Jump to content

Bogging data


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Phil, I think perhaps I ought to say then design decisions which I find unfathomable and politely call bugs.

Ahh.

Finding tanks driving as fast in reverse as they can go forwards is deeply disturbing. One might have thought that this hangover design feature from CMx1 would have been removed. I am not going to delve into the acceleration figures for vehicles as that perhaps would be beyond normal expectations for a game.

Why not? Post them. Refusing to boot up the game isn't going to change anything. Well-supported, well-reasoned suggestions have an excellent chance of being listened to.

BFC may not completely re-prioritize to change the design decisions you're talking about, but if you really disagree say something, and try to get other people talking about it too.

The invisible walls around a battlefield - which seems to be the default - seems absolutely insane in terms of realism. Gee I must run back into the bombardment .... I will keep my trucks here for the enemy to capture.

If the alternative is to have an endless battlefield I can tell you that's not really feasible. (As just having an extra 100m, or 1km, wouldn't *actually* change the fact that there are "walls", as far as I can see.)

And of course in the first iteration there was the laser guided firing on the move problem which was standout wrong.

Which changed, at least a little, in large part because people came out and talked about it.

One that I did consider a bug was that if you drive through a wire fence you destroy it, drive along the length of it and it remains pretty much all in place. This may have been sorted out but I am not bothering to boot the game to find out - that goes with not wishing to be a paying game-tester.

You don't gain anything by not turning on CM. You clearly want to play it, since you post here about it, right? Well, if you want the game improved, come out and provide data and bug reports. TheVulture did it, other people supported and discussed, and a change happened. You don't change anything by not getting involved.

If you consider trying to get a game you otherwise would enjoy changed being a "paying game-tester", then by all means don't do it. It's absolutely your call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finding tanks driving as fast in reverse as they can go forwards is deeply disturbing.

Having just tested Shermans M3A1 (mids) for the bogging thing, I can tell you with certainty that they go Fast (forward) about twice as fast as reverse. I don't know if that is true for other tanks.

I have no knowledge as to whether a Sherman could do ~15mph in reverse, or not. However, what is unrealistic here to my mind is less that they can do that speed, which seems quite reasonable, but that they can do it and maintain a perfectly straight line, for two kilometers. That's a hell of a driver. OTOH, is this really something worth expending effort on? The speed thing, maybe. The straight lines? I don't know.

The invisible walls around a battlefield - which seems to be the default - seems absolutely insane in terms of realism. Gee I must run back into the bombardment .... I will keep my trucks here for the enemy to capture.

Scenario designers should be responsible here. I am sure they can allow exit if they want. They can also just design deep enough setup zones as to make bombarding them in the hunt for trucks unprofitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the reverse speed thing, I am puzzled. How often and how far do you drive your tanks in reverse to make it a serious play issue? I mean, we don't have the Italian army yet. [For any Italians in the audience, that was intended as a joke. Mean spirited perhaps, but still just a joke.] Getting back to the main point, I can see backing up for short to moderate distances, but not far enough to really make an issue of it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finding tanks driving as fast in reverse as they can go forwards is deeply disturbing. One might have thought that this hangover design feature from CMx1 would have been removed. I am not going to delve into the acceleration figures for vehicles as that perhaps would be beyond normal expectations for a game.

Well I can't speak for every tank but some of the modern MBTs and AFVs are pretty fast in reverse (30-50km/h is not uncommon). Some even have several gears in reverse just to be able to GTFO without exposing weaker armor.

In-game I've never even thought about it to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99218&highlight=reverse

I think if you read this thread I started many months ago you will see how slow reverse was for WW2 tanks - well at least the three were I could get definitive figures. I am afraid the Imperial War Museum and Bovington Tank Museum have not been much help when I made further enquiries of them.

Tactically I think it is very significant if reverse is very slow in comparison to forward speeds as reversing moves would be minimised as far as possible. In real life a tank is pretty blind anyway and in reverse under fire you are not really wanting to have a commander head-up or turn the turret so it would be vulnerable.

So MichaelE it is sort of a realism issue. And in game terms I was playing in a town map and dancing tanks speedily up and reversing down roads was a feature particularly given the grid layout of the streets. It may be thinks were differnt with Shermans or the programming has been tweaked but you will see from the thread I linked to Shermans were not fast in reversing. And bear in mind momentum/time/distance to get to maximum reverse speed.

Anyway a game that promises realism ought perhaps to have the basics correct.

Culliton - I did do some work on tank gun accuracy on the move so its not like I have not sought the betterment of the game. And I have tried to establish whether Panthers ever fired on the move - especially broadside - so my interest in what is right is not superficial.

PS I have added to the Wiki in my sig, I did playtest scenarios, and did proof-read/corrected scenario briefings for CMBN. However RL does affect people and means less time can be spent on sorting out glitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting link quantifying combat damage, bogging and mechanical breakdowns during the course of a few days of combat operations in difficult ground conditions

http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9_RTR/tech/reichswald/Reichswald%20Report.htm

from the above link

Tank Casualties, own troops

By Enemy Action

Mines 5

Bazzoka 3

HE 5

AP 2

Total 15

By other causes

Turret segment 13

Mech failure 20

Clutches (total failure) 3

Bogged 32

Total 68

i.e. A total casualty for two regiments of – 83

At some point it states that at any time only 7% of tanks in the forest were immobilized. The conditions in the forest were actually better compared to the ground outside of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...