Test: Vehicle Speeds On Different Terrains

[CarlWAW]

I have done a test about vehicle speeds (Kubel, Opel Blitz, 251/1) on different types of terrain. Here are the results:

 

 

 

At normal speed, no matter what kind of ground, the speed for all vehicles is 16 km/h. 16 km/h on rocky terrain and 16 km/h on a paved road? This does not seem right to me.

 

The speed on very bad ground (like rocky) seems way to high to me. Driving with 16 km/h on rocky terrain with a truck? Good luck! The normal speed for that terrain IMO should be 10 km/h at maximum. Probably walking speed to avoid severe damage after a few meters would be more suited from realism point of view.

 

Transferring this into more realistic game factors this maybe could result in 5 km/h for normal speed (inflicting no damage) and maybe 16 km/h at fastest speed - but with a dramatically increased chance to damage the vehicle.

 

This leads me to the third problem I see: because bad terrain does not have a devastating impact on speed (or on damage, if the terrain is ignored by the player and he orders a fast movement) the variation in speed between the different types of terrain seems not big enough. For example: "normal" speed: on paved road for a Jeep could be around 50 km/h, but 5 km/h on rocky.

 

Fast: IMO shows a nice variation between terrain types (12 - 70 km/h) - but sadly damage is missing completely.

 

What do you think about the numbers?

[kevinkin]

Hi ... nice work. Did you collect damage data? You might have to extend the map distance to see differences. Almost, what was the range on KM/HR Does 16 = 16.00000 or 15.90 to 16.10? Not that knowing this would change your conclusions - just interesting.  

 

Kevin

Edited August 23, 2015 by kevinkin

[JoMac]

I know that in my Table-Top Wargaming days Soft-Skined Vehicles where severely hampered in their movement over Rough/Rocky Terrain...Which is about half what it is in the WWII CMx2 title.

 

Joe

Edited August 23, 2015 by JoMc67

[CarlWAW]

Hi ... nice work. Did you collect damage data? You might have to extend the map distance to see differences.

Good thought.

I just lenghtened the map to 4+ km and checked with a fast command for Kubel and Blitz: absolutely no damage.

 

It seems terrain does not damage vehicles at all - only obstacles do. I think even more important would be in that case that at least terrain has a realistic impact on speed.

 

If it is too much work to model damage from terrain on vehicles, it probably would be good, if the unrealistic indestructible mode was compensated by limiting the faster than normal speeds to the vehicle's normal speed (= speed at which vehicle is not damaged) if it can be expected that terrain will damage the vehicle at a speed above normal. This could be argued, that the AI-driver chooses the correct speed automatically, at which the vehicle will not be damaged.

 

Btw, the test was done by measuring the time for a distance of 1 km after the vehicles had reached their final speed. I rounded the speed to integer numbers.

Edited August 23, 2015 by CarlWAW

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't see a problem with the speeds. If 16kph is too slow on pavement use Quick or Fast.

 

The Off-Road ratings for most wheeled vehicles too high in all the CMx2 games, IMO, but there actually are people who think wheels are better than tracks believe it or not.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Nitouche]

A have done a similar work at fast speed:

 

GERMANS

 

number of Squares/type of ground

 

 

 

 

 

Km/h:

 

 

I also tested 10 American and 10 Soviet Vehicle:

 

AMERICANS

 

Squares:

 

 

KM/h:

 

 

SOVIETS

 

Squares:

 

 

KM/H:

 

 

Source (and analysis):

 

http://www.combatmission.fr/concepts-de-jeu/le-mouvement-les-vehicules/pied-au-plancher/

 

(french language)

Edited August 23, 2015 by Nitouche

[CarlWAW]

I don't see a problem with the speeds. If 16kph is too slow on pavement use Quick or Fast.

 

 

So 16 km/h on paved road = normal speed - AND on the worst ground it's normal, too... And this for all vehicles...

 

No damage occuring even when rushing over the worst kind of terrain is fine, too?

 

I understand...

Edited August 24, 2015 by CarlWAW

[Vanir Ausf B]

So 16 km/h on paved road = normal speed - AND on the worst ground it's normal, too... And this for all vehicles...

If you choose normal speed on pavement then you are delibrately going slower than the vehicle is capable of. There is even a speed slower than Normal, called... Slow. This is not a mistake.

No damage occuring even when rushing over the worst kind of terrain is fine, too?

Did someone say that?

[Bulletpoint]

I'd like to see faster speeds = higher risk of damage /on hard/rocky ground), and higher risk of getting bogged (on swampy/muddy ground). It would be realistic, and give the player a gameplay choice of risk/reward.

 

Also, less track/wheel damage from going through wooden fences, but with this modified by speed too, and depending on vehicle.

 

For example. a jeep might get some serious damage going FAST through a wooden fence, but a big tank going SLOW through the same fence would hardly feel it.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[womble]

 

For example. a jeep might get some serious damage going FAST through a wooden fence, but a big tank going SLOW through the same fence would hardly feel it.

To me, this looks like you've never even watched a unit knock down a fence. Because when a unit comes to a destructible linear obstacle it drops its speed to "Slow" (as far as I can tell; it might, conceivably be "Move"), whatever speed you told it to move at. So, as it stands, a jeep never moves "Fast" through a wooden fence. As to tanks "hardly feeling it", they do. Again, they go through at a reduced speed (testimony from actual tankers on here suggests that's not unrealistic, but that the TacAI might perhaps be improved by an adjustment so that in some cases it's possible to force a faster breach) but only the first fence will inflict any track damage. The reason for this approach has been specified by BFC as for gameplay reasons: if every fence crossing (including the first) had a 1-5% (depending on the lack of caution with which the crossing was approached) of immobilisation, there would be howls of outrage at random effects neutering critical battlefield assets. So instead there's a cumulative damage model for tracks and a careful knockdown is mandatory.

 

For emphasis, I don't agree this is a perfect way of pitching the game, but that's BFC's argument, as I remember it, for the status quo.

 

 

At normal speed, no matter what kind of ground, the speed for all vehicles is 16 km/h. 16 km/h on rocky terrain and 16 km/h on a paved road? This does not seem right to me.

 

 

 

Carl: don't get hung up about "Normal" speeds: there's no such thing. Movement modes are Slow, Move, Quick, Fast, Reverse and Hunt for vehicles. No "Normal". So it's entirely unsurprising that "Move" is the same speed for all vehicles. Whether it is too fast on difficult terrain, it's hard to say: how big are the rocks in "rocky" terrain? Since they don't have any impact on movement, perhaps they're not as big as you imagine. There's another terrain type available in FI "Heavy Rocks" which is impassable.

[MOS:96B2P]

when a unit comes to a destructible linear obstacle it drops its speed to "Slow" (as far as I can tell; it might, conceivably be "Move"), whatever speed you told it to move at. So, as it stands, a jeep never moves "Fast" through a wooden fence.  

 

+1  I think this is one of the reasons that make the Fast command more useful than I originally understood.  If you want to move a tank from one cover to the next, in most cases, you might as well use Fast.  The tank will slow on its own when necessary and the increased speed does not increase bogging as I had originally thought.     

 

Again, they go through at a reduced speed but only the first fence will inflict any track damage. The reason for this approach has been specified by BFC as for gameplay reasons: if every fence crossing (including the first) had a 1-5% (depending on the lack of caution with which the crossing was approached) of immobilisation, there would be howls of outrage at random effects neutering critical battlefield assets. So instead there's a cumulative damage model for tracks and a careful knockdown is mandatory.

 

This I may be misunderstanding.  So does only the first fence line crossed by my tank cause damage or is there a cumulative effect from all three fence lines my tank crossed?      

[A Canadian Cat]

It accumulates. Each fence has a chance of doing a small amount of damage. Many times you don't notice anything in the damage panel because it is just several levels of green and its colours.

I have no idea how many fences it would take to seriously hurt the tracks. Low walls are much worse.

[A Canadian Cat]

The tank will slow on its own when necessary and the increased speed does not increase bogging as much as I had originally thought.

There fixed that for you. My tests showed that the chance of bogging does go up with speed, a little anyway.

[Bulletpoint]

To me, this looks like you've never even watched a unit knock down a fence. Because when a unit comes to a destructible linear obstacle it drops its speed to "Slow" (as far as I can tell; it might, conceivably be "Move"), whatever speed you told it to move at. So, as it stands, a jeep never moves "Fast" through a wooden fence. 

 

To me, it looks like you did not read my post properly, as I was talking about a hypothetical situation - in which the game was altered to allow vehicles to pass obstacles at variable speeds, with variable results.

[MOS:96B2P]

There fixed that for you. My tests showed that the chance of bogging does go up with speed, a little anyway.

 

Thank You. 

[Hermann Lietz]

Biggest problem I have with speed, is on very steep ascents. I built a map with roads going up 100 - 300 units per square. And all vehicles went up at very high speeds. It would be nice if that could be solved, I was designing some mountainous maps, and this really spoils the fun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Units per square? Do you mean meters per action spot? A rise of 100m per every 8m would be nearly a vertical cliff. A quick check says vehicles are not allowed to plot movement points on slopes that steep.

[RockinHarry]

Cliffs are created (in CMBN) at differences of 5m between individual action spots. They´re negated by roads and paths though. That makes it possible to create roads up a slope, that normally would be a nogo otherwise (too steep). That surely needs to be dealt with in future CM revisions. Otherwise you could create very steep terrain, that is not cliff terrain by tricky use of footpaths. That as said wouldn´t slow down any CM units to move up (or down) and thus measures need to be taken, to at least prevent vehicles moving there (borders of heavy forest or marsh tiles).

I figured 10 to 15m steps for the mentioned purpose to be the limit, as larger steps do some ugly distortions on ground tile textures.

Edit: Example

Too avoid some confusion, the brownish textures is custom made forest tile and actually dirt red tiles. That was used for the pine forest in the left foreground. The smalish forest in the middle between the cliff terrain (no footpaths) actually is steep marsh terrain and planted with large deciduous trees. You could also mix and match, having rocky outcrops on otherwise wooded slopes and such. Nowadays I use footpaths more as terrain sculpting and tweaking tool and less in their intended purpose.

Edited December 8, 2015 by RockinHarry