Normandy: Immobilisations

[theFightingSeabee]

1. Make an incredibly complex detailing of things like soil, drainage, slopes, interplay of vegetation, etc.

Please make that! My company could use that!!!

Anyone who has worked with military vehicles and heavy equipment know that bogging happens ALL THE TIME. It's inevitable. My one big real operation I was a part of had people throwing spike balls in the road (several nails with the heads welded together (not bogging, but might as well have been). During this operation, we had a security vehicle (a jeep cherokee) get stuck. So they called in a deuce and a half to come in and pull it out. IT got stuck up to the pumpkin. So they called me, my mechanic hotwired a bulldozer (that wasn't ours) and I took it down to pull them both out.... I got stuck. The more we tried to get it all unstuck, the worse it got. The dozer ended up at least 4 feet deep! Keep in mind this is not my dozer! So I had to make the radio call back to my master chief. He was not pleased. He sent a HMMWV out with a bunch of wood so we could try to stuff it under the tracks to gain traction. It wasn't enough. We ended up filling up a dump truck with 'stuff' to stuff under the tracks. ALL of it was sucked under never to be seen again. Then we found out that the area was 'environmentally protected'. Great. We spent all day there trying to get it out and couldn't. Then I had to talk to the actual owner of the dozer... he was pissed. We ended up having to dig a 100' trench 5 feet deep and drag the dozer out. The other vehicles were eventually pulled out.

Bogging is a regular part of vehicles operations, especially when off road.

[SD Smack]

Then we found out that the area was 'environmentally protected'. Great.

HA! great story! so was it the red cockaded woodpeacker?

steve-o

[flamingknives]

I would be more concerned about tanks driving across railway tracks - the rails would be a real danger to tank tracks.

That said, there needs to be some allowance for level crossings.

[birdstrike]

Nah, we need to be able to drive across tracks, if we want to model this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RP8-UGvx4

[Battlefront.com]

ASL Vet,

Personally, I think bogging in CMBO was way over the top for the Sherman.

Yeah, there are definitely some situations where, for whatever reason, the general rules don't seem to apply correctly to a specific unit/vehicle. Perhaps the Sherman was one such vehicle. I don't remember if the old CMx1 code had the ability to special case vehicles to tweak them towards being more/less prone to bogging than their stats alone indicate, but I know for sure it's possible with the current code.

Having said that though, the bogging in CMBB and CMAK didn't seem out of line and the bogging so far in CMSF really seems to be a non issue. Sure it happens every once in a while but it's rare enough that it doesn't really bother me.

Thanks for another example of why finding the right balance on something like this is so difficult to do. Depending on someone's personal perspective Feature X might be too much, too little, or just about right. Unfortunately, there's rarely data for stuff like this that's in any way useable (if it even exists, that is).

But like Seabee and others (including me) have stated... getting a vehicle stuck is pretty common and very easy to do as soon as you leave the road. Years ago I got a tracked vehicle stuck because a 3" diameter stick got kicked up and wedged inbetween the track and the hull. That was on dry ground in the summer with a vehicle that can drive on 4' of powder snow, swim in the ocean, and drive through swamps. Yet there I was, completely stuck because if a stupid twig hooked itself onto a track just the wrong way. In fact it wedged in so hard that it bent the sheet metal frame a wee bit! I had to wrap a tow rope around the stick and use a come-a-long to yank the stick out. No operator in the world could have avoided something like that happening, but I bet many wouldn't have managed to get themselves unstuck

Steve

[Redwolf]

I really don't see how one photo of 4-wheeler vehicle getting stuck in snow (obviously deep snow by CMx1s standards) bring us any further in establishing probabilities. And don't forget that the driver attempted to drive over that section of terrain, which probably means that getting stuck in there isn't too common.

The original question remains, what is a realistic rate for 30 minutes of moving? What we have seen for some vehicles in CMx1 in 30 minute timeframe would certainly not have enabled any tank forces in WW2 to make any headway for large offensives.

Redwolf, do you stand by your statement or not? Name names.

Otherwise I can only assume that you meant me and take offense.

What? Where's that coming from? Of course not.

[Redwolf]

Well, considering how much emphasis BFC puts on realism, I don't see how you can dismiss it as irrelevant.

That being said, I have encountered less bogging in CMSF when played at lower difficulty levels. Not at all a scientific study, but that's the way it appears to me.

Again, CM:SF doesn't have bog rates even in the same order of magnitude compared to CMx1.

That is why some posters here keep scratching their heads why this is a big deal. It's the CMx2 forum and many didn't play CMx1. Those who didn't play CMx1 and assume it was the same as CMx2 are bound to be mislead.

[c3k]

Ah, whatever happened to that great discourse on Mean Maximum Pressure? (No sarcasm meant.) It was very enlightening concerning factors which led to certain tanks having better flotation than others. The old formula of dividing the weight by the area of the track was shown to be a very rough approximation of reality.

Regardless, the bogging seems better in CMSF than it was in CMBB/AK. Of course, that could just be the increase in technology in the newer vehicles. Better traction, easier driving, much more horsepower, more robust transmissions, etc.

I just want to be able to see my berserk spetsnatz hurl a log into a Tiger's main sprocket. Once that happens I'll know that BF.C is serious about this whole "realistic wargaming" mantra.

Regards,

Ken

[Boris Balaban]

I would like to know how often do tanks and other heavy vehicle entering a battle really get stuck? Would they not drive with caution for if they get stuck they are a dead duck or useless as teats on a bull. But with all the precautions it could still happened as it should in the game.

[JonS]

That is why some posters here keep scratching their heads why this is a big deal. It's the CMx2 forum and many didn't play CMx1. Those who didn't play CMx1 and assume it was the same as CMx2 are bound to be mislead.

Perhaps. Then again there are many other posters here who've played CM since before 'BO was released. They, too, are scratching their heads as to why this is a big deal.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I really don't see how one photo of 4-wheeler vehicle getting stuck in snow (obviously deep snow by CMx1s standards) bring us any further in establishing probabilities.

Yup, that's right. It's the only thing that's been put forward in this entire discussion to show that vehicle commonly bog. Good thing you've read all the posts, otherwise this conversation would be completely lost without your careful and non-selective viewpoint.

BTW, that one picture I posted is more evidence than you've put forward

The original question remains, what is a realistic rate for 30 minutes of moving? What we have seen for some vehicles in CMx1 in 30 minute timeframe would certainly not have enabled any tank forces in WW2 to make any headway for large offensives.

It depends. In some circumstances in real life 100% of the vehicles would bog in similar circumstances within 10 minutes. Plus, vehicles stuck to roads whenever possible because going off road always (always) entailed the risk of bogging.

But as to your point, I've already pointed out that there's been millions of virtual vehicles used by you players over the last 10 years. Seriously... don't you think that there should be a few tens of thousands of them bogging and a decent percentage of them becoming immobilized? That would be around 1% or so. I think if a general were told that 1% of his vehicles would be stuck during a major combat operation he'd be thrilled.

The problem here is as it always is... people remember when a vehicle bogs and focus in on it. The average WW2 tanker would be in how many engagements in his life? A couple dozen if he was lucky, right? The average CM player has probably commanded that many vehicles in a single scenario. So what we have here is a stage set for things being taken out of context.

That is why some posters here keep scratching their heads why this is a big deal. It's the CMx2 forum and many didn't play CMx1. Those who didn't play CMx1 and assume it was the same as CMx2 are bound to be mislead.

There's a leap Most of the guys here have played CMx1 and have said as much. The thing is they don't agree with your point of view, so that's why they keep scratching their heads.

Again, I'm not saying CMx1 or CM:SF has it right. What I'm saying is that this is a molehill issue, not a mountain. I'll repeat myself again... if we REALLY had it so completely wrong, do you really think for a second that hundred of people wouldn't have been on our backs at the time? I for one know from experience they would be. So at best we might have been a wee bit too harsh with bogging/immobilization. But only just a wee bit. Which is why I don't expect that CM: Normandy will be that different than CMBB/AK.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Perhaps. Then again there are many other posters here who've played CM since before 'BO was released. They, too, are scratching their heads as to why this is a big deal.

heh... scary, but true.

To get back around to the main points...

CM: Normandy will have a fresh look taken at bogging/immobilization rates. Every time we make a new game we do that, so it's SOP for us. Testers, and then customers, will get their respective chances to chime in and influence the way it works. And no matter what, someone will be unhappy with whatever we settle on. That's as sure to happen as the sun rising tomorrow or me having to see yet another dozen news stories on Swine Flu H1N1

Steve

[Redwolf]

There would be a much better fight here if people weren't all agreeing so damn much...

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

There would be a much better fight here if people weren't all agreeing so damn much...

There would be a much better "fight" if the side saying we have bogging all out of whack actually presented a solid case for saying so

While "fights" are idiotic, rational discourse is a great thing to have here when there is a topic with disagreement. We have that here. However, since I never expect everybody to agree on any particular thing (name a topic, I'll prove it ) a discussion where almost everybody takes one side and almost nobody takes the other side is about as close as we can get to a consensus. So far the consensus is that vehicles bog easily and often when they go off road. This is not based on a single picture, but on a ton of first hand experience with various military and civilian vehicles off road.

Of course the specific terrain, weather, and characteristics of a vehicle have a huge bearing on how likely it is to bog. When we get to this with Normandy that's the sort of stuff we'll be looking for. We have no vested interest in vehicles bogging, therefore we're just as concerned about "getting it right" as anybody else who values realism vs. "gamey" compromises. The fact that we'll never get everybody to agree on what "right" is doesn't bother us a bit. It's par for the course.

Steve

[Apocal]

Again, CM:SF doesn't have bog rates even in the same order of magnitude compared to CMx1.

I was saying that turning down the difficultly level might reduce rates of bogging. Obviously wet soil and mud are going to bog vehicles more than arid desert and city streets.

That is why some posters here keep scratching their heads why this is a big deal. It's the CMx2 forum and many didn't play CMx1. Those who didn't play CMx1 and assume it was the same as CMx2 are bound to be mislead.

I played CMBO for a month or two and recently picked it back up a few weeks ago. I don't recall bogging being absurdly excessive, although my sample size probably isn't the best.

[Runaway!!!]

If people are really so concerned with bogging and immobilization rates, they can just do what I did back in the CMBO days.

Save every turn, reload undesirable turns until you're satisfied with the results AKA "Cheating".

[tagge]

This is a cartoon I made a few years ago (under the name of "Nietzsche").

And bogging still stirs up conversations it seems...

[Apocal]

This is a cartoon I made a few years ago

Just because the grass is green doesn't mean it's all good to drive on.

[bodkin]

It's interesting that the most active threads in the CMSF forum lately are about the upcoming WW2 game. Personally I might buy CMSF British Forces but after that it's not of any interest to me, I mean everyone is ganging up on the poor Syrians,the main battle would be over in a couple of weeks, no need for the lesser Nato countries to get involved.

BFC said it wasn't about creating a simulation of post war Iraq with insurgents being the main combatant.

I just see this thread as an example of how hungry we are for another WW2 game.

[Thomm]

I just see this thread as an example of how hungry we are for another WW2 game.

Many are, certainly.

Personally, I am not sure how much excitement I can muster for the Normandy setting ... have been there in too many games already!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I just see this thread as an example of how hungry we are for another WW2 game.

Perhaps this is because there's no CM:Normandy forum? Personally, I want CM:N, but I also don't want them to stop CM:SF modules. I think I'll still be playing CM:SF as well as CM:N once the latter comes out.

[Battlefront.com]

Bodkin,

I just see this thread as an example of how hungry we are for another WW2 game.

Heh... you should have seen the threads that popped up right after we said we were going to do a modern game instead of WW2. That would have given you the impression that nobody wanted anything other than WW2. Perception can be a bit off from reality sometimes

It's not surprising to me that people want to talk about Normandy. The WW2 guys that skipped CM:SF because of the setting are starting to drift back in now that they see there's light at the end of their tunnel. Plus, we've already said there won't be a dramatic change to any of the game engine stuff for Brits or NATO Modules, and let's be honest... that's the fun stuff to talk about. There's only so far you can get with discussions about the hardware without actually playing it first hand.

Steve

[flamingknives]

What? Where's that coming from? Of course not.

Then to who are you referring to?

[Malakie]

Bodkin,

Heh... you should have seen the threads that popped up right after we said we were going to do a modern game instead of WW2. That would have given you the impression that nobody wanted anything other than WW2. Perception can be a bit off from reality sometimes

It's not surprising to me that people want to talk about Normandy. The WW2 guys that skipped CM:SF because of the setting are starting to drift back in now that they see there's light at the end of their tunnel. Plus, we've already said there won't be a dramatic change to any of the game engine stuff for Brits or NATO Modules, and let's be honest... that's the fun stuff to talk about. There's only so far you can get with discussions about the hardware without actually playing it first hand.

Steve

Now I am one of those that is SICK of WWII games and scenarios. And being that I am a U.S. Military service connected disabled Veteran of recent, I want to see more games like Combat MIssion Shock Force in MODERN day scenario. There are so many WWII games out there that it is just overloaded. To be honest, I cannot figure out why so many people are still stuck on that era for these game types. It takes a lot more thinking and planning to function in a modern battle than in the past because modern battles make it easier to find and kill. With that you have to plan and actually use concealment and cover properly where in WWII situations, inaccurate fire was common and many times you could get away with things you cannot today.

Sims based on modern tech also allow for much bigger and larger play areas and distances as well. Someday I would love to see a sim that allows you to operate in two different visual gameplay styles yet is fully strategic.

Imagine a game where you have an overview strategic view of the world, you move your pieces around the world (think something like Supreme Ruler or perhaps Hearts of Iron II or even better yet, Pacific Storm Allies) then when a battle occurs, you 'zoom' or change to 3D tactical mode like Combat Mission Shock Force to resolve the battle.

Pacific Storm Alllies is a game very much like what I am referring to BUT it is lacking in substance and detail like I want AND it only covers, again, WWII. Plus it also only covers Naval combat. I want a full sim that covers everything, Naval, land, air, etc... Heck future add-ons to a game engine like that could add Space combat as well.

I know it would take a while to develop something like this, since I am a dev myself (not a game dev), but the things one could do with a game engine like this.. The add on and expansion capabilities would be endless.

Anyhow, I would love to see a true modern sim instead of another WWII sim. And since I think CMSF is one of the best tactical battle sims, I hope they will continue to enhance and add to it well into the future. I am looking forward and hoping they do modules for NATO, Russia, China, Iran, Korea and many others. Still, imagine adding a strategic level to this game and then moving into this 3D tactical level to resolve battles.....

[Battlefront.com]

Not to worry! Starting with the game after Normandy we will have Modern and WW2 "families" going in parallel. The reason is that the two markets have some overlap, but not much. That means we can easily put out the two concurrently without robbing ourselves of sales. Even better, the market for modern wargames is a nice size. Not as big as US centric WW2 Western Front (that's the big one), true enough, but it's still plenty big enough to continue to devote resources to for as long as we can see ahead. Plus, unlike WW2 each Modern wargame we do will have different hardware, organizations, and matchups because that stuff is ALWAYS evolving. WW2, for obvious reasons , is set in stone.

Steve