead -> (7/4/2000 10:54:00 PM)

Personnaly I like using the crew. Example In one scenario I played my southern group could not call artillery after turn one radio musta went on the friz. But later in turn 18 I needed artty.. really bad for this nasty bunker and the tank crew was the only one in the group that could call artty.. for a smoke barrage so my infantry could sneak in the rear of the bunker and assault the bunker. So the crew save my inf.. from beign cut to pieces. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http:/sites.netscape.net/rcclout



Ilja Varha -> (7/4/2000 11:05:00 PM)

I like this suggestion. At least for the AI!!! For it it's sort of must... AI always tries to attack me with crews from destroyed vehicles... and it's kind of dumm.



Drake666 -> (7/4/2000 11:05:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Tankhead: Personnaly I like using the crew. Example In one scenario I played my southern group could not call artillery after turn one radio musta went on the friz. But later in turn 18 I needed artty.. really bad for this nasty bunker and the tank crew was the only one in the group that could call artty.. for a smoke barrage so my infantry could sneak in the rear of the bunker and assault the bunker. So the crew save my inf.. from beign cut to pieces. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Now thats historic. What did they do rep their radio and power supply out of their tank before balling out. Got to agree with antonius on this one, when a crew has its Vehicule or gun destroyed it should be permanently routed.



Tankhead -> (7/4/2000 11:31:00 PM)

Well maybe they improvised, addapted, took all the good parts of the crap radios and made one good one. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout [This message has been edited by Tankhead (edited 07-04-2000).]



Tommy D -> (7/5/2000 12:14:00 AM)

Drake and Antonius are exactly right--rout those crews! IMO, the use of crews is seriously hurting SPWAW. In most of my games, crews are given every suicidal mission playes can think of, like charging MGs, bunkers, and tanks, solely to force the enemy to use up his OP fire and disclose his positions. Worst of all, it works! And this leaves the real defenders far too vulnerable once the real attackers follow up. Besides the fact that no commander would order his crews to commit suicide (even if commanders could communicate with them after they abandoned their burning vehicles), no crew would obey the orders! Finally, crews add more smokescreens to the battlefield--something one- or two-man crews could never do in reality. Too much of SPWAW is spent endlessly blasting away at these crews with single-digit hit percentages, and then sitting through it all over again during the VCR replay. Tommy D



Desert Fox -> (7/5/2000 1:12:00 AM)

I would have to disagree here. Sometimes running towards the retreat hex is a bad thing. Do you want your experienced crews running right into the AI force that cut you off and took over your rear area objective hexes? No, I want to be able to run my crews the way I know is safe. Yes, it probably is a little ahistorical for crews to start assaulting tanks like they were line infantry. But it is also quite ahistorical for a tank company commander to run back to HQ just because his ride got shot out from under him. And what about the AO unit if you happen to upgrade it to a vehicle? Do you think he should be running for the hills? Crews are not supposed to be fighting on the front lines, but to take away their ability to make intelligent decisions is not the answer. I think we should just code the crews to not be used agressively by the AI. The real problem is not with crews, its with the AI usage of them. The AI has problems, lets face it, but I really want to be able to move my crews on their own. Just so that they do not get annihilated.



Drake666 -> (7/5/2000 1:36:00 AM)

The reason we want this done Desert Fox is not becouse of the AI use of them. I can defent the AI with one tank tide behind my back. The real reason is becouse of how players us their crews in Email games that we would like to see this added.



Paul Vebber -> (7/5/2000 1:40:00 AM)

How much of a problem is this with the new "slow" crews?



Antonius -> (7/5/2000 3:16:00 AM)

Yes, my main concern is human use of crews either in PBEM games or against the AI. Even if they're a bit slower than before, they still have 6 MP which allows for plenty of action. As to realism, I suppose crews are under standing orders to escape battle if their tank is destroyed (with maybe the exception of Japanese ?) if only because so much was spent training them. It would be interesting to have a tanker's input on this... I admit I hadn't thought of the problem of A0 routing away. Maybe that instead of routing crews should be weaponless which I hope would prevent them from assaulting and certainly from drawing op-fire by firing. And that might be even better since it is simpler to implement !



troopie -> (7/5/2000 6:15:00 AM)

You can make some crews weaponless, but I don't feel that is a historically valid solution for all. What about mortar and AT-gun crews. When they run out of ammunition or their guns are destroyed. are they supposed to sit around twiddling their thumbs and playing cards while the battle rages around them? Vehicle crews should be hard to rally, but it should be possible. They should not be carrying radios. They got out of that destroyed vehicle with nothing but their arse and their Stens. Their first objective should be to get to cover, then to make it back to own lines and report on what should happen. But if something they can kill shoots at them, they should shoot back, then run. They shouldn't be able to call fire missions. They shouldn't have smoke grenades. But they should have personal weapons and be able to participate in the battle around them. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



sjuncal -> (7/5/2000 7:43:00 AM)

I got a better idea, agree not to use crew in a cheezy manner before starting a PBEM game. I like that my crews aren't helpless non-combatants the second they step from their AFV. I don't like that the AI will march them at my position on occasion... but that tends to not happen to much in my case because they are usually too busy retreating. There has got to be a better solution than introducing a wholly unrealistic ahistorical restriction on the game.



Michael Wermelin -> (7/5/2000 1:22:00 PM)

Why bother to let the crew leave the veichle at all. It is very realistic but it is very disturbing for the battle as a whole to have large numbers of crewmen running around. Treat the veichle and the crew as one. Let a tank be abandoned but don't place the crewmen on the field, just treat them as "gone". When playing against the AI it is not that fun to be forced to slaughter the massive amount of crewmen. [This message has been edited by Michael Wermelin (edited 07-05-2000).]



Gobbler -> (7/5/2000 8:28:00 PM)

Agreeeee. If you just climbed out of your tank you've abandoned your duty station, probably had your bell rung and are terrified survivors, not a recon unit. crews should be suppressed and pinned for something like eight turns (keeping them out of most actions, stuck near their units [mobile homes [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]] and only allowing defensive fire) No commander is going to turn to a shaken, unorganized, unled, tank crew and say, "go scout that village, oh, and it may be mined" - when he has ANY effective inf. left. leave the supercrews to WB's imaginative genius.



Elvis -> (7/5/2000 11:18:00 PM)

I also belive that the tactical use of vehicle crews should be toned down a bit. (Forgive me if I'm rehashing ideas that have already been posted) While I don't think that they should be kept in a permanently "routed" state, I suggest the following: 1. Automatically rout on abandoning a destroyed vehicle. Crews abandoning a damaged but still functional vehicle will check for rout depending on experience level. In either case, the supression level can be reduced in successive turns according to current game mechanics. Players should be allowed to move vehicle crews (if in contact) as necessary. 2. Crews abandoning a destroyed vehicle should not have any weapons other than personal sidearms (i.e. pistols), if any at all. Weapons such as submachine guns, rifles, and grenades would have been stowed in the vehicle, by that I mean secured in some manner (anyone who has ever crewed an AFV knows what I am talking about - loose items bouncing around in a moving steel box tend to hurt when they fall on your head). My rationale? Consider this: Your (insert favorite tank here) has just been hit by (insert your least favorite anti-tank weapon here) and has started to burn, as tanks tend to do. You are faced with 2 options: a) Get the out of the vehicle in the quickest manner possible, considering you have been extremely lucky to survive up to this point. b) Take those extra few seconds to fiddle with the poorly-designed and hard to operate bracket securing your submachine gun to the rack behind your seat. I feel safe saying that 99.9% of rational human beings would choose option "a" without a seconds hesitation. Again, a crew abandoning a damaged, non-burning vehicle would have a chance (depending on experience) to retrieve any SMGs, grenades, etc. that might be stowed in the vehicle. 3. Dismounted crews should not have radios. Vehicular radios (especially 1940s-era radios) were large, bulky, and not designed for dismounted use. Manpack radios were not in widespread use, and those that were would not have been part of the standard equipment of a typical AFV. 4. Dismounted crews should not be capable of offensive operations. AFV crews were not commonly trained as infantry. As such, vehicle crews should not be capable of assaulting and calling for/observing fire. Crews should be allowed to return fire if directly fired upon, depending on experience. Just my two (well, ten) cents... ------------------ alea iacta est [email]sooperduk@hotmail.com[/email]



Nikademus -> (7/6/2000 12:17:00 AM)

unfortunately i think we're looking at a catch-22 situation. 'Realistically' it would be better if players did'nt use tank crews as RAMBO's or as suicide squads however reverting them to AI control (via being in permament rout status) would only lead to a worse problem because often uncontrolled retreat options lead to the valuable crew's demise. If i lose an experienced tank i like being able to direct the crew to saftey so that they can fight another battle in the future.



Gobbler -> (7/6/2000 1:20:00 AM)

we could reduce their movement to almost nothing so that they would have to crawl out of a scenario. Thus,even under AI they would only be lost in large, long battles.



Larry Holt -> (7/6/2000 1:27:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: ...'Realistically' it would be better if players did'nt use tank crews as RAMBO's or as suicide squads however reverting them to AI control (via being in permament rout status) would only lead to a worse problem because often uncontrolled retreat options lead to the valuable crew's demise. If i lose an experienced tank i like being able to direct the crew to saftey so that they can fight another battle in the future.
Amen, I understand that some may abuse crews in a PBEM game as they have no value to carry over into a future battle as in a campaign. Then again a player may "abuse" the system by bying an army of 88's and snipers but I don't want the game to limit my options because some may abuse it. May I suggest that this remain as it is and players just incorporate a gentlemen's rule not to do this during pre-game negioations about OOB, etc.? ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



troopie -> (7/7/2000 10:38:00 AM)

Elvis' suggestions seem best. I've been a crewman who's had to deploy from a vehicle. I was able to take my R-1 with me, but then the vehicle wasn't hit. If it had been hit, I don't suppose I would have taken the seconds to grab it. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



talon -> (7/7/2000 7:45:00 PM)

Maybe it should be considered to give the crews a higher cost value .This would prevent players to give suicide missions to all its crew because they would loose the battle .This would help against human players who use their crews unrealisticly.In my games the Ai retreats its crews most off the time. I havenīt expierienced attacking crews from the AI .



troopie -> (7/7/2000 7:54:00 PM)

We've hashed over vehicle crews. Now, how about gun crews. Mortar and light gun crews have rifles, carbines or SMGs. They should. What about field arty? troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375