Bogged Vehicles

[Wildass69]

I believe Redwolf is correct in that bogging is dependent upon type of ground and weight of vehicle in ratio with its contact area (in other words ground pressure). I don't see that getting UNbogged is very dependent upon crew quality but I do tend to see lesser qualities getting bogged more than higher quality crews. This seems backwards to me but it's what I think happens. It would have to be tested too. I haven't considered whether the speed of a vehicle would make a difference in the chances of getting bogged. Interesting. I am typically at full bore unless I'm in contact. Panzers then hunt while AHTs shy away. Apparently it once was a bug that you could drive in reverse and never get bogged. I gather that has been corrected but I haven't tried it nonetheless. I contend that ordering a reverse once bogged will help the vehicle unbog. While this is not suppose to make a difference (according to others) I see evidence that it does but will conduct dedicated tests to investigate further. As to pushing a bogged vehicle I'm not sure. I can assure you that once it becomes immobile you can push it onto a hard surface like a paved road and it will remain immobile. I have not seen that the pushing vehicle becomes bogged as well.

Redwolf, I wasn't thinking in terms of what the game would let you do and you are correct that you cannot drive a vehicle into a swamp. I still would probably use a map of soft ground or perhaps even borrow the map from the game I am currently playing. It's very active in this respect and I've come to learn where the soft spots are. Deep mud would probably work fine as you suggest but, no matter what, I avoid deep mud if I can and, I think it would be less than typical. Just my reasoning.

According to Walpurgis Night BFC says the type of movement ordered does not make a difference as to whether a unit will unbog or not - if I understand him correctly. I seem to see something and my contension is that it may not be the designers intent but it does leak into the equation. Something similar to a bug.

Interesting about the stug IIIs and stug IVs.

While it's not as important as some other aspects of the game I'm sure there is room for improvement to this aspect. Apparently bogging is suppose to encompass mechanical failure as well as plain ol' gettin' Stuck! It would be a nice touch if these factors were seperated and a little more realism was worked into each. For instance the possibility of reactivating an immobilized unit by pushing it or restarting an engine after replacing a fuel filter. Just thoughts.

Analytical WA

[Green Hornet]

Originally posted by Wildass69:

And to Green Hornet...But let me re-iterate that I thought I was sharing and even expected that others would concur(one or two did). I didn't come here looking for a debate...

Completely understood. IMHO the intentions of your original post were purely information and in no way looking for a debate. However, as you have undoubtedly learned, any type of CM-related information will be subject to debate and discussion on this forum. That's really what it's all about...sharing ideas, opinions, etc

So, whether you were looking for it or not, your helpful sharing sparked a bit of a debate.

I just think it seems the best way to back up claims would be to conduct a test that produces some meaningful data. Fortunately, in this case, it's possible to conduct some tests and put out some data for the rest of us to chew on.

Obviously, it's entriely up to you whether or not you feel you have the time to run some tests. But I'm guessing a lot of folks would be interested in seeing the results. I know I would simply because I've always wondered the same thing.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Wildass69:

According to Walpurgis Night BFC says the type of movement ordered does not make a difference as to whether a unit will unbog or not - if I understand him correctly.

You almost understand me correctly. Changing the bogged tank's movement orders is what "does not make a difference as to whether a unit will unbog or not".

If your "movement order" is "fast" with a 14+ PSI, of course your "movement orders" effect the % chance of bogging.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Green Hornet:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildass69:

And to Green Hornet...But let me re-iterate that I thought I was sharing and even expected that others would concur(one or two did). I didn't come here looking for a debate...

Completely understood. IMHO the intentions of your original post were purely information and in no way looking for a debate. However ...</font>

[Wildass69]

I'm still in the middle of a very large battle that is actually going very well... it just takes so long. I strive to think about what I'm doing and use my forces in the most synergistic way (combined forces on a singular pin-point attack) for this type of battle. Don't ya'll find it difficult to maintain ORDER?! I guess that's the anticedent of battle, tho, isn't it?

Anyway I fully intend to conduct some tests after I get thru this fight and I will be happy to share the results with this forum. I do believe it would be benefitial, for anyone else who wants to, to conduct similar tests. I can see that there is substantial number of variable to address. The initial speed of a bogged vehicle, in itself, could be quite exhaustive.

At any rate I appreciate the maturity I now see here. Yes I have stumbled upon discussion groups where the name calling and disrespect gets out of hand and I see no point in expending any wit upon the witless. I try to avoid name calling. Like many of you, I'm sure, it's much more satisfying to "discuss" intellegently.

kudos WA

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Wildass69:

I'm still in the middle of a very large battle that is actually going very well... it just takes so long. I strive to think about what I'm doing and use my forces in the most synergistic way (combined forces on a singular pin-point attack) for this type of battle. Don't ya'll find it difficult to maintain ORDER?! I guess that's the anticedent of battle, tho, isn't it?

Anyway I fully intend to conduct some tests after I get thru this fight and I will be happy to share the results with this forum. I do believe it would be benefitial, for anyone else who wants to, to conduct similar tests. I can see that there is substantial number of variable to address. The initial speed of a bogged vehicle, in itself, could be quite exhaustive.

At any rate I appreciate the maturity I now see here. Yes I have stumbled upon discussion groups where the name calling and disrespect gets out of hand and I see no point in expending any wit upon the witless. I try to avoid name calling. Like many of you, I'm sure, it's much more satisfying to "discuss" intellegently.

kudos WA

If "Order" means "being there where they were planned to be". Yes, no plan survives contact with a battle. The "bad" thing about CM are those command delays once you are out of command range. Leaving your HQ behind when the plt dashes forward is not good as the forward squads react to slow. Having the HQ running forward with the plt might result in all squads pinning except for the brave HQ. Now that is the time for the Coy HQ. Pick up and rally, then send the squads forward withput command delays.

First plan the moves of your force as a whole "I want to achieve the following:...). Then plan considering each plt as a single unit (Plt 1 goes to that stretch of cover, plt 2 takes that house, plt 3 does overwatch). Where are the best rallying points for my Coy HQs?

Then give commands to each squad in a given plt. Then the next plt. If the move of one plt forces changes for another plt, check the whole plt again, not just the squad that you just detoured.

This might still result in complete disorder, but the chance of recovering is better.

Using transport for plts is usually a recipe for disaster. Once I had to move a btn across a river. 500m on two bridges close to each other. 20 turns to clear the hvy weapons on the other side. Then 4 HTs and 12 tanks brought the whole btn across the river. (4 tanks had to help secure the bridgehead). The MP won that day with strict traffic control.

Gruß

Joachim

[Wildass69]

Yes it's a bit of a cliche' that all battle plans go out the window with the first shot and in a tongue-in-cheek way I was griping about that but the "order" I was speaking of was more to the second part of your reply. The main problem I have (I suspect most of us have) is keeping units together. This all relates to my "excuse" for not jumping right on the Testing I've promised to conduct when I said "it takes so long". The current battle is huge and a good deal of my maneuvering deals with keeping units together. No matter how tenatiously I plot movement somebody (vehicles especially) screws it up. ARF! 'Tis the nature of the bid-ness. I probably rush things tooooo much.

Anyway thanks for your tips.

Congested WA

[tar]

Regarding tests:

When I last ran a test, I was able to confirm that using Fast movement means (on average) that your unit will move further before bogging than with Move. Hunt also moves further than Move before bogging.

Lesson: Don't move slowly. There is no benefit to it. You should either use Fast or Hunt.

[demoss]

Lesson: Don't move slowly. There is no benefit to it. You should either use Fast or Hunt.

What about sound contacts? I'm guessing that you're more likely to be heard at Fast than at Move or Hunt. I'd still expect Move and Hunt to be equivalent... but not all vehicles can Hunt anyway.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by tar:

Regarding tests:

When I last ran a test, I was able to confirm that using Fast movement means (on average) that your unit will move further before bogging than with Move. Hunt also moves further than Move before bogging.

Lesson: Don't move slowly. There is no benefit to it. You should either use Fast or Hunt.

How big a batch of tests did you do?

Some time ago I made several tests, too. The tests were done in mud over a course of 780 m. In one I first had 100 T-34's and 100 Pz-IV's move at fast, then at move speed. The results were a bit confusing:

First of all, the Panzers had 119 boggings - in both tests, precisely. At fast there were 33 cases of immobilization and at move 35, practically identical as well. But it has to be noted that the speed of a Pz-IV over bad terrain isn't going to have so much of a difference. Maybe CM doesn't base the bogging/im. chance on the vehicle's movement order but rather on its actual speed in the speedometer? In which case slow/narrow-tracked vehicles can use fast just as safely as move.

The first T-34 tests was even more baffling to me. Tanks on fast did have less boggings than those on move, but only by 43 to 50. But that was not the main thing. When I looked at immobilized tanks, there were 19 that had been on fast - and only 6 on move.

I didn't think that was statistically accurate enough, however, to get into any conclusions on the effects of speed on immobilization, because there had been so few immobilizations. Therefore I ran the test another time. This time there was 47b/13i on fast and 50b/7i on move.

Averaging the two tests, you get 45b/16i on fast and 50b/6,5i on move. At this point I still wasn't convinced of whether these numbers were actually reliable, but furthermore I didn't have any inspiration to continue on doing these tests. I'm not very good with statistics and so I can't really tell how much testing you'd need to average all the random factors.

Oh, and another thing: when tank gets immobilized (it can do that on turn 1), it doesn't produce any more boggings. If indeed 'fast' tanks immobilize more, then that could partly explain why fast seems to produce less boggings than move. But taking all this into account is beyond my appetite.

If anyone wants, I can e-mail my "bogging grounds".

[NellandAndy]

Hi guys, I'm the new member. Bogged tanks are the worst and in a game I lost 2 thirds of my tanks to being bogged, How can you tell when a area is dangerous to tanks so they get bogged :mad:

[Joachim]

Originally posted by NellandAndy:

Hi guys, I'm the new member. Bogged tanks are the worst and in a game I lost 2 thirds of my tanks to being bogged, How can you tell when a area is dangerous to tanks so they get bogged :mad:

a) Check the weather and ground conditions in the little picture in the control panel (while you have not selected a unit, you can see a picture there.... Wet ground means mud, mud means bogging.

Even the AI tries to use roads with his T34s in wet ground conditions!

Avoid mud/wet ground tiles.

c) Avoid scattered trees (except in the worst ground conditions(?). Somebody stated that on wet ground, tanks bog less in scattered trees)

d) Avoid the low ground in anything but dry ground conditions. Higher ground is usually less muddy than the bottom of the valley. You can't see that in CM, but it's in there (as it is in RL).

Gruß

Joachim

[tar]

How big a batch of tests did you do?

Fewer than you did.

But I wasn't making any particular claim about the NUMBER of boggings or immobilizations. My claim is that you move FARTHER before bogging or immobilizing with a faster movement order.

In your tests, how did you notice a difference in how far the immoblized tanks had gotten? My claim is that moving fast covers more distance before immobilization than moving slowly does. It would appear, then, that the chance of bogging is evaluated at a constant rate per time unit rather than per distance unit. Now, I am aware that there are factors based on movement that influence this chance, but the greater speed of the fast movement orders seems to more than offset any increased chance of bogging.

I would actually be surprised if the chance of immobilization had anything to do with the speed at the time of bogging. My guess is that the immobilization routine would only be invoked once a vehicle was bogged. And BFC has repeatedly stated that the movement order type doesn't affect the chance of unbogging, so I would guess it doesn't affect immobilization either.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by tar:

But I wasn't making any particular claim about the NUMBER of boggings or immobilizations. My claim is that you move FARTHER before bogging or immobilizing with a faster movement order.

It just would be handy to know when evaluating the results. For instance, as I was doing my tests in batches of 20, two subsequent tests could have totally different results (test 1 6 boggings, test 2 17 boggings).

In your tests, how did you notice a difference in how far the immoblized tanks had gotten? My claim is that moving fast covers more distance before immobilization than moving slowly does.

I had tanks advancing over a certain amount of terrain (780 m). Then I counted all the boggings. Which supposedly tells us how often you bog over a certain distance on average, which is just another way of saying the same thing. My results, however, seemed to suggest that moving slow covers more distance before immobilizing than moving fast does.

Or sumfink.

It would appear, then, that the chance of bogging is evaluated at a constant rate per time unit rather than per distance unit.

In my tests there was no big difference in boggings. If measured by boggings per time unit, then moving fast would be very unfavourable indeed as the 'fast' tanks bog as much in half the time as the 'move' tanks.

I would actually be surprised if the chance of immobilization had anything to do with the speed at the time of bogging.

Maybe. This would still require more testing to have more cases of immobilization.

My guess is that the immobilization routine would only be invoked once a vehicle was bogged. And BFC has repeatedly stated that the movement order type doesn't affect the chance of unbogging, so I would guess it doesn't affect immobilization either.

When talking about the orders AFTER bogging. That doesn't yet rule out the possibility of movement speed at the time of bogging having an effect, however, as we haven't asked about that.

[ October 30, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[tar]

It just would be handy to know when evaluating the results. For instance, as I was doing my tests in batches of 20, two subsequent tests could have totally different results (test 1 6 boggings, test 2 17 boggings).

OK, the link to the previous test report is:

Bogging not affected by speed?

[Wildass69]

All of this is good information to know. In thinking in terms of reality (realism is why we play this game, right?) It might make sense, on the one hand, to have fast moving vehicle bog more readily than slow moving vehicles. After all a certain recklessness is implied and a fast moving vehicle may not detect a problem area ahead in time to dodge it whereas a slow moving vehicle more likely would (if it can be detected at all). Furthermore it would seem a fast moving vehicle would become more deeply ensconced and therefore more likely to become immobilized than a slow moving vehicle.

But! (on the other hand) Just how fast are we going? Fifteen - twenty mph as opposed to 5 or 6? And as pointed out by someone it isn't just about the terrain. The longer a vehicle runs the more likely it is that something will break. The faster it runs would suggest it's working harder and the more likely still something will break. And wouldn't this be modified by traveling up hill? We can get very deeply into this.

If I had a voice in how the game handles bogs I would suggest that speed have nothing to do with bogging. I don't feel the speeds involved warrant modifications to bogging. What would warrant bogging? Terrain and time; how long has the engine been running and what kind of terrain has been encountered.

At any rate, my original thought here concerned recovering from bogging. There is no question as soon as you turn the engine over and move you run the risk of bogging. It's quite annoying and inconvenient but I don't know that the amount of occurrence in the game is unrealistic. It's been stated several times that the type of movement ordered after a vehicle bogs makes no difference. I have yet to conduct my tests of this (maybe this weekend) but I continue to see evidence that suggests this is not entirely the case - It may be the intent!~ But perhaps not reality. I will be very objective with my tests and if I'm smoking funny stuff I'll be the first to acknowledge my contention is bogus.

The other night a Tiger l bogged during the first battle of an op. The ground was frozen at the crest of a small rise - nothing to do with shallow soft low-lying ground. It became immobilized almost immediately. At the beginning of the next battle it was again just bogged so there was an opportunity to fully recover it. I did a little experiment. I saved the turn then gave it a fast straight ahead. It immediately became immobilized. I reset the turn and gave it a reverse order straight back about 50 meters. It immediately became free! I reset the turn and did the same thing again whereupon it became free again! I did not take the time to give it another forward order. Later another Tiger bogged and a reverse order freed it as well.

No, it's not scientific and certainly it can invoke explanation upon explanation. Nevertheless I've seen reverse orders free my vehicles significantly more often than forward orders. Not a huge percent but enough to call my attention to it. And again it makes sense; when a vehicle gets stuck your best way out is nearly always the way you got in. That's realistic. And if it proves that reversing frees vehicles I would suggest we accept it as part of our virtual reality.

Ranting WA

[Wildass69]

Upon conclusion to my first battery of tests let me say that the initial findings seems to support my contention by a substantial margin. (crow pie anyone?)

I'll restate my position: When a vehicle becomes bogged, terminating all forward movement and throwing it into hard reverse increases the chances it will unbog. Hard Reverse: Reverse straight back - no turns - at least 50 meters.

The results of my tests indicate the following in summary: Twenty percent more vehicles became free and approximately 40% fewer vehicles became immobilized when reversed as I described as opposed to when I did nothing at all to free them. The hard numbers are as follows:

Test 1, no action.

18 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain

20 vehicles became free thru the course of the test

35 out of 100 vehicles were effected.

Test 2, reverse action

11 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain

25 vehicles became free thru the course of the test

43 out of 100 vehicles were effected

Someone with more experiance in statistical analysis can probably adjust my numbers to fine tune the true percentages involved but let me make two observations. It might be argued that my 20% increase is due to more vehicles being effected. And there may be some adjustment to this. I would, however, point out that at the end of the second test there were 7 more vehicles still active and susceptible to being bogged than in the first test. Twenty percent is a pretty significant difference and even if it's adjusted down to accomodate other factors it still is too much to just dismiss.

I am quite willing to share the hard data of these tests with anyone who wishes to examine it. The "battle" and the end turns of both tests are saved and I will email them to anyone. For the paper you must send me a stamped self-addressed envelope (email me for the address).

But I will describe the setup here:

July 1943, Southern Russia, Midday, Damp, warm, clear, still. Static engagement.

Map 1200m wide by 1040m high, soft ground with dirt roads crossing the course of travel every 100 meters and vertical corridors bordered by woods to divide the units into platoon sizes. (this helps keep track of whats going on - a grid if you will).

100 Pz IVGs divided into 20 platoons. No real enemy opposition (1 platoon of soviet rifles around one victory flag at the destination end). Vehicles travel south to north crossing dirt roads (on open ground) every 100 meters (again part of the grid to track the results also to break up the terrain). Starting elevation was 7, mid elevation 5, end elevation 7. Each platoon was place in an isolated corridor as described in numerical order and each vehicle was arranged in order left to right with platoon HQ on left and Veh. 5 on right. Platoon 1 on left of map Platoon 20 on right.

In the first test I group selected all vehicles and sent them down range. When a vehicle bogged I noted the event but did nothing to aid it. In the second test I again group selected all units and sent them down range. When a vehicle bogged I canceled its movement order and reassigned the reverse order as I described. Once it became free I canceled the remaining reverse and again sent it forward.

In each test I logged the events as they occurred in chart form, noting by vehicle number under the heading of each platoon and each turn. Three catagories were logged; Immoblized, Bogged and Freed.

Of course more tests should be conducted if more secure numbers are desired. I don't need them in the absence of any significant rebuttle. Seems the MYTH is becoming realitY! In other words the ball is in your court.

WA the thumper

[Sergei]

That is very interesting. Thanks for doing the test.

I also did a little test on this one, but in a bit different way from yours. Firstly I determined that as this is about finding out the effectiveness of reverse order when it can be applied, I only compared the cases where the reverse order could be applied. Ie. I didn't count any of the cases where a bogging either cleared itself or turned into immobilization before the end of turn. Secondly I noticed that getting enough cases to rule out the chance is time consuming as usual - but because of the rule above, I only needed to watch which tanks remained bogged at the end of the turn. This made counting them much faster than usually and for that reason I could test both cases with 200 tanks. Still the amount of immobilizations is pretty low and the results might not be conclusive.

Anyway, the conditions were as usual: 780 metres over mud, T-34/85's. Moving fast. Repeated for 200 tanks. In these tests tanks with reverse orders given got 58b/10i and tanks with no changes had 77b/15i. In percentages, 17 % of bogged tanks given a reverse order stuck permanently while 19 % of tanks that had no orders changed became immobilized. What do you think?

[Wildass69]

I saw tanks bog and then unbog during the same turn but since I only counted what condition they were in at the end of each turn these events were not recorded. On the other hand if a tank immobilized during the same turn it first bogged I did count it - because I was looking at the condition of each vehicle at the end of each turn. But since I treated both tests the same I feel that this would not effect the outcome. In other words each test would have approximately the same number of these events and so to me it was an ambient event.

I may not have been clear on how I tested so just to be clear in the first test I simply recorded what happened under the parameters I've already described. In the second test I reversed every tank that was bogged at the end of each turn that I had not already reversed in a previous turn. (In the first test one tank remained bogged for 6 turn - it never changed as the test ended first. In the second test one tank went 5 turns bogged then freed.) I never gave any opportunity for a tank to voluntarily free itself. The only time that happened was when it bogged and unbogged during the same turn.

Your test appears to have been a little shorter than mine. My tanks went 1000m in 10 turns. If it had been the same length as yours (I'm assuming 8 turns long - I was using the slower PzIVs) the numbers I came up with would have been even farther appart in terms of percentages. In both cases five tanks freed during my last two turns. So they were still five units appart but 5 then becomes 25% of 20 rather than 20% of 25. Someone has argued that it is time more than distance that governs bogging. Perhaps a 20 turn 2000m test would be more accurate. I just felt 10 turns at 1000m was more of a rounded standard place to terminate the tests.

In looking at your numbers I still see some influence of reversing stuck tanks. I've never ascerted that it was highly effective - only that it increased your chances of unbogging. Frankly my numbers were a bit higher than I actually expected. But now two of us have found under, slightly different circumstances, that there does seem to be some evidence to this - at least that's how I see it.

I'd be curious to know if this particular circumstance was tested at any great length by the game/beta testers. Proportedly the type of movement assigned has no influence over the unbogging routine in the engine. Probably if I'd been paying attention and heard this I would never have tried it. But I took the manual to heart and though it might work. You've heard the analogy of the bees and the flys in a glass jar...?

[Rob Murray]

I've found that from personal observation usually ( this doesn't always work though ): I can "unbog" a vehicle by cancelling the previous movement order & issuing a Reverse order. Also I've found that if you absolutely have to ( better off not, though ) cross rocky terrain it's better to cross it as fast as you can go ( again, this doesn't always work out so well ).

[Wildass69]

I've reviewed my data more closely and found a few minor errors.

Test 1, no action.

18 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain

20 vehicles became free thru the course of the test

36 out of 100 vehicles were effected.

Test 2, reverse action

10 vehicles immobilized after 10 turns over 1000m of soft terrain

25 vehicles became free thru the course of the test

42 out of 100 vehicles were effected

I build a chart that enables me to keep track of the status of each vehicle. In transfering the data to this chart I found the errors.

I also reviewed how I analyzed the data and feel that the following is more correct:

Dividing 20 into 25, the difference is 25% more vehicles were freed when I used reverse.

Dividing 36 into 42, the difference is 16.7% more vehicles were effected in the second test where I used reverse.

Dividing 18 into 10, the second test had only 56% of the vehicle immobilizations of those in the first test where no reversing was used.

At the end of the second test 90% of its vehicles were still in operation (not immobilized) where as only 82% of the vehicles were still in operation at the end of the first test. This may explain why more vehicles were effected in the second test.

The following is a comparison of how many vehicles were still in operation at the end of each turn:

turn____1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8___9___10

Test_1_100_100__99__97__96__91__90__86__84__82

Test_2_100__98__98__97__94__94__93__91__91__90

This is an interesting comparison. Notice how both tests hold pretty steady at first but as the tests lengthens the first test takes a nose dive while the second continues to drift slowly downward. A graph would demonstrate this more effectively. Reversing would seem to have a desided effect on bogged vehicles.

In each test one vehicle bogged on open or hard ground. In the first test 5 vehicles immobilized during the same turn as they bogged. In the second test 4 vehicles immobilized during the same turn that they bogged. I counted these immobilized vehicles in both tests. The number is close enough in each test that it appears ambient.

I did not record the number of vehicles that bogged and freed during the same turn because I only recorded the condition of each vehicle at the END of each turn. However I noted that about the same number of vehicles did this in each test (you can tell because they fall noticibly behind). Again I consider this an ambient condition.

The longest bogging occurred in the first test at 7 turns (This also is a correction from my last). The longest duration during the second test was 5 turns.

Even allowing 5% for human error it still seems quite clear that reversing bogged vehicles has some positive effect. Nevertheless I've become willing to conduct at least two more batteries of tests. With my new charts it will be easier to track each vehicle. Perhaps this weekend.

Analytical WA

[ November 03, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Wildass69 ]

[markl]

For me bogging is one of the most frustrating things in the game. I would like to see a greater chance of de-bogging, unless the game does model real life.

I will certainly give the ideas a go, nothing to loose only possible gains.

Since this topic comes up regularly, I am supprised no has pointed to the last set of tests conducted on the thread.

See below thread.

********************************************

This is topic Tanks bogging.... Cranial pressure... RISING! (How to prevent it?) in forum Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin at Battlefront.com Discussion Area.

To visit this topic, use this URL:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006120

********************************************

How do the tests on the above thread compare with the tests done here? I am keen enough to follow the thread but not analyse tests, I will leave that to those who have a bit more knowledge of the game than I do.

I do not know if forum protocols allow, but if the last tests are relevant to this discussion, then perhaps they could be cut and pasted here so they can be compared without leaving this thread.

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by markl:

I would like to see a greater chance of de-bogging, unless the game does model real life.

I think that's exactly the point.

[Redwolf]

Holy cow, all that discussion whether reversing unbogs.

Do you realizethis is a computer program and it is either coded in or not? There is no natural magic to uncover here.

Steve or Moon said it is not taken into account. While it wouldn't be the first time they missed something Charles coded into the engine I don't see any indication that they are wrong this time either.

[Wildass69]

Holy cow, do you realize sometimes coding has loops and holes in it? Where do think bugs come from?

There is intent and there is reality.

There was nothing magical about my tests and you - any of you - are quite welcome to all my data both now and in the future. I will be conducting two more batteries of this test (at least - I'm beginning to fear I'm bogged!!!). Anyone else is welcome to take my "Battle" and my logging charts or make up their own and conduct their own tests. Send me a stamped self-addressed envelope and I'll send all my stuff (email me for the address - do I need to post it here?).

What's interesting (even magical) is that here are hard numbers, but, because we've been told....

Again, I wonder if this particular circumstance was actually and specifically tested during beta? I'm not refuting Steve or Moon nor am I attacking anyone's professionalism or product. But I don't just accept everything I've been told. I was ignorant enough to try something that isn't SUPpose to work. I see something. And just because they say it doesn't work doesn't mean that it doesn't. The numbers seeeeeeeeemmmm to say that it does. Maybe with a "few" more tests we'll see.

I'm not interested in magic! I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I'm interested in fact and truth. If it's found that I am wrong I will accept that just as readily as if I am found to be right. But we have to find. And there is no intent to force anyone to reverse their vehicles when they get stuck - certainly not people who's handles start with "R".

Soapbox WA