Artkin

Putin declared martial law in annexed territories... Well that isn't much of a difference when your rogue troops are assassinating civilians at gunpoint without consequence.

It's nice to play on the same map and all, but that just isnt going to cut it for the modern titles. Even in ww2, I achieved decisive victories on a cut up version of Rad Full 2 and would have cleaned my opponent off the map, pushing much more than the allotted 5.7 x 5.7km. Think how cool it would be if you were able to piece together all 5 Orshanets maps.

How smart. We spend 900 billion a year on our military and we're scoffing at the small amount sent to Ukraine? Congress are as dumb as rocks. Or theyre just massively corrupt as I've always suspected. A few thousand javelin sets in the right hands managed to severly dampen the combat power of our greatest rival. These people can't be serious. Edit: just caught up now, sorry. But my point is clear. Nato should be very pleased if things dont get dirty from now on.

I think we have a good lot here JM. Most people chip in one way or another. You got a laugh out of me.

Certainly this helps if you want to reuse the same battlefield and retain the craters, damaged houses, smashed fences or hedges, and vehicle wrecks. Have you experimented with Campaign core unit files? I call them MASTERTOE's. I stuff a division or larger into a file, and import the troops to the map I want to use them for. I can edit the MASTERTOE file to account for losses, so the next time I incorporate it into a new scenario, then the losses will be done already for me. I haven't wanted anything more than the ability to combine maps, because I do feel like we have almost all the tools. Something that could fix all of this IMO, is an operational layer where you can slap maps together into one big image. You can assign grids of varying size or shape to these maps, and the game would keep track of your troops, front lines, etc.... There's a lot of potential with this idea.

Okay how about USA then? Have you looked at the turn I posted yet or nah? Fine I'm totally cool with that, but at the very least from a gameplay perspective - my conscript vehicles are bogging within 250m of driving, and even less in the turn that I posted. In my opinion these vehicles must have had some sort of off road capability. In the case of the PSW222/3 it's a 2/5 on the HUD. It feels like a 0 or 1/5 currently. It sucks especially since conscripts generally perform realistically in combat compared to regular troops.

@Lucky_Strike absolutely. let me know. I love creative Soviet style defensive works with alternating fields of mines and barbed wire.

@Ultradave I did not quote this, but I did find Steve saying that there was no historical information to base bogging on. So this was the "next best thing". I have to disagree. The M3 scout car is like a car. It's a 9000 pound car, but still should drive just like an automobile. It's my opinion that if you take a military aged male they should have SOME idea of how to use this equipment. The bogging on turns 1 and 2 and subsequent immobilization just showed how high the rate was. If anything I would gladly settle for my vehicles to have a slightly lower rate of immobilization on dry grass fields. We can already simulate 1m elevation changes in the editor right? So WTF are we simulating in dry open fields? Also since I cant quote efficiently at all on mobile, the bogging was MUCH more than 1-4.

@JM Stuff please follow this link, the process is simple, you only need to do what is in thr first post. Replace "0A" with "08". 0A represents CMBS, and 08 represents CMRT. Using this you can use maps from different games at your leisure. If you read the whole thread there are ways to move (some) stubborn maps over too

I've had this test saved on my hard drive already for a reason.

I do wonder why you think they would improve the experience. Can you please elaborate? Personally I think having the ability to combine CM maps is the missing element for my own operational level games. It's fine if you chop up a big map (5x5km into 25 1x1km maps), but when you combine different maps there's no way to combine them unless you do it manually.

I would like to say that the German side is completely finished for my Stalingrad game, and the Soviets are very close to being totally polished off.

So they like to sit outside of the trench? It seems that you've nailed it in your picture. What is their behavior like that? Normal hopefully? If they shift around after the picture was taken how about trying the pause command as a workaround? Using pause isn't the best, since it stops your squads from functioning like normal. Sometimes they won't fire back as much. I think I ran into a bug with pausing teams who have men separated. I have 2 men sitting in a woodline, but a third man is halfway across a field (Same team). I set them to pause since they were under intense artillery fire, and they have been "exhausted" for about 10 turns despite not moving. I just unpaused them a couple turns ago so I'll see if they regain their strength finally.

Then how come the keubelwagon doesnt bog at nearly the same rate as the PSW? (Edit, should actually test this first, but I have never noticed the keubel to be a bogger) Surely it was not designed for offroad usage like the PSW was. You'd think the keubelwagon would break something first. Yes, the PSW has more mass, but it also has much larger wheels, and seemingly more suspension travel to accompany the mass. You should take a look at the file I've submitted. There's no reason my vehicles should be bogging and immobilizing on turns 1 and 2. They dont even have time to get up to speed.

I've driven DRW vehicles through grass, but not at speed so it doesn't really compare. Anyway there were much less roads back then, and considering this is a recon vehicle it was probably designed with offroad in mind to an extent. Again, I'd understand if the vehicles weren't breaking down within a few hundred meters of offroad on grass. If the vehicles are experiencing mechanical failures I would expect them to be immobilized and not bogged. There was a high rate of immobilization, sure. But there were also a lot of boggers who managed to free themselves. It really doesnt make sense to me how a veteran crew is less bog-prone on flat, very dry grass. I'm not discounting discrepencies in the terrain. But moving at "Fast" should have you flying over whatever micro terrain long before you get stuck. Especially on "very dry" grass. What are we modeling? Half a meter holes in the ground? Rocks?

Everything is custom, since the troops are Conscript, with Extreme fanatism and +2 leadership.

And yet another quote... Perhaps the M3 and the PSW222/3 have abnormally low values compared to other vehicles with a similar tire size to weight ratio: "I don't remember if the old CMx1 code had the ability to special case vehicles to tweak them towards being more/less prone to bogging than their stats alone indicate, but I know for sure it's possible with the current code."

Do you understand my vehicles were driving on grass? Here's another Steve quote: "Bogging should be fairly common, generally speaking. Immobilization, however, should be fairly uncommon *if* the ground conditions and player choices are in synch. As I said, and as BlackMoria said, there are just some situations where immobilization is inevitable. An example of that from Iraq is An Nasiriyah: ... Again, bogging should be fairly common... immobilizations should be fairly rare. An Nasiriyah was definitely not the norm, but 8 vehicles with presumably very experienced drivers got stuck. They didn't have the information they needed to avoid that situation, so the player shouldn't either." AND The grass might not be hard, but the very dry ground underneath it should be. "We could use a save of this sort of thing. Vehicles, under normal circumstances, should not be bogging on hard, dry surfaces. Especially not roads. There must be something specific that's triggering this for you guys because, obviously, we'd see thousands of posts complaining about this if it was a simple road + vehicle = bogging situation." So if we are talking about things that aren't roads, what other terrain tile can vehicles run over that are just as safe? Dirt tiles? There's dirt underneath the grass, and this grass isn't "XT".

Well Steve said his M17(?) became bogged because a branch got lodged inbetween his tracks. In the case I present it's an open field.

But on dry grass it should carry you through a troubled spot. Unless we're simulating rocks in the grass which annihilates your wheels.

And since I can't double post quotes from 11-13 years ago: Battlefront.com Administrators 35.7k Posted May 8, 2009 BTW, earlier there was a point made about speed and the chances of bogging. It is true that in some circumstances it is better to be going fast because the momentum of the vehicle might carry you through the problem spot before other physics take control of the situation. However, these types of situations are usually self evident and are, IMHO, infrequent. More often than not going slow produces better results for the following reasons: 1. Unless you've personally done recon on the terrain you're hoping to speed onto, it's quite possible that the spot you're trying to get over is just a warning about even worse terrain to come. If you speed ahead you could pass easily through a moderate problem right into a serious one. 2. Generally speaking if you go slowly you can feel the vehicle starting to get stuck BEFORE it gets stuck. This gives you time to process the information and cease forward motion. At that point you have a range of options such as recon ahead, gunning the engine and going through the next patch faster, downshifting into a lower gear range, or best of all... backing up onto known solid ground. 3. Since speed x time = distance traveled, the faster you go the less time it takes to go a specific distance. If you go slowly and figure out the terrain is becoming worse you are more likely to be at the beginning of the trouble spot instead of in the middle of it. This means good terrain, which you already safely drove over once, is easy to get back to. Even if you get stuck at this point you have more options for recovery because you have less distance to get out of. 4. Velocity can do some very interesting things to a vehicle's mechanical integrity There's a big difference hitting a tree stump at crawling speed vs. 10 mph. vs. 20 mph. At crawling speed it's just a light bump which likely won't cause damage. At 10 mph you might break something. At 20 mph you might actually bounce up and over the obstacle (with or without causing damage), but then upon landing find yourself with compounding damage potential. Ever seen a picture of a tank with with a broken road wheel? With out knowing how it got to be broken I feel I can offer up a theory 5. Turning to avoid obstacles that come into view is super easy when going slow, very difficult to do when going fast. Anybody who drives a car on a road knows this already. A deer in your headlights at 65mph is almost a certain collision, but at 5mph it is almost certainly not. 6. Anybody who has hit a rock or a stump with a wheeled or tracked vehicle at anything over than a crawling speed can tell you how quickly and seriously your vector can change. Again, if you're going slow your vector will change less dramatically and quickly because of less momentum. You also will travel less distance off course when going slower than when going faster. Going off course in an open field might not matter much, but in other situations it matters a lot. 7. It's generally best to drive off road with the least traction option possible. That way when you start to feel the vehicle having problems you have options, such as shifting into 4 wheel drive, engaging a lower gear range, or doing combinations of things. The theory is that if you get yourself stuck with the best options you're screwed, but if you get stuck with the lowest options you have something left to play with. Personally I think it's a balance because if you go with a medium setting you're less likely to get stuck in the first place and yet still have at least a couple additional options. With my Pinzgauer (military 4x4) I would drive in 4x4 and still have the ability to lock front and/or rear differentials as well as shift into low range. Only got stuck once in deep mud just after I said to myself "maybe I should stop here" Anyhoo... this is just more stuff to consider. I think people with off road driving experience have a very, very different concept of bogging/immobilization than people who don't. Steve

Okay, well I just found something important. Apparently speed does affect bogging. I also found Steve agreeing with what I said earlier about "momentum" " Administrators 35.7k Posted July 21, 2011 As I said, it makes a very big difference in terms of the TC's ability to have the Driver navigate terrain. So my guess is that's why the IDF recommended standing tall in the turret. But there's no way it makes a difference for anything at a distance. You can see this for yourself if you go outside and get on top of a car. Kneel and that's probably about where our guys in CM are at. Then stand up. That's where the IDF guys would be. Notice how you don't get any new information except for the area right around the car. The chance of Bogging goes up with the speed, and of course speed varies by terrain type. These simulate, as best we can, the difficulties of negotiating terrain with speed. If we really did things right we'd have all kinds of unexpected behaviors happen, which would cause people to inform us, with strong conviction, that our game is completely broken and unplayable Steve"

I could have sworn Steve wrote a post about speed not affecting bog rate. If anything the higher speed would create less bogging instead of more, seeing how a 9,000 pound vehicle (PSW222) has so much momentum that it would crash through any obstacle on the floor. Driving slow in snow will sometimes get you stuck for this reason. I would be open to believing that this isn't a problem if the terrain was different. Also if it didn't happen so abruptly with vehicles (Within 250 freaking meters). PSW222 and M3 scout cars arent too far off from what would be driven in civilian life. A truck driver might be **** with a rifle but a great driver, not warranting the bump in veterancy to "Regular" A military aged male probably knows how to drive a car, or has some idea of how. So it doesn't make sense to me why these sub 10,000 lb vehicles are especially bog-prone to conscripts. This is especially a problem for me since I find conscripts to be the ultimate CM experience. I hate the borg-like spotting and engaging we typically have with troops. You can wipe a house out entirely with small arms, without ever stepping near it. On conscript this is not the case at all. I think green troops are a better representation outside of urban areas. But in urban areas, conscripts play very much like the footage we have seen from Ukraine.

They should all port to CMRT with 0 issues I imagine. You have to hexedit them which only takes a minute

WOW!!!! BIG IMPROVEMENT!!! This is a must have. What about possibly raising the trench if you are running into issues? Is that possible? The trench would retain its properties, and look better. It would look good in the ditch locking, though it looks perfect already.