Immobilizations In CM And Why I Want Them Reduced

[undead reindeer cavalry]

has anyone tested how much crew experience effects the likelihood of bogging and immobilization? i would expect it to be a very important factor.

does crew experience level effect actual vehicle turn rate etc? i suspect not. would be cool if it did.

i'd like to see vehicles bog more, especially when making hard turns, having stops and so forth.

one fellow i play against thinks that it helps to survive a bogging if you fire the main gun of the vehicle

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by huhrlass:

...what would be neat would be to have a repair truck available like in Codenamed Panzers phase one...

Hell, I wish Sudden Strike never had this repair truck invented. Now all people believe that there actually IS a repair truck out there, somewhere.

PS: Repair trucks don´t exist and Pioneers don´t deliver ammo either

[Paul AU]

I had an armoured car bog on a snowy road, just last night.

Never seen that before. Imagine if had been my only uber-tank, or one of two or three? "There goes the game". It's just too random, with too potentially large game-play consquences.

[Radetzky]

why shouldn't there be a repair truck? or some way to replenish ammo on the battlefield? we're talking about a game here, so why bother with what happened in real life? if something adds to game balance and playability - bring it on!

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Radetzky:

why shouldn't there be a repair truck? or some way to replenish ammo on the battlefield? we're talking about a game here, so why bother with what happened in real life? if something adds to game balance and playability - bring it on!

What kind of game you like to to play is, of course, your business, but it may save you some time and effort to know that BFC, as a company, has a strong commitment to wargame realism. I don't think this kind of argment will get far with them. You can do some searches for posts by the BFC types if you want to read for yourself.

Basically, unless you can show a coherent historical argument that "repair trucks", or something similar, are historically realistic on the CM scale and timeframe, you're not going to get far with these game designers.

Same goes for ammo replenishment and changing bogging behaviour -- if you can show that the bogging behavior in-game is out-of-whack with what happened IRL, you might get somewhere. But arguing that vehicles shouldn't bog so much because it makes the game less "fun" or "balanced" isn't likely to get you anywhere with BFC.

Again, I'm not trying to admonish anyone for wanting CM to be the "wrong" kind of game -- that's a silly argument to have. We all have our own opinions of what the ideal game is, and nobody's is intrinsically "right" or whatever. But ultimately, what game CM is (or becomes) is up to the design team, and they have very strong commitment to realism in the combat mechanics of the game. This is something that I doubt is going to change any time in the near future, especially considering this commitment is apparently a large part of the reason why they went off and founded their own Company.

If you disagree, there's lots of other computer game product out there which pay less attention to historical realism, more attention to playability and balance.

Cheers,

YD

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Radetzky:

why shouldn't there be a repair truck? or some way to replenish ammo on the battlefield? we're talking about a game here, so why bother with what happened in real life? if something adds to game balance and playability - bring it on!

Yeah, also I'd like commandeer Katjusha trucks on the map and launch some direct fire salvos. And that super heavy German railroad mortar? Wish I could buy that! And let's not forget about a platoon of Maus tanks. Also, the BF team should model turbojet dive bombers and that kewl nuke cannon the Americans had.

[flamingknives]

Add to balance:

One team is red and one is blue, and so they must fight! No other differences, that would do it.

Might as well fight across a flat plain while we're at it.

That said, ammo resupply was an occurrence that happened on the CM scale battlefield, during a 30 minute timescale, on the front line. Second El-Alamien, for one involving tanks, and the existance of Universal carriers for the infantry. On top of that, there's a German infantry attack supported by a truck full of ammo.

Vehicle recovery and other engineering operations ought to be included, but I don't think anyone should expect to get their beloved Tigers out of the mud quickley or easily. Three Famos or another Tiger is required, and there's no guarantee that that won't break down too.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

I had an armoured car bog on a snowy road, just last night.

Never seen that before. Imagine if had been my only uber-tank, or one of two or three? "There goes the game". It's just too random, with too potentially large game-play consquences.

Glad you touched on this...

The effects of vehicles immobolizing for whatever reason comes into play for the worst in small scenarios where each side may only have a tank or two, especially the Germans.

I think this game defintely needs some kind of option in this area, just as the game has a "Fog Of War" option and options for everything else.

In fact, I think this may be one of the most important options of all.

[Brent Pollock]

So...don't play scenarios with small numbers of vehicles...or don't move 'em at all I don't see much whinging about it when the OTHER guy's lone ubertank throws a tread.

I still lose more to my own dumbass moves than the bog mechanic'll ever wipe out.

For those of you that get an AFV immobilised close to a decent firing position, if you have another vehicle, use it to push the immobilised one into the firing position.

Here's another thought - the bog mechanic compensates for the fact that the AFV armament will never jam or malfunction except due to enemy fire. I've read more than one account (how's that for statistical significance ) of optics/firing mechanisms going out of whack without any fire being received.

[Rambling ends]

[Thrushbeard]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

...For those of you that get an AFV immobilised close to a decent firing position, if you have another vehicle, use it to push the immobilised one into the firing position.

I had a look round the forum and couldn't find this ( I'm probably blind!)but what about using another tank to tow the bogged tank out.If the crews' were not under fire then surely they'd stop to help.God knows I've read and seen pics. of daisy chains of vehicles trying to pull some poor dude out of the muck!

Repair vehicles didn't exist maybe ( i don't claim to be an expert....obviously ) but they did have some repair tools on they're vehicles if my eyes do not decieve me,so in a longer battle, while not under fire they may have been able to fix immobilizations ie: damaged treads.

EDIT: I don't mind the bogging % just wish you could tow!!!

[YankeeDog]

Actually, IRL there were tank recovery vehicles, whose express purpose was to tow damaged or stuck tanks back for repair.

And other tanks could, indeed also do the same job.

But it's not as simple as you might think. Pulling a 30-ton tank out of a mudhole is a much bigger operation that getting your Ford F150 unstuck when you get a bit to ambtious off-roading. In addition, very often when a tracked vehicle gets bogged (and ESPECIALLY if it tries to unstick itself), it throws or breaks a track, or gets so much crap stuck inside the idling wheels, etc. that they have to be cleaned out.

There's a great documentary the Discovery channel is running right now covering a group of US Marines going through training on the M1A1. In one segment, one of the tanks throws a track, and they have to tow it out of the mud with another M1 and repair it in the field.

True, this is a modern tank, and not a WWII tank, but it takes them quite a while, and it givse you an appreciation of just how complicated and difficult (and time-consuming!) it is to recover a tank from even minor damage.

So, yes, ultimately it would be nice to see tank recovery models. But IMHO this would be, at best, a extra-bonus gee-whiz game feature that RARELY would come into play.

Hypothetically, if such a feature were included in the the current engine, even in longer (say ~45min) battles, I think it would be quite rare that you'd see an AFV bog early on, have enough time to drive another vehicle over to it to get it unstuck, pull it out of the muck, fix the track, and get it back in the battle, even if it were stuck in a very safe location.

Most of the time, you'd be better off writing it off for the course of the battle, and not comitting another (perfectly good) tank to recover it.

Everyone in a while, you might get lucky and get the AFV out of the hole without any track or running gear damage. This would still probably take 10-15min. Most of the time, it would probably take far longer - 30min or more.

Would it be nice to have this? Sure. Do I feel it would have a major effect on gameplay? No way.

Cheers,

YD

[chiavarm]

Two of my three AFVs were immobilized. Both of them were moving FAST at the time. One on open ground and one on a road. Conditions were clear and damp.

I remmemder in Squad Leader, if you moved the afv its full allotted movement, you had to roll the dice to see if it would breakdown.

I imagine CM incorperated this into the series.

[simovitch]

Remember, in Operations you will likely get that immobilized tank back, fully repaired, for the next battle (assuming, i think, that it was bogged inside your final established "front line".)

I think that this is a fair representation of repair that CM has incorporated into the game. A repair vehicle waltzing onto the battlefield to repair a tank within 60-odd minutes under combat conditions would not sit right with me IMHO.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by chiavarm:

Two of my three AFVs were immobilized. Both of them were moving FAST at the time. One on open ground and one on a road. Conditions were clear and damp.

Out of curiosity, what model were these tanks?

[chiavarm]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chiavarm:

Two of my three AFVs were immobilized. Both of them were moving FAST at the time. One on open ground and one on a road. Conditions were clear and damp.

Out of curiosity, what model were these tanks? </font>

[GreenAsJade]

Has anyone had much success with pushing imobilised tanks?

I haven't been able to predict the direction that they will move when you bump into them :-(

[Brent Pollock]

Yeah - it can take some time to get it right. Definitely not a much used tactic.

[Gpig]

I've tried it a couple of times.

Worked well in my recent CMAK game where I used 1 PzIV to push an immob. one up a slope for better LOS/LOF. It took 3 turns to get it right, but it worked. That immob MkIV was then able to contribute it's smoke and HE to the rest of the battle.

The first time I tried it (as the russians), I ended up immobilizing the "pusher" tank, as well.

Gpig

[Sanok]

I was just discussing this with a current opponent. I don't care if BFC has precise statistics on how frequently tanks became immobile in the real war. I play because I want to pit my units and abilities versus my opponent's units and abilities. If I lose, I want it to be because I was outplayed, not because of some unnecessary feature that takes out my only tank on the second turn of the game.

In a current CMBO game, I had *three* Shermans become immobile while crossing wet, open terrain by the third turn of the game! None of them were immobilized because of combat.

It's great that BFC is committed to realism, but sometimes, things can be too real. This is still a game, after all.

[Xipe66]

Originally posted by Sanok:

This is still a game, after all.

But a game trying its best to simulate historic realities -> this more than just a game.

The other side of the coin is games like Il-2 Sturmovik where every unit is unaffected by any bad manufacturing or raw material realities... which is also fun, but leads to unhistoric use of some units (like our Überstug) - while bogging helps players use tanks a tad more careful - and possibly more realistic - when moving them.

I do however concur that an option to turn bogging off and on might be good, but I would probably still play with it turned on.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Sanok:

In a current CMBO game, I had *three* Shermans become immobile while crossing wet, open terrain by the third turn of the game! None of them were immobilized because of combat.

Well, there is a certain amount of skill and ability that would advise keeping your high ground pressure shermans on the road as much as possible when it's wet out, and moving as little and as slowly as possible if you have to go off road.

The big downside to "bogging" having an off switch is that tanks with high ground pressure would unrealistically zoom around through mud and scattered trees and other terrain types that prudent real life tankers would try to avoid.

[jacobs_ladder2]

In another game (I won't say which) a certain company made a version of Battle of Smolensk. Being during Barbarossa, the company decided to add a feature modeling the actual breakdown rate of tanks. Their reasoning was simple. Russian tanks simply sucked in 1941 and that was that. A good portion of them never moved, most of the rest didn't survive the trip to the battlefield and large numbers ran out of fuel, broke down or whatever. End of story, far more were lost to technical problems than to the Germans. Crappy, but there you go.

Players were up in arms within days after watching their tanks simply disappear. Most gave up immediately when they discovered they could not freely maneuver their armoured reserve about the battlefield. In fact, they whined about it so much that the company decided to lower the breakdown rate to something more in line with 1944.

Then those same players complained about their infantry being too vulnerable. Then they said their artillery was too weak. Then they said their men walked too slow and should have more trucks. In short, they started to sound just like Russian commanders in 1941.

After spending three months trying to make everyone happy the company realized that they had ruined a perfectly good game and undid all the changes. Ten years later people are still playing and loving the game, the company is still making new campaigns on the same engine and the designer sells his new stuff to the military.

And, btw, what is all this about being outplayed and not outlucked? In short, give me a break. If you are so easily beaten then your problem is not bogged vehicles but rather poor tactics and force selection.

Sure it's crappy to lose a big tank to soft ground or a blown transmission, but that's life. You take that chance when you spend all your points on a tiger. If you were clever enough to have purchased some AT guns, for example, and then knew where to place them you would still be able to kill the other guys stuff and have points to spare for arty or whatever.

Suggesting that CM change because you can't have blazing tank battles with the unstoppable metal beasts that you want is hilarious.

Cheers

Paul

[slysniper]

[And, btw, what is all this about being outplayed and not outlucked? In short, give me a break. If you are so easily beaten then your problem is not bogged vehicles but rather poor tactics and force selection.

Sure it's crappy to lose a big tank to soft ground or a blown transmission, but that's life. You take that chance when you spend all your points on a tiger. If you were clever enough to have purchased some AT guns, for example, and then knew where to place them you would still be able to kill the other guys stuff and have points to spare for arty or whatever.

Suggesting that CM change because you can't have blazing tank battles with the unstoppable metal beasts that you want is hilarious/QUOTE]

I have to agree with this statement, choosing the correct equipment and learning how to use your tanks in all weather conditions should be rewarded. Learn to deal with the issue as the real soldiers did, they didn't get to turn bog off because its not fun.

I think some of these type of features really add to the game, hope to even see more in the future, I can hear the cries now. Why not put fuel levels in tanks, possible chance of running out of fuel in battle, there better be a switch or many of you will not buy the game. How could they do something like that to a game. I think there isnt one thing in this game someone has not complained about, so no matter what the next game is like, no matter how much better it is, everything will be torn apart and someone will try to point out it could be even better. Can you just learn to enjoy what you have and learn to play it as is instead of always thinking that game must be fixed because it makes you lose.

[ April 14, 2005, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[walpurgis nacht]

It is amazing how much passion this topic still stirs. I think we would all agree with junktodrive's solution, " . . . there should be an on/off user choice button in a parameters screen." Is this right on or what!

If you're playing a really large CM battle with multiple platoons of armor, dealing with an immobilization on the fly could be a real reflection of skill. I think the problem is most of us play smaller battles (I mean really in 1000 QBs I cannot remember even once buying a whole platoon of Panthers!), where losing one tank can be a real show stopper.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

It is amazing how much passion this topic still stirs. I think we would all agree with junktodrive's solution, " . . . there should be an on/off user choice button in a parameters screen." Is this right on or what!

Well, I guess that depends on how many of these on/off switches players would require before ceasing to complain about "losing this or that unfairly".

Does bogging effect one player more than the other? No. It does not discriminate. Is it a completely random factor? No. There are determinants (i.e. ground pressure). Can immobilization generally be avoided by the experienced player? Yes. If tanks are used historically, do they perform historically? No. They perform much better. Historically, these things were a nightmare to maintain.

BFC has made a huge effort to accomodate many different types of gamers. The result is that a game, which by all rights should be a niche product, has done extremely well with a very diverse group of people. And surprisingly, it has done so without losing the respect of even the most hardcore grog.

And amidst all this talk of parameters, I would like to say that the player has VERY limited control over the realism of the game. A large amount of control is given over factors such as weather and force mix, but there are no on/off switches available which change the mechanics of the engine.

Arguably, the only one is the rarity option which was implemented to stop people from buying masses of panthers (and little else) and running rampant over the other guys who bought (imagine the stupidity!) a more historical mixed bag.

And as a closing point, the passion which many of us show for games like this one is easily understood. Simply put. We appreciate the amount of research, knowledge and energy that went into them. And we know how much more they are than "just a game".

Sadly, there will always be people who will look at them and say things like...

"why shouldn't there be a repair truck? or some way to replenish ammo on the battlefield? we're talking about a game here, so why bother with what happened in real life? if something adds to game balance and playability - bring it on!"

and...

"I don't care if BFC has precise statistics on how frequently tanks became immobile in the real war."

...statements which essentially say to BFC, thanks for all the hard work, years of study, passionate dedication and attention to detail but next time don't bother.

Cheers

Paul