Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Snipers and Crews close assualting

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Snipers and Crews close assualting Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Snipers and Crews close assualting - 8/2/2000 11:07:00 PM   
David

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline 		Anyone else have a problem this? Anyway I thought I would go to the OOB files and edit snipers and crews, removing any weapon that could be used to close assualt. Would this stop them from close assualting? Would me altering my OOB files in such a manner have and adverse effect on me being able to play via email or TCP/IP? If our OOB files do not match, would this prevent us from playing?

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 8/2/2000 11:44:00 PM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		Actually I don't, assuming these units pass a morale check before attacking. Tanks were destroyed/disabled by single folks, and small units throwing grenades or blocking treads with rocks/logs. Happened all the time in the Winter War.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to David)
Post #: 2
- 8/3/2000 12:11:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		Keep friendly infantry near your tanks. They will take care of those pesky crews. Combined Arms? BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 3
- 8/3/2000 1:48:00 AM   
JKG


Posts: 150
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Grumble: Tanks were destroyed/disabled by single folks, and small units throwing grenades or blocking treads with rocks/logs. Happened all the time in the Winter War.
I tend to agree with David's original post that crews seem to be force modifiers outside of what one would historically expect. Crews leave a tank for a reason..usually b/c they've suffered damage from hostile fire and risk sure death if they remain in their MBT. If they don't have a reasonable chance to survive behind thick metal armor their chances must be even smaller outside the tank unless they seek shelter/run away from whatever just toasted them. The moral loss for a crew to abandon their tank and a fellow crewmembers who have been brutally killed or maimed must be high. Much higher than what is modeled. Instead, crews almost immediately take seemingly foolish orders such as the following: "Seargeant, you've just lost your tank and two of your crew to a Panther. I want you and your gunner to take this last remaining grenade and colt45 run up the treeline to the north about a hundred yards. Lay low. Once the Panzer Company appears over the crest of the hill drop the grenade in the first open hatch you see and shoot the accompanying infantry with the 45. I will be taking our remaining platoon back to the rally point. Try to make your way back after taking out that tank." "Yessir, brilliant plan sir. That's why you're an officer." I can appreciate the detail that the addition of bailed crews to the game. It seems to make sense, but just doesn't have the flavor of truth during the game. 1) Crews are not infantry and should not be good AT teams 2) Crews are valuable b/c they can operate a MBT. Every effort would be made to recover a trained crew. That means not putting them in harms way. 3)Crews would not take the orders we issue to them (go recon ahead and attack any tanks and infantry you find) 4)B/C of the God like view of the battlefied we have, crews provide too much info to us as commanders. IMHO crews should be treated abstractly (in order to represent salvaging crews instead of losing them automatically if a MBT is lost). If a tank gets brewed there is a die roll that a certain number of the crew will survive then a second die roll to see if that crew is able to escape back to enemy lines. Crews as treated now are inappropriately powerful as infantry and recon.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 4
- 8/3/2000 4:08:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		IF crews are a big threat than you are simply using poor tactics. If you fire at them every other turn they can only move ONE HEX A TURN - hardly efficient recon. They often bail from the tank with no "official weapons" but heck human beings are resourceful so if you don't use combined arms tactics properly, then you get what you get :-) The C3 in the game is "Borg fighting each other with WW2 weapons" that isn't going to change. Its been said repeatedly the game gives you far more situational awareness than is realistic, and we have had to adjust things (artillery in particular) to account for that. IF you are going to leave out crews, then you have to leave out snipers, and basically anybody that doesn't have a radio and you rapidly get to a game consisting of a blank screen with sounds of men screeming and every so often a "Blair Witch PRoject" glipse of what is going on. Within the context of the game, proper tactics prevent crews from being an issue. Keep infnatry near your tanks and crews will dry up and blow away in the wind. As to altered OOBs an TCIP, No altering your OOBs will not prevent your game from playing - but a message will be sent to the other players that you don't have teh same OOBs as whoever is hosting the game. So be prepared to explain :-)

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to David)
Post #: 5
- 8/3/2000 9:55:00 AM   
JKG


Posts: 150
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Alabama
Status: offline 		Ahhh Paul thanks for firing me up with your response. What follows is not a flame b/c I really enjoy playing and think you and your team have done a great job and what's more you're still hanging around responding to snipers and arm chair quarterbacks.
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: IF crews are a big threat than you are simply using poor tactics. First off, I never said they were a big threat to me. I think my opponents will agree that I have a reasonably good grasp of tactics. I just don't see the added value with the way crews are treated now. If you fire at them every other turn they can only move ONE HEX A TURN And why would I want to fire at them every other turn? I want my AFVs to keep driving towards the arty and ammo dump. How does that advance my enjoyment of the game? - hardly efficient recon. I disagree. In meeting engagements it is often a good tactic to make an armored thrust deep into the enemy. If the crews of the AFVs I've engaged and destroyed hang around and spot my movement,next direction of attack, and who I'm bringing in behind the armor it is a great boon to my opponent. How many of us hide abandoned crews in rough hexes so we can spy on what is happening after our MLR is broken. I would say most of us including me. I think that penalizes uneccessarily the player who successfully destroys the enemy and escapes to his rear. They often bail from the tank with no "official weapons" but heck human beings are resourceful Yes they are, but mainly so when fighting for their survival, not when issued foolish orders to attack approaching tanks without appropriate weapons. so if you don't use combined arms tactics properly, then you get what you get :-) Again, back to tactics. Crews themselves are a minor annoyance and not showstoppers. But what value do they add to gameplay once their AFV is destroyed. I agree that crews frequently survived to fight another day, but as crewman not infantry. That is the value in modeling crews..the long campaign not in PBEM scenarios. Again The C3 in the game is "Borg fighting each other with WW2 weapons" that isn't going to change. Its been said repeatedly the game gives you far more situational awareness than is realistic, and we have had to adjust things (artillery in particular) to account for that. Sure. I think we all understand that but why add to this "problem" with recon crews. If a player wants recon let them plan for that when they purchase and deploy units, not by giving them crews just b/c their AFV just got wasted. IF you are going to leave out crews, then you have to leave out snipers, and basically anybody that doesn't have a radio and you rapidly get to a game consisting of a blank screen with sounds of men screeming and every so often a "Blair Witch PRoject" glipse of what is going on. I disagree. Purchasing recon at the beginning of a scenario or PBEM is a choice b/c the player values recon. Sure snipers and other small units didn't have great ability to contact AO to give him great situational awarness, but I would say that is OK in the game b/c really when we purchase recon units we understand the abstraction we are making and the limitations of the game engine. Within the context of the game, proper tactics prevent crews from being an issue. Keep infnatry near your tanks and crews will dry up and blow away in the wind. Historically, it was not always appropriate for infantry to accompany tanks nor was it feasible. One historical use of tanks was the breakthrough of enemy lines and disruption of his rear. Infantry simply could not follow immediately(either lack of mobility or vulnerability of their carrier).
Not fighting this battle from an emotional standpoint. Just sharpening my teeth and giving another side of the story. My final thoughts for Paul.. 1) In your opinion, what is the advantage to having crews modeled after loss of their AFV? What would be missing from gameplay if crews of AFVs were absent on the battlefield but had some chance of surviving to the next scenario in campaigns?

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 6
- 8/3/2000 10:46:00 AM   
David

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline 		My thoughts were simply that it is not realistic for crews or snipers to act the way they do in this game. One of the things that makes this game great is the ability to change certain things. This ability allows the game to be played as I think it should. I did not ask for a lesson in combined arms tactics. Never mentioned that I felt crews and snipers were a serious threat. I just wanted to know how my changing the OOB would affect my PBEM and online game. Thanks for the answer Paul.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 7
- 8/3/2000 7:57:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		an interesting debate. Previous opinion (my own included) was that it was 'prefered' to have control over one's valuable crews (in order to get them to safety) vs the older method of having them more or less in permament rout whereby they would more often than not retreat into harms way. However i may have to change that opinion if the use of these crews as "recon" and "spys" is as prevalent as is being stated here in this thread. I would agree, that overall, bailed crews are going to be too concerned with extracting themselves from danger vs continuing on as pseudo-special ops forces. Of course there are always exceptions to the rules, but they are just that....exceptions. No one ever disputed that human beings were resourceful and capable of incredible acts of bravery and cleverness (especially in war) Perhaps one might be able to institute some sort of 'suppresion' penalty for advancing crews towards the enemy objectives vs retreating towards your own start lines? Suppressed units have far less ability to spot other units. this suppression penalty could also accumilate even if the crew sits tight eventually causing a 'retreat'

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 8
- 8/3/2000 8:41:00 PM   
Epicurius

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Texarkana, AR
Status: offline 		Great idea Nicka

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 9
- 8/3/2000 9:58:00 PM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		I guess I was naive in that I thought anyone would use Snipers for their primary function and bailed-out crews for theirs. My take is that as part of their PRIMARY job, snipers-shooting folks; crews-escaping to the rear, they should be able to close assault vehicles that would threaten completion of that mission. My Weltanschauung can't envision using crews for non-historical purposes ie infantry, and OPs. Silly me.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to David)
Post #: 10
- 8/3/2000 10:02:00 PM   
Panther

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 4/19/2000
From: Dover,NH,USA
Status: offline 		You guys think that close assaults are bad. I just lost a BA20 to a sniper fireing at 400 yards. Well it did take him 3 shots.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 11
- 8/3/2000 10:31:00 PM   
Mac_MatrixForum


Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline 		I don't have a problem with snipers, they're elite guys, IMO. Crews? Well, why not make them cost a significant portion of the cost of the vehicle and the players will consider twice using them for lowly tasks like scouting... imagine a 100pt crew... ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to David)
Post #: 12
- 8/3/2000 10:36:00 PM   
Epicurius

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Texarkana, AR
Status: offline 		<<>> I have not heard weltanschauung in a long time! I had a history prof @ A&M who drilled us on it everyday. "What is your weltanshchauung on this subject?" He would say. I am not sure if you used it correctly in this particular instance, Heck I may have not been using it right all these years. I am going to lean toward the heavy suppression model on this issue. I have had MANY tanks killed and was still able to do some cool stuff with their crews. In one game in PBEM, I had a total of 7 crews with a total of about 26 men assault a hill that my opponent had taken and was now defending with infantry. Did they take it? Yes Was it a-historical? Yes Was it in the confines of the game? Yes Was it a hell of a lot of fun rubbing my friend's nose in the fact that a bunch of crewmen took his hill? Yes Should it be addressed in 3.0? Yes

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 13
- 8/3/2000 10:38:00 PM   
JKG


Posts: 150
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Alabama
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mac: Crews? Well, why not make them cost a significant portion of the cost of the vehicle and the players will consider twice using them for lowly tasks like scouting... imagine a 100pt crew...
Good idea Mac!! A 100 point crew would make a person wary of putting them in harms way. It would be a way value the importance of trained crews. One side would have a decided reason to find and eliminate them (and get full credit for the AFV kill) and the other to get them the heck out of Dodge. It might be an idea to get the crews back to an exit hex (essentially catching up with a formed element of their side to get them back where they belong).

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 14
- 8/3/2000 10:53:00 PM   
Epicurius

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Texarkana, AR
Status: offline 		It seems that all you guys are talking about crews in a campaign game. There are not that many campaigns in the game. There a lot more scenarios. This causes the player to not worry about the cost of crews because when this scenario is over, you will get a different set in the next game.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 15
- 8/3/2000 11:03:00 PM   
Panther

 

Posts: 201
Joined: 4/19/2000
From: Dover,NH,USA
Status: offline 		But if a high point value is assigned for the kill of a crew then it can make a differece if you have win or draw even in scenerios. Panther

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 16
- 8/4/2000 1:10:00 AM   
Joe

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: OULU,-,Finland
Status: offline 		One suggestion: Crews are only able to move towards retreat hex. It would be like setting an objective to a crew automatically without giving them orders. The only way a crew could move forward is, if a frendly unit is allready in the hex where the crew is trying to advance. This way you could not use them as reacon, you could only leave them as kind of backup or you could load crews on tanks and use them as scouts for tanks. IMHO a crew that just got his tank shut to peaces would only think two things: 1. Mama. : ] 2. Stay with someone who can protect us. Maybe the A0 unit would be the only one who could give them "suicide" objectives. "Take that hill, NOW!!" : ) Please, don't flame me right away. ------------------ - Joe

_____________________________

- Joe

(in reply to David)
Post #: 17
- 8/4/2000 1:26:00 AM   
Mac_MatrixForum


Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by JKG: Good idea Mac!! A 100 point crew would make a person wary of putting them in harms way. It would be a way value the importance of trained crews. One side would have a decided reason to find and eliminate them (and get full credit for the AFV kill)
I would rather put this IN ADDITION to the value of the AFV as players should definitely get the points for killing them (also when crews manually bail out). Killing the crews is a double kill because there wont be any experiences people to drive the replacement AFV.
quote:

and the other to get them the heck out of Dodge. It might be an idea to get the crews back to an exit hex (essentially catching up with a formed element of their side to get them back where they belong).
Well as the ver 3 is going to have the exit victory type I don't think it would be a major code to make crews exit when they enter the retreat hex, for example. This isn't required though, as it could be fun to try to hunt the crews too when the other side is protecting them. This is mostly intended to human vs. human games where I too think that the crews as scouts (suicide scouts in particular) are a bit out of place. The current system is fine but could be better... I'm really glad we don't have more important complaints. ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to David)
Post #: 18
- 8/4/2000 1:41:00 AM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline 		Oh come on guys, lets think about this for a second. Most of the debates on this forum have been about the historical/realistic/doctrinal use of units compared to how we can actually use them in the game. Now as much as I hate losing tanks to crews or snipers or FOs, I also know that it is possible, and even realistic. I also believe that the steel panthers games are so good because you can do what-ifs and why-nots. So the Germans only had 2 Maus tanks. Should I be limited to only buying 2 in a scenario or campaign? I don't think so. If you want to be historical about it, then yes, limit yourself to 2 Maus tanks. If one of them gets destroyed, then why shouldn't you be allowed to use the crews as recon? Well if its ahistorical, then again, you must limit yourself to getting the crews to safety. If you don't care about realism or historicity, then use crews however you want. Buy as many Maus tanks as you can afford. Make the US and German forces work together to fight off French aggressors. But that is the fun of this game. We don't have to stick to history or realism or our force's doctrine. If you want to stick to those, then you have to put forth the effort for yourself. If you don't want to stick to that, then lets hope that you are able to make your own doctrine which could state that every crew that has abandoned their tank must push forward and disrupt enemy movement or at least observe it. The whole point is that it is up to you, the player how crews are handled. The AI is a whole other story, but then again, we know the AI's tactics after a while, and can develop our own to counteract them. And besides, its crews don't live on to fight another battle.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 19
- 8/4/2000 2:08:00 AM   
Tommy

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 5/31/2000
From: In that brush, behind you; raising a PIAT to my sh
Status: offline 		Desert Fox, You touched on my problem at the end. I have no problem controlling my urges to give crews the "Superman" assignments. It's the damned AI who keeps Banzai charging his crews. They always make a beeline for my AFVs. When I'm in the woods fighting in-line with my infantry in front of the AFVs, the AI crews jump me from behind and always seem to get the kill. Tom

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 20
- 8/4/2000 3:59:00 AM   
David

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline 		Good Idea Joe. If the weapon or vehicle a crew was manning is destroyed, then that crew could move only towards the Retreat Hex, and lose their ability to attack. Only fire when fired on. It would be important that this only happen after the weapon or vehicle were destroyed, as they can recrew if the weapon or vehicle were still functional. I too am guilty of losing a vehicle and moving the crew to a location where they can see. Makes for good intel. Realistic? probably not.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 21
- 8/4/2000 4:19:00 AM   
JKG


Posts: 150
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Alabama
Status: offline 		If one of them gets destroyed, then why shouldn't you be allowed to use the crews as recon? Well if its ahistorical, then again, you must limit yourself to getting the crews to safety. If you don't care about realism or historicity, then use crews however you want. Really what we are discussing is not really who is right or wrong, but searching for consensus on what rules should be in effect. Gamers are currently restricted in what they can do by the rules (coding). This issue of crews is no different from asking what is the appropriate delay for arty from a FO. The programmers made a decision that some delay rather than no delay would better represent what the battlefield commander could expect (hence attend realism) versus advancing enjoyable gameplay (fun). Which side wins this argument? Neither really b/c its a good game either way, but the programmers based on their judgement will enforce a set of rules for us gamers to abide by. All won't agree with whatever decision is made (i.e. out of contact artillery really bothers some and not others). But that is the fun of this game. We don't have to stick to history or realism or our force's doctrine. The whole point is that it is up to you, the player how crews are handled. I disagree on this particular issue b/c we have no control over whether crews bail out or not. If they bail out we can't ignore what they see, we could decide to use them in a historically correct way or not. I agree with an earlier comment that it is a luxury to argue over a fairly small issue. For those who seem to think bailed crews are a good idea, what is the value added for this particular feature. Why is it a good idea to keep it exactly the way it is now? Maybe if I could hear this argument I could change my view.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 22
- 8/4/2000 4:54:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Like Mt Everest, becasue they are there! I've read lots of accounts of tanks being knocked out and how "Slappy, Ed, and the Kid, joined up with us as we tried to fend off the next (insert enemy) attack" 'scuse me, but where in the Geneva Convention does it mandat that crews form knocked out vehicles must proceed immediately to the rear, do not pass go, do not collect $200? Every tank that gets knocked out is not blown sky high in a plume of fire. Most are simply damaged and the crew forced to now take up arms on foot. Maybe they link up with some of those "dispersed" unit guys who have a bazooka, or some better weapons. THose who don't like crews seem to be bothered by the lack of certainty that they have eliminated a threat. Welcome to the Fog of War. I've said many times that I consider the game an "impressionistic treatment" we have details because gmers tend to like details, but don't lose sight of the forest for the detail trees. Assume that the crews repressent not just the guys who bailed out of the vehicles, but other guys that form up ad hoc around the battlefield as the battle rages. Remember that the number on the unit represents "effectives" not necessarily the physical number of bodies! Think of "crews" not literally as the guys that jumped out of a tnak just then, but maybe a few other guys who were skulking around nearby and saw some comrades and joined up. Don't assume that becasue the game appears to give you perfect knowledge of some things that that is meant to be "truth". The only thing certain about war is the uncertainty!!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to David)
Post #: 23
- 8/21/2000 2:24:00 PM   
Mac_MatrixForum


Posts: 295
Joined: 4/11/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline 		A big cry for a small issue. Definitely better with crews than without. Perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to make the morale of the crews crumble a bit more rapidly (or remove the "end of turn suppression removal" for them) than what is with other infantry. Paul, we can't possibly thank you enough for all the things you and the other crew have added to this wonderful game. We just keep coming with all sorts of (sometimes plain stupid ) ideas because we actually see them getting done at times. I hope you stay true to YOUR vision of the game instead of trying to please everybody... Us gamers can hardly understand the finer details in this particular game engine and the reasons for them and it is important that YOU who do know all the details are building it. Thanks for sharing the many details so that we DO know a bit more than on average . It's very important, IMHO, to have open discussion about all these things, silly or not. Some people are just more whiners than others and I'm not saying this to insult anyone but because that just is. And the better and well known the game becomes, the more people it will attract and the more fights there will be about the little things. Hell, if it's taking too much resources to do something just forget about it and concentrate on something you think is good for this game. I'm really glad that you read the posts here but that makes me sometimes frustrated because you propably have to browse through some bad posts at times: complaints, mis-information, crying for little things, people not reading the manual before, people not reading earlier posts. Well to end this note, thanks for everything so far. Anything you are still going to do I'm going to appreciate. And thanks for the other posters who hang around here making this quite a classy forum IMHO . I believe you join me in my opinion... ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5

_____________________________

Markku "Macroz" Rontu
"Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Captain John J. Sheridan, Babylon 5

(in reply to David)
Post #: 24
- 8/21/2000 2:26:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		I think what is peeving people off the most is not that crews and snipers are fighting but how effective they are at it. I agree that crews can continue the fight if morale allows it but they are ad hoc formations (even with extra members/weapons picked up around the place) and couldn't be expected to CONSISTANTLY perform as well as formations trained for the task (taking experience into account of course). I have had AFVs lost to snipers which I think is a bit much. Literature is full of infantry advances brought to a grinding halt due to snipers (particually in jungle terrain) as snipers are and rightly should be, very effective against unprotected soldiers. However, the historical solution to the stalled advance was usually to bring up some armoured support. These were normally infantry support tanks though light tanks were used to effect. As the game currently stands, I am very hesitant to commit AFVs in this situation as it is more than likely they will be taken out in close assaults by the hidden snipers even though they are not equipped for it!! I would be far happier if I lost the AFVs to hidden AT elements in support. I know the whole idea of the game is to explore "what if"s and I applaud this, but I would rather not explore the possibilities of snipers being superhuman. Just my humble opinion, Reg

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to David)
Post #: 25
- 8/21/2000 2:26:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		Duplicate message cleared (I can't delete). Reg [This message has been edited by Reg (edited August 04, 2000).]

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to David)
Post #: 26
- 8/21/2000 8:27:00 PM   
David F. Wall

 

Posts: 158
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: Waltham, MA, USA
Status: offline 		The funniest thing I ever saw happen in this game was kind of around this. I was playing the Germans against a Russian computer opponent and I had two Pzkw-IVs destroyed very early by kind of sashaying in front of a KV-152. Well, live and learn. The tanks go bang, and I send the crews into the woods, expecting them to kind of hide there for the rest of the game. Eventually, along comes this Soviet forward observer, and thus begins the Shootout at the Borisov Corral. These clowns spent the rest of the game firing their Tokarev and Walther pistols at each other and never hitting a thing. No intervention from me -- it was all strictly opportunity fire. A little comic relief. One of the fun things about the game for me is imagining what's happening at the occasional absurd moment.

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 27
- 8/21/2000 10:07:00 PM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tommy: Desert Fox, You touched on my problem at the end. I have no problem controlling my urges to give crews the "Superman" assignments. It's the damned AI who keeps Banzai charging his crews. They always make a beeline for my AFVs. When I'm in the woods fighting in-line with my infantry in front of the AFVs, the AI crews jump me from behind and always seem to get the kill. Tom
Hi Tom, How do the crews get past your infantry screen? When you blow up an enemy tank and the crew survives, you get to see the crew exit the tank. Since you know where the enemy crew is, just make sure to keep infantry between them and your tanks. It sounds like you have infantry support your tanks, how can the crews get past them? BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to David)
Post #: 28
- 8/6/2000 6:12:00 PM   
crazyivan

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		well i have read long and hard and here is my two cents worth. 1.snipers were more often than not the death of many opentoped afvs and this includes also some surprisingly high kia rates linked to turreted afvs as commanders perfered to look out the hacth to get a better few in the more quieter areas wear the old sniper lurked. 2.the sniper also often had a high vantage point so could look down onto the afv. 3.i have heard that in some cases tanks crews that survied a large battle often were drafted into fighting units as the replacement tanks were far and few between at times especialy near the wars end. 2.a lot of russian crews would bial out grap some wepons that lay around and continued the fight on foot so much was there hatred for the enemy. 3.when i was in the army you were always a soldier first and your trade secound,my dad served in tanks in the 60s and they spent a lot of time trianing as grunts and when it came to having to bial out he siad they were always prepared ie weapons to defend them selves with. 4.these things i have talked about i have read and heard but alot is common sense think if you were in the thick of battle your tank brews up or just stops you grap your weapon and get the hell out.do a quick recce and try and find some safty to get your brearings if your really mad that you lost some mates i would find me the badest weapon handy and get some revenge.also you know a tank inside out and what better guy to discover its week points than a tankie himself.self presevation often leads to some mighty heroic deeds at times in the heat of battle 5.having crew is good and adds to the game play and as you are in control of the game you can use them as you wish your the commander also for the AIs crew when you knock the tank out hose the crew down with your hull machine gun or use some HE if there to far away that way they won,t live to fight another day.

_____________________________

"The best form of defence,is attack"

(in reply to David)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Snipers and Crews close assualting Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.469