Close Combat Series :: View topic - TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why?

TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why?

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Modding Workshop

#1: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:12 pm
—
What is the reason for this ... I know you could order crews that left their destroyed tanks in CC3?

#2: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:25 pm
—
I think it was to stop them being used as infantry and grab Victory Locations as it wasn't realistic. Leaving them some meters where the wreck is burning is realistic though, according to developers.

Strange that in CC2 the gun and tank crews couldn't receive orders but left the battlefield in an orderly fashion, sometimes they could fight in next battles.

#3: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:49 pm
—
Is it true that if a tank crew abandons, and is kept alive ... they will get a new ride (tank) in upcoming battles?
And if so, then it would be better to be able to order them to find cover (and/or protection with friendly units) ... so as not to be killed.
It seems some veteran CC players exploit this, and target these stationary crews (that abandoned their vehicle).
(ie: mooxe) :)

If they were able to capture a VL for some reason ... I don't see a problem with that. It's not like they would be able to defend it very well against a rifle, mg, team anyway.

Last edited by davidssfx on Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:05 pm; edited 3 times in total

#4: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:57 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

I think it was to stop them being used as infantry and grab Victory Locations as it wasn't realistic. Leaving them some meters where the wreck is burning is realistic though, according to developers.

Strange that in CC2 the gun and tank crews couldn't receive orders but left the battlefield in an orderly fashion, sometimes they could fight in next battles.

thanks for the reply ... I would prefer them to be able to be ordered, and not worry about the VL issue.

#5: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:40 pm
—
Well you target those dismounted crews because it further reduces morale, they are like little freebies. Sometimes they take potshots and your guys running by as well.

I can only think of one incident over the years where someone recognized a name of a crewmen who came back later in another tank. Can't remember complete details though so I wont confirm this ever happened. I think the posts are in this forum by a PZT guy. I wish someone could absolutely prove the crewmen do come back. It seems like its just theory.

About realism. Who says its not realism? An Airborne ATG crew is (going to assume here!) trained as infantry 1st, secondary duty manning at 17pdr gun. Now if the gun is destroyed, shouldnt they fight as infantry? Its about fun really. If my tank crews leave the map, I am not sitting here thinking, "Wow just like WW2!" The line between realism and fun is constantly shifted in this game and is always based on a few opinions.

Theres pros and con to dismounted crews being stationary, fleeing or being commandable troops.

Combine this debate with what teams are allowed to grab VLs. Really everyone should weigh in on whats best.

My vote goes to all crews being commandable. I will settle for all primary infantrymen that man guns as a secondary duty being commandable, while all tanks crews become stationary and not flee & armoured command teams should be commandable.

#6: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:45 pm
—
CC3 the crews could be used as death squads...

CC5 they abandoned vehicle and lay on the ground to be killed.

As it drove me insane that my precious crews just lay down to die I suggested this be changed for LSA.

In LSA crews exit the map by the best means they can find and live to fight another day.

Last edited by schrecken on Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

#7: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:44 pm
—
Besides one rule for all. There is a better way to do this. Suggestions?

#8: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:48 pm
—
You have to have the same rule for all Smile

#9: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:51 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

In LSA crews exit the map by the best means they can find and live to fight another day.

Is this possible in TLD? ... if so how?

Thanks
David

#10: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:53 pm
—
It's in the exe, so not unless it's included in a patch.

#11: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:04 pm
—

Quote:

I can only think of one incident over the years where someone recognized a name of a crewmen who came back later in another tank. Can't remember complete details though so I wont confirm this ever happened. I think the posts are in this forum by a PZT guy. I wish someone could absolutely prove the crewmen do come back. It seems like its just theory.

the most famous is Wittmann, who bailed out at V-B, came again and bailed out second time Smile

Quote:

In LSA crews exit the map by the best means they can find and live to fight another day.

very good IMO, although with possibility to takean enemy VL, disclosure an enemy unit Smile

#12: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:18 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

It's in the exe, so not unless it's included in a patch.

ok ... thanks

#13: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:27 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

CC3 the crews could be used as death squads ...

what do you mean by this ... were they better protected by their coding, or some other reason?

#14: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:31 pm
—
No

If they abandoned their vehicle you could order them about the map, taking VL's etc. (in cc3 and CoI)

Unrealistic as trained crews in general ran to safety and to later man another vehicle.

#15: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:11 pm
—
One rule is what makes it unrealistic. What about Airborne infantry who manned ATGs? Theres many what ifs and maybes that make one rule unsatisfying. This may be a good option to take out of an exe file.

#16: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:14 pm
—
There's a post here somewhere were someone managed to make the gun crews take orders by changing their SAI from 'Gun' to 'AT Team', I have tested it and it works.

Will they be moving around the battlefield hunting tanks and giving away their positions even more easily? will the bigger guns be able to be put inside small buildings now that they behave as an infantry unit? I haven't tested it thoroughly to be honest.

As for the tanks, making them Command Vehicles can make them take orders. I don't remember if it was in the SAI or the Type column though and what side effects it had. I know that if the Type column is changed it messes up with the composition of the BG, the SAI can make units behavior and attributes change, like infantry coded as trucks makes them run for VL's but leaves them unable to enter buildings.

#17: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:25 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

No

If they abandoned their vehicle you could order them about the map, taking VL's etc. (in cc3 and CoI)

Unrealistic as trained crews in general ran to safety and to later man another vehicle.

ok ... thanks for explaining. Knowing that they are just normal (under equipped infantry) helps to decide what is best.

I think it's best to let the decision of what they do, be left to the human commander ... for all guns, and vehicles.
A smart human commander will move them back to safety (to fight another day), a careless commander may waste them ... and in a desperate situation they could be used to hold a map, or whatever. Nevertheless it's something else the human commander must manage, bringing more interest to the battle.
We're going to implement this in the next Ground Tactics mod update

#18: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:31 pm
—
Airbourne ATG crews spent all their time hiding in holes.

#19: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:33 pm
—
David, good points

#20: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:40 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

There's a post here somewhere were someone managed to make the gun crews take orders by changing their SAI from 'Gun' to 'AT Team', I have tested it and it works.

Will they be moving around the battlefield hunting tanks and giving away their positions even more easily? will the bigger guns be able to be put inside small buildings now that they behave as an infantry unit? I haven't tested it thoroughly to be honest.

As for the tanks, making them Command Vehicles can make them take orders. I don't remember if it was in the SAI or the Type column though and what side effects it had. I know that if the Type column is changed it messes up with the composition of the BG, the SAI can make units behavior and attributes change, like infantry coded as trucks makes them run for VL's but leaves them unable to enter buildings.

I guess we'll have to figure out how they did it in CC3 ... and see if it has any unwanted effects with BG's, etc. Anyone have any ideas?

#21: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:51 pm
—
In CC3 it was coded that way, in later CC's we have to 'cheat' with what we have because it was coded differently, sometimes that cheating has unwanted side-effects.

#22: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:57 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

In CC3 it was coded that way, in later CC's we have to 'cheat' with what we have because it was coded differently, sometimes that cheating has unwanted side-effects.

thanks for looking into this ... and mentioning it in the first place.

If changing the SAI is the only way to make crews be under command after abandoning their vehicles, then it might just be best to leave it as is ... and maybe the developers would consider making changes to accommodate this feature in a patch.

Last edited by davidssfx on Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total

#23: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:00 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Airbourne ATG crews spent all their time hiding in holes.

57mm at La Fiere Smile

to read about its roll in this battle ... scroll down the page to the oblique aerial with the yellow overlay descriptions

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1174669606/Panzer+Ersatz+und+Ausbildungs+Abteilung+100+in+Normandy+TAKE+2+%28Very+Long+post%29

#24: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:17 am
—
From the website David posted...

“Not hearing any fire from the 57mm, I went over to it and found it unmanned. I tried to fire it, but the crew had taken the firing mechanism. I organised five or six men behind the hedge on the southerly side of the road with Gammon grenades, and just about this time, two of the gun crew returned with the firing mechanism. They knocked out the two tanks. They were two youngsters not more than 17 or 18 years old, who returned on their own initiative. I recommended them for Silver Stars”.

Interesting.

#25: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:22 am
—

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Airbourne ATG crews spent all their time hiding in holes.

57mm at La Fiere Smile

DAT. POST.

First of all it is the most extensive post in a forum I've ever seen, very well documented and well I don't know, it is very awesome to read it. Feels like I'm never going to end.

Thanks David!

#26: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:56 am
—
Unless it was knocked out by the Bazooka as some claim. Smile

#27: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:22 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Unless it was knocked out by the Bazooka as some claim. Smile

try this one Smile

from page 39 of:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Utah/USA-A-Utah-2.html

While the chief concern of the 82d Airborne Division during D Day was with the la Fière bridgehead, where the bulk of the assembled forces were committed and where the enemy put up his strongest resistance, another attempt to secure a crossing of the Merderet River had been made at the same time to the south of Chef-du-Pont and had fared slightly better. The initial attack at Chef-du-Pont had been undertaken by the seventy-five men under Colonel Ostberg. The enemy withdrew from the town and the eastern approaches to the bridge but dug in along the causeway and on the west bank. Though apparently not numerous, the Germans fought tenaciously. Colonel Ostberg's men were stopped at the bridge. The seventy-five reinforcements who arrived later under Colonel Maloney could do nothing to break the deadlock. At about 1700 the Chef-du-Pont force was stripped to a platoon in order to send reinforcements to the hard-pressed paratroopers at la Fière.

The remaining platoon of thirty-four men under Capt. Roy E. Creek almost at once were whittled down to twenty effectives by direct fire from an enemy field piece on the opposite bank. At the same time from seventy- five to one hundred Germans were observed forming on the east bank in some buildings to the left rear of Captain Creek's position. Captain Creek asked for reinforcements. Before they could arrive, immediate help was provided fortuitously by the landing within American lines of a glider carrying a 57-mm. antitank gun and ammunition. The gun was emplaced and fired to neutralize the enemy artillery piece. Nearly one hundred men came down from la Fière shortly thereafter and the enemy threat was removed. With the reinforcements a defensive position was organized to bring greater fire power to bear on the enemy. In a short time the east bank was cleared, and a platoon crossed the bridge and dug in on the other side without opposition. The bridge was secured, though the position remained enfiladed by enemy fire from the Carquebut area.[b][u]

and here:
from "All American, All The Way
Page 240
the Germans launched an attack from Hill 20, north on the N-13 highway toward the town with two companies of infantry and several self propelled guns. Effective fire from a 57mm antitank gun of the 80th AA Battalion positioned at the roadblock on the south end of town stopped the self propelled guns

Page 241
Our 57mm antitank gun crew returned fire and set fire to the leading SP (self propelled) gun and one more that moved up behind it.
Smile

#28: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:29 am
—
Well, to return to the vehicle crews:

-They were highly trained specialists (sort of anyway) and it was both cheaper and quicker to produce a new tank than to train five new tankers, that most likely would get themselves killed in their first engagement anyway. An experienced crew is more valuable than the hard-ware they are operating, so I think it's rather natural that they move of the map. Cool

#29: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:00 pm
—

7A_Woulf wrote (View Post):

Well, to return to the vehicle crews:

-They were highly trained specialists (sort of anyway) and it was both cheaper and quicker to produce a new tank than to train five new tankers, that most likely would get themselves killed in their first engagement anyway. An experienced crew is more valuable than the hard-ware they are operating, so I think it's rather natural that they move of the map. Cool

Agreed...and hopefully the new bailed out vehicle crew rule used in LSA will be implemented in WAR and TLD soon.

#30: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:42 pm
—
We have yet to prove that these men do in fact get recycled back into a forcepool.

#31: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: vonB,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:11 pm
—
Is it not just Command Crew that can be 'commanded' once their vehicle has been totalled? It may just be lazy of me, but I rarely take notice of a vehicle crew once they have bailed. Yes, probably just laziness....

I think you may find that Wittman bailed from broken down or disabled vehicles (whether through mechanical failure - not uncommon - or enemy action), not 'destroyed' one's... now that's something that has always irked me. A crew will stubbornly remain in a vehicle when it is immobilised, often to their death. An immobilised SP Gun is usually just a piece of junk unless it happens to be facing within (roughly) a 30 degree arc of a target, though I suppose there could be the use of machine guns. However, I have always thought that you should be able to order a crew to bail/dismount if you wanted.

#32: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:51 pm
—
Well, tried it last night and I got crews from guns and Tanks to receive orders, no bad side effects noticed, in fact the tanks seemed more aggresive:

I made a battle to test the gammon bombs in Carentan with the british paras and the 130 lehr, before the SAI changes the tank AI struggled to get out of it's staggering area, when finally they managed to do it, they would send a tank down the main road one at the time. Never crossed the 2 storey building in the middle of the road. Only the half-tracks went to grab the VL of the road to the south. This happened 100% of the time, at least 10 tests.

After the changes, I got a Tiger, a StuG and a Pz 4 attacking down the main road, another Tiger moving parallel to them but from behind the row of buildings, destroyed them all but the StuG (Immobilized) using gammons with high casualties for both. Another pz4 managed to pass the middle building and the burning wrecks(out of gammons now) and went first for the church VL and then for one way behind my lines that it couldn't grab because it was hard to reach and then the time ran out. Got one of the gun crews to guard the church and re-capture the VL once the tank was gone. Was pretty exciting.

Then I tested from the other side, got my tanks destroyed and successfully managed a command team together with two men from a tank crew (with captured weapons) to grab the middle two storey building.

No tanks inside buildings
No guns moving around, also not inside buildings
No ranks messed up
No uniforms messed up
No BG selection screen messed up
No Tactical Icons messed up (zoom out view)

Will need more tests to fully approve this though. An OP or short campaign might be ideal.

PS. The tiger pathing is goddamn awful, it can't go on a straight line more than 50 meters, I thought it was because of the urban setting but then I was testing the tiger graphic from GJS in the included battle on the Ground Tactics mod, and the Tiger did the same, even on open ground.

#33: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:16 pm
—
Hey way to go Pzt_Kanov ... I hope it works out.

What did you edit, and in what files, in order to accomplish this?

Thanks
David

#34: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:50 pm
—
Just changed the SAI column in ***teams.txt to a '4' which is 'AT Team' for both guns and tanks.

I think it was already done in overlord or some other CC5 mod. As I said I read a thread here about it so, credit to the original discoverer.

#35: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:02 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Just changed the SAI column in ***teams.txt to a '4' which is 'AT Team' for both guns and tanks.

I think it was already done in overlord or some other CC5 mod. As I said I read a thread here about it so, credit to the original discoverer.

Thanks :)

Can anyone think of a reason this won't work, or anything else that might get goofed up or affected in any way?

#36: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:18 pm
—
It was regXtra the mod.

Here is the thread.

http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3821

Interesting that the poster says he changed the SAI to command tanks, I think that will be more desirable than tanks behaving like infantry, though as I said, I haven't encountered a problem with it and actually liked the more aggressive behavior of tanks coded as AT teams.

#37: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: vonB,

Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:44 pm
—
I just love it when the enemy tanks come belting up in front right into my stormtoopers as the AT teams rub their hands in anticipation... Cool

Really, the armour and infantry should co-ordinate their tactics, but that is asking a bit much of the AI. Sometime they do, but I think it is more by luck than good logic.

#38: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
—
I've tested this with tanks and guns changed to "4 = Anti-Tank" in the SAI column.
It seems to work well ... I definitely prefer being able to issue orders to abandoned crews. The only thing I noticed was some differences in how the AI deployed, but it's so hard to know if it was because of this change or something else.
I'm not willing to include it in the next release of Ground Tactics though, unless more information about what the SAI column values affect ... and what possible problems may occur from this edit.

If you have any info ... please post
Thanks

#39: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: panssarijaakari,

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:27 pm
—
Sorry for reviving a dead thread, but I have been able to get a screenshot of a vehicle crew that had bailed the battle before.

#40: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: panssarijaakari,

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:28 pm
—
And here's another screenshot. When I removed the vehicle crew from the active rooster, another Sherman V (the tank they fought in the battle before) was added to the force pool.

This was while playing CCTLD with the v5.50.11b patch.

EDIT: Gah, sorry for double post. Was having problems with the latter image.

#41: Re: TLD abandoned vehicle crews can't take orders ... why? Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:02 pm
—
I have Tank Crews set at 3=Assault in WAR.

Close Combat Series -> Modding Workshop

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1