aka_tom_w

Just as a point of reference this Strategy Guide (if it is correct) lists the Ferdinand (Elephant) with a PSI of 16.9 That is a HEAVY tank, possibly one of the heaviest in the game PSI wise! If this WHOLE thread is about the unrealistic bogging of Elephants (with the PSI of 16.9) then I might suggest ALL this attention and bitching about the bogging model in CMBB is unwarrented and highly over blown :eek: . (IMHO) -tom w

I recall somebody saying that not all models will in fact be included. More to the point, it was unlikely that either T-44 or IS-3 would get their own models. Which is a shame: Even if they are _veery_ rare, they still are distinctly cool/sweet looking and deserve their own models. </font>

That is a good point Which thread was that? Can you post a link. I don't think this discussion would be complete without some mention of Mean Maximum Pressure. -tom w [ January 11, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Kind of stirring the pot a bit, but this was fair to say, then I would want for certain vehicles like the Panther D, and others being more mechanically unreliable than some given "average," to have a heightened chance to "bog." Especially if run while in "fast move" command. No, I don't expect for such a thing to be done in CMBB. But later on, it would be good to consider......</font>

I recall reading that as well. It went something like... "We hope to test the hell out of v1.02 so that after its release there will be NOTHING left to tweak or fix that we can't live with (or already know about), so that it will be the final CMBB patch and we can move on to the engine re-write" Or some words to that effect IIRC -tom w

Steve, got any spare time? I'd like to hook you up at the US Army Armor School teaching new tank battalion commanders how to behave in the Pre-Command Course. Go to any US Army tank battalion right now, and I guarantee you that nearly every tank (if not every tank) is running around with unrepaired faults. Granted, most of those are going to be minor stuff that doesn't affect the tank's ability to fight (dammit! my seat cushion has been on order for 6 months now!), but fact of the matter is that tanks are complicated machines and complicated machines break often. I can only imagine what it was like during WWII when the tank was still in it's infancy (relatively speaking..."Wow, look at these American tanks Gunther, they have Power Turrets...."). It's hard enough to get parts for an M1A1 in the year 2003, let alone a King Tiger in Russia in 1944...(damn Americans bombed the parts warehouse again...). Anybody who's ever read anything about Kursk (most people here probably, including the original poster I'd bet) will remember that the new Panther, which was supposed to be the Anti-T34, barely made it out of the assembly areas due to maintenance problems. Talk about a commander relying on a piece of equipment as part of his plan for victory! Jeff Leslie[/QB]</font>

ah Perfect! I love it when a plan comes together! I knew a bogging and immobolization GROG would show up here at some point. Thanks for the post K Canuck! -tom w P.S. Can you explain more about those things like u/c and the other short forms and abbreviations that some of us might not understand?

"I disagree strongly. The bulk of CM's audience expects the game to behave realistically. And when they see something they didn't think of before they are (generally) pleased to learn something new." Perhaps you might say the target market they are most interesting in selling to..... "expects the game to behave realistically". (just to be fair) I think everyone else is just along for the ride, because it is fun and entertaining and there is a GREAT forum here, where we can all be heard and complain about those aspects of the game we would like to see tweaked or fixed. -tom w

Hi Steve My guess is this experience with the weasle does, in some small way "colored" the way bogging and immobolization are modeled in the game. -tom w [ January 10, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

If we were to stick to the discussion of the PSI and Tracked vehicles we might LEARN a great deal from catapillar tracked construction equipment even today. I know this is only anecdotal, BUT my brother is a Service Manager and was a mechanic for a BIG heavy equipment manufacturer. He relates stories about tracked heavy equipment got bogged because inexperienced operators figure since it had "tracks" it could never get stuck. Heavy equipment (PSI is still a factor here) like catapillar bulldozers can bog easily because just like how inexperienced 4x4 drivers find out once the belly of the vehicle takes all the wieght and when there is no traction, no amount of horse power, 4 wheel drive or catipilar traction will move the beast because it is bottomed out, or high centered. In the game tanks get bogged, if they get a "bad roll" that leads to immobolization, thus the game models trying to get out of bogged position and then bottoming out with the belly of the tank taking all the weight, OR throwing a track in the effort to un-bog. (thus it gets GOOD and Stuck!) I would be very interested to invite modern day heavy equipment construction operators to comment here. Amongst the 11 thousand members here surely someone has some experience driving heavy construction equipment with Catipillar tracks? :confused: how often do they bog down? Keep those comments coming in. -tom w [ January 10, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is a great idea, but hopefully with the new engine. Not "we can squeeze one more game out of it before the rewrite".... I'm sick of routed troops with no memories etc! Did I mention Full Movie Replay? </font>

Oh I agree completely Tank duels and the results of AP hits on AFV's now involve a far greater element of LUCK than bogging IMHO. The AP round can do so many things now and they are largely dependend on radom odds and the chance of luck. I mean is it a Gun Hit, (BAD but now more rare I think) did it penetrate?, then what, ... Penetrate and KO? Penetrate and 1 casuality =shocked tank?, Penetrate and NO RESULT?. the penetration with NO damage seems so lucky it feels GREAT every time it happens! I laugh at my oppenent when I am lucky enough to get a penetration with no damage on one of my tanks because I figure I have just "beat" the odds on that AP round. There is a alot of luck in this game, but like the Pro Golfer says, the "More I practice the Luckier I get! " -tom w [ January 10, 2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This is a very interesting thread. Is it possible that the majority of players complaining about bogging problems are the same players that insist on buying "heavy" tanks? I don't know. my personal preference is to Never be in the position to have to "buy" anything. What I mean is I only enjoy playing pretested and play balanced scenario's, and I am not active on any ladders. I play both sides and I have not had any real bogging problems. The Strategy Guide on Page 2/5 talks about bogging and ground pressure. It says tanks with a ground pressure equal to or great than ( >= ) 13 PSI (such as the tiger) have a solid chance of bogging crossing snow covered or muddy fields. If I look and see that the PSI of the AFV is any where near 13 PSI and the terrain is NOT dry, I know I "could" be trouble if I leave the roads. ALL this info is in the game. Heavy tanks bog down and get stuck, I think this is realistic. What is not realistic is buying units in QB battles, BUT that is another matter entirely and since there could easily be a majority of players here that prefer to purchase their own units in battles I must respect that . BUT it should be noted the game can and will penalize players who fast move heavy tanks across anything but roads or DRY terrain, (I think that is fair to say ) tom w [ January 09, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Steve Thanks for the prompt, informative, and well written reply. I thought the thread might have been about the luck of penetration of AT rounds that inflict no damage. The new armour penetration model for smaller rounds means you can "feel" like you are getting lucky "a lot" with AT rounds that penetrate without result. I don't think that is just luck, I am guessing it adds realism to the game BUT in the last 4 PBEM turns I have played in the past 24hrs I have had 3 frontal penetrations on my tanks in two seperate games that resulted in NO DAMAGE and I gotta tell ya I Feel LUCKY! I am not so worried about the bogging thing. I just drove 4 Panthers through about 50 meters of Scattered tree's to attack Elvis where he LEAST expected it because he told me he figured I did not have the "balls " to risk bogging on a damp map in light snow through scattered trees. ALL four of them where issued move orders and it took 3-4 turns but they made it, I'm in a game in light snow (same one) with 6 Panthers and not one of them has bogged yet and I am not all that worried about staying on the roads. This bogging this is a non-issue IMHO BUT the armour penetration without damage 3 times in a row SURE FEELS lucky! -tom w [ January 09, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi is the patch "really" due ( :confused: ?) at the end of this month?? or is that an unsubstantiated rumour? -tom w

where's Rexford when you need him? -tom w

OK, you got me.... I am salivating! That would be AMAZING! Re: "And can you dig what it would be like to have a battle that begins in bright sunshine, gets dark and showers for ten minutes, then gets sunny again?" It would seem the expectations for the re-write (and here's hoping it includes the ETO!) are VERY high ! -tom w

welcome aboard the CM collective read this post if you are curious about your future here : "Life Cycle of a CMBB player/addict" http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005085 -tom w [ January 08, 2003, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

</font>

oh yeah that's a big one. 7-8 hours of "work" time per day on a keyboard for some of us AND then another 6-7 hours of "spare " time in the game or on the forum, and you have RSI, CTS, or some other keyboarding/mouse/computer related trauma if you are not REALLY careful TOO TRUE! :eek: "Be careful out there" -tom w [ January 08, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Um.... I think maybe this has gone too far already, but since I can't stop reading this thread I would like to introduce the concept of "In The "Public Domain" and "Fair Use". I am not an Intellectual Proterty rights lawyer but in would kindly suggest that such an individual might reasonably ask the question "Were the scenarios in question in the Public Domain?" If the answer to that question is yes (being that they are available for anyone to download for free) the suggestion could me made the the designers of those scenarios have then lost all copyright and claim to them "IF" they are infact in the public domain. Now if the entire site at the Scenario Depo has Copyright signs written all over it, (and I don't know the answer to that) it could be reasonably argued that the scenario's are NOT in the Public Domain and thus the designer have not lost their intellectual property rights claim to them. It should be noted IIRC that once a work has been given away as a promotional piece to the media for unlimited distribution it is then in the public domain and I beleive the author has lost claim to it (I think?) I am NOT saying anyone here is RIGHT or anyone else is wrong. I am just posting hopeing that an Intellectual property rights lawyer will show up and help us determine if the scenarios in question were or were not in fact in the Public Domain? remember.... "It takes a village" -tom w [ January 07, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I have read this whole thread and all the posts in it. It is Sad It is most certianly one of the low points of my forum experience with either CMBB or CMBO. I find it unforunate the others new to this forum may actually conclude that this level of regretable communication is reflective of our community here. I'm not sure if this fits here but... "It takes a Village" perhaps everyone can brighten up and let this whole issue fade into a bad memory. Lets move on and focus on positive new things like "When's the next patch available ???" -tom w

Tom, You're always so POSITIVE!! Always nice to have an anti-troll around!</font>

I'm thinking this is a VERY tricky LOS game engine thing. something was fixed in V1.01 that made wheat and gras block LOS, (remember the compliants about seeing RIGHT through wheat fields like they were there?) Does that mean that this new v1.01 tweak suggests that when a unit is in the LOS shadow of the wheat/grass the game engine reciprocates and feeds back to the user that the tank is hull down to a location or a unit because of the new tweak so the grass/wheat blocks LOS is causing the hull down status? (or something :confused: ) its JUST a guess??? BUT Treeburst does make a VERY interesting point about drawing a correlation to the hull down units firing consistantly into the ground RIGHT in front of them. (NOTE to self KEEP the infantry units away from the front of hull down tanks when they go off ) I'm sure they are looking at this issue GOOD catch to spot that issue and figure out what it is by Treeburst! Nice going! -tom w [ January 06, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

oh I agree but, it was a PBEM game there was a Real human on the other end and it would make sense (in a gamey way, and that is not a bad thing/I don't mean it in a negative way) to go for the flank shot kill you might get (at 200 m) instead of the frontal shot kill you CAN'T get (in the game). So in the end the shrewd player will opt for the trade to take out the elephant from the flank and before his own tank is lost. Its a well known "loophole" in the game engine and I should not have let that other elephant hunt into that lousy position where it could take a hit in the flank. -tom w [ January 06, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]