Jump to content

Bogging and Immobilized: is it right?


Recommended Posts

I do think the issue of Immobilized armor not returning between scenarios in a campaign is something that needs to be looked at.

I'm playing a campaign. You mean to tell me I've lost these tanks for the duration? Just as if I've lost them to enemy fire like some noob who recklessly bandies them about?

Now I've gone from slightly miffed to just plain pissed.

I hope that what you're saying is not true. It will spoil what was looking like a great campaign. If those tanks aren't there next round, I'll just pull the plug. That is, if I even make it to the next round without 'em in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a bit of testing using an adaptation of Lt Bull's setup. To Bull: you ought to go in there and make all the tanks have identical crews. I used 0 leadership, normal motivation, high fitness.

I paved every square on Bull's map, and put mud underneath (it appears on the edges of the roads). Then I ran tanks back and forth on the roads. This did nothing -- never even one bog. As one would expect. Then I tried having the tanks drive a slight diagonal, so they started on the edge and diagonal across to the next road by the end. No effect except some slowing. Finally I hand maneuvered some tanks to drive perpendicular to the roads. Again, nothing bad.

Anyway, at least for paved roads, there does not appear to be any effect of sliding off. Because of the mud, one would think if there was anything about the terrain underneath that it would cause at least some bogging. But it didn't.

Perhaps things are different for dirt roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm playing a campaign. You mean to tell me I've lost these tanks for the duration? Just as if I've lost them to enemy fire like some noob who recklessly bandies them about?

Now I've gone from slightly miffed to just plain pissed.

I hope that what you're saying is not true. It will spoil what was looking like a great campaign. If those tanks aren't there next round, I'll just pull the plug. That is, if I even make it to the next round without 'em in this one.

It depends on the campaign. Some campaigns do replace immobilized or destroyed vehicles, some don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say replaced, do you mean the editor allows for a certain % of repaired vehicles returning, or do you mean that reinforcements are scheduled?

If a % can be repaired so they return then setting that at an appropriate level would help mitigate the frustration of losing so many tanks permanently to immobilization in each scenario of a campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a campaign designer set different repair/replacement rates for vehicles that have received only minor damage (such as immobilization from terrain, which would presumably only represent a thrown or broken track or similar) vs. vehicles that have actually sustained more serious damage, like an AP round into the transmission? The short term tactical effects of a thrown track and a wrecked transmission are basically the same. But there are huge differences in how long it would usually take to repair a tank with these types of damage to fully mobile status.

I don't think so, but I don't have the game in front of me so I can't confirm.

If not, I think this would be a good thing to consider adding to the game sooner rather than later. While there are certain situations (such as a rapid withdrawal) where an immobilized vehicle with only minor damage like a broken track would probably be lost, in general vehicles with minor damage like this could be repaired by the crew and returned to action quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a campaign designer set different repair/replacement rates for vehicles that have received only minor damage (such as immobilization from terrain, which would presumably only represent a thrown or broken track or similar) vs. vehicles that have actually sustained more serious damage, like an AP round into the transmission? The short term tactical effects of a thrown track and a wrecked transmission are basically the same. But there are huge differences in how long it would usually take to repair a tank with these types of damage to fully mobile status.

As far as I know, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then that's a significant problem with campaigns...

IIRC CM1 had a feature by which one could adjust the % repaired vehicles that could be recovered/repaired for the next battle in a campaign. Am surprised that CM2 doesn't have that rather important feature.

CMBN does have that important feature just not in the detail YankeeDog is describing...you set the chance of repair to a percentage, along with other things like rest and resupply. Reread what he asked, it's not the same as not having any repair.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMBN does have that important feature just not in the detail YankeeDog is describing...you set the chance of repair to a percentage, along with other things like rest and resupply. Reread what he asked, it's not the same as not having any repair.

Mord.

Exactly. You can repair vehicles between missions, but it doesn't distinguish between a tank that got its turret blown off (figuratively) and a tank that threw a track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the campaign. Some campaigns do replace immobilized or destroyed vehicles, some don't.

Cool. We'll see how it goes. Turns out I'm actually doing fine without those Panthers, since a bunch of PZIV's just arrived.

Yes, I am playing your German campaign (forget the name) and it is EXCELLLLENT!

Your "Devils Descent" campaign was the best I've played so far. This one is proving itself to be equally as good. The narratives are outstanding. I hesitate to say they're the best thing because the maps are equally as interesting . . . but the narratives really help get me involved in the campaign. It becomes a role-playing thing, which is what a good scenario should do.

Anyhow, back to the original topic. I DO want my vehicles to suffer boggings and breakdowns . . . I just don't want it to feel gamey. When I have a jeep bog itself on a turn for no obvious reason, it feels gamey. When I lose a whole platoon of Panthers to mud, while a bunch of Opals breeze on by . . . it feels gamey.

I can rationalize it, but I'd rather not have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
All non-paved roads have semi-abstracted ditches.

Especially noticeable on diagonal roads.

I agree that the reported boggings seem excessive, but wanted to make sure folks were aware.

Running a tank into a dry ditch should not bog it.

If it were german tanks bogging more than Allied ones, then I would say it was abstracted mechanical breakdowns.

Just resurrecting this thread to report an anecdote from a playtest of my Le Carillon submap (conditions are Wet). I've made Low Bocage areas crossable by inserting Hedge segments on top of Mud (i.e. crossable by vehicles at risk of bogging).

Results: my first M8 successfully broke 5 of these crossing points without bogging (did sustain some wheel damage). My second M8 (see pic) bogged down while negotiating a diagonal sunken Dirt Road. To keep it narrow, this road only has diagonal road segments on the south side (so vehicles encounter the "roadside ditch" in a strange way - moving from Dirt Road to Grass and back again -- you can see them bumping up and down).

Now I'm delighted that CMBN vehicles Bog frequently in Wet conditions, including on Dirt Roads -- that was a large part of the reason armour was so ineffective and roadbound, and that should be reflected in the game.

But given that my first vehicle never Bogged going overland, it doesn't seem right that Dirt Roads should be worse than Mud for bogging in Wet conditions. I will playtest further.

Muddy_roads.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bogging problem encountered with tanks and armored cars, usually ends up with an immobilization.

I have read with a lot of attention the previous posts and it seems that I have not found the 2 things that I usually do when crossing a ford and or being cross country.

The first thing is that I play RT. That makes quite a difference since once you see a tank and or armoured car bogging, you can stop it. Then you can try to reverse it and or going right and or left at slow speed. Going again forward is not such a good idea. Avoid doing it.

The second thing I cross a ford with slow speed and travel cross country with the move order. I avoid fast and even slow, since I get some bogging.

I won’t say that the second thing I am doing is the absolute answer to all the bogging that can happen. But I am sure from experience that to play RT permits you 75 % of the time to stop the bogging processes while it is still time to prevent an immobilization. Naturally if you see it too late, you won’t be able to do anything.

For having a very good knowledge of American tanks and Germans ones I encourage you to read an excellent book written by a WWII 3rd Armored Division Ordnance Lt. He made all the campaign from Normandy to Germany. His work consisted in doing reports on losses from battles and or mechanical failures for the division tanks. Dealing mainly with the M4’s but also with even for the 10 or so M26 Pershing being delivered for battle testing in Germany to the Division.

Being a young engineer, in the Army since 1939, he had a very good technical insight on tanks design and mechanical features. From his point of view the M4 made from the M2 from the needs of Artillery and Infantry high ranking officers, battling each others for having what they thought was best for them, was obsolete at the beginning of the war. He was told at the Aberdeen proving ground, like others that it was the best one existing. They found the contrary on the battlefield.

You will get all the answers about bogging, tracks wears, engine troubles, guns power, armor and so on. A sure thing from that reading the German tanks were far superior to the M 4 Sherman the earlier and later one. But the recovery, repair and replacement of the US tanks was far better than what the Germans could do at the time.

DEATH TRAPS – The survival of an American Armored Division in WWII –

By Belton Y. COOPER; foreword by Stephen E. AMBROSE

Ballantine books – Presidio Press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don;t wnat to go over all the old discussion on excessive boggings etc since I understand that BF is looking at the issue re the problem in the line between road and offroad where most of the problems seem to occur... The real issue is that this is a game and it's hard to have fun when your equipment doesn't work - esp campaigns where one can suffer 20%-25% losses each battle thru immobilizations and not taking part in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the campaign and the intent of campaign designer. If the campaign is set during a week of hard rain on soft ground, then perhaps the SD fully expects the player to lose a percentage of his vehicles to immobilization and has taken this into account in his allotment of forces to the player. Part of the challenge and fun of the campaign might be in the wrench this throws into the gears of your well-laid plans and the need to adapt on the fly during the course of a battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the book myself and my knowledge of it is limited to what I've read here. But if you do a Forum search (include the CMx1 forums) using the title and author you'll find that his thesis is .... heavily disputed and far from the last word on the topic.

Thanks, I shall have a look at the contradictors. It is always interesting to learn about different points of view.

However, besides the fact that Lt Cooper has a high opinion of himself and that can be felt in is writing, what he points out is well known.

As a matter of fact when I was a kid, being fund of tanks and in particular of the Sherman, my father told me about it things that I did not accept at the time. I should have listen to him, since he was an officer in the Engineer and in a small unit gathering Intelligence about enemy technical proficiency. They were called to see materials ranging from the smallest to the bigger one if they were found on the front area. They would examine, take notes and report to higher up about their finding.

When I was twenty, studying about tanks employments and looking at their engineering, I had again talks with my father on rather more precise details. That time I was able to understand what he meant earlier in my teens. I must say that when I read Cooper’s book, at some moment I had the feeling to go over what my father told me at the time. Besides, that point, I must say that I agree with him from the knowledge I have from my long time studying.

I won’t go into all details of the Sherman versus its opponents, but I can write these facts :

If you have a tank with a well powered engine, except when it idles a long time, backfiring with the obligation to change the spark plugs or clean them constantly, which is having a weight ground pressure ratio superior from its opponents, 7pounds per square inch against almost half of that value (causing mobility problems in muddy ground and snow) with later added armor plates increasing its weight and therefore its mobility aptitude you have a problem.

When the 75mm gun and later the 76 mm do not have the velocity of the enemy guns you have another problem. Yet, the gyrostabilizer was a pretty good point. When the height of the tank, makes it difficult to get low on ground defilade you have another one.

When the angle of the front armor doesn’t get near the angle degree recommended for getting most likely a ricochet, you are looking for a highly probable armor piercing shell penetration (some 88 mm went through the tank from the front glacis till the rear end and out !)

The electric or hydraulic power traversing of the gun was a good point. The tracks had less wear than their German counterpart and that was also a good thing for the maintenance teams.

From all that it came out that the tank employment cross country on wet grounds was difficult and ending in a short term with an immobilization after having bogged it. The Germans tanks looking only at that did better, since they had larger tracks and Christie suspension making the ride better. The M24 Chaffee and the M26 Pershing reverted to the Christy suspension (found on the T-34 as well) since it was finally realized and accepted that the volute suspension VVSS of the Sherman and the later HVSS did not give that many advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the number one complaint was throwing tracks in uneven terrain

I have no idea what BFCs intentions are here, but for my own play I take the bogging and immob functionality in the game to be a generic catch-all for any type of accidental/non-enemy event which makes the vehicle no longer mobile. Out of fuel. Rooted transmission. Thrown tracks. Flat tyres. Driver having a bad day. Fouled carburettor. And sometimes, yes, bottoming out in a mud bath. In my mind they all fit under the rubric of BOGGED/IMMOBILISED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, but then for minor stuff the tanks should appear in the next scenario of a campaign, and when they don't it can ruin the campaign and then you have to replay the previous battle and hope the immobilization crap shoot works out in your favor this time. Not satisfying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as it's realistic I'm loving it: I play Battlefield when I want shooty shooty fun fun, but I play CM when I'm awake :D

Edit: Just did a test, a 4km stretch of rocky ground and out of a battalion of mixed American tanks (minus 1 company, so what, about 60 vehicles?) only 5 were immobilized (dry conditions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, but then for minor stuff the tanks should appear in the next scenario of a campaign, and when they don't it can ruin the campaign and then you have to replay the previous battle and hope the immobilization crap shoot works out in your favor this time. Not satisfying.

Well, as I said, it works for me. YMOV. And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I just don't seem to have the same problems that others do with B/I anyway. I don't know why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I've just played a scen which involves moving reasonable number of a variety of German kit in convoy over a distance of 1.5+ km across country in light rain. I used slow, fast, quick, move, hunt. I had one vehicle (that I know of) briefly bog, and none immobilised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general bogging and immobilizing if fair enough. Annoying to be sure. The tank might have thrown a track (immobilized), just breaks down (also immobilized) or gets stuck, If ground conditions are bad due to mud then this s whatr happens. Just because the weather is light rain now does not mean it is not very muddy due to earlier heavy rain.

And in rocky ground perhaps you are more likely to throw a track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...