A Canadian Cat

We lived in the States for four years. Those were great years for Thanks Giving be cause we celebrated *both*. We always had a special meal for the Canadian Thanks giving because we, well, were Canadian. Then we also had a special meal for the US Thanks giving too, well, because everyone else was. I was just reminded of that a few days ago when I was in the butcher shop and the woman in front of me was inquiring about ordering a turkey for US Thanks Giving. Good times. I hope our US friends had a good meal and are enjoying the long weekend.

I don't disagree. My goal here was to get things started. My personal in game experience did not indicate to me what terrain type would be a problem (other than Mud and Fords - I knew those could be a problem). So I was trying to find out how vehicles would perform on different terrain types. I have lost Shermans to immobilization multiple times on good sold ground so to start I was trying to find out which terrain types were the biggest problem. My idea was simply to offer a standard cross country course and try various vehicles out. I was not trying to get a km / immobilization number. My idea was to see if one vehicle was noticeably worse than others and see if that made sense. I applaud the other testing that has been done - keep up the good work. I do not intend to find km / immobilization number so I look forward to more info from your tests. I am going to start looking at roads and see if there are any issues with going on / off roads. I am doing that because I have experienced and have read others' accounts off immobilization around roads that seemed odd. Hopefully my tests will be able to show a clear problem that can be fixed or show that there is no problem and we are just experiencing the luck of the draw. As I said earlier I had no idea how the different terrain types would influence immobilization so my first tests helped shed some light. The biggest issue with running tests with one type of terrain is not that it is a bad idea (note: I think it is a good idea) it is that it will take n times longer than a multi terrain course. I realize that my tests will never yield a kms / immobilization number. Your testing contributions are welcome - good luck and have fun

Thanks for your perspective. You are right the percentage is very low. It will be interesting to see how other tank types compare.

I completed the fast dry tests with wheeled vehicles. Here are the updated results (some of it repeats the first post data): Percentage of operational vehicles when traveling 7km over the test course [B]Vehicle Conditions / Speed Dry Fast Slow[/B] Sherman 22.67% 30.67% Panther 44.00% 37.33% PzIV 36.00% 29.33% Puma 25.33% M8 17.33% Looks like in general the wheeled vehicles did worse (Puma about the same as the Sherman) Puma [B] Fast[/B] Mud 30.67% Sand 0.00% Rocky 0.00% GrassXT 1.33% Ford 42.67% M8 [B] Fast[/B] Mud 30.67% Sand 0.00% Rocky 0.00% GrassXT 1.33% Ford 50.67%

Excellent, taking out the high risk areas shows that there is a chance to become immobilized even on good ground. So, my thoughts on this are that something is not correct. As I said before I have no evidence so it could be that this just happens Shermans IRL. But it does not feel right to me. Now under wet conditions I can see there being issues but when it is all dry grass it just seems odd. Does anyone have any WWII sources about immobilization issues that would indicate this is OK or that it is not?

I started this testing because based on my own experience that Shermans seemed to become immobilized in safe areas often. I have played several scenarios where I have lost 1/3 or a 1/2 of my tanks well away from enemy action and it has effected the outcome of the game. Then in Huzzar my main attack force was severely hampered and cut in half by trouble in a ford. So, far my testing has convinced me that Fords and Mud are not a safe place to go. I did not expect them to be that bad but it seems they are. It is still not clear if that is realistic or not. I fear it is not but I have no evidence. All I can offer is some test on how the game operates. Again I am interested in how the vehicles behave in the game. If showing that combined with some external evidence that I don't have indicates there is a problem then it will get fixed. If there is no problem then we all know what to be careful of. My plan now is to get ride of the high risk areas on the course and focus on normal terrain and roads. My own experience plus some other anecdotal evidence suggests that looking at roads would be worth while. My plan is to check how roads compare to off road and how transitioning from road to off road factors in. My text test course will include space for 10 tanks to run cross country, 10 to run on dirt roads, 10 to run on gravel roads, 10 to drive on a mix of dirt road and off road, 10 to run on a mix of gravel road and off road. I am interested in seeing if there are issues with the transition between road and off road and if being on a road makes a difference or not (the roads will go over the same terrain as the cross country tanks).

Yes, those are the high risk areas - as they should be. It is interesting that the Sherman bogged in other places in dry conditions more than the other tanks. Sounds like you are suggesting I should consider retooling the course to remove the high risk terrain and see what happens then. That might be reasonable. The other thing I am seeing is people reporting bogging on the edge of roads. So, perhaps my test course should be tweaked to remove the wet stuff add roads and drive on and off roads and see what happens. I'll think about that - while I am pressing the big red button for the wheeled vehicles' tests:-)

Excellent thread. How about adding pubs / bars / night clubs. Wouldn't it be great if the guys in the reserve platoon found a pub in that urban battle and got pissed and were rendered combat infective for the rest of the scenario.

I realized I did not link to the saved games for slow so here they are: http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20Shermans%20001.bts http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20Panthers%20001.bts http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20PzIVs.bts and as a bonus here is the results spread sheet (created with Open Office Calc, first tab shows summary, second tab shows results for each trial etc.): http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Results.ods

I have had that happen as well. I'll have to think how to test for that. Sure, each number is based on 75 vehicles running over a 1.2Km course 6 times. I created a course map and then added 15 vehicles and ran the test 5 times for each. The saved games and map are linked in the original message. Not yet. I want to but each of these tests takes time away from play:-). I'll get to it at some point. I am concerned that the amount of immobilization is to high. So, I am trying to get some data to start the discussion. I see what you are saying and why, but I do not agree. I want an accurate experience. If bogging and immobilization was a serious problem in WWII I want to experience that problem too. However, and this is why I brought it up and devised some kind of test, I am concerned that immobilization is happening too often.

Larger numbers are better. Looks like Shermans benefited from going slow but other tanks performed worse. Does this level of immobilization seem reasonable? As an example in a large and long battle in dry conditions does it seem reasonable to have such a large number of tanks become immobilized? If tanks do not cross fords and never drive in the mud they would fair much better. Can I tell where mud is vs dirt in the game? Testing some wheeled vehicles is next. Then wet conditions so see what happens then. Then I'll add roads onto the test course and just drive on the roads to see what that does. This is going to take a while:-)

I completed the dry tests with tanks - two speeds slow and fast Here are the updated results (some of it repeats the first post data): Percentage of operational vehicles when traveling 7km over the test course [B]Vehicle Conditions / Speed Dry Fast Slow[/B] Sherman 22.67% 30.67% Panther 44.00% 37.33% PzIV 36.00% 29.33% Of the vehicles that became Immobilized; here is the break down between terrain types the immobilization occurred. Sherman [B] Fast Slow[/B] Mud 34.67% 26.67% Sand 2.67% 0% Rocky 2.67% 0% GrassXT 2.67% 0% Ford 34.67% 42.67% Panther [B] Fast Slow[/B] Mud 28.00% 26.67% Sand 1.33% 0% Rocky 0.00% 0% GrassXT 0.00% 2.67% Ford 26.67% 33.33% PzIV [B] Fast Slow[/B] Mud 38.67% 28.00% Sand 0.00% 0% Rocky 0.00% 0% GrassXT 0.00% 4.00% Ford 25.33% 38.67%

Interesting - when I first read your post and saw your first picture with the floating icons I mentally went from icon to icon and "guessed" where the unit was. Then when I hit your questions and checked your answers I was spot on both times. Just from from the original picture. I used "guessed" in quotes because I was not guessing, I was using the icons to understand where the units were. Yes, it takes practice but you *can* get good at determining unit position from the floating icons. The one time I don't get it right is where a unit has been spread out over a larger than normal space. This can happen for a few reasons, pathing etc. but the big one is when you have a squad performing an assault command that comes under heavy fire. They often end up spread out and have discarded their movement order. In that case the icon can be hovering over empty ground. Even then from a far away view the icon gives me enough info to know there is a squad over there in the woods. A closer look lets me see what is going on. I just do not see a problem here. In fact I think the floating icons are working quite well. That solution has issues. Most of them were already mentioned except one. Overlapping icons? That is *not* going to work when you are actually playing the game. When units are in close quarters it is very hard to select the right unit and often those floating, stacking icons are the only way to do it. Your overlapping idea means - no selecting the unit you want. If you are frustrated now just wait until you experience that. But the problem with your solution of placing the icon in front of the obstacle is that by the definition of "the icon is where the unit is located" which you guys are espousing I would be under the impression that the enemy unit was right in front of me. This would not be good. I submit that the floating icons actually do a pretty good job of communicating where units are. The stacking feature allows me to select units when in tight spaces. I realize that some are frustrated here but I think from the discussion in this thread it is clear to me that BFC *did* consider icon placement and have chosen a good solution. Thumbs up BFC. No bold used in my post to conserve ink:D

Once I do the slow tests for the three vehicles done so far I will switch to some wheeled ones. The M8 and the Puma. Any other wheeled vehicles to suggest?

OK I looked again. It looks like Sherman / Kangaroo tracks to me. What do you think they look like? Course it is kind of hard to tell with so few pixels.

Ooooo, that would be cool. It looks like a Sherman chassis. That tree makes it hard to say for sure. Either way it will be fun to play the Canadians (and the Brits and Poles)

There are a few ladders around too. I am on the Blitz but there is also A Few Good Men as well.

Oh, man huge oversight on my part. Yes, these are all fast - I do need to do different speeds. So, this should be the worst case.

While doing my bogging tests CMBN became very confused. I was doing the deployment of the Panthers in my Panther bogging test and instead of seeing the usual 3D terrain I saw this: The whole app was messed up after that with blank white spaces for buttons and labels. I did managed to guess my way to save the file and shut down. After that all was well. But the question remains: Who is in the picture? Is it Steve or Charles or one of the people who created the art work and textures who slipped in their own mug in some "not supposed to be used slot". The curious want to know:D

Cool, look at that now I don't even have to look it up:) I would really like to see Kangaroos in the game. BFC, please consider adding them - perhaps to the funnies module.

There has been some discussion recently about bogging / immobilization of tanks. I am currently playing Huzzar! and I ran into a real problem. I have a ford that is clogged with immobilized vehicles. I suppose theoretically it is still passable but given that 5 tanks and 5 HTs tried to cross it and now 3 tanks and one HT are immobilized I do not think I will risk it. I realize that crossing fords constitutes some risk so I was not expecting to get a free pass but just under 50% losses from a ford. Ouch! I have re arranged my plans and will now be conducting a two pronged attack :-) Given how bad that experience was I decided to conduct some tests. I am still working on them but I have created a cross country course for testing and conducted tests for Shermans, PzIVs and Panthers. Here is the test course map: http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test.btt There is about 100m of each of the following terrain types: Mud Sand Rocky Cobble Stone Plow NS Crop 2 Grass XT Grass Hard Dirt Ford Gravel The ford itself is about 70m the rest of the 100m is taken up with banks. I put 15 tanks on the map and ran them back and forth three times for a total of 7km trip over those 12 terrain types. I created allied and axis setup areas in the gravel so if you want to do your own tests all you have to do is purchase your units (for one side at a time) and save under a different name then you can play 1 player WEGO and setup the initial moves from end to end of the map and press the big red button over and over until all your vehicles are either home or immobilized. Here are the saved games with the back and forth movements already plotted for the test I have conducted already: http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Shermans%20001.bts this is 2Mb big because I saved after starting and not before - oops http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20PzVs%20001.bts http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20PzIV%20001.bts Here are the results of running these test 5 times. With 15 tanks per trial this is like running 75 tanks for a 7km trip over my cross country course. I measured the percentage of vehicles that remained operational - all others were immobilized. Vehicle Conditions Dry Sherman 22.67% Panther 44.00% PzIV 36.00% Percentage of vehicles immobilized in which terrain type under dry conditions Vehicle Terrain Type Immobilized Sherman Mud 34.67% Sand 2.67% Rocky 2.67% Grass XT 2.67% Ford 34.67% Panther Mud 28.00% Sand 1.33% Rocky 0.00% Grass XT 0.00% Ford 26.67% PzIV Mud 38.67% Sand 0.00% Rocky 0.00% Grass XT 0.00% Ford 25.33% Clearly there are lots of tests to do yet - other vehicles and other conditions and I plan to add them but I wanted to post the results I had. I was surprised at poorly the Sherman's did. Actually I was surpised at how bad they all did. Remember this is dry conditions so only the mud and the ford are gooey. Is this really what should be expected? I realize that given the testing on multiple terrain types is problematic for determining the true immobilization rate for a terrain type but I don't have time to create a 1000m map of each terrain type and run a test for each vehicle under each condition. This test cannot give you an immobilization rate for terrain but it can compare the performance of different vehicles. How worth while is continuing with this test?

I am sure you are correct. I was hoping for the Kangaroo but perhaps that was around only later in the war. I'll have to look it up again. What ever might be missing I am looking forward to playing with what *is* there

Good timing - they announced it today with some unit information and screen shots. http://www.battlefront.com/community/announcement.php?f=124&a=470 Last time it took a few months between CMBN announcement and release. So, we still have some waiting to do.

Update: it has been four or five minutes now and still no movement but again the crew spend a busy minute fending off more German soldiers. The are now only coming from two directions but still there are enemy troops with in 100m of the tank. I can totally see why they have not replaced the driver. Right now and for the foreseeable future there is no way exiting and remounting will be a safe thing to do. I will just have to assume they will not be going anywhere and help them out as best I can. The other tank is doing a good job of distracting one squad and I do have a mortar unit that can provide some fire support. Their current state is "Nervous".

LOL Has to be one of the best villain lines ever. Thanks for info. They are still alive and kicking plus the Germans are taking a beating. Hey, I can hope.