Paul AU

GS_Guderian, You are continuing with fallacy number 4) (we) Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’. Try re-reading what’s already been said about this. Dieseltaylor, You are defending your corner well... .. my 'corner' is merely to add a little justice to the injustice meted to the intial posters. ...almost seem to be a pointlesss exercise. If you'd read what I wrote earlier, you wouldn't be saying that. To repeat: I hope someone can alert BFC to this 'discussion' so that if the 'bogging' regime in CMx2 is the same, at least we'll know that it was their conscious decision to disregard the concerns raised here. …untutored in the mechanical unreliability of different WWII vehicles or the fact that roads were normally dirt. You are continuing with fallacy number 4) (we)Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’. If you’d have read what I’ve said, you’ll note a complete absence of argument about the fact immobilisations are ’realistic’. This has been specifically addressed in previous posts. Have a re-read. And everything (else) you’ve just said, has already been addressed as well. BTW do you think your knowledge has improved from the thread? What’s the last thing I said, before this post? (Yes, I’m suggesting you read what I wrote). I suppose I could add a third thing I’ve ‘learned’: It’s more than possible that BFC have implicitly acknowledged their bogging rate was too high, by reducing it in CM: AK.

If you are defending and have all your units hidden (as I stupidly used to) I still do. It usually only takes a couple or three strategically placed un-hidden units to provide 'spotting cover' for all. Then you can suprise the enemy to greater effect when your 'Borg-informed' troops do eventually chose to un-hide and let-rip - (and it's satisfying, believe me...) I find the cover-arc thing, in this situation, more dangerous. (Not to mention overly 'fiddly' for large numbers of troops, in the early stages).

Jason asked about ‘motivation’, and for my part it was that too many of the responses to the ‘anti bogging’ posts were setting up and attacking ‘straw men’, misrepresenting the anti-bogging case. Either that, or many people simply didn’t understand what was being said. I put quite some time, in good faith, into trying to correct these mispprehensions. “I don’t think that the ‘pro’ bogging people are properly reading what the ‘anti’ bogging people are saying”, is how I started on this. The persistent misconceptions are that anti-bog posters: 1) Are only complaining because they don’t like to loose a game. 2) Don’t have the skill to avoid game-spoiling immobilisations 3) Are against any form of ‘luck’ in a simulation game. 4) Don’t understand that immobilisations are ’realistic’. 5) If they do understand, they must be against realism per se. 6) Are against any form of bogging in the game. I think that I and others have demonstrated all the above lines of ‘argument’ are bogus, and have no basis in anything that’s actually been said by the anti-boggers. Despite this, I see the very same misrepresentations and straw-men still being raised at great length and despite my and others best efforts. So, some people either: a) can’t be bothered to properly read the posts they’re responding to. literally can’t see the distinctions being so (laboriously and repeatedly) made c) Just like winding others up by ignoring points, or intentionally misrepresenting them. None of those cases justifies continuing contributing here. I did however learn two things: You can sometimes push tanks out of bogs It’s easy to bog a discussion here. (And that’s quite a spoiler, too).

Andreas said: (Edit: in the 'a, b, c' below, Andreas is (he thinks) paraphrasing others comments, not 'saying it', himself. In case that wasn't clear). a) Seemingly every time my tanks enter scattered trees they bog. By the most unlucky CM player in the universe, or someone who's memory is tricking him. Not an issue. The over-eagerness of vehicles to bog, in general, is clearly an issue to many people here. My AC bogged in a road in snow. Not a bug, a feature. ACs should bog there. I was the one that mentioned the bogged AC. Andreas, go back to page 2 of this thread, and read what I actually wrote. At no time did I or anyone else suggest anything was a 'bug', nor did I complain about bogged ACs, per se. You're misrepresenting me, in fact. c) Tanks bog and then break down completely on dry ground. Yep, could be a problem... Could it be you just remember it because the 'flash of anger' Something I had said, earlier, was: " ‘game spoiler’ bogging is rare. But when it happens, they’re hard to forget. I think the point is, why have any games ‘spoiled’ at all, when a fix would be easy to implement?" I am all ears for a discussion on breakdown probabilities. Not one based on flashes of memory… See above. I’d thought it was one ‘based on’ not having games wrecked unnecessarily. My memory's clear on how often it happens, and I’ve explained why it’s still worth fixing in CMx2. [ April 21, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

jacobs_ladder2, you said: So let me get this straight. You DO NOT have control because you DO have control (That’s your idea of ‘straight?) …just NOT in all situations. In the described situations, which are not ALL situations, you have NO control. Does that about sum it up? I think: “in the situations being described, the player has no control” , (which is what I actually said) …”sums it up”, rather better… In other words, in the exceptional situation where a tank inexplicably, or without apparent explanation, bogs (“on a road or on dry ground” you seem to have inexplicably left that part out) , you have no control. Unless, as I said, not moving your tank during the whole game, counts as ‘control’. In other situations, which we are, according to you, not discussing, you have control. Yes, for example, driving your tank at high speed into a swamp. That's something you decide to do, aware of the risk. But no one has complained about that yet (according to me) - and we’re not discussing that sort of situation. Are we. Therefore, you have no control. In the situations being described, clearly not. Please correct me if I have mistated your reasoning. You haven’t stated any ‘reasoning’; merely taken a very long time, to attempt to obfuscate the simplest of facts: In the situations being described, the player has no control. You also energetically said: And finally, a synopsis of (one of my) statement(s)... …being historically correct only matters when it is not detrimental to the player… (etc) … no, to the game. Please read the posts you’re responding too more closely. Or better put...historical accuracy should only be included in the game when it is not potentially disadvantageous to the player. A better put, misrepresentation. I'm not aware of anyone having said that. Which logically implies, the player should have control over historical accuracy for those situations in which said accuracy is a possible detriment to their chances of winning. It seems you’ve typed several paragraphs in reply to something that’s never been said, or implied, by anyone here. (Not entirely a logical thing to do) Here’s what I’d actually said: “It doesn’t make any difference whether the ‘bad luck’ happened to me or my opponent, the game is equally screwed.” Does that about cover it? I had to look carefully for anything in your post that related to anything actually being said by anyone. I’ll just say, I think it’s been better 'covered' elsewhere…

Dieseltaylor, you said: …a realistic game then I am afraid bogging… should remain. – No one has talked about removing bogging from the game, nor has anyone said that 'realism' in itself is a bad thing. You say that my acceptance indicates no skill or knowledge… – Actually I said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, what I actually said was that ‘skill and knowledge’, with regard to the type of bogging I was discussing – simply doesn’t come into the equation. …the poster after you explained about the Russian snows and armoured cars. The ‘poster after me’ merely made a statement of the obvious, which was irrelevant to what I’d said. Nothing was ‘explained’. Dieseltaylor, review the posts you’re referring to, and at least see that I was not making any comment on anyone’s ‘skill’, least of all yours. GS_Guderian, You are contradicting yourself a little me thinks: 1. As long as you just tweak the proportion the whole issue stays alike… Thus we have the same whining, just less often!? That would be the easier way, and yes, game-screwing-random-bogs would be reduced. A better way, as I suggested, would be for probabilities below a certain value to be rounded to ‘zero’ to give players positive control of the worst-offending examples. 2. If you say you tweak the proportion to an extent, that it virtually doesn´t happe on dry ground anymore, it is NOT tweaking anymore. (etc) 2 you will very much end up with tanks that are totaly unaffected by bogging on dry ground, roads etc. while others are biased because of a mathematically higher and thus possible chance to still bog. In the case of your point 1, your point 2 isn’t an issue, because, as I said, the chance will never actually be zero, and all risks remain in the same proportion. In my preferred case however, where road and dry-ground boggings don’t happen at all, at ‘safe’ speeds, it would simply be a question of ‘tweaking’ the right variable. If the ‘terrain propensity to bog’ variable were to drop below a ‘zero’ value as you describe, and is indeed what I suggested, it would still effect all vehicles equally. No vehicle would be bogged on roads and dry ground if those terrain types multiplier was ‘zero’ (anything multiplied by zero, is zero) (assuming they are the first terrain types to hit this ‘zero’ level). And you really think, that wouldn´t call for changes in Prices? As I’ve described it, none at all. 3. Your idea of having tanks never fail on dry ground or roads totaly fails to grasp the whole concept of bogging. It takes into account much more then just loosing a track. Of course it does. And that’s completely irrelevant. You aren´t even answering to this argumentation. That’s because it isn’t an argument. The mechanical cause of the scenario-critical vehicle-bog has no bearing on what’s being discussed at all. 'Roads and Dry Ground' are being talked about only because they represent the minimum 'safe' terrain that would give players the option of NOT taking crap-shoot risks of bogging as it is in CM:BB at the moment.

I do not think that FOW and rarity are at all the same things. People who believe that have not thought it through. In the context that is being discussed here, they are precisely the same thing: that is – player-controlled toggles – like a ‘bog’ toggle that threaten (according to some here) to create ‘different versions of the game’. (Which, they don’t – just like a bog-toggle, wouldn’t). If you think it through, in this context, you’ll see they’re the same. You have control over bogging, to state that you do not have is simply untrue. What I said, is 100% true. Unless never ever moving a vehicle, is a form of ‘control’. Here’s what I said: “when bogging happens as described… losing your carefully moving uber-tank to bogging on flat dry ground on turn 1…With the bogging, as described….” (and Etc, in earlier posts). No, in the situations described my myself and others, there is nil control. You are not in fact equalising things on the battlefield, you are giving an advantage to one player, i.e. the German in CMBB. In the cases that I was describing, this is not true. I said ‘immobilization-probability-toggle’, where the probability can be tweaked. (Just like, as I said, the fog-of-war – which is not an “off-on” switch). In the game-spoiling situations that are of concern here, it’s completely irrelevant who-not-getting bogged on flat-firm-dry-ground (or road) advantages, because that individual game’s screwed anyway. Your KT has just become more expensive, and your T34 cheaper. It is not a small change. So this, isn’t true. No price change would be required if the toggle merely changed bog probabilities. The proportional effect remains the same. If the ‘proportional effect’ makes getting bogged on hard dry ground impossible – as above. I’d be surprised, and it didn’t seem to me, that anyone was really advocating the complete elimination of bogging. That’s what soft ground and marsh etc, are for. To present tactical risks for the player to assess, and have some control over. Unlike the type of bogging that’s being discussed here. …you can also ask for an option to remove weak spot penetrations, since they are exactly the same thing. They’re not, as I explained, the same psychologically, with regard to ‘enemy action’. Annoying, yes, as random air-strikes are, but not as annoying as the turn-2 bog, which has nothing to do with the enemy. Ps. It doesn’t matter whether ACs getting bogged in roads with snow on them is historically correct, unless that AC is your only, or one of few, armour-killers in the game. In which case, ‘historical correctness’ has screwed the game.

I don’t think that the ‘pro’ bogging people are properly reading what the ‘anti’ bogging people are saying. There are several comments like this: I do not make such a big deal out of it and carry it around like an albatross lamenting how unlucky I am. My impression is not that anyone’s ‘complaining’, ‘whining’ about ‘bad luck’ on any personal level. Instead it seems to me that they (and I) have clearly said that when bogging happens as described, it’s simply a game-spoiler. It doesn’t make any difference whether the ‘bad luck’ happened to me or my opponent, the game is equally screwed. I must have played well over 200 games in the CM series and bogging has never been more than an occasional inconvenience to me. Have I been abnormally lucky? No, ‘game spoiler’ bogging is rare. But when it happens, they’re hard to forget. I think the point is, why have any games ‘spoiled’ at all, when a fix would be easy to implement? I can’t think of anything anyone’s ‘complained’ about, that would be easier to fix. Been a lot of comments like: As for a turn off switch I think that sums it up perfectly -- lets all start playing to different versions of the game where our personal untutored opinion is gratified. ‘Untutored’? I can’t see any logical place for a comparison between player ‘skill’ and being happy with game-deciding random events. Being able to accept game-deciding random boggings as just part of the game is no indication of any level of ‘tutoring’, or skill. There is no other similar option in the game except for rarity and, arguably, fog of war. In fact the ‘fog of war’ ‘toggle’ is exactly the type of thing that’s being suggested. Every negative reaction made to the initial posts must equally apply to the fog-of-war toggle. Did it create ‘different versions’ of the game? Are they making ‘special concessions to other realistic aspects’? Did Battlefront make a mistake by including it? What you are asking for is a special concession... (.ie, a simple improvement)…… distinguishing bogging from all other realistic facets of the game. You mean, just like the fog-of-war-toggle, and others, do? Second, BFC would have to make this concession based on the huge assumption that it is a critical issue. The small improvement would cost nothing to include in CMx2, so it doesn’t have to be ‘critical’ to be worth adding. …that a large number of players are having their game experience ruined or significantly impaired by this feature. They are not and it is not. How do you know this? IMO, if something is very easy to implement, and it’s going to stop any small amount of game-spoiling, why wouldn’t it be implemented? I have been playing since CMBO and I have NEVER had a tank become bogged on a road. Or on dry firm ground? I recently saw an armoured car, at ‘move’ (or hunt) speed, in the snow (CM: BB) get immobilized on a road. It was a good example; none of my vehicles ever moved off the roads (well not much), and no matter how ‘tutored’ I am or aren’t, the only way I could have avoided that bog, was not to move at all. Because in that case it was just one of a gaggle of ACs, it didn’t matter, but had it been one of few bits of armour I had… To my mind, the only legitimate point made by any of the pro-immobilization bunch, as regards to a ‘bog-toggle’, is: What’s the difference between randomly losing your carefully moving uber-tank to bogging on flat dry ground on turn 1, and say a highly unlikely artillery or aircraft hit? I think the difference is one of control, and the level of enemy action. With the bogging, as described, there’s both nil control, and nil enemy action. Psychologically, it’s far more annoying for a particular game to be screwed by factors that have no bearing on either your, or you opponent’s actions (or level of ‘tutoring’). (In the same way, the randomness of air attacks is second in line for the ‘scissors-paper-rock’ prize). I hope someone who’s in contact with the Battlefront people can alert them to this … discussion. That way, if there’s no immobilization-probability-toggle in CMx2, we’ll know it was their conscious decision. (I wonder if the fog-of-war, rarity, etc toggles will disappear…)

I vote 'yeah' for early war, for all of the reasons mentioned. Primarily, because it tends to be less "all of your eggs in one basket".

How do people feel about the idea, say, of a human attack vs A.I. defense, where the defense may seem a little thin, only to be jumped by suddenly appearing A.I. reinforcements late in the game? Armour, from a flank, say. If the briefing had contained a hint that such might happen? The idea being to turn an apparent cakewalk into sudden challenge. I've designed scenarios to the reverse effect: human defense, where the A.I. assault looks overwhelming, but unexpected help arrives about half-way through. Would that sort of thing be annoying, or fun?

I had an armoured car bog on a snowy road, just last night. Never seen that before. Imagine if had been my only uber-tank, or one of two or three? "There goes the game". It's just too random, with too potentially large game-play consquences.

I used "withdraw" just yesterday, to get a regular squad out of tank-fire, and it worked. Yes, they paniced, but they got out before the (bloody-great 122mm) tank got off another shot. Yes, they then took a while to rally. But I knew they would, and they had the place to do it safely in. The same squad went on to do well, and ended the game snuggling a VP flag. I reckon the "withdraw" saved them from permanent damage. In other words, what junk2drive, said.

Well, I agree in detail with the OP. I hope Battlefront either tones it way down, or better, makes 'bogging' a player-determined level of probability. As has been said, it can be a game-spoiler. And I'd always assumed that a rail-track embankments would be the last place a AFV would get 'bogged', being as they are as smooth and firm as it's possible to make them. I'd not considered what effect the rails themselves might have.

Well, much as I hate to interrupt the free-flow of humour... Actually, Polish General, I suspect I'm unusual in that I tend to evenly alternate between playing the Russians and the Germans. (My bias is towards playing the ‘under-dog’, depending on time-period). I’m curious as to how unusual that is. Or isn’t.

Squad Leader had asked: So ... historical accuracy, or fun? That is the question. Easy one. Fun. If you're going to claim that a scenario is specifically historical, then you've gotta be specifically historical. And you will be subject to the endless niggly criticism you've seen here, no matter how accurate you think you've been. I personally tend to doubt the historical veracity of all 'historical' scenarios anyway - hence I don't take that aspect of them seriously. Which leaves the 'fun' part. ...Which all adds to my opinion that a better idea is not to claim to be specifically historical. I like the idea of being 'generically' historical - that is - scenarios that say 'there were several battles like this, for example, battle X.' That's enough for me.

>> I going to get any more comments on what they prefer. I’m still learning the game, and mostly play Quick Battles as a fun way to learn stuff and experiment. I don’t feel I’ve “won” unless it’s a Total or Major Victory, and when I’m attacking, the A.I. still often makes that hard. Until that’s no longer true, I’ll probably be playing a lot of QBs. I’m deliberately not-playing Scenarios often until I know more about the game. Kinda “reserving” them for later. I can abandon a QB without finishing it, without letting anyone down, or ‘wasting’ a Scenario. For me, so far, Quick Battles result in an enjoyable game as often as Scenarios do. (Just yesterday I started playing a Scenario (that shall remain nameless) that appeared so uninteresting and constrained (“must get from ‘a’ to ‘b’ in x turns, and that will only be physically possible via one route at full-ish speed) that I gave it up after four turns. People who are into gadgets love QB's because they can pick their weapons. I don’t love gadgets, but I do often enjoy picking my force. As far as that goes, I like it both ways. But picking your force allows you to experiment with units that may rarely come up with automatic force allocation. E.g. what can I do with a ‘sharpshooter’? - my experimental (not gadget) unit of the week. The action (in QBs) is occurring for no rhyme or reason… I don’t see it that way so much. The reasons for controlling objectives in QBs are identical to those in Scenarios – only not explicitly stated. Gamewise, it doesn’t matter ‘why’ certain objectives must be controlled within a certain time. Scenarios only differ in that a colourful story has been attached to the text-introduction. The ‘stories’ are implicit in QBs. …the force allocation is dependant on what toys the two players feel like playing with.… as opposed to being dependant on what toys the Scenario designer feels like playing with? Keep in mind that even the designer of “historical” scenarios chooses the battle, and hence the toys. I don’t share the apparent passion for “historical” accuracy that seems to inform much of this debate. At least not on the level of detail that will prevent some scenario designers being thought of as “slovenly”. I don’t really care if it was A-company or F-company that day. I don’t really care what day it was, either. As long as it’s entertaining, “realistic” in a generic sense, and to an extent, “atmospheric”. All I need to feel is that the battle could have happened. To my mind, a “slovenly” designer is one who fails to give me the above qualities, not one who doesn’t know that “actually, Lt. Smith was on leave that week, and Sgt. Jones headed-up two-platoon during the battle”. Care-factor – zero. I don’t care if the OOBs are totally accurate. As long as it’s believable in a general sense. And related to that is this: I often don’t like battles to be too historically detailed in so far as particular situations, and named historical persons are involved. In contrast to some who think that such Scenarios serve as memorials, I am uncomfortable to think I am “playing” the deaths of real people in such detail. All wargaming is this, yes - just don’t rub it in.

(Which is not as much fun as it's cracked up to be)

"No, I never did and never would put a "Check Anywhere" feature in with "Check Everywhere". " -- Yah but we then have to do that 'manually.

Tom W, In response to your initial post… “grogs” who want to “simulate battle field conditions as realistically as possible without actually getting shot at” should only be able to “see” the canvas walls of their CP tent, and nothing else. A “realistic” company or battalion level command game would be a text-based one, with the occasional hysterical field-telephone conversation thrown in. Now… why wouldn’t that be a good “game”? Like I said, I’m only as “gamey” as the average gamer.

(And this). "Ruthless" said it better than I could. Battlefront.com, thanks for seeing and replying. It was worth a goat. (And CM's A.I. is pretty darn good, BTW) One last request... don't make CMx2 too different, 'cause it's near perfect as it is. [ February 10, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

(Edited this out ('cause it was stoopid)) [ February 10, 2005, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

Oh. (Gameyness is the last refuge of the... average gamer).

But Michael, like I said, you *can* go to that spot, and look "manually", can't you? I mean, by going down to "level 1" (as accurate as that may be) and panning around? So you *can* already check lines of sight from any spot. It just takes a bloody long time and effort. ("Look manually"? There's something wrong with that sentence...)(I think I put my finger on it, though))

If there was one thing I would sacrifice a goat for to influence the BFC gods during their Creation of CMx2, it would be improved Line Of Sight displays. The LOS-finder in CMx1 is good. But I reckon that the most annoying thing about CM is the “work” involved in determining tile-to-tile LOS, so many times. And it’s so vital. And it only works from tiles you have units in. Perfect, would be: click on a “tile” (even unoccupied ones), then select “show all in-sight tiles”, which are then highlighted. It can be done. I’d be prepared to wait for the time it takes a PC to work that out. Yes, I know, realism. “But you don’t know what that enemy-held hill can see”. But nevertheless I want to trade slavish time-consuming player LOS-checking, which we can all do, tile-by-tile, for a faster no-pain two-click display. It’s worth a goat. (I realise that LOS is influenced by things like binoculars, and can be variable depending on the unit. But still). That would be the one best improvement CMx2 could have. (P.S., oh yeah, and I have this idea… there should be a “ditch” terrain tile… like a “wall” tile, only with negative elevation and semi-trench qualities. What’s war without ditches?) (You think one goat will be enough?)

Back to ‘bailed crews’ for a sec… someone was saying that crews only get out once their equipment was damaged beyond repair. I’m not so sure. I reckon that AFV crews, especially, shall we say, ‘motivationally-challenged’ crews, bailed under various circumstances, sometimes before even being shot at. For example, I’ve read an eye-witness account of a StuG crew bailing because they were being swarmed by enemy infantry in close quarters, and there wasn’t time or space to get out on tracks. Crews bail because it’s ‘obvious’ certain death not to – even if not actually being shot at, yet. For example, being caught in the open against perceived ‘invulnerable’ tanks, or just being outnumbered enough that staying in the Can was just asking for it. A couple of ‘harmless’ ricochets can rattle a ‘green’ crew into a ditch. But these crews can re-man their AFV. Eventually. (Rather anti-Telly Savalas like, actually). I’m glad that BFC seems to be thinking about this little niggle. Coolies. (Only problem for Them is, when They say they’re Listening, it just encourages more comments/advice/ requests!) (What a great game).