ww2steel

Additionally, by quick tests with a few vehicles it appears that 'ground condition' only affects open ground. Even soft ground is unaffected by 'ground condition' (and quick tests actually appear that it is LESS likely to get you stuck in soft ground over open ground in deep mud conditions! (DONT take this as reliable, it was only a 20 vehicle test!) It does not appear that deep mud to very dry have any effect on brush, scatteded trees, etc- those appear to be constants. Input would be very helpful! Mike

I remember in an old, old thread it mentioned that the chance of bogging was a function of the number of vehicles you had moving. This was removed in one of the patches, correct? I am still doing a ton of bogging research and just want to make sure my results won't be messed up by this. It now makes no difference if I have a battalion or a platoon moving, right? (as is certainly shouldn't) Thanks, Mike

I must be overlooking something here... Okay, during operational use of the Panther tank no Pzrg40 was available, got that. I know the Russians made some for their captured examples, I can go with that too. How come between Jan and Dec '42 the tungsten ammo is available for the Panthers, etc... even though they weren't in the field. (Why was this modeled in the game?) Nothing uses a Kwk42/44 during that time (pre '43), right? My books are like 800 miles away, can anyone shed some light on why BF modeled this? (Prototypes?) BTW- thanks again to Chris for his charts that indicate the ammo info! Thanks, Mike

Flaming, Andrew, and myself are all saying the same thing here. Also Mav, you know that the figures change on those in game tables depending when you look at it, right? (Different time in the war the same gun displays different figures because of ammo changes.) I'm not just talking about adding Pzgr40 or anything, the AP tound will sometimes display different figures, depending on when the battle is set. For example, take a HEAT round for the 7.5cm L/24- there are three different ones displaying different info for different times in the war, all in CMBB. Your 88L56 though I think stayed the same the entire war (as far as CMBB is concerned). Hope this helps, Mike

Sure you can, were American and Soviet armors identical? And battlefront says straight up that those figures vary considerably from vehicle to vehicle as to what is being shot at. Those displayed figures are only a vague reference. Mike

Nope, darn it. You import the map (as you certainly know), but everything about weather is determined by the QB generator. Everything below the split horizontal line is determined only by the QB generator, not the scenario parameters. Everything above the line (ammo, for instance) uses what was put in during the scenario building (except for units chosen during QB setup, of course). Mike

I think they are probably both highly accurate. Those figures are left very very vague. For example, perhaps the ammo type X works better against some charachteristic of Soviet armor while Y works better against the western allies. From the research I have done the game performance (armor wise) is actually incredibly realistic, especially when you consider the purpose the program was written for! Mike

beer dollars, there's another good one

You know, sort of like man/hours. :cool: Mike

Hi, thanks for working that up. I don't think I claimed it to be "statistically significant", but I'm not going to search my posts. I did say that " A 20% difference does seem more than would be produced by a statistical anomaly. " Which is not really disputable. Moreover, by the time I have mmade this statement I have mulitplied the number of tests exponentially, just not updated the tests. Shoot, I logged 26.9 kilometers on Tiger I (mid)'s just this morning as part of a speed/ bogging/ immobilizing test in scattered trees. ...the results... 45.7% became immobilized from bogging. (And over a 100m stretch moving at fast, in very dry scattered trees a T1(m) would bog on average every 768.4 Tiger-meters. This gives a 13% chance that a T1(m) will bog in any 100m section of these conditions, and one would immobilize every 1681 tiger-meters which gives a 6% chance / 100m to immobilize. All of this at a whopping .39m/s or 1.41km/hr - .88mph! (Smokin'!) Anyway- I did get the highest grade in my university statistics class, so I am good with the theory (like knowing that ~90 tests isn't S.S.) Unfortunately I have forgotten how to figure things like P factor. I will check out that like, because it would be great to measure that stuff. I actually measure stuff much more often in CMBB than I play the game. Things like blast densities from artillery, differences between air and ground bursts in different terrains, in and out of foxholes, of course with different blast ratings. I have determined for every vehicle in the game actual rates of fire of the main weapons, and chances to hit targets at specific ranges, from that I was able to estimate engagement times at set ranges (given a standard size target silouette from the front). I have assembled myself a few hundred page vehicle guide for the game. I was thinking about selling it, (talked to Battlefront about it, but they wanted me to foot the initial bill of printing 2000 copies before they went on the market) but I just did it for fun, so when I got tired of working on something I just stopped. It's a great reference though that I use every game. Anyway, I'll try to include P factor in my tests from now on. Jeez, that's a long post! Mike

Roger, I'll run some big tests on that too. Mike

Right, just like pushing them off a road or whatever to get them out of the way. I didn't do a huge test, but I used control of 57 tests and an experiment group of 34 tests on the same two vehicles (just to make sure everything was identical). A 20% difference does seem more than would be produced by a statistical anomaly. Funny thing is, as many players as CMBB has, there are an equal number of thories as to how to get them out. My dad thinks that travelling at hunt keeps them unstuck; I always used fast. I have been able to find no significant evidence that a reverse order, cancellation of the movement order, a turn (which would just be dumb) or anything else makes a difference in freeing the vehicle. Mike

Thanks, rather than bogging, I was asking about speed- but this does help a lot with my other posts. Does the 1.03 patch take the MMP into account? I noticed that 'ground pressure' was not always a direct correlation to weight/ track size. Oh, I get it, the MMP may be what off road speed is based off of, maybe times a constant for each terrain type? Mike [ April 26, 2006, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]

Okay, I think I analyze this game more than I play it. Actually I'm sure of it. I was running different vehicles to see how they are affected by terrain. So far I am only working on very dry grass (with a few controls done on pavement.) DOES ANYONE *KNOW* WHAT MECHANISM DETERMINES A VEHILCE'S SPEED ON X TERRAIN? Granted there could be slight variations in my times, but I took an average speed of five vehicles of 14 different models from the time they crossed a line at full speed to the time they crossed another line 100m later (no turns, flat open ground). Trying to determine the equation for how the speed is determined on dry grass I graphed ground pressure to speed (speed is the y on all of these graphs) as it seemed to correlate. It did, but we had some definate outliers such at the Panther A, T-34, BT-2, and Bren Carrier - these were much faster than it's ground pressure should have been if that was the only factor. Suspecting that max speed was certainly involved I graphed that. I was not surprised to find a definite correlation, and that it was not a perfect line. Next I graphed all 14 vehicles on Max Speed/Ground Pressure to recorded speed. This seemed to make sense in my head. The graph was pretty straight, but had distinct outliers such as the Elefant (slow for numbers) and the Soviet vehicles (fast for numbers). Just checking I graphed Power to weight ratio. Correlation, of course, but the BT-2 threw this totally out the window with it's huge P/W ratio. I went back and graphed Ground Presure / Max Speed just to get a different perspective. This gave me the best graph thus far, but again, the Soviet vehicles were a little too fast for their numbers. DOES CMBB ASSIGN ARMOR AN 'OFF ROAD RATING' LIKE WHEELED VEHCILES AND NOT PUBLISH IT? I mean obviously a T-34 would have a faster chassis than a PzIV all else the same. I've been working on this for two days and have really thought this over and can come up with no other solution. Help! :confused: Mike

The rescuer got bogged fairly infrequently. I was testing in open ground and soft terrain in 'deep mud' conditions. I was actually very surprised how few vehicles did get stuck of the kind of high pressure KTs. The point is- if you have a vehicle that can do the rescue it must be close by anyway, so the chance of a bog per any given minute as not that high even in the absolute worst conditions. Out of about 100 scenarios I only lost two immobilized rescuer vehicles, about 5 bogged in total.

Move over and behind the bogged one. It'll push it along, so the fast/reverse/whatever point must be far enough behind it that it won't reach it in that turn, but close enough that you can adjust the direction if need be as the rescuee is pushed to one side or the other. Don't worry about the rescuer vehicle 'pivoting' right next to the rescuee- I found that many times the exact instant the rescuer stopped pivoting and started pushing again was when the vehicle came unglued.

Bogged, certainly. I did attempt to push immobilized vehicles around to see if they would get unstuck. No luck. As I think the immobilized vehicle represent one that is hopelessly stuck or has lost a track I don't think pushing it onto differeent terrain will help. ...plus it's really hard to push it far. THE NEWEST RESULTS- PUSHING A VEHICLE *DOES* HELP FREE IT! Of the 34 vehicles that got stuck, only 7 of them stayed immobilized after contact with the other 'rescue' vehicle. That's 21%. Of the 57 vehiles that got stuck that I did not send the rescue vehicles, 22 of them became immobilized. That's 39%. Now, the sooner you can get the rescue vehicle there, the better. As a stuck vehicle usually resolves itself within about a minute and a half, a vehicle on the other side of the map obviously won't help. Also I noted that it seemed that when another vehicle was closeby (within 20m) the vehicles seemed to free themselves more often. Meaning- when the rescue vehicle was approaching the stuck vehicle and the vehicle freed itself what seemed a little more often than otherwise. I have not tested this reliably yet. REVERSING officially does not stop getting stuck. My rescue vehicles bogged repeatedly, twice becoming immobilized. In one case that was pretty cool the rescue vehicle bogged about a meter from the stuck vehicle. The stuck vehicle freed itself at almost exactly the same time as the rescue vehicle bogged, so I pushed it out. Rescued the rescuer! In short- pushing another vehicle out does help marginally, and it is pretty fun to do. More fun at least than just sitting there waiting to see what happens! While a 20% increase does not seem like much think about it this way: one bogged vehicle in 2.5 becomes immobilized. If you help it, only one in five will become hopelessly stuck! More coming! Mike [ April 25, 2006, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]

Okay, some preliminary testing: (Not really statistically significant yet, but interesting nonetheless....) For a baseline: vehicles in deep mud, mix of soft ground and openground. The stuck vehicle has another vehicle of equal weight (all KTs) within 40m. To keep everything the same, I saved the game with these two stuck vehicles and replayed it many different ways. The stuck vehicle without assistance becomes immobilized 5 out of 12 times (42%). The stuck vehicle with assistance only became immobilized 3 of 13 times (23%). I know this isn't significant without many more tests (which I'm doing). ALSO- REVERSE IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF NOT GETTING STUCK. Two of my KTs in reverse (going to rescue others) did get at least bogged. (This comes from an earlier thread about getting stuck that I think stated you can't get stuck in reverse.) I don't know yet if they get stuck or not, but they do at least bog. More coming, Mike

Tried it one more time, it worked. Mike

Oh crap, I pressed okay so I lost the autosave. Anyway, sounds like some time in the mud for me! I took screencaps if anyone cares I'll take the time to upload them if this seems to work. My theories: 1) Coincidence 2) Being hit from the front forces the SU into reverse mode. Not the ordered reverse mode, we know this does not unditch, but a 'game' reverse mode. Since you cannot get stuck in reverse, perhaps this frees the vehicle. I'll do more testing when I'm done with this battle. Mike

Just a fluke? My Su-152 gets stuck about 50 seconds through a turn. Immediately after that I give a nearby T-34 (that just passed it) a reverse order pushing the SU at about 20 degrees from straight back. No sooner had the T pushed the SU about two meters before POP, the SU comes unditched and reverses! I had thought I had heard of this tried before, but as vehicles cannot get stuck in reverse I wonder if anyone tried backing into the stuck vehicle? Maybe a coincidence... who knows. I'll play the turn a few more times to see. Mike

I have a AGP ATI and a PCI NVIDEA installed simultaneously. I always make maps with the ATI, and usually play also as it is my default card. Sometimes I'll miss the fog and boot up the NVidea. The slowdown on the map builder is bad though.

That's where the valves are in all old (flathead) engines. I guess the overhead valve (what everyone is more familiar with unless they play around with antiques) became popular in the 1970s (?) because it is much more efficient since the air does not have to make that sharp 180 degree turn. The heads on these engines are simply solid iron pressure holders with spark plug holes (there are obviously no valve covers). The concrete... as the data plates are missing I cannot track the combat history of the vehicle (if any). However, on the inside of a box made from the original side plate armor while in civilian use I found a .30 caliber bullet mark. (You could barely see it.) Either that mark was made in early civilian use before the conversion, or in military use. If I knew it's combat history I could make a better guess for probability on the concrete, but I had primarily two: 1) mine protection- the 'armored' floors would barely stop a hand grenade blast IMO. 2) weight and traction- this guy was used in Canada (a Canadian carrier) and had ice cleats welded to about every 20th track link. It was employed as a tractor for pulling pipe. An extra few hundred pounds could have been thought to be improving the traction. Seems irrelevant to me as the vehilce still weighed about 5000 pounds. At any rate, it took us hours (days) to remove with air chisels! I have the upper armor almost completely restored and should be updating it with pics on my website within a few weeks. Mike [ April 19, 2006, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]

(I also thought of Coriolis forces, since the top of the sight is to the left and in Russia (and the entire northern hemisphere) Coriolis forces are to the right. BUT- ballistics site I have looked at list this as a very small factor. (Even smaller than the centrifugal force pulling 'up' on the bullet due to the spinning earth!) Mike [ April 17, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]