Wildass69

I have chosen to take your comments as encouragement (whether that's the rational or not). The goaded comment was an exaggeration I expected to be taken tongue in cheek and note that I did not specify who goaded me(choose one; comments about mythology; my own pride; innate curiosity). And as to being rash, that's a matter of perspective isn't it? I certainly did not expect this outcome when I offered my "tip". I should have known better. I probably wouldn't have if I could have foreseen this harrowing trip into the Para-lucid mind of an irascible programmer who is apparently ensconced in the Point-Five dimension of Ones and Zeros; no offense intended. My condolences to Joeri's family. And if so fated to discover, as did Columbus, I'm sure there will be some group out there to protest any of my accomplishments. Enough encouragement! Basically, TAR, I hear more clearly than ever the need for at least 7 volunteers to take this test and run it just once on their respective "virgin" machines; preferably with various OS's. Computer programs are based on Mathematics, the antecedent of chaos and random-ness, so what else can we expect - trying to force something so logical and scientific to be something that it is not? Anyway, this weekend I will try to set up a new series of tests finally grappling with the for mentioned suspicions. Not really expecting any volunteers, I figure I'll continue this Gulliveresque endeavor solipsistic. jazzed WA

Thanks, Wicky, but I already understood the "irony". I just didn't consider the simply percentage of 75% to be meaningful without any information or numbers from his tests to back it up. No offense intended. But since I was more or less goaded into this mire of perpetual testing I feel that "data" should loosely equal something comparable to what I'm currently bogged with. You understand. I did mention I'd like to see Madmatt's tests... Tom your response is significant. Thanks for taking the trouble. I'm not an analyst of statistics but I do understand in layman’s terms that the information I've provided so far is inadequate to fully develop any factual results. I'm working on it. The problem I'm running into is as I related in my last post: the computer seems to remember the previous run of the "battle". This appears to influence each following test because my numbers are getting more radical each time I run the test. Also it would seem that I'm going to have to split the vehicles into two groups and reverse one group while leaving the other untouched all during the same battle in order to get a more accurate comparison. While there may be a mean percentage that governs bogging it does seem to fluxuate from battle to battle. (Nothing of the circumstances - terrain type, vehicle type, time frame etc. - has been altered from the beginning). What we need is a constant testing bed in order to get a fair assessment of what's really happening. In other words, I suspect each test must be conducted from a new battle that the computer has never "seen" before. (Hopefully just a name change to the file). As much as I hate to admit it that may be an explanation of why my first two tests were so different. This could also explain why some of the events I've encountered in playing battles seem to strongly suggest the usefulness of reversing in the first place. But we're here to find all that out. Another possible solution might be if 10 different computers (Ahem... meaning 10 volunteers) all ran the same exact, split group, test just once each and the data then analyzed by a Tom Russ type independent of the 10 testers. Detective WA

Those are very interesting links, Wicky. Joeri's tests are related to what I am doing although he did not get into the same issue I am investigating. Unfortunately only one of the posters specifically address the issue that I have been testing. His observations were made only during a game - not a dedicated test. It would be interesting to see how Madmatt came to his conclusion that you are better off leaving the vehicle completely alone (I disagree, in that, I have not seen reversing a vehicle harm the process though the jury is still out on whether it really helps - so leaving it alone may only be "best" in terms of how much you want to bother with it.) This isn't about the old reversing bug where vehicle would not bog while traveling in reverse. (I keep seeing this here and I don't know how else to make this clear). This is about getting a bogged vehicle to unbog by changing it's move order to reverse. I'm looking for data from tests on this specific issue. I haven't seen any other than what Sergei offered several posts back. TRL, you didn't offend me and I'm not trying to discourage you from offering your opinion. However it was a bit frustrating because you summarily dismissed what, IMO, was obvious. At least between those two tests there was an obvious difference and a strong suggestion that reversing did help unbog vehicles. And I'd already admitted one battery of tests were not enough. You offered no reasoning why you felt my numbers did nothing. I understand your reason for that but, it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of explaining why you felt that way, to the rest of us. Don't go away just because I'm a cranky ol' curmudgeon. I do have another theory that pertains to why these types of tests are deceivingly difficult and the results may be very hard to distill into fact. And to why it may appear reversing helps when maybe it doesn't really. (See? I can be swayed with real results!). I have noticed a tendency in my computer to "remember" a previously played battle and it's propensity to change the previous results. This seems to be apparent when I repeat a turn by reloading autosave or a saved iteration. This may go to the game engines randomizer. The problem this seems to create is that it forces different results to the same circumstances. This means that when a vehicle bogs in the initial play of the battle it probably will not bog if you replay that turn. Likewise if you leave the vehicle alone in one turn and it immobilizes you will probably find that if you replay that turn and reverse the vehicle it will unbog instead. What am I getting at? Because of this possibility the results of each subsequent test from the same battle scenario are getting progressively outrageous because the randomizer is avoiding previous results. My fix for this problem might be to rename the original battle in the Scenario Editor every time I run a test. This could turn out to be something of a pain in the wildass. But what we want are pure results. If that doesn't work it may require rebuilding the battle every time - a prohibitive endeavor! Any thoughts? Remember it's just a theory - I'm not married to it. Frustrated WA

TRL, I'm sure others have conducted test. Including you. But this thread has been around a little while and I think I've asked if anyone else has conducted such tests. No one has offered anything other than BFC has said it doesn't make any difference. That's even less proof than my anemic numbers. Did you say you've conducted these very tests? I don't recall that you did but I could be wrong. And if you did where are your results? These tests don't prove vehicles can be bogged in reverse! They are not suppose to. None of the vehicles bogged in reverse because the only time any of them were in reverse was after they had already bogged! The point of the tests is to see if reversing a vehicle that has already bogged will unbog it. Now I'm asking you point blank; have you tested to see if a vehicle will unbog if you put it in reverse after it has already bogged? I've said this enough times that I'd think you would understand what I'm trying to do even if English is not your primary language. My initial numbers DID indicate something seems to be happening when I reverse a bogged vehicle. But your understanding of my numbers seems dubious so I'll take back my smartass reply. I don't care if anybody believes reversing works. I do care about the truth. I do not appreciate being dismissed as one who believes in myths. And most of all I do not appreciate closed mindedness about it. The reason this has been going on so long is because no one has tested it enough AND published a report that everyone can turn to when a newbie comes along and says what I said at the beginning of this thread. If I'm wrong I will admit it. And I'll tell you now that subsequent tests I've been conducting have not been encouraging for my position. But the truth is the truth and I will tell it no matter how wrong it makes me. You all will hear it all when I'm done - whatever "all" is! Grounded WA

I'm just guessing but aren't most springs on WWII AFVs leaf springs? I gathered from how RW talked that he was discussing leaf springs.

What German vehicle was the worse on the battle field. I'm under the impression that the Mark IV was pretty bad about getting stuck. It would seem then that the Stug IV would be about the same. Of course I'm talking all track vehicles. Thanks for the heads up about how threads can be somewhat mis-leading or vague when talking about reversing - I've noticed. I think we all get a little careless because we're each in a hurry to espouse our views! I'll grant you that one battery of tests against one vehicle is not conclusive. But I would argue that it by no means dismisses my "claim". Certainly it offers the possibility that there is something to reversing as opposed to so many good folk simply saying that there isn't. Certainly it's strong enough to warrant pursuit of the matter. In the long run this will tell one way or the other. I don't like to be wrong. But if I am, so be it. WA

Exactly! Also it goes without saying that forward motion into whatever has gotten you stuck in the first place is usually not a good idea. Of course you do. You probably should stick to the conventional wisdom, TRL. After all there is no difference between 18 vehicles immobilized and 10 vehicles immobilized. But I think the brevity of your statement rips us all off. I said someone would come along and explain it all away but you didn't even do that! Amused WA

I take it that the over simplified model of these two models does not account for the track width (correct me if I'm wrong). I know one of the improvements of the later IVs and consequently their spin-off models such as the Stug IV had wider tracks than earlier models. I'm sure you've considered this but I'd like to hear your thoughts as you seem to have a bone to pick with BF about this. I play a lot of earlier battles so I just haven't run into the Stug IV yet. I know Stug IIIs do get stuck a lot - even more than the Pz IIIs it seems. I also don't play QBs much as I like the historical aspect of the game and I look for historic battles. So I have not noticed this contention either. In historic scenarios bogged vehicles are distressing enough but I agree that bogging and immobilization in the current version is fine, accurate and doesn't need to be fixed. Nevertheless, like any commander would, I try everything I can to keep every vehicle fighting including the fabled reverse. It would seem no one has taken the time to see if reversing really does or does not work. In reading through the thread Thin Red Line referenced it's not surprising to find that it has occurred to others to reverse vehicles that become bogged; which substantiates the logic of doing so. I did not set out to be the first to test this (specifically and in depth) but so far it seems that I am. I would think everyone would be interested to lay this to rest one way or the other for good (fat chance huh?). I don't blame anyone for being skeptical. Ya'll don't know me and you have only my word that I am not given over to fables and mysticisms. I have repeatedly seen this work in my battles and I've even sited a few examples. Otherwise I would not have ventured it to this forum (I don't like to be wrong though I accept that I often am). Certainly I am not the first to suggest that it does. And that should raise the red flags that there may be something to it; it keeps coming up. The only weapon (of any substance) presented to refute this claim so far has been the word, quoted third hand, from the game's designers. Truly I am not trying to prove them wrong. But just because they say something does not mean the game actually does exactly as they say. 'Tis the nature of the product to be finicky and cantankerous as we've all experienced with many products. We should have a certain reserve about what we are told. No discredit intended. On the other hand I have presented some numbers and even Sergei's numbers seem to indicate some influence of reversing. Let's at least give it a chance before we summarily dismiss it. As time permits I'll continue to test. But I don't have to be the only one. If you don't trust what I'm telling you.... well? WA

And don't be changing the code to "fix" this in CMAK... Did you conduct tests Redwolf. I'd be interested in your results. [ November 05, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Wildass69 ]

Holy cow, do you realize sometimes coding has loops and holes in it? Where do think bugs come from? There is intent and there is reality. There was nothing magical about my tests and you - any of you - are quite welcome to all my data both now and in the future. I will be conducting two more batteries of this test (at least - I'm beginning to fear I'm bogged!!!). Anyone else is welcome to take my "Battle" and my logging charts or make up their own and conduct their own tests. Send me a stamped self-addressed envelope and I'll send all my stuff (email me for the address - do I need to post it here?). What's interesting (even magical) is that here are hard numbers, but, because we've been told.... Again, I wonder if this particular circumstance was actually and specifically tested during beta? I'm not refuting Steve or Moon nor am I attacking anyone's professionalism or product. But I don't just accept everything I've been told. I was ignorant enough to try something that isn't SUPpose to work. I see something. And just because they say it doesn't work doesn't mean that it doesn't. The numbers seeeeeeeeemmmm to say that it does. Maybe with a "few" more tests we'll see. I'm not interested in magic! I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I'm interested in fact and truth. If it's found that I am wrong I will accept that just as readily as if I am found to be right. But we have to find. And there is no intent to force anyone to reverse their vehicles when they get stuck - certainly not people who's handles start with "R". Soapbox WA

I've reviewed my data more closely and found a few minor errors. Test 1, no action. 18 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain 20 vehicles became free thru the course of the test 36 out of 100 vehicles were effected. Test 2, reverse action 10 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain 25 vehicles became free thru the course of the test 42 out of 100 vehicles were effected I build a chart that enables me to keep track of the status of each vehicle. In transfering the data to this chart I found the errors. I also reviewed how I analyzed the data and feel that the following is more correct: Dividing 20 into 25, the difference is 25% more vehicles were freed when I used reverse. Dividing 36 into 42, the difference is 16.7% more vehicles were effected in the second test where I used reverse. Dividing 18 into 10, the second test had only 56% of the vehicle immobilizations of those in the first test where no reversing was used. At the end of the second test 90% of its vehicles were still in operation (not immobilized) where as only 82% of the vehicles were still in operation at the end of the first test. This may explain why more vehicles were effected in the second test. The following is a comparison of how many vehicles were still in operation at the end of each turn: turn____1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8___9___10 Test_1_100_100__99__97__96__91__90__86__84__82 Test_2_100__98__98__97__94__94__93__91__91__90 This is an interesting comparison. Notice how both tests hold pretty steady at first but as the tests lengthens the first test takes a nose dive while the second continues to drift slowly downward. A graph would demonstrate this more effectively. Reversing would seem to have a desided effect on bogged vehicles. In each test one vehicle bogged on open or hard ground. In the first test 5 vehicles immobilized during the same turn as they bogged. In the second test 4 vehicles immobilized during the same turn that they bogged. I counted these immobilized vehicles in both tests. The number is close enough in each test that it appears ambient. I did not record the number of vehicles that bogged and freed during the same turn because I only recorded the condition of each vehicle at the END of each turn. However I noted that about the same number of vehicles did this in each test (you can tell because they fall noticibly behind). Again I consider this an ambient condition. The longest bogging occurred in the first test at 7 turns (This also is a correction from my last). The longest duration during the second test was 5 turns. Even allowing 5% for human error it still seems quite clear that reversing bogged vehicles has some positive effect. Nevertheless I've become willing to conduct at least two more batteries of tests. With my new charts it will be easier to track each vehicle. Perhaps this weekend. Analytical WA [ November 03, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Wildass69 ]

I saw tanks bog and then unbog during the same turn but since I only counted what condition they were in at the end of each turn these events were not recorded. On the other hand if a tank immobilized during the same turn it first bogged I did count it - because I was looking at the condition of each vehicle at the end of each turn. But since I treated both tests the same I feel that this would not effect the outcome. In other words each test would have approximately the same number of these events and so to me it was an ambient event. I may not have been clear on how I tested so just to be clear in the first test I simply recorded what happened under the parameters I've already described. In the second test I reversed every tank that was bogged at the end of each turn that I had not already reversed in a previous turn. (In the first test one tank remained bogged for 6 turn - it never changed as the test ended first. In the second test one tank went 5 turns bogged then freed.) I never gave any opportunity for a tank to voluntarily free itself. The only time that happened was when it bogged and unbogged during the same turn. Your test appears to have been a little shorter than mine. My tanks went 1000m in 10 turns. If it had been the same length as yours (I'm assuming 8 turns long - I was using the slower PzIVs) the numbers I came up with would have been even farther appart in terms of percentages. In both cases five tanks freed during my last two turns. So they were still five units appart but 5 then becomes 25% of 20 rather than 20% of 25. Someone has argued that it is time more than distance that governs bogging. Perhaps a 20 turn 2000m test would be more accurate. I just felt 10 turns at 1000m was more of a rounded standard place to terminate the tests. In looking at your numbers I still see some influence of reversing stuck tanks. I've never ascerted that it was highly effective - only that it increased your chances of unbogging. Frankly my numbers were a bit higher than I actually expected. But now two of us have found under, slightly different circumstances, that there does seem to be some evidence to this - at least that's how I see it. I'd be curious to know if this particular circumstance was tested at any great length by the game/beta testers. Proportedly the type of movement assigned has no influence over the unbogging routine in the engine. Probably if I'd been paying attention and heard this I would never have tried it. But I took the manual to heart and though it might work. You've heard the analogy of the bees and the flys in a glass jar...?

Upon conclusion to my first battery of tests let me say that the initial findings seems to support my contention by a substantial margin. (crow pie anyone?) I'll restate my position: When a vehicle becomes bogged, terminating all forward movement and throwing it into hard reverse increases the chances it will unbog. Hard Reverse: Reverse straight back - no turns - at least 50 meters. The results of my tests indicate the following in summary: Twenty percent more vehicles became free and approximately 40% fewer vehicles became immobilized when reversed as I described as opposed to when I did nothing at all to free them. The hard numbers are as follows: Test 1, no action. 18 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain 20 vehicles became free thru the course of the test 35 out of 100 vehicles were effected. Test 2, reverse action 11 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain 25 vehicles became free thru the course of the test 43 out of 100 vehicles were effected Someone with more experiance in statistical analysis can probably adjust my numbers to fine tune the true percentages involved but let me make two observations. It might be argued that my 20% increase is due to more vehicles being effected. And there may be some adjustment to this. I would, however, point out that at the end of the second test there were 7 more vehicles still active and susceptible to being bogged than in the first test. Twenty percent is a pretty significant difference and even if it's adjusted down to accomodate other factors it still is too much to just dismiss. I am quite willing to share the hard data of these tests with anyone who wishes to examine it. The "battle" and the end turns of both tests are saved and I will email them to anyone. For the paper you must send me a stamped self-addressed envelope (email me for the address). But I will describe the setup here: July 1943, Southern Russia, Midday, Damp, warm, clear, still. Static engagement. Map 1200m wide by 1040m high, soft ground with dirt roads crossing the course of travel every 100 meters and vertical corridors bordered by woods to divide the units into platoon sizes. (this helps keep track of whats going on - a grid if you will). 100 Pz IVGs divided into 20 platoons. No real enemy opposition (1 platoon of soviet rifles around one victory flag at the destination end). Vehicles travel south to north crossing dirt roads (on open ground) every 100 meters (again part of the grid to track the results also to break up the terrain). Starting elevation was 7, mid elevation 5, end elevation 7. Each platoon was place in an isolated corridor as described in numerical order and each vehicle was arranged in order left to right with platoon HQ on left and Veh. 5 on right. Platoon 1 on left of map Platoon 20 on right. In the first test I group selected all vehicles and sent them down range. When a vehicle bogged I noted the event but did nothing to aid it. In the second test I again group selected all units and sent them down range. When a vehicle bogged I canceled its movement order and reassigned the reverse order as I described. Once it became free I canceled the remaining reverse and again sent it forward. In each test I logged the events as they occurred in chart form, noting by vehicle number under the heading of each platoon and each turn. Three catagories were logged; Immoblized, Bogged and Freed. Of course more tests should be conducted if more secure numbers are desired. I don't need them in the absence of any significant rebuttle. Seems the MYTH is becoming realitY! In other words the ball is in your court. WA the thumper

All of this is good information to know. In thinking in terms of reality (realism is why we play this game, right?) It might make sense, on the one hand, to have fast moving vehicle bog more readily than slow moving vehicles. After all a certain recklessness is implied and a fast moving vehicle may not detect a problem area ahead in time to dodge it whereas a slow moving vehicle more likely would (if it can be detected at all). Furthermore it would seem a fast moving vehicle would become more deeply ensconced and therefore more likely to become immobilized than a slow moving vehicle. But! (on the other hand) Just how fast are we going? Fifteen - twenty mph as opposed to 5 or 6? And as pointed out by someone it isn't just about the terrain. The longer a vehicle runs the more likely it is that something will break. The faster it runs would suggest it's working harder and the more likely still something will break. And wouldn't this be modified by traveling up hill? We can get very deeply into this. If I had a voice in how the game handles bogs I would suggest that speed have nothing to do with bogging. I don't feel the speeds involved warrant modifications to bogging. What would warrant bogging? Terrain and time; how long has the engine been running and what kind of terrain has been encountered. At any rate, my original thought here concerned recovering from bogging. There is no question as soon as you turn the engine over and move you run the risk of bogging. It's quite annoying and inconvenient but I don't know that the amount of occurrence in the game is unrealistic. It's been stated several times that the type of movement ordered after a vehicle bogs makes no difference. I have yet to conduct my tests of this (maybe this weekend) but I continue to see evidence that suggests this is not entirely the case - It may be the intent!~ But perhaps not reality. I will be very objective with my tests and if I'm smoking funny stuff I'll be the first to acknowledge my contention is bogus. The other night a Tiger l bogged during the first battle of an op. The ground was frozen at the crest of a small rise - nothing to do with shallow soft low-lying ground. It became immobilized almost immediately. At the beginning of the next battle it was again just bogged so there was an opportunity to fully recover it. I did a little experiment. I saved the turn then gave it a fast straight ahead. It immediately became immobilized. I reset the turn and gave it a reverse order straight back about 50 meters. It immediately became free! I reset the turn and did the same thing again whereupon it became free again! I did not take the time to give it another forward order. Later another Tiger bogged and a reverse order freed it as well. No, it's not scientific and certainly it can invoke explanation upon explanation. Nevertheless I've seen reverse orders free my vehicles significantly more often than forward orders. Not a huge percent but enough to call my attention to it. And again it makes sense; when a vehicle gets stuck your best way out is nearly always the way you got in. That's realistic. And if it proves that reversing frees vehicles I would suggest we accept it as part of our virtual reality. Ranting WA

One drawback to area fire is that your firing unit may keep firing at the target area even after the target is destroyed; wasting ammo. A factor to weigh...

They do. Set their "arc of fire" command not to include the benign enemy unit. Can't help with the button up problem - I have the same.

I have West Front, East Front II, plus the Pacific Version of the Talonsoft Campaign Series and had the Middle East version (names slip me). I love East Front II and played a solid 3 years of all versions. I Started playing CMBB about a year ago because I had pretty much exhausted the CS. So I might be able to offer some comparision. I rarely play Humies and in that respect perhaps I can't help much but let's see if I can't offer some insite. The unit scales are different. EFII/WF are platoon sized. You know what that means. A tank counter represented 3-5 individual tanks. Therefore the size of the battles could reach an operational level especially if well-crafted into a Linked Campaign. This made the Art of Maneuver Warfare great fun and a satisfying endevour. The games are geared to that end. I finally developed very effective tactic that often won the battle with several moves left over - another reason to move on. Nevertheless I play wargames as much for their Historical value as anything else and I learned a lot of history from the CS. I still like them and will probable return to them upon occation. But they also fall short of conveying the true down in the dirt, blood and blast of battle. It was somewhat antiseptic to loose a few tanks out of a platoon but still come away with a platoon counter. Moreover the tactics were somewhat simpified by the scale of the game; surround - capture, surround - capture. I still find it a bit intimidating to begin that first turn in CMBB simply because the tactics involved and stark cost of errors in CM are so much more imposing. And that is one of the values of CM. I dare say it takes guts to launch an attack in CM just as it did in the real battle fields of Russia. Tactics in CM are much more complex. The scale is down to squads or even sub squads and individual vehicles and guns. A tank will often take several hits but when its out it's out. There is no buffer of a counted to shield you from that loss. It makes you hard or you stop playing. It also gives you a little better taste of what the real commander may have felt. I believe there is more of a learning curve in CM. I'm still not sure how some units are best employed. At first the mechanics of performing movement and action are going to seem very combersome and it is a lot of work for a mere sixty seconds of game play. But once you get the hang of it, it goes quite well. It goes without saying it's completely different from the CS. There are more dynamics between the units as well. In some ways this makes it much harder to come up with pat tactics that generally always work. But it can be done and it's very satifying. When you read the CM manual (and you will) it will tell you not to expect what worked in other games to work in CM. It will also tell you that if you think something will work because it would have in the real world it's worth trying. Both statents are worth taking to heart. There is an enormous amount of realisim in CM by comparison. There is an even greater amount of challenge. I love the CS. But now I'm playing CM (yes I have CMBO too and will pick up CMAK when available). I hope that's testimony enough. Reflective WA

I guess that's all it takes for a nobody to become somebody.... We live in a desperate age! Amused WA

Yes it's a bit of a cliche' that all battle plans go out the window with the first shot and in a tongue-in-cheek way I was griping about that but the "order" I was speaking of was more to the second part of your reply. The main problem I have (I suspect most of us have) is keeping units together. This all relates to my "excuse" for not jumping right on the Testing I've promised to conduct when I said "it takes so long". The current battle is huge and a good deal of my maneuvering deals with keeping units together. No matter how tenatiously I plot movement somebody (vehicles especially) screws it up. ARF! 'Tis the nature of the bid-ness. I probably rush things tooooo much. Anyway thanks for your tips. Congested WA

I'm still in the middle of a very large battle that is actually going very well... it just takes so long. I strive to think about what I'm doing and use my forces in the most synergistic way (combined forces on a singular pin-point attack) for this type of battle. Don't ya'll find it difficult to maintain ORDER?! I guess that's the anticedent of battle, tho, isn't it? Anyway I fully intend to conduct some tests after I get thru this fight and I will be happy to share the results with this forum. I do believe it would be benefitial, for anyone else who wants to, to conduct similar tests. I can see that there is substantial number of variable to address. The initial speed of a bogged vehicle, in itself, could be quite exhaustive. At any rate I appreciate the maturity I now see here. Yes I have stumbled upon discussion groups where the name calling and disrespect gets out of hand and I see no point in expending any wit upon the witless. I try to avoid name calling. Like many of you, I'm sure, it's much more satisfying to "discuss" intellegently. kudos WA

I believe Redwolf is correct in that bogging is dependent upon type of ground and weight of vehicle in ratio with its contact area (in other words ground pressure). I don't see that getting UNbogged is very dependent upon crew quality but I do tend to see lesser qualities getting bogged more than higher quality crews. This seems backwards to me but it's what I think happens. It would have to be tested too. I haven't considered whether the speed of a vehicle would make a difference in the chances of getting bogged. Interesting. I am typically at full bore unless I'm in contact. Panzers then hunt while AHTs shy away. Apparently it once was a bug that you could drive in reverse and never get bogged. I gather that has been corrected but I haven't tried it nonetheless. I contend that ordering a reverse once bogged will help the vehicle unbog. While this is not suppose to make a difference (according to others) I see evidence that it does but will conduct dedicated tests to investigate further. As to pushing a bogged vehicle I'm not sure. I can assure you that once it becomes immobile you can push it onto a hard surface like a paved road and it will remain immobile. I have not seen that the pushing vehicle becomes bogged as well. Redwolf, I wasn't thinking in terms of what the game would let you do and you are correct that you cannot drive a vehicle into a swamp. I still would probably use a map of soft ground or perhaps even borrow the map from the game I am currently playing. It's very active in this respect and I've come to learn where the soft spots are. Deep mud would probably work fine as you suggest but, no matter what, I avoid deep mud if I can and, I think it would be less than typical. Just my reasoning. According to Walpurgis Night BFC says the type of movement ordered does not make a difference as to whether a unit will unbog or not - if I understand him correctly. I seem to see something and my contension is that it may not be the designers intent but it does leak into the equation. Something similar to a bug. Interesting about the stug IIIs and stug IVs. While it's not as important as some other aspects of the game I'm sure there is room for improvement to this aspect. Apparently bogging is suppose to encompass mechanical failure as well as plain ol' gettin' Stuck! It would be a nice touch if these factors were seperated and a little more realism was worked into each. For instance the possibility of reactivating an immobilized unit by pushing it or restarting an engine after replacing a fuel filter. Just thoughts. Analytical WA

And to Green Hornet, You are also correct. But let me re-iterate that I thought I was sharing and even expected that others would concur(one or two did). I didn't come here looking for a debate. But I'm not going to back down from one either. You can see for yourself that it just sort of evolved because, if I may be so blunt, I forgot how chock-full of experts this forum is. I'm not big on experts. I'm just a man. I don't profess to be anything nor would I presume to know more than any one of you. I came here with respect in hand and didn't expect to be called weak and superstitious - even in jest. You will notice that I have not intentionally assign any kind of "attribute" to any person here other than in a direct and factual defense of my position and who I am. I have that right. Thanks. Self-Rightous WA

Agreed. I didn't relize it was such an issue but apparently I've managed to generate it into one... I thought I was sharing. So beit. However, I'm not going to run 100 stugs into a swamp. While that guarantees they will all become bogged it also seems, unreasonable to expect any of them to unbog. As we all know, "Odds" are the means by which any of this occurs. I just happen to believe that a certain function tends to tip the odds toward a certain result. I don't expect it to be a large difference. The odds of getting out of deep mud must be greater than getting out of soft ground. I would expect a vehicle to be able to free itself from that sort of entrapment - similar to ground I am currently encountering. It may take me awhile to conduct such a test and it may even be that it would be best for a third "uninterested" party to conduct the testing. I have a bias, regardless of how much I may wish not to, and I would expect the opposing view to have the same. Any takers? Not that I am not going to conduct a test. I will. Intrigued WA

Redwolf, Your post is reasonable. It does not summarily dismiss my alledged findings leaving no room at all for the possibility that what I believe is in fact true. All my vehicles have been moving forward when they've become bogged. You may be correct that it is unlikely that reversing a bogged vehicle will influence the odds the game engine uses to determine if and when it unbogs. My investigation seems to indicate otherwise but then I don't have access to the codes or any part of the "mechanics" of the game engine. I have simply paid specific attention to what happens over a long period and thru many games. This is what I seem to find; a) it doesn't work every time. experiance level of the crew doesn't seem to matter (although my crew levels are seldom below "regular" so I haven't seen enough of conscript and green to tell). c) reversing straight back (no turns) seems to increase the odds it will unbog. d) adding any movement to the reverse seems to negate any effect the reverse may have on the odds. Just one reverse bound. e) waiting more than one turn to reverse the vehicle seems to negate the odds it will unbog with a reverse. (Keep an eye on them.) f) If a vehicle stays bogged more than three turns any passengers should get off and walk because almost always the vehicle will become immobile. g) If a vehicle becomes bogged again the reverse trick doesn't seem to work as the odds seem doubly against it. However, by this point it's HQ unit is a long way ahead of it and that factor may have an influence on why this occurs. h) sometimes a vehicle will bog and immobilize with in the same turn. Ain't nuthin' you can do 'bout it. h) It's still best to avoid soft ground. Last night turn 24 seemed to be the "Turn of the Bogged!". Seven vehicles bogged at the same time. Two of these had bogged before. Neather recovered. Of the other 5 all recovered except one. I reversed every one of them. Reasonable WA

I don't particularly have to give you anything. And I repeat what I implied before; a games engine can exceed its expectations. "They" may tell you what "they" designed it to do but a certain bias introduced into a particular equation may influence the results as no one expected. Usually this results in a bug. There are a hell of a lot of 1s and 0s involved. Did they really check every single possibility? Heck no! That's why we, the consumers, are the final test of any game published. What's it to you anyway? Use the trick or dismiss it as a myth. I shared something I found useful and have proven to myself, at least, that it does work (in my current battle I've freed +/-12 units and lost one to immobilization so far {22 turns out of 80)). And it's cost me nothing. Do as you please! But if you keep coming back here to rag on me about it I will keep thumping you. I find that delightful! Amused WA