SgtMuhammed Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I haven't had too much trouble bogging but I have had some notable incidents. I love Russian tanks because it is hard to bog them even if you try. It is a risk I accept because I know it is a risk that was actually there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Treeburst155: If a designed scenario utilizes vehicles with high ground pressure and muddy conditions with few (if any) roads that are safe to use (enemy fire), then one would hope that the designer has taken into consideration that many of the player's vehicles will get stuck. If he has, you should still have a fun scenario. If not, you'll see an early surrender. The situation is similar with aircraft. If one player NEEDS the aircraft to arrive and hit certain targets in order to win, and this doesn't happen, you have a highly unbalanced scenario. Balance in this case is determined by luck. How is this similar to the bogging example above? In both cases the designer did not consider likely possibilities that will severely affect balance. Treeburst155 out.Sire, this is BS . First, show me the source were is mentioned the high rate of heavy tanks will get immobile to technical reasons and bogging (let's assume that 'bog' abstract also other tech. problems) within the timeframe of a CM battle = max 2 hours. Except catastrophies like the 'prerealesed' Panther and Elephants at Kursk (where the many were already lost BEFORE they reached the battle) . Second - WWII Russia had only very few paved roads. An unpaved 'road' was usually nothing but the often used way between two points. Nothing on it deserved to be called a 'road'. In other words, it was as unreliable as any other open ground to move your tanks on it. You should keep also in mind that even a couple of 5t HTs destroys an unpaved road - even within the CM timeframe. There's only a full turn necessary. Third - You ask for realism with bogged tanks, so why you mention 'balanced' scenarios? A balanced battle is not just unrealistic, it is indeed a situation that any commander want to avoid. That's a (if not the) basic principle. Of course is a highly unbalanced scenario not really funny to play. So what - gamefun or (so called) realism? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 FWIW may I just inject into this superior thread a quick point I made in a similar thread with a juvenile Neo-Nazi yesterday. If the bogging routine is in any way altered to lessen the chances of it happening, or if players get the option to force ground conditions to be dry, then I will be yelling for a big points increase on the purchase costs of high ground pressure vehicles. With those vehicles, there is a weakness with their strengths. Ultimately it is only a potential weakness, you aren't guaranteed to bog and can minimize the risk. EG: Pre-patch I played a QB Kursk-era armour heavy TCP secnario, purchased 4 Elefants, the ground was 'Wet', it was a ME, and only one bogged. By just using them as a semi mobile rotating pillbox covering the objectives, I accepted their weakness, and won easily with their huge strengths. Post-patch I can't remember the last time I saw something bog in open dry ground. So please bear in mind that if you want an option to tone down, or take away, the potential bogging weakness from high ground pressure vehicles then the points need to go up. It's no different to giving an extra 70mm of armour to a T-26. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: FWIW may I just inject into this superior thread a quick point I made in a similar thread with a juvenile Neo-Nazi yesterday. If the bogging routine is in any way altered to lessen the chances of it happening, or if players get the option to force ground conditions to be dry, then I will be yelling for a big points increase on the purchase costs of high ground pressure vehicles. With those vehicles, there is a weakness with their strengths. Ultimately it is only a potential weakness, you aren't guaranteed to bog and can minimize the risk. EG: Pre-patch I played a QB Kursk-era armour heavy TCP secnario, purchased 4 Elefants, the ground was 'Wet', it was a ME, and only one bogged. By just using them as a semi mobile rotating pillbox covering the objectives, I accepted their weakness, and won easily with their huge strengths. Post-patch I can't remember the last time I saw something bog in open dry ground. So please bear in mind that if you want an option to tone down, or take away, the potential bogging weakness from high ground pressure vehicles then the points need to go up. It's no different to giving an extra 70mm of armour to a T-26.Rex, in princip I agree. I don't have a problem with bogging tanks (what is, depending on the ground and vehicel) maybe realistic - my problem is that a bogged tank has high chance to get permanently immobile. BTW, I just lost a T-34/85 that way just a few days ago in 'damp' open ground. If there something should be changed, than that tanks get very rarely permanent immobile after bogging, and instead a few minutes more as time penalty to 'unbog'. So heavy tanks have still a tactical disadvantage, cause it makes a great difference if you face a phallanx of Tigers or one after another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Again though this flies in the face of reality. It isn't very rare that a tank that bogs becomes immobile. To tell the truth even with modern armor with experienced crews it is very likely that if you are stuck for more than a few seconds then you are going to need help to get out. I'm not talking from books or studies here but from actual experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I must be doing something drastically wrong, guys. Since CMBB first came out, I've had 1 (that's ONE) tank bog on me. It was a T-26. To me it really isn't an issue. (Now watch, every game I play from now on will have me bogging 50% of my armor assets, at least. ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 I may have missed it, but beyond this whole tank-bogging issue in CMBB (which I couldn't presently say is "broke" from my own limited experience), what else has been related in here as that "Luck has replaced skill in CMBB"? What of ordnance, small arms, and artillery fire? And results from same? Are these TOO "dicey" in nature also, as to preclude giving attention to proper tactical methods in the game? This game isn't supposed to be a tank derby alone. If the issue is excessive bogging, then CALL IT OUT as such. Otherwise, the notion that "Luck replaces skill in CMBB" calls far more in question with the game mechanics than just bogging probabilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Spook: I may have missed it, but beyond this whole tank-bogging issue in CMBB (which I couldn't presently say is "broke" from my own limited experience), what else has been related in here as that "Luck has replaced skill in CMBB"? What of ordnance, small arms, and artillery fire? And results from same? Are these TOO "dicey" in nature also, as to preclude giving attention to proper tactical methods in the game? This game isn't supposed to be a tank derby alone. If the issue is excessive bogging, then CALL IT OUT as such. Otherwise, the notion that "Luck replaces skill in CMBB" calls far more in question with the game mechanics than just bogging probabilities.Oh I agree completely Tank duels and the results of AP hits on AFV's now involve a far greater element of LUCK than bogging IMHO. The AP round can do so many things now and they are largely dependend on radom odds and the chance of luck. I mean is it a Gun Hit, (BAD but now more rare I think) did it penetrate?, then what, ... Penetrate and KO? Penetrate and 1 casuality =shocked tank?, Penetrate and NO RESULT?. the penetration with NO damage seems so lucky it feels GREAT every time it happens! I laugh at my oppenent when I am lucky enough to get a penetration with no damage on one of my tanks because I figure I have just "beat" the odds on that AP round. There is a alot of luck in this game, but like the Pro Golfer says, the "More I practice the Luckier I get! " -tom w [ January 10, 2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Wendigo: Now people who play in ladder have chosen to play THIS game. They should be aware of the things it implies. As this is highly realistic wargame, it is possible to vehicles to bog, sometimes in the most unconvenient places and times. Been known to happen. The reasons why vehicles seem to bog more in CMBB are believable and as long everybody KNOWS that this is possible it doesn't give any advantage to anyone. I think this is an interesting point. The ladder and 'strategy' game players have chosen to play a game that has made a major effort to be a realistic combat simulation game. Now they are asking BFC to make it into something more acceptable to their style of play, and quite against its intent. We're hearing 'I play ladders, I require that this game conform to the needs of ladder games.' And what they've been told is 'the changes to the game you require are quite against the design intent, we do not wish to implement them.' I think BFC's reasons for this stance are more than adequate, and, while I think it's great that the opposition view has been presented, I do not find their arguments very compelling. Of course, I don't play ladder games, and the idea of turning CM into some sort of 'combat chess' emulator bores me to tears. Any decision to add some sort of 'toggle' modifying the chance to bog is, of course, in BFC's hands, and perhaps if enough people believe in it they would consider it. If it requires any significant effort or resources to make this change, then I personally don't see any point to it, and would certainly argue against such a diversion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Boo_Radley: (Now watch, every game I play from now on will have me bogging 50% of my armor assets, at least. )Not soon enough to satisfy me, you unnaturally large freak of nature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Boo_Radley: (Now watch, every game I play from now on will have me bogging 50% of my armor assets, at least. )Not soon enough to satisfy me, you unnaturally large freak of nature. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: Again though this flies in the face of reality. It isn't very rare that a tank that bogs becomes immobile. To tell the truth even with modern armor with experienced crews it is very likely that if you are stuck for more than a few seconds then you are going to need help to get out. I'm not talking from books or studies here but from actual experience.Well, in this case tanks should get always and immediatly get immobile when bogging!? And how does a tank in CM get out of the calamity alone? BTW, during my army time we lost only once a 'tank' (M113 mortar carrier) to this, and indeed it didn't booged and then tried to get out, it just drove into a hole, lost a track and finished. I just wonder, cause you speak of own experience - how many tanks have you usually lost to such issues within an hour, or even a day? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 As a matter of record, I HAVE had tanks bog/become immobile on dry ground in CMBO, whereas I have yet to have my first one bog in CMBB. Wow. I bogged at least half a dozen of them in one scenario (SP-Into the Void) - probably two or three to immobilization. And all of this was in dry steppe terrain (not even in the bits of "rocky"). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Tank duels and the results of AP hits on AFV's now involve a far greater element of LUCK than bogging IMHO. The AP round can do so many things now and they are largely dependend on radom odds and the chance of luck. I mean is it a Gun Hit, (BAD but now more rare I think) did it penetrate?, then what, ... Penetrate and KO? Penetrate and 1 casuality =shocked tank?, Penetrate and NO RESULT?. the penetration with NO damage seems so lucky it feels GREAT every time it happens! I laugh at my oppenent when I am lucky enough to get a penetration with no damage on one of my tanks because I figure I have just "beat" the odds on that AP round. Well, yes, this is true. In CMBO, it was a virtual certainty that: non-flaking penetration = KO'ed vehicle, regardless of the round size or type. I once popped a Panther with an anti-tank grenade as a flank shot. And while it never happened to me, I do remember the complaints in the CMBO forums on how "That %^%*ing M8 Greyhound took out my "cat" tank with a 37mm gun!!" And this complaint popped up more than a few times. Under the mechanics of CMBB, that shot with a 37mm is now far less likely to get a straight-up kill. But on the flip side, it's also opened up that bigger shots don't always get kills. Kind of like moving away from "binary" to fuzzy logic. I do like the evolution in the damage model, though. The gameplay trend of CMBB for me, however, has still been such that the probability of a flat-out vehicle kill does go up with gun potency. If the round is big enough and hits with enough energy, then one has to really REALLY lucky not to be affected. To me, the best fun is knocking out a killer tank with a Molotov. The bottle arcs up, you hear the clinking of broken glass, then IF it gets a "hit" or "hit on vulnerable top area," the tank then burns. Muwahahaha. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 the problem is not CMBB bogging rules or any other part of the simulation engine...it is more that victory condition variables are very crude compared with the rest of the game design............ so called unbalanced scenarios become balanced if ASL style SSR and victory conditions are possable... I prefere to keep it "realistic" and lose battles than play contrived 1000pts each style battles.....having said that an improvement in the victory condition rules is desirable. Boris London 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 This thread has nothing to do with the luck involved in CM. It is one big bogging gripe by players who preferred CMBO's bogging characteristics to the current one. If you want BFC to make changes relating to bogging you're gonna have to come up with some very good, well documented reasons. I guess I'll have to start my own thread if I really want to talk about ways to minimize luck in CM without sacrificing realism. Bogging, schmogging!!! Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Well, limit the conversation to just bogging, and I'd have to say like some others have said, I don't have any bogging problems. Have played CMBO since it came out, been playing CMBB since it came out, and only on a rare occasion has any vehicle I control bogged. So I'm at a loss as to why it is seen as a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Hey, at least when CMBB vehicles bog they can still use their turrets!! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sitting Duck Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Parapharse of stuff originally posted by everyone else on yet another "Tanks Bog Too Much Thread": </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tanks bog too much. No they don't. Yes they do. No. They Don't. Yes. They Do. No. Yes.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Well, limit the conversation to just bogging, and I'd have to say like some others have said, I don't have any bogging problems. Have played CMBO since it came out, been playing CMBB since it came out, and only on a rare occasion has any vehicle I control bogged. So I'm at a loss as to why it is seen as a problem.Now, with the demo, there did seem to be a surprisingly high incidence of bogging in the dry terrain of Citadel Schwerpunkt's steppe environment, but I really didn't notice it with the CD. According to the readme, there was a bogging fix with the v1.01 patch, but off the top of my head, I don't recall if it deal with bogging in dry terrain or not. I really didn't notice it in the CD version though. However, I don't perceive bogging to really be any more of a problem in CMBB than with CMBO. Maybe it's the just units I select or the computer gives me, I dunno. Does it suck when it happens? Yeah. Is it something you have to take into onsideration when choosing your route / selecting units for purchase? Yeah. Does it increase the size of the role that luck plays in success to an frustrating level? I guess that's a personal call. For me, no; it seems to provide the result I would anticipate given the ground conditions, and I have to weigh that into the balance in determining what I want to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Sitting Duck, That is a very infamous example you state. One of the police officers that surrounded the tank is on my Military Vehicles list too. Not a pretty story... I also got my Weasel bogged down once. This is a vehicle with ground pressure of less than 2.0 lb/sq in. It can happen. In my case it was dry high summer and a dead treelimb got wedged inbetween the top of the track and the hull. It took about an hour with a come-along (hand winch) to get it removed. This is the same vehicle that pulled 1500 pounds of stuff on a WHEELED trailer through 4' of snow. All anecdotal for sure, but so too are the "bogs too much" examples listed in this thread. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 one thing why i have dropped playing 3d-shooters (in clans) was the discussion about skill. ot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Tanks bog. It depends on a number of variables, most of them are in the manual. "open" is the most unlikely terrain to bog in, but a small chance is there. (as "open" spaces in real life are designed by nature and contain all types of non-standard thingies from dog**** to grilled anacondas to dinosaur-skeletons). I think it's ok that way. Because some people here perhaps didn't realize it: the "bogging bug" in the demo and ver. 1.00 got fixed in 1.01 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 so called unbalanced scenarios become balanced if ASL style SSR and victory conditions are possable... Or if people could add handicap points. Wait, they can already do that. Never mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by demoss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />so called unbalanced scenarios become balanced if ASL style SSR and victory conditions are possable... Or if people could add handicap points. Wait, they can already do that. Never mind.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.