Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggestion for crews

 
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 >> Suggestion for crews Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggestion for crews - 7/4/2000 10:34:00 PM   
Antonius

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000
From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Wargamo, ergo sum
Post #: 1
- 7/4/2000 10:54:00 PM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline 		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. Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http:/sites.netscape.net/rcclout

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 2
- 7/4/2000 11:05:00 PM   
Ilja Varha

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 6/8/2000
From: Kouvola, Finland
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Ilja Varha Leader (and proud of it!)of the SPMW development team.

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 3
- 7/4/2000 11:05:00 PM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline
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.
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 4
- 7/4/2000 11:31:00 PM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline 		Well maybe they improvised, addapted, took all the good parts of the crap radios and made one good one. 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).]

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 5
- 7/5/2000 12:14:00 AM   
Tommy D

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 7/4/2000
From: Atlanta, GA USA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Tommy D

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 6
- 7/5/2000 1:12:00 AM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 7
- 7/5/2000 1:36:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 8
- 7/5/2000 1:40:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		How much of a problem is this with the new "slow" crews?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 9
- 7/5/2000 3:16:00 AM   
Antonius

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000
From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE
Status: offline 		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 !

_____________________________

Wargamo, ergo sum

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 10
- 7/5/2000 6:15:00 AM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 11
- 7/5/2000 7:43:00 AM   
sjuncal

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 5/21/2000
From: VA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

-- Simon Moderator Capitals@his.com Aka Alhazred http://capitals.washington.dc.us/ http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 12
- 7/5/2000 1:22:00 PM   
Michael Wermelin

 

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/3/2000
From: Karlstad, Sweden
Status: offline 		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).]

_____________________________

Attacking is the best of all defences.

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 13
- 7/5/2000 8:28:00 PM   
Gobbler

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/4/2000
From: Woodstock, IL
Status: offline 		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 ] 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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 14
- 7/5/2000 11:18:00 PM   
Elvis

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Clarion, PA
Status: offline 		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]

_____________________________

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 15
- 7/6/2000 12:17:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 16
- 7/6/2000 1:20:00 AM   
Gobbler

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 7/4/2000
From: Woodstock, IL
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 17
- 7/6/2000 1:27:00 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 18
- 7/7/2000 10:38:00 AM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 19
- 7/7/2000 7:45:00 PM   
talon

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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 haven´t expierienced attacking crews from the AI .

_____________________________


(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 20
- 7/7/2000 7:54:00 PM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Antonius)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Suggestion for crews 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

0.859