TheBlackHand

Simple solution: Cover Armor Arc. No idea why this was left out of the game, but I hope it will be there in the next one (it better be, after seeing this topic come up on a weekly basis).

I play WEGO exclusively. I can see how it might make a difference in moving. However, I've lost a lot of tanks/vehicles to moves that I would have made in RT as well. For example, I believe I lost five tanks in the last campaign by simply edging them ever so slightly off a (dry) road while either angling for a better shot or simply moving in what I thought was a straight line down the center of the road.

Chek, did you read the entire thread? Most importantly, the first post which shows you that this bogging/immobilization thing is not simply all in my head or in the way I play the game. It has been demonstrated in a well orchestrated test. How do you move your tanks on or around roads? I assume you read my most recent post, since you responded to it. I explained my method for movement. Since you claim not to be experiencing these problems, tell me what you do differently than me. I'm not being facetious. If you know something I don't, then let me know. And, no, 50%+ immobilization is not acceptable. Please tell me how you avoid such things.

For my money, it's totally worth it. Yes, there are a few things that could use tweaking. Some more serious than others, but nothing that has caused me to regret my purchase. The positives far outweigh the negatives. It's just that, as with anything in life, the negatives get all the press. I'm sure the series will become more refined as other titles are released . . . but that doesn't mean the current title is something you should pass up. Just like how the original Combat Mission was not as polished as Combat Mission: Africa Korps. I never regretted my purchase of CM within the first month of it's release. I'm glad I can say that I was there when it all began. You should do the same. Starting with CM:BN.

Here's how I move my tanks and most of my vehicles. I only use Quick or Fast over dry terrain or when I'm on a road. I use Move when I'm on wet terrain and I use Move when going around corners. (I use Hunt whenever I'm expecting contact.) I figure a Move order is the best over sloppy terrain because it represents slower, but steady progress. I always assumed that Slow would cause a tank to bog for lack of momentum & that the Quick/Fast orders would have the same effect but for the exact opposite reason. I have used Quick or Fast with jeeps over wet terrain (and lost a few, which I assume is my fault), but I still use Move when going around corners. I plot all of my turns, both on and off road, using the #7 top down view. Most turns utilize at least three waypoints (tedious, but as I have learned, altogether necessary). I always assumed that the roads where sturdy and that there would be no problem using Quick/Fast. Perhaps a Move order would be better on all but paved roads. I wouldn't say that bogging in open terrain has been all that bad. I believe I've lost a few tanks this way over the many battles that I've played over the last six months. That seems about right. I expect to lose some and I actually WANT to lose some, for authenticity. The bogging/immobilization on the roads is another story. I have lost a TON of vehicles, from tanks to jeeps while driving along the roads. In the last campaign, I lost well over 50% of my tanks this way (over wet and dry ground). The problems always arise when one wheel/track will leave the road. Turns are the worst. If you don't plot those waypoints DIRECTLY in the center of the road, there's a good chance you're going to bog, no matter what vehicle you're driving. This has been my experience. It also is a huge problem when one vehicle has to go around another, for whatever reason. (I try to space out all of my vehicle columns using the timer, but there ALWAYS seems to be a couple of slow pokes in the bunch.) I do NOT take great risks when moving my vehicles on roads. I plot all of my moves carefully and use appropriate speeds. I still see much too much bogging going on. I'm frankly a bit mystified as to how some folk are NOT finding this to be such an issue. How do you move differently than me? How can anyone refute the data presented in the tests? 100 times greater chance of bogging in the presence of a road? That sounds like something I might've stated as hyperbole . . . but the tests seem to say that it is indeed true. I understand that in the real world, it may be quite difficult to make the transition on/off road and that shoulders should be somewhat dangerous for heavy vehicles (but certainly not jeeps). I also believe that this difficulty is something that should be abstracted. As someone said before, this is not tank driver/waypoint plotting school.

I expect to lose an occasional vehicle to driver error, mechanical breakdown or random chance. I expect there to be a greater chance of experiencing these things when executing tricky maneuvers or rolling over sketchy terrain. I also expect that, while I am the one plotting the moves, there is an actual, computerized "driver" inside the tank who interprets those moves to the best of his ability (experience). If I plot stupid moves, stupid things should have a greater chance of happening. If I plot routine moves on/off a road or around a turn . . . I should not have to run a 100 times greater risk of having bad things happen. I should not lose 50% - 90% of my motorized power to "random chance". Neither should you. I think we all agree on this. Right?

Thankfully, this game will get better as our "bitchez" are taken into consideration by the game designers. Now, I realize that my own little rants don't make a dent . . . but when similar rants add up and some dedicated player actually provides concrete evidence with which the company can work . . . well, that's what makes this series of games different from most. Despite the fact that the roads are broken (at the moment), it won't keep me from buying future BF products. It may keep me from playing CM:BN once a future game is released (just like I stopped playing the original CM after CMBB/CMAK). I certainly hope that the road problem is something that CAN and WILL be fixed. It'll make the game play much more enjoyable and I'll feel that much better about having spent my $$ on something that the manufacturers actually give a hoot about. I would hate to think that once they've got my money and a single patch . . . they can quit thinking about me (and you, and the rest of us). This company isn't like that.

I consider the game broken when a part of it doesn't function correctly and that dis-function directly affects the games playability. Is the game unplayable? No. Certainly not. Does the bogging problem affect the playability? Yes, it certainly does. Glad to know that they're looking for a fix. I've been playing CM since day one and I will continue to do so. I've bought and paid for my right to bitch, TYVM.

Indeed, I was all prepared to lay out another gripe because I opened up my campaign this evening to find that it has been completely derailed by this bogging glitch. It is refreshing and a real confidence builder to hear an official "we're looking into it". Now, I'm gonna try to forget everything about this campaign, except that it'll be worth playing when the roads are suitable for tanking. In fact, I'm going to lay off the heavy armor scenarios/campaigns altogether until "looking into it" becomes "fixed it".

I can understand how they might not have time to make major UI changes . . . but how can they leave a broken game broken? I know I'm on a rant about the bogging thing lately, but seriously . . . they gotta fix that. It ain't right.

Wrong. It wouldn't work because the tank would bog and become immobilized within 10 yards as it's driver mismanages the five-point turn from the driveway to the street by cutting too close to the lawn on the right or left side, thus forcing the traverse of a three-yard patch of grass which inevitably throws a track. Curbs & shoulders in this game work like spike strips in the real world. They're a Panther's kryptonite. Either that, or the game company quickly throws up a three-foot hedge which effectively acts as the Berlin Wall.

I just finished a battle (possibly my last) in the campaign "Die Letzte Hoffnung". This would otherwise be an outstanding campaign that should be taylor made for a game like this . . . except the game has ruined it. I have lost TEN tanks in this campaign to bogging. I have lost ONE to enemy fire. The majority of these tanks have become immobilized while making simple moves along the roads. I lost four in this last battle during dry conditions. This is flat-out wrong and it has got to be fixed. I've heard a lot of people call the game "unplayable" for this or that reason, most of them bogus . . . however, I have to say, this problem is beginning to make the game un-enjoyable and very close to unplayable, for me. It has certainly ruined this particular campaign, for me. Playing with tanks is fun and this great campaign gives them to you in spades. Micromanaging these tanks around every turn and fretting over when one (or all) of them will catch an edge is NOT fun. It's stupid. This is number one on my hopes for fixin' in the next patch/module.

Cool. We'll see how it goes. Turns out I'm actually doing fine without those Panthers, since a bunch of PZIV's just arrived. Yes, I am playing your German campaign (forget the name) and it is EXCELLLLENT! Your "Devils Descent" campaign was the best I've played so far. This one is proving itself to be equally as good. The narratives are outstanding. I hesitate to say they're the best thing because the maps are equally as interesting . . . but the narratives really help get me involved in the campaign. It becomes a role-playing thing, which is what a good scenario should do. Anyhow, back to the original topic. I DO want my vehicles to suffer boggings and breakdowns . . . I just don't want it to feel gamey. When I have a jeep bog itself on a turn for no obvious reason, it feels gamey. When I lose a whole platoon of Panthers to mud, while a bunch of Opals breeze on by . . . it feels gamey. I can rationalize it, but I'd rather not have to.

I'm playing a campaign. You mean to tell me I've lost these tanks for the duration? Just as if I've lost them to enemy fire like some noob who recklessly bandies them about? Now I've gone from slightly miffed to just plain pissed. I hope that what you're saying is not true. It will spoil what was looking like a great campaign. If those tanks aren't there next round, I'll just pull the plug. That is, if I even make it to the next round without 'em in this one.

Just figured I'd throw this in. I'm currently playing a battle where I have a platoon of four Panthers. These are vital to this battle without them I will surely lose. The ground is damp, but not saturated. I have given no "quick" or "fast" orders in open terrain or on turns (I have on the hardball). So far, THREE, count 'em, THREE Panthers have become immobilized due to bogging. Two of these are bogged on roads. One is on a turn, the other bogged while going from shoulder to pavement. The third one is stuck in a field. I have one tank left. I expect to lose it to the earth. This is unsat. I'm treating these boggings as "mechanical breakdowns". Which makes me wonder, are mechanical breakdowns modeled in the game? I don't think I've ever seen one. If the game designers are determined to strike down the majority of my offensive power to chance, I would prefer it if they at least gave me another option to ponder. As I understand it, German tanks were notoriously unreliable, so perhaps a mechanical breakdown of three good tanks would be easier to rationalize. Particularly with Panthers, which are supposed to have better handling in soft terrain (with those wider tracks). Anyway, I've had other problems with jeeps bogging on turns. I'd guess that there's something about the road/shoulder that causes this. Hopefully the programmers can fix it because it doesn't seem quite right. (I also lost a Kubel to bogging in this battle. He had a "quick" order.)

I have gotten some good info from this thread and I will put it to good use. Yes, a light gun should be able to be pushed/pulled backward by it's crew (I would assume, only because I've seen it done in photos/videos). I should also mention that, having worked as a repossession agent, I can tell you from experience that it is quite difficult to back up a truck with a vehicle in tow while under attack.

That's funny . . . but it actually reminded me of something else. Backing up a military truck with a towed gun should be difficult. Very difficult, if not impossible, when under fire. I've never seen one of my trucks jack-knife the gun when backing up. They seem to reverse in a straightforward, smooth manner. My memory is a little hazy on this. Can it happen in the game? I realize it might be one of those small things that the programmers didn't have the time or initiative to work on. No big deal, but it would add a bit of realism. Has anyone else ever seen it happen?

Thanks for the responses. I have used AT & INF guns in the defensive role very effectively during PBEM battles. I've also used them in just the manner described, by moving them when possible. Kind of like sniping. Offensively, it is another matter. I agree that the only way to really use them is to find a keyhole, (which I did with the one gun) or use them as a way to foil a counterattack or reinforcement. I recall another battle against the AI (can't recall the name), in which I was given a towed 57mm and a bunch of Shermans. I placed the AT gun over on one side of the map with a good field of fire on the back/right side of a hill that I was attacking from the left. I figured it could get a shot on anything that might come round that way. Nothing happened, but at least he was there. All in all, I get the impression that towed guns in the offense are not intended to be seen rolling along "in the van" with the infantry or tanks.

Something I've never been good at, either with CMx1 or, even more so in CMBN. I would assume that the way to use a towed AT or INF gun is to offer suppression so that the gun can move up and be put into place. Easier said than done. I cannot seem to keep these things alive long enough to get any worthwhile use out of them. Either that, or by the time they are safely brought to bear . . . the battle is practically over. Any suggestions on how to use these assets? I just played a battle with two towed infantry guns (Spam & Jam). I lost one gun rather quickly from long range rifle fire and eventually, mortar fire. The other I placed in ambush. He was able to kill a Sherman with the few HEAT shells allotted, but the gun was easily liquidated by the follow-on tank(s). I couldn't get either gun in a decent position to fire on an infantry target unless that target was already half-dead. I get the impression this isn't how it's supposed to work . . . or is it? How does a pro use these things?

<shakes head> You're not the only one.

I find myself having to allocate time to play. The other game that I play a lot is Battlefield Europe/WWII Online. That one I can just fire up any ol' time. Play a half-hour or two hours and I'm done. With CM I know that once I start . . . it's gonna require some serious will-power and brain-time over the course of a few days/weeks. This is a good thing because once I'm able to tear myself away (late in the evening), I'm able to mull over the various tactical problems that confront me . . . until I'm able to start the game again the following evening. I know my girlfriend (yes, I have one) would prefer that I was thinking about her . . . but the fact is, I'm probably thinking about how to maneuver on a nasty MG42 or face an armored onslaught with nothing but a stove pipe or two. Sure, there are times when I scream BS!! (literally), like when a squad of infantry which has been ordered to sprint across a road . . . stops in the middle of said road to take pot shots at a machine gun which promptly mows them down. Thankfully, those flaws are few (and get fewer with each patch/mod/release). . . . and what was that I said about wishing for a La Fiere scenario? Well . . . look what I found while looking for images from La Fiere last night: La Fiere Bridge and Manor, by LemuelG. How cool is that? evo, I just finished a fantastic campaign called Devil's Descent by Field Marshal Blücher. This was such a great gaming experience. The narrative really gets you involved and the battles are put together just right. It challenges you, but doesn't beat you over the head with puzzle-piece objectives. I've recently upgraded my difficulty settings from, "Warrior" to "Elite". I prefer not knowing precisely what type of unit I'm firing on. This leaves me to surmise, based on experience, what I'm facing. Much more realistic, IMO. Anyhow, I usually DL the mods/scenarios that have received the highest ratings. So far, so good!

When I first bought the game, I played a few of the stock campaigns and was a little put off. They seemed much too difficult and somewhat contrived. There were also the basic game mechanics which took some getting used to. So, I put it down for a bit. Downloaded a bunch of mods & started playing the community made scenarios with last month . . . and haven't been able to stop since. It's probably been mentioned before, but every time I start a new battle or campaign, I know there's going to be a lot of late nights. Playing all of the CM games is the closest thing I've ever found to the old Civilization. It'll be 1am and I'll tell myself "I have fifteen more minutes". Next thing I know, it's 2am and I know I'm gonna be late for work in the morning. Good thing I'm the boss . . . and a bachelor (no surprise). I do find that the better graphics in CMBN make it even harder to tear myself away from. I've been very critical of certain areas of the game, but the bottom line is, this is one of a very few titles that borders on an addiction. That has to mean it is good. Really good. The ability to mod the game is it's biggest plus. I appreciate the work of the game designers, but I appreciate the work of the modders just as much. With so many mods, it allows you to personalize the game. With so many scenarios, it allows you to practically go anywhere. Read a book . . . then play the battle. Reading "NO BETTER PLACE TO DIE: Ste-Mere Eglise, June 1944-The Battle for la Fiere Bridge". Hoping that one day I'll get to play a version of this pivotal battle in CMBN. (If/when the Renault tanks are modelled . . . which may be never.) Anyway, I gotta get to work . . .

I click on the balloon, hit "tab" and BAM . . . I know right where my unit is. (Pipe down, Beavis.) Sometimes it takes a second to sort out a particular unit when they're grouped together . . . but it's no big deal. I could see how it might be a problem with RT, but I play WEGO so I have plenty of time to get things organized. I find the (modded) tactical symbols much easier to identify this way than the original symbols. Yes, I always plot moves with the trees turned off (trunks only). Again, it's not a big deal in WEGO. Maybe in RT . . . but that's not for me (never even tried it, actually).

I appreciate the OP's passion. However, his problem has never been my problem. I have no problem with the floating icons. He's gone to great lengths to demonstrate how detrimental the floating icons are (in their current state) . . . but it still seems like more of a personal issue than a game-breaker. I don't get it. That doesn't mean he's wrong. It just means . . . I don't share his pain. I'll bet that every one of us (even the f-words) could write a full page rant on at least one or two aspects of the game that drive us up a wall. Heck, I probably have. However, I have yet to find any one gripe that renders the game unplayable (as others have claimed) . . . or even close to unplayable. It's a great game. It has room for improvement in certain areas. Maybe this is one of them. Maybe not. Personally, there's a dozen other things that I'd rather have the designers work on. (A line I've heard in response to my own rage posts.) The game isn't perfect. It's not CMAK (my favorite, for sentimental reasons). It never will be. Right now, personally, I think it's as good as it gets . . . and I believe it will get better. You should too. Maybe Lt. Bull's post will make a difference in the future, for the better. Maybe not. Peace and love, peace and love.

K, I'll try that. I seem to remember something about this in the manual . . . but I don't have the manual with me on this trip outta town.