Immobilizations In CM And Why I Want Them Reduced

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sanok:

Another ignoramus. Why does defending your view need to be laced with insults about my playing ability, when you know nothing about what happened in the scenario?

Your complaint about 'laced with insults' would carry more weight if you did not call others names, or dismissed their postings as 'inane flapping'

So instead of explaining to you why it was not an insult, I will only encourage you to remove your head from where it got stuck after some great display of bendiness.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

Well if you choose to focus on the one comment not based in hardened logic just to be a dick, well so be it . . .but if you review my comments with a little more care I think it's clear you're out of context here.

In fact I've agreed with you about Kraut armor. Ah never-mind . . . it's not worth it.

I posted my replies before reading the latest postings, including the one where you agreed with me.

I am all ears for a discussion on breakdown probabilities. Not one based on flashes of memory. I am also intrigued by this desire to remove luck and chance, and why it is so focussed on this feature. From reading your posts this maybe behind your reasoning as well? There is nothing wrong with it per se, we all have our visions of the game, and they will by necessity differ.

I would not have any problem with a reduced bog-rate overall, if it is fixed, not variable by the player. I believe there was some discussion a long time ago on why using PSI alone may not give a correct figure, and I think that made quite a convincing case. Something technical to do with flotation, as one might expect. I would also welcome a reduction of bogging probability in scattered trees - from the accounts I have read that should be relatively safe terrain.

But those changes (or improvements in CMx2) can not be based on misunderstandings - see in my post above, or just plain misrepresentation - see a).

Anyway, I am off now for a sponsored dinner in Oslo's best restaurant. So have fun.

[flamingknives]

After driving 25 PzIIINs across a 6km field at Fast, I lost 2 to immobilizations, and 4 more were bogged but subsequently recovered. A further 15 T34s drove across a similar, 8km, field and lost four of their number to immobilisations.

The Germans do not seem unduly inconvenienced.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Anyway, I am off now for a sponsored dinner in Oslo's best restaurant. So have fun.

Good boy. Taking bribes will get you far...

[Zveroboy]

This discussion is pointless IMO because :

1/ Yes it seems a tad overmodelled in CMBB, but BFC is not going to patch it anyway.

2/ The bog rate is pretty much spot on with CMAK. Tanks bog significantly less and when they do, they are less likely to be permanently immobilized.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

After driving 25 PzIIINs across a 6km field at Fast, I lost 2 to immobilizations, and 4 more were bogged but subsequently recovered. A further 15 T34s drove across a similar, 8km, field and lost four of their number to immobilisations.

The Germans do not seem unduly inconvenienced.

I don't have the game here - what's the PSI?

Tried it with Panzer IV (late models) or King Tigers?

[flamingknives]

You do realise that would entail restarting my computer?

[walpurgis nacht]

I just ran a lengthy bogging test comparing BB to AK. It confirms my earlier posts on this decisively.

In both cases I fast moved tiger Is (middle varient), 4000m over flat dry ground, july '43. 6 sets of 320 tanks. At the end of the run I counted the immobilized tanks.

BB 1,920 tanks, 201 immobile =10.4%

AK 1,920 tanks, 68 immobile= 3%

If this were even close you could debate it somewhat, but it seems pretty clear that even BF wanted to tone it down a bit in AK.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

I just ran a lengthy bogging test comparing BB to AK. It confirms my earlier posts on this decisively.

In both cases I fast moved tiger Is (middle varient), 4000m over flat dry ground, july '43. 6 sets of 320 tanks. At the end of the run I counted the immobilized tanks.

BB 1,920 tanks, 201 immobile =10.4%

AK 1,920 tanks, 68 immobile= 3%

If this were even close you could debate it somewhat, but it seems pretty clear that even BF wanted to tone it down a bit in AK.

Yikes. That is really high. This is across dry open ground right? So how about roads? Would be interesting to run a few tests on dirt roads to see how often it happens.

Cheers

Paul

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

I just ran a lengthy bogging test comparing BB to AK. It confirms my earlier posts on this decisively.

In both cases I fast moved tiger Is (middle varient), 4000m over flat dry ground, july '43. 6 sets of 320 tanks. At the end of the run I counted the immobilized tanks.

BB 1,920 tanks, 201 immobile =10.4%

AK 1,920 tanks, 68 immobile= 3%

If this were even close you could debate it somewhat, but it seems pretty clear that even BF wanted to tone it down a bit in AK.

Yikes. That is really high. This is across dry open ground right? So how about roads? Would be interesting to run a few tests on dirt roads to see how often it happens.

Cheers

Paul </font>

[David I]

Nice research!

Try 3,000 tanks at 40,000 meters! Doesn't matter. Moot point. No further patches are forth coming.

However you may want to explore how many Hell's Angels can **** on the head of a Pimp.

DavidI

[dieseltaylor]

"If this were even close you could debate it somewhat, but it seems pretty clear that even BF wanted to tone it down a bit in AK."

Possibly, and possibly it means dry is substantially drier in the Med - and that neither of us can prove the if it is not a mixture of both reasons that lead to a reduction in bogging. [or that it is special treatment for Tigers : )]

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

I just ran a lengthy bogging test comparing BB to AK. It confirms my earlier posts on this decisively.

In both cases I fast moved tiger Is (middle varient), 4000m over flat dry ground, july '43. 6 sets of 320 tanks. At the end of the run I counted the immobilized tanks.

BB 1,920 tanks, 201 immobile =10.4%

AK 1,920 tanks, 68 immobile= 3%

If this were even close you could debate it somewhat, but it seems pretty clear that even BF wanted to tone it down a bit in AK.

Yikes. That is really high. This is across dry open ground right? So how about roads? Would be interesting to run a few tests on dirt roads to see how often it happens.

Cheers

Paul </font>

[dieseltaylor]

In the spirit of boggedness and to help those who chose the boggier tanks I have just completed a 30 minute test - in wet.

Stug III Green - two out of three immobilised

Stug III Crack - none immobilised

Stug IV Crack - none immobilised

Tiger II Crack - one out of four

Tiger II Green - two out of four

It seemed that the crack crews would bog but extricate themselves. The III had the heaviest PSI and the IV the lightest. The IV's had one bog only whilst the crack Tigers had three - excluding the fatal one.

BFC fix it or sumfink - better crews unfairly benefit!!!!

BTW the TigerI was known for getting ice,rocks and other obstacles caught in its interleaved track wheels jamming the tracks - slightly improved design for the TigerII from the rock point of view but the new design had a twisting motion on the tracks. They both suffered from freezing snow gumming the tracks.

[c3k]

Gents,

I've just finished reading "Thunder Run", which I heartily recommend. It's an account by an embedded journalist of several days of heavy combat into Baghdad. Principally focussing on armored task forces penetrating urban environments.

Now for the on-topic part: I was amazed at the number of vehicular breakdowns and weapon malfunctions.

Now, if you assume CM uses bog to represent something other than mud up to the axles, I do not think bog is too high in the game. YMMV.

Regards,

Ken

[Paul AU]

Dieseltaylor, you said:

…a realistic game then I am afraid bogging… should remain. – No one has talked about removing bogging from the game, nor has anyone said that 'realism' in itself is a bad thing.

You say that my acceptance indicates no skill or knowledge… – Actually I said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, what I actually said was that ‘skill and knowledge’, with regard to the type of bogging I was discussing – simply doesn’t come into the equation.

…the poster after you explained about the Russian snows and armoured cars.

The ‘poster after me’ merely made a statement of the obvious, which was irrelevant to what I’d said. Nothing was ‘explained’. Dieseltaylor, review the posts you’re referring to, and at least see that I was not making any comment on anyone’s ‘skill’, least of all yours.

GS_Guderian,

You are contradicting yourself a little me thinks:

1. As long as you just tweak the proportion the whole issue stays alike… Thus we have the same whining, just less often!?

That would be the easier way, and yes, game-screwing-random-bogs would be reduced. A better way, as I suggested, would be for probabilities below a certain value to be rounded to ‘zero’ to give players positive control of the worst-offending examples.

2. If you say you tweak the proportion to an extent, that it virtually doesn´t happe on dry ground anymore, it is NOT tweaking anymore. (etc) 2 you will very much end up with tanks that are totaly unaffected by bogging on dry ground, roads etc. while others are biased because of a mathematically higher and thus possible chance to still bog.

In the case of your point 1, your point 2 isn’t an issue, because, as I said, the chance will never actually be zero, and all risks remain in the same proportion.

In my preferred case however, where road and dry-ground boggings don’t happen at all, at ‘safe’ speeds, it would simply be a question of ‘tweaking’ the right variable. If the ‘terrain propensity to bog’ variable were to drop below a ‘zero’ value as you describe, and is indeed what I suggested, it would still effect all vehicles equally.

No vehicle would be bogged on roads and dry ground if those terrain types multiplier was ‘zero’ (anything multiplied by zero, is zero) (assuming they are the first terrain types to hit this ‘zero’ level).

And you really think, that wouldn´t call for changes in Prices?

As I’ve described it, none at all.

3. Your idea of having tanks never fail on dry ground or roads totaly fails to grasp the whole concept of bogging. It takes into account much more then just loosing a track.

Of course it does. And that’s completely irrelevant.

You aren´t even answering to this argumentation.

That’s because it isn’t an argument. The mechanical cause of the scenario-critical vehicle-bog has no bearing on what’s being discussed at all.

'Roads and Dry Ground' are being talked about only because they represent the minimum 'safe' terrain that would give players the option of NOT taking crap-shoot risks of bogging as it is in CM:BB at the moment.

[Paul AU]

jacobs_ladder2, you said:

So let me get this straight. You DO NOT have control because you DO have control (That’s your idea of ‘straight?)

…just NOT in all situations. In the described situations, which are not ALL situations, you have NO control. Does that about sum it up?

I think:

“in the situations being described, the player has no control” , (which is what I actually said)

…”sums it up”, rather better…

In other words, in the exceptional situation where a tank inexplicably, or without apparent explanation, bogs (“on a road or on dry ground” you seem to have inexplicably left that part out) , you have no control.

Unless, as I said, not moving your tank during the whole game, counts as ‘control’.

In other situations, which we are, according to you, not discussing, you have control. Yes, for example, driving your tank at high speed into a swamp. That's something you decide to do, aware of the risk. But no one has complained about that yet (according to me) - and we’re not discussing that sort of situation. Are we.

Therefore, you have no control.

In the situations being described, clearly not.

Please correct me if I have mistated your reasoning.

You haven’t stated any ‘reasoning’; merely taken a very long time, to attempt to obfuscate the simplest of facts:

In the situations being described, the player has no control.

You also energetically said:

And finally, a synopsis of (one of my) statement(s)... …being historically correct only matters when it is not detrimental to the player… (etc)

… no, to the game. Please read the posts you’re responding too more closely.

Or better put...historical accuracy should only be included in the game when it is not potentially disadvantageous to the player.

A better put, misrepresentation. I'm not aware of anyone having said that.

Which logically implies, the player should have control over historical accuracy for those situations in which said accuracy is a possible detriment to their chances of winning.

It seems you’ve typed several paragraphs in reply to something that’s never been said, or implied, by anyone here. (Not entirely a logical thing to do)

Here’s what I’d actually said: “It doesn’t make any difference whether the ‘bad luck’ happened to me or my opponent, the game is equally screwed.”

Does that about cover it?

I had to look carefully for anything in your post that related to anything actually being said by anyone. I’ll just say, I think it’s been better 'covered' elsewhere…

[Paul AU]

Andreas said:

(Edit: in the 'a, b, c' below, Andreas is (he thinks) paraphrasing others comments, not 'saying it', himself. In case that wasn't clear).

a) Seemingly every time my tanks enter scattered trees they bog. By the most unlucky CM player in the universe, or someone who's memory is tricking him. Not an issue.

The over-eagerness of vehicles to bog, in general, is clearly an issue to many people here.

My AC bogged in a road in snow. Not a bug, a feature. ACs should bog there.

I was the one that mentioned the bogged AC. Andreas, go back to page 2 of this thread, and read what I actually wrote. At no time did I or anyone else suggest anything was a 'bug', nor did I complain about bogged ACs, per se. You're misrepresenting me, in fact.

c) Tanks bog and then break down completely on dry ground. Yep, could be a problem... Could it be you just remember it because the 'flash of anger'

Something I had said, earlier, was: " ‘game spoiler’ bogging is rare. But when it happens, they’re hard to forget. I think the point is, why have any games ‘spoiled’ at all, when a fix would be easy to implement?"

I am all ears for a discussion on breakdown probabilities. Not one based on flashes of memory…

See above. I’d thought it was one ‘based on’ not having games wrecked unnecessarily. My memory's clear on how often it happens, and I’ve explained why it’s still worth fixing in CMx2.

[ April 21, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

[Paul AU]

Jason asked about ‘motivation’, and for my part it was that too many of the responses to the ‘anti bogging’ posts were setting up and attacking ‘straw men’, misrepresenting the anti-bogging case. Either that, or many people simply didn’t understand what was being said.

I put quite some time, in good faith, into trying to correct these mispprehensions.

“I don’t think that the ‘pro’ bogging people are properly reading what the ‘anti’ bogging people are saying”, is how I started on this.

The persistent misconceptions are that anti-bog posters:

1) Are only complaining because they don’t like to loose a game.

2) Don’t have the skill to avoid game-spoiling immobilisations

3) Are against any form of ‘luck’ in a simulation game.

4) Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’.

5) If they do understand, they must be against realism per se.

6) Are against any form of bogging in the game.

I think that I and others have demonstrated all the above lines of ‘argument’ are bogus, and have no basis in anything that’s actually been said by the anti-boggers.

Despite this, I see the very same misrepresentations and straw-men still being raised at great length and despite my and others best efforts.

So, some people either:

a) can’t be bothered to properly read the posts they’re responding to.

literally can’t see the distinctions being so (laboriously and repeatedly) made

c) Just like winding others up by ignoring points, or intentionally misrepresenting them.

None of those cases justifies continuing contributing here.

I did however learn two things:

You can sometimes push tanks out of bogs

It’s easy to bog a discussion here. (And that’s quite a spoiler, too).

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

...That’s because it isn’t an argument. The mechanical cause of the scenario-critical vehicle-bog has no bearing on what’s being discussed at all...

Well,

for me it is all one issue. The game does not tell me why my tank isn´t moving, it just stops moving. So in any case it could be a mechanical breakdown, something in my tracks, a lost track, a lack or loss of fuel, a sleeping driver whatever.

Why are you trying to seperate things, that cannot be sperated at all regarding the game engine?

Or to put it in an easier way:

How many F1 cars break down on muddy terrain?

Might it be possible that even the most excellent technique fails on top of the edge roads?

Think about it.

[dieseltaylor]

Paul Au

"I hope Battlefront either tones it way down, or better, makes 'bogging' a player-determined level of probability.

As has been said, it can be a game-spoiler. "

You are defending your corner well - and given nothing will be changed it would almost seem to be a pointlesss exercise. However the benefits arriving from the discussion in testing and historical information may actually be beneficial.

Regarding your quote - specifically that: "better, makes 'bogging' a player-determined level of probability."

I deduce from that .0001% would be some players decision - untutored in the mechanical unreliability of different WWII vehicles or the fact that roads were normally dirt. Another player may have a view that 8% or 5% is more realistic. How are you going to reconcile their views or does it not matter - each to their own ..... play the AI or simply play people who accept your version of the game.

BTW do you think your knowledge has improved from the thread?

[Paul AU]

GS_Guderian,

You are continuing with fallacy number 4) (we) Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’. Try re-reading what’s already been said about this.

Dieseltaylor,

You are defending your corner well... .. my 'corner' is merely to add a little justice to the injustice meted to the intial posters.

...almost seem to be a pointlesss exercise.

If you'd read what I wrote earlier, you wouldn't be saying that.

To repeat: I hope someone can alert BFC to this 'discussion' so that if the 'bogging' regime in CMx2 is the same, at least we'll know that it was their conscious decision to disregard the concerns raised here.

…untutored in the mechanical unreliability of different WWII vehicles or the fact that roads were normally dirt.

You are continuing with fallacy number 4) (we)Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’.

If you’d have read what I’ve said, you’ll note a complete absence of argument about the fact immobilisations are ’realistic’. This has been specifically addressed in previous posts. Have a re-read.

And everything (else) you’ve just said, has already been addressed as well.

BTW do you think your knowledge has improved from the thread?

What’s the last thing I said, before this post? (Yes, I’m suggesting you read what I wrote).

I suppose I could add a third thing I’ve ‘learned’:

It’s more than possible that BFC have implicitly acknowledged their bogging rate was too high, by reducing it in CM: AK.

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

...GS_Guderian,

You are continuing with fallacy number 4) (we) Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’. Try re-reading what’s already been said about this...

And again you are evading the issue. Lack of arguments?

Point is you can´t discuss about the mal proportion of immobilisations, if you seperate the different causes. The game won´t, why should we do?

You are going circles...

[JasonC]

GS-Guderian, sorry you are committing a simple fallacy. The person you are talking to does not make some possible distinction. It is not part of his argument and does not change any point in his argument. To make an offered distinction relevant, something the other person is saying has to turn on the two sides of it. That they merely are distinct, is quite irrelevant.

In the present context, whether an immobilization "represents" the driver's heart attack or the track or the oil pan or the transmission yada yada, is completely irrelevant to someone who is objecting to lack of control. He doesn't care if it represents invaders from Mars, he objects to the game effect of the outcome, not to what it purports to model. You can only address his concern by actually addressing his concern, not be bringing up n additional made up justifications for what he already sees and objects to.

If his argument were, immobilizations only reflect things getting stuck in a track and nothing in open ground can be stuck in a track (call this "A"), then the distinction would have merit. But he is not making that argument ("A"). A's merely possible existence and your enthusiasm for your own argument against that A, are not sufficient to put A into his mouth.

[GS_Guderian]

@ JC

Originally posted by Paul AU:

...In the game-spoiling situations that are of concern here, it’s completely irrelevant who-not-getting bogged on flat-firm-dry-ground (or road) advantages, because that individual game’s screwed anyway...

...The proportional effect remains the same. If the ‘proportional effect’ makes getting bogged on hard dry ground impossible – as above...

Well I don´t know if it´s my lack of English, but for me he makes a difference between immobilisations. How else do you explain, that he advocates a "proportional effect" of Zero, on dry terrain and roads? It´s rather obvious that he doesn´t take other immob´ reasons than loosing a track into account. And THIS is the flaw in my pont of view. I know you guys don´t like it, but the game ain´t screwed because you "loose" a tank once in while on dry ground, it will be screwed if you make it impossible that tank get immobed in all kinds of places. Because the "so-called heart-attack of the driver" can happen anytime and any place.

A machine and especially WWII tanks aren´t 100% realiable. For a gazillion reasons. Why do you keep blaming it all onto ONE reason then?

Continuous statements, that you aren´t interested in other reasons for immobilisations aren´t an argument, as I said.

The overall proportion of breakdowns might be to low or to high, who knows. But we can´t seperate one single reason and work only with that as far as I see it. Or to formulate it a little more precise:

A huge array of reasons for breakdowns that end in immobilisation are not place bound.

Therefore it doesn´t make sense to give players control over them, unless we want a game that is more arcade style.