Scenario: Against the Odds

[CanuckGamer]

We are 2/3 of the way through the above scenario by PBEM and I am the Germans.  The Germans have 2 King Tigers which in my opinion are the two key weapons if the Germans are to win this scenario.  However one of them was immobilized by a track hit about 30 minutes ago and the second one is immobilized while moving about 15 minutes ago.  Are King Tigers more prone to getting immobilized while moving than lighter tanks such as the Panther or T-34?  Surprisingly it was while moving just off the railroad.

It appears that the Russians have 2 SU 122's one of which the Germans knocked out at close range with a panzerfaust from the rear.  The second survived a hit from a Tiger and if I remember correctly it was a weapon hit.  I thought that it was knocked out but it just appeared again.  I'm wondering if SU 122's are as likely as a King Tiger to become immobilized when moving?

I think Battlefront should revise immobilization so that there is a chance that the tank can get "unstuck".  In this scenario one or in this case both King Tigers becoming immobilized means the Germans don't stand a chance.

[Brille]

In my understanding if a tank gets stuck (bogged) and then immobile shortly after, the crew has done everything in their might to unbog it but failed to do so. 

So the vehicle got either to deep into the ground or some vital components got destroyed or damaged in the process (clutch, final drive, engine) 

So either the crew has to do a lot of digging or some field repairs with heavy machinery has to be done, which might be not wise while still in the hot zone. Plus it would probably blow the timeframe of most battles. 

 

So I guess battlefront (after all those years) will not throw something like this out of the window or alter it that way. 

Consider it bad luck, we all had it at least once. 

I cannot say how high the chance is for a King Tiger or any other vehicle to get stuck. It heavily relies on the ground conditions, the vehicles properties and the crews experience. 

You can lower the chance of bogging by the movement commands (to a small degree) and your choosen path. So if you have the chance to use paved roads or roads at all: take it. (especially on a rainy day with muddy or wet conditions) 

Though you can get stuck on dirt roads too, it's just not as likely as on normal ground. 

[PEB14]

Ground conditions are clearly a key balance parameter for the scenarios. In damp or mud conditions, you really have to think twice about getting off road (and even on dirt road) with high ground pressure vehicles like Tigers, Churchills and the like, as well as with armored cars... You may be lucky NOT to get bogged, though...

IMHO lucky shots are more frustrating because you can't do much against them...

 

5 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

I'm wondering if SU 122's are as likely as a King Tiger to become immobilized when moving?

It is not clear what parameters do influence bogging probability in Combat Mission. I never bogged an Universal Carrier in mud while Churchill are prone to get stuck even in damp conditions. It's very likely that Tiger II are more prone to get bogged than Su-122, like in RL.

Edited August 24, 2023 by PEB14

[George MC]

In RL King Tigers were pretty prone to breaking down - transmission issues caused by often poorly trained/experienced drivers. IIRC the 'immobilization' mechanic does not just replicate a vehicle getting stuck in mud or such like but also a breakdown. Though I'd struggle to find a quote from the developers confirming that, just a point I vaguely recall in a discussion a while back.

The in-game unit indicator does give you an indication of a vehicles 'off-road' ability in this case the Tiger II is better than the IS-122 but also crew experience  etc comes into play regarding the probability of a tank getting immobilized as well. So unless the IS-122 crew are vets + then there is a chance of it at least bogging. Also a chance it won't...

[PEB14]

2 hours ago, George MC said:

The in-game unit indicator does give you an indication of a vehicles 'off-road' ability in this case the Tiger II is better than the IS-122 but also crew experience  etc comes into play regarding the probability of a tank getting immobilized as well. So unless the IS-122 crew are vets + then there is a chance of it at least bogging. Also a chance it won't...

It is not clear to me what the "off-road" capability means. Is it the parameter that defines the bog down probability? I was under the impression that it was a measurement of the off-road speed of the vehicle (relative to the road speed).

[George MC]

3 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

It is not clear to me what the "off-road" capability means. Is it the parameter that defines the bog down probability? I was under the impression that it was a measurement of the off-road speed of the vehicle (relative to the road speed).

Page 47 of the manual does say "When issuing Movement commands, keep in mind the ground condition that you want to order a unit to move over. All vehicles are rated for Offroad performance. To some degree better quality crews lessen the chance of bogging. However, if you order a non-tracked personnel carrier to move across a muddy field the best crew in the world won’t likely help you out much." So yes I've always worked on the assumption the vehicle off-road capability has an impact on its bogging probability.

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, George MC said:

IIRC the 'immobilization' mechanic does not just replicate a vehicle getting stuck in mud or such like but also a breakdown. Though I'd struggle to find a quote from the developers confirming that, just a point I vaguely recall in a discussion a while back.

This is also my long time understanding.  IMO it would be useful if the UI read immobilized/breakdown or something similar in these situstions.    

[Chibot Mk IX]

In CM I have seen several cases where the AFV bogged down then immobilized on the paved road.  An engine breakdown description should be more fit into this kind of situation but "bog down/immobilized" is what we have. 

[Sgt Joch]

As I recall, what factors determine off road capability are kept deliberately "fuzzy" by BFC. The "Off Road" rating has more to do with the tank suspension design which is why the Panther has an excellent rating while the Sherman and T-34 only have an average rating even though the last two were more mechanically reliable than the Panther. I had run some tests a few years back, racing all three across a "muddy" map and the chances of bogging did not vary that much.

Overall chances of mechanical breakdown are factored in, but as someone pointed out (maybe Steve), the chances of an AFV breaking down while moving less than 1 km in a 1 hour period (typical CM scenario) are fairly low. Mechanical breakdowns/fuel shortages are best handled by the scenario designer when choosing the number of AFVs available.

That said, the chances of "bogging/immobilising" is a way to keep players aware of the fact that even tracked vehicles cannot go everywhere. In RL, tankers are very careful of where they go since even a small mechanical issue can immobilize the tank.

I am always reminded of Anzio. The Germans had assembled a formidable collection of AFVs to wipe out the beachhead, but conditions were very muddy so the tankers were very reluctant to go off-road and stayed on the roads. Unfortunately, all the roads leading to the beachhead were copiously covered by allied AT assets so the big attack never came off.

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Sgt Joch

[PEB14]

I just checked and ground condition is "damp" in "Against the odds" scenario. Bogging down a Tiger II offroad during the 90 minutes of this scenario is thus certainly… not against the odds !

[CanuckGamer]

PEB14, I have been playing Combat Mission games for many years and embarrassed to say that I have never checked the "conditions" in Briefing.  You are correct that the ground conditions are damp.  I don't understand why the creator of this scenario would have damp conditions.  The only thing the Germans have going for them  are the 2 Tigers.  We have about 25 minutes left and I see that the Russians just got another SU 122 and some kind of heavy tank.  It also looks like another Russian tank is coming although I don't know what it is yet.  In terms of what can knock out a Tiger II in this scenario, the Russians have at least 3 SU 122's , and some kind of heavy or 2 heavy tanks.  Their other tanks which must number around 20 could I assume knock out a Tiger II with a rear shot.  In addition the Russians have attack planes.

Now I know why the title of this one is  'Against the Odds".

 

[PEB14]

3 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

 I don't understand why the creator of this scenario would have damp conditions.

 

The short answer to that is probably: to make life more difficult for the Germans... If its defense rely on only a couple of King Tiger, the German player shall think twice before moving off-road... Whereas the Russians may afford to get a couple of T-34 booged down...

No irrespect intended, but I'm surprised that you could play many years of CM without taking care of the ground conditions... You just cannot play tanks on damp and muddy conditions the same way that you do on dry ones !

[Brille]

3 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

I don't understand why the creator of this scenario would have damp conditions.

Because it's xcom... ehhhh... Combat mission, baby!

Soldiers didn't only fought in sunshiny, dry, not to cold and not to warm weather, so why should you? 

 

I once played a scenario as the British with Churchills on wet conditions. 

The scenario designers notes were as like "better stay on the roads but do as you like". And obviously I didn't stayed on the road and payed for it. 

After some tank battling where I was victorious and could sustain enough tanks to keep on marching my opponent got 2 Tigers for backup. 

One of them got bogged and immobilized after few meters of crawling to the field, yes! 

But unfortunate directly on my main approach that had a road. 

The other Tiger was over watching the fields that I didn't dared to even cross again because of my previously made experience.  

So it was a double Nope!  

 

 

[chuckdyke]

On 8/26/2023 at 1:52 PM, PEB14 said:

damp" in "Against the odds"

Weather was around 75F chance of rain was 90%. Not unreasonable that the designer gives us damp weather conditions. He probably did the same what I just did.