Open ground between woods and tall pines

[Yowie]

Not sure whether to call this a bug. I've noticed this for a long time that one can drive a tank on the "OPEN GROUND" between dense woods and tall pines. Was it the intention to allow vehicles to slip through vegetation like that? Anyone with the similar observation?

I'd suggest some kind of transition zone, to allow the terrane to change from scattered trees, to woods, to tall pines without having "open grounds" in the middle. Will CMBB account for this problem?

:confused:

[offtaskagain]

I was wondering about that myself.

[Darwin]

I seem to remember something about those patches representing trails through the otherwise impassable terrain...

Doesn't sound right thinking about it though.

[Yowie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I seem to remember something about those patches representing trails through the otherwise impassable terrain... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose it can be trails, but the graphic will probably look better with a transition zone?

[Michael Emrys]

I've always regarded them as trails, firebreaks, etc. Remember, most of Western Europe is nowhere near as wild as America. People have been actively cultivating that land for hundreds if not thousands of years. Most of it has long since been adapted to efficient use by humans.

But yes, it could be done in a graphically more interesting and pleasing manner.

Michael

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[lcm1947]

I noticed it way back and for one am glad that it's that way. I never really thought to question it but I do use the trails all the time to get vehicles through and yes it could be a little better done as far as graphics.

[curih]

I could've sworn that one of the patches was supposed to prevent that. I guess my memory is going already.

CuriH

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I could've sworn that one of the patches was supposed to prevent that. I guess my memory is going already.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that was rubble..

[Bruno Weiss]

I've always referred to them as trails, like someone else I seem to remember reading something about that a long time back. At any rate, not all of them allow tanks access. Depends upon the size of the "trail". Some only allow for a halftrack or smaller vehicle. They also seem to me anyway, to be a bit more prone to bogging if those conditions exist as well.

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[yprbest]

I think Bruno's right - I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the manual it explains this feature as being a 'trail'.

Oh, and incase you're wondering - this is my first post

My name's Yann and I bought CM about 2 months ago (finally convinced my parents that I WASN'T going to be ripped off by Store4War ). I am happy to say it exceeded my expectations, and I am truly happy to have finally found such a realistic and eminently playable wargame

[ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: yprbest ]

[Eric Alkema]

The only "trail" reference that I remember is the suggestion that "Scattered Trees" could represent woods with plenty of trails and whatnot.

[Yowie]

Think trials can be well represented by scattered trees between dense woods (or tall pines), with nicer transition graphics?

[Goanna]

No way. It's easier to get vehicles bogged in scattered trees than on open ground (which would have to represent a trail).

[Doug Beman]

Welcome Yann. I seem to remember you asking some time ago for advice in convincing your parents that CM is, indeed, legitimate.

DjB

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goanna:

It's easier to get vehicles bogged in scattered trees than on open ground (which would have to represent a trail).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

nope:

"Scattered trees only give a 5% chance of bogging against 28% on open terrain. "

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012864.html

[Yowie]

Thanks russellmz, never realised it's that case... Interesting stats from that link.

[Dschugaschwili]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

"Scattered trees only give a 5% chance of bogging against 28% on open terrain. "

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do realize that this test was done in deep mud, do you? On dry open ground the chance for a vehicle to bog in is about 0%.

The interesting result of the test you pointed to is that the chance to bog in in scattered trees is unaffected by the ground conditions, so in bad weather driving through them can be an advantage.

Dschugaschwili

[Bruno Weiss]

From the manual, pp47, Scattered Trees, Designer Notes: Scattered trees can also be used to simulate paths in forests, allowing tanks and other vehicles to pass at a slow rate and considerable risk of bogging down.

I believe it noteworthy that the designer states "paths", not trails which I distinctly remember reading about somewhere but think it something of a small point in the larger picture. Which, the logic of is that if there is open ground between a woods and tall pines, it is either a trail, a natural open area between two types of competing woody perennial plants, or part of a miniture golf course, but in any event accessable to some degree and in accordance to the width, by varying sized vehicles.

Also of note, is that the tests seemed to focus on muddy bogging as opposed to bogging used to represent breakdowns. The designer specifically states that scattered trees represent a "considerable risk", of bogging down. I believe I also remember reading somewhere that this was not particularly due to muddy or raining conditions, but rather the element of wheeled and tracked vehicles crossing terrain of small tree trunks and large branches which can cause tracks to be thrown, axils to break, and other assorted mechanical breakdowns. If memory serves me correctly, I also remember it being explained by BTS that in reality tanks could not simply go crashing through trees with wild abandon, even smaller trees, without the risk of throwing a track. And so, as the rational went, tank crews were not oblivious to those dangers. Which, was sufficient to satisfy my logic.

What I have not seen discussed, which only means I may not have seen it and not that it hasn't been discussed, is "if varying movement rates have any bearing on the percentage of bogging within scattered trees?" As a rule, and due to this increased change of bogging in scattered trees, I avoid to some degree moving vehicles into or through scattered trees. However, not always practicle or desirable, I then use either the move command or the hunt command, but not fast command (unless I'm the rabbit and the hound is near). Presuming then, that if scattererd trees cause more of a tendancy to breakdown, it then follows that fast movement through those scattered trees would thus increase such a chance of a breakdown. That is only my personal logic however, and I have no way of knowing if BTS designed such logic into the code. I use the same sort of logic with regard to the trails, or little open spaces, whatever they are, between tall pines and woods. The practical result being I have only bogged a vehicle on one occasion in scattered trees, and surprised many a Sherman by slowly sneaking and working a panzer through a trail which the opponent presumed otherwise unaccessable.

I'd sure like to know however, if such logic, (that fast movement results in an increased percentage of chance for bogging over and above the already increased chance of bogging for normal movement in scattered trees), is really a part of the code or just my wishful thinking.

[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[Madmatt]

The patch in question fixed an issue with regards to different elevations of the SAME tile type having gaps in them.

The gaps between two different tile types are a result of terrian not neccesarily taking up the full 20x20 meters of an area. As such, small gaps between for instance two levels of tree tiles will occur. These simulate small logging trails, footpaths and areas that are clear enough to allow some travel.

As I recall, not all gaps are traversable by vehicles though since the actual internal placement of a terrain tile within a given 20x20 meter area is random (so sometimes two tiles of different types will be almost right next to each other). Remember, the internal calculation of terrain is far more complex than what you can see.

Madmatt

[Bruno Weiss]

That is correct MadMatt. Depending upon the placement of the tiles, the open area width varies. Sometimes large enough to squeeze a tank through, sometimes not. I've been able to get a 251/1 or /9 through when I could not get a panzer through. And, patience often helps. In some instances, it was necessary to use small steps in a zig zag motion literally working the vehicle through using the movement line indicators to find the open versus non-open terrain.

What's a real bummer, is when you have some long trail, misjudge the gaps, and end up with the vehicle stuck at the far end, and have to back out.

Hehe, I can see this being added to the "gamey" list.

Muhaha

[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

You do realize that this test was done in deep mud, do you? On dry open ground the chance for a vehicle to bog in is about 0%.

Dschugaschwili<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oops, forgot to add that little detail. thenx...

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

I'd sure like to know however, if such logic, (that fast movement results in an increased percentage of chance for bogging over and above the already increased chance of bogging for normal movement in scattered trees), is really a part of the code or just my wishful thinking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my assumption until proven otherwise. I recently ran a halftrack through scattered trees at fast speed by an error in plotting and it got through okay, but I consider myself lucky and won't be in a hurry to repeat the experiment. BTW, it appeared to me to slow down some of its own accord while passing through the trees, but I didn't clock it so that's just a subjective impression.

Michael

[ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[JasonC]

I'd guess the terrain based bogging chances are used instead of the ground condition based ones, and that is the reason for the difference seen between cover and lack thereof, for bogging chances in mud. I don't know if this is intended (traction from logs) or unintended (just forgot to compound two contributors to bogging, with the result that scattered trees bog the same regardless of ground condition). But there is an easy test.

Trial one - bog chances in scattered trees in dry ground condition

Trial two - bog chances in scattered trees in mud or snow ground condition, same vehicle type

Prediction - trial one and trial two will show the same bog chance, within a few % in absolute terms.

Explanation - an oversight in the code, whereby the lower of two contributing bog factors sometimes is used instead of a higher one (or both, compounded), due merely to the order in which the expressions or subroutines are evaluated.

If I'm wrong, should be easy enough to show it. An entirely falsifiable prediction.

[Madmatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

I'd guess the terrain based bogging chances are used instead of the ground condition based ones, and that is the reason for the difference seen between cover and lack thereof, for bogging chances in mud. I don't know if this is intended (traction from logs) or unintended (just forgot to compound two contributors to bogging, with the result that scattered trees bog the same regardless of ground condition). But there is an easy test.

Trial one - bog chances in scattered trees in dry ground condition

Trial two - bog chances in scattered trees in mud or snow ground condition, same vehicle type

Prediction - trial one and trial two will show the same bog chance, within a few % in absolute terms.

Explanation - an oversight in the code, whereby the lower of two contributing bog factors sometimes is used instead of a higher one (or both, compounded), due merely to the order in which the expressions or subroutines are evaluated.

If I'm wrong, should be easy enough to show it. An entirely falsifiable prediction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you would be entirely wrong! Actually the bogging %'s are calculated by a variety of factors including Ground Condition (most important), Terrain Type, Ground Pressure of Vehicle and Speed of Vehicle.

I did some tests as you asked above and I saw twice as many vehicles become bogged or immobolized in Snow/Scattered Trees than in just Snow and in Plain Scattered Trees and dry conditions the odds of a bog/immobolization were actually quite low. Tests conducted with Panzer IV's which have Ground pressure rating of 11.8 psi.

Overall, vehicles moving "Fast" were more likely (by about double) to become bogged than units moving at MOVE speeds.

One thing we are looking at adding (or hell he may have already done it) is also modifing the bogging % on Vehicle Crew Experience, the logic being a better driver could avoid situations which would lead to bogging or becoming totally immobolized once they became bogged.

So, if you take anything from this discussion remember this:

DRIVING FAST IN SNOW AND TREES IS BAD BAD BAD!!!

DRIVING FAST IN SNOW IS BAD BAD!!!

Madmatt

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Bruno Weiss]

AH HA! I knew it, I just knew it. Thanks MadMatt, finally one of my logical hunches paid off with CM. I knew the logic of it was that wizzing through terrain (scattered trees), would increase the percentage of chance for bogging incrementally if one did so using a fast command versus a move command.

I contributed, I contributed, let all bear witness and testimony to the fact. I am now worthy of reading the Peng threads. Whew!

Thanks again MadMatt. Now, ole buddy ole pal o mine, if it tain't no trouble, what is the percentage increase of bogging for use of the "hunt" command in scattered terrain, versus the move command, divided by the PSI, and as multiplied by the air pressure in the tires, to the tenth power of the drivers eyesight, and minus the axil ratio for suspension system weight pressure when adding in the chance of tire tread separation?

No really, thanks. I always suspected this, but it is oh so nice to know. By the way, good idea in me humble lil opinion, to include other factors such as driver experience. Was just poking fun at the code Pope above.