Has Luck Replaced Skill In CMBB?

[aka_tom_w]

If we were to stick to the discussion of the PSI and Tracked vehicles we might LEARN a great deal from catapillar tracked construction equipment even today.

I know this is only anecdotal, BUT my brother is a Service Manager and was a mechanic for a BIG heavy equipment manufacturer. He relates stories about tracked heavy equipment got bogged because inexperienced operators figure since it had "tracks" it could never get stuck. Heavy equipment (PSI is still a factor here) like catapillar bulldozers can bog easily because just like how inexperienced 4x4 drivers find out once the belly of the vehicle takes all the wieght and when there is no traction, no amount of horse power, 4 wheel drive or catipilar traction will move the beast because it is bottomed out, or high centered.

In the game tanks get bogged, if they get a "bad roll" that leads to immobolization, thus the game models trying to get out of bogged position and then bottoming out with the belly of the tank taking all the weight, OR throwing a track in the effort to un-bog. (thus it gets GOOD and Stuck!)

I would be very interested to invite modern day heavy equipment construction operators to comment here.

Amongst the 11 thousand members here surely someone has some experience driving heavy construction equipment with Catipillar tracks? :confused:

how often do they bog down?

Keep those comments coming in.

-tom w

[ January 10, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Hi Steve

My guess is this experience with the weasle does, in some small way "colored" the way bogging and immobolization are modeled in the game.

-tom w

[ January 10, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Question to the guys saying that booging is something "special" to worry about in terms of "unbalancing" a game...

What makes the luck involved in bogging different than other things in the game like:

1. Artillery accuracy/effect

2. Losing tank to a mine

3. Losing 4 tanks to one

4. Finding on the attack with T-34/85s having to cross 2000m of open ground with 2 King Tigers and 2 Pak40s defending

5. Playing with pre battle losses and finding you start out the game without your King Tiger at all

6. Playing a battle with a lot of armor and finding the weather to be thick Fog.

7. Losing your only 2 AT weapons in a "lucky" artillery hit just before his tanks came into range

8. Putting your only AT assets, which are towed, in the wrong spot and the enemy cleans you up from the rear

9. You have your FO in a building that colapses due to an unlucky concentration of artillery hits in a general bombardment

So on and so forth.

The point here is that you can NOT just take one thing out of context and say "this makes the game more luck than skill". It is totally incorrect to say this. What you are instead saying is "I don't like this aspect of luck because, well... I just don't." And that is not a strong argument for us changing the way the game works

Steve

[thewood]

As far as bogging, whether it's open terrain or not, soil characteristics play a big role also. Things like density, granularity, voids, etc. also have a big effect. I used to drive a CAT dozer and you always walked the ground you were working on and engineers generally checked the soil and compression characteristics regardless of weather.

There is no way for CMBB to model this detail other than aggrgating into a form of randomness. If randomness is not your cup of tea, develop some new rules for chess and play that instead.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The point here is that you can NOT just take one thing out of context and say "this makes the game more luck than skill". It is totally incorrect to say this. What you are instead saying is "I don't like this aspect of luck because, well... I just don't." And that is not a strong argument for us changing the way the game works

True, which I noted in a different way on the previous page of this topic thread.

However, it must be fairly recognized as that one source for such complaints of "too unpredictable" is that the CM game mechanics for the most part are "black-box." Players don't know what the stock probabilities are to a bog chance based on terrain and modified by weather conditions.

Now, I do know that this is an intentional design decision as to keep CM players from "tabulating" all aspects of the game mechanics for gamey purposes. But if the players don't "see" how things are calculated, such as bogging or shot accuracy or small-arms fire effect or whatever, then it is inevitable for some CM gamers to query if the hidden calculations have "gotten it right" or at least "close enough."

The question really shouldn't be, "Do tanks bog?" or "Do tanks bog in open ground?" Of course they can, and do, based on the scenario's environmental conditions. And this is well supported by historical precedent. I just looked over a Squadron/Signal reference book on the T-34 that had a passle of pictures showing mired T-34's.

Rather, the question then should remain in this context: "Does bogging happen too often than should be expected from historical trends?" That can still be a fairly posed question, as again, CM players don't know what the specific bogging chances are. At present, I couldn't say that I see a problem, as it now stands with v1.01 (recognizing that the 1.01 patch DID address bogging chances to a degree, at least on open ground). I would have to first log in a LOT of hours on user-designed "test" scenarios, using environment and terrain as the variables, tabulate the results, and compare to likely obscure "bogging" data before I could say if it still SEEMED problematic.

[ January 10, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[mididoctors]

Amongst the 11 thousand members here surely someone has some experience driving heavy construction equipment with Catipillar tracks? :confused:

I worked for two years on the channel tunnel terminal area during the landscaping phase(and other large civil engineering projects) weather was bad, wet and muddy...heavy plant bogged often but then again there was a lot of plant and I was not taking a statistical survey at the time....

D9 s and D8s did ok and bogged the least...

360 hanomags bogged all the time GP?

who knows all I can say is stuff bogs in wet ground which we all know.

wheeled stuff faired very badly sinking up to axles including 3500HP! scrappers , case diggers and land rovers.

FWIW

Boris

london

[demoss]

yes but then the scenario is effectivily remodeled from the original one IE extra troops or more experience points......

play balanced is achieved by playing a DIFFERENT battle. not satisfactory IMHO

Not at all. The scenario editor allows the designer to add handicap points to the final score.

[bbaker]

Let me start by saying that I am *not* an active ladder player save for the odd tournament here and there, and I've dispensed of my usual lurking for purely academic enjoyment... just to set a tone.

That said:

What makes the luck involved in bogging different than other things in the game like:

1. Artillery accuracy/effect

2. Losing tank to a mine

3. Losing 4 tanks to one

4. Finding on the attack with T-34/85s having to cross 2000m of open ground with 2 King Tigers and 2 Pak40s defending

5. Playing with pre battle losses and finding you start out the game without your King Tiger at all

6. Playing a battle with a lot of armor and finding the weather to be thick Fog.

7. Losing your only 2 AT weapons in a "lucky" artillery hit just before his tanks came into range

8. Putting your only AT assets, which are towed, in the wrong spot and the enemy cleans you up from the rear

9. You have your FO in a building that colapses due to an unlucky concentration of artillery hits in a general bombardment

These are all things that are perceived by many players as being under either their control or the control of their opponent. I shouldn't have run my tank through that minefield or he sure got me with that artillery barrage.

And yes, I shouldn't be taking heavy tanks off-road. But bogging in dry ground is perceived as being a freakish extreme of luck.

Some amount of luck is great in games and over the long term it all balances out, but the long term doesn't alleviate the frustration in the instance where it pops up. If it happens at a crucial juncture during a months-long PBEM game it's realistic, but probably not very much fun for the people involved. There are instances where it doesn't make for a good game although it may be realistic, and that's really my point.

Things that happen extremely rarely, like this example, would in an ideal world be selectable by a toggle, and I would argue for this reason:

Although BF deservedly has an enthusiastic fan base and participation on these boards is active, not everybody who plays the game reads them. Now then, the average shmoe, say my uncle who I turned on to the game (he loves it!), plays a bunch of games where he has heavy tanks and never sees one bog in dry ground. The game provides no feedback that this is a potentially risky thing to do. By the same token, he quickly learns that rocky terrain and scattered trees are best avoided. He plays along happily for many games until at some juncture, maybe a critical one, maybe not, suddenly he loses his tank in dry ground and it seems to him, from his experience, that it is completely without reason.

Super-lucky shots are a pretty good analogy, but even there you get the sense that at least my opponent did that to me, and not the seemingly arbitrary black-box machinations of the game engine.

People invest a lot of time in a PBEM game and to have one decided or influenced by one of these very, very low probability events can be frustrating. If an average user is acting in good faith and not doing something stupid, why randomly punish him?

The opposing camp, the guys who want an accurate-as-possible simulation of The Real Thing have a valid point of view. I can't, nor do I feel inclined, to argue with it.

But at it's heart, CM is a game and as such a large percentage of your customers expect it to behave like one. They don't know that heavy tank x has a 0.5% chance of bogging in dry ground, they don't follow the boards, haven't memorized the charts from books, and haven't been provided the sort of feedback games generally provide.

So, to beat this horse just one more time (it's a tough horse, I think it can take it) a set of sliders in the next iteration of the engine would:

1. Alert users to the fact that these things happen by providing that information within the game interface itself.

2. Allow users who don't want to worry about freakish luck to play the game in the manner they want.

I can think of several topics I've seen hammered on these boards over and over, things like the propensity of planes to hit friendly targets, bogging, lucky hits, things on the outer extreme of probability that you may only see once in a blue moon. I can't imagine that adding that to the new engine will be a huge deal, nor does it have to be complex. Something like setting a button to "vehicles less prone to bog" would have the engine make a second check when a vehicle bogs (like calling "best of three" in a coin toss).

Anyway, I'm running out of italic ink and I think I've made my point as well as it needs to be made. It is, of course, up to the designers and since they've done such a generally superb job with the first two games, I'm inclined to trust their judgement.

But I'm inclined to think it would take less time to implement than it will to rehash old arguments for all the new (hopefully mass-market) people who buy a copy of CM II.

[Battlefront.com]

bbaker,

These are all things that are perceived by many players as being under either their control or the control of their opponent. I shouldn't have run my tank through that minefield or he sure got me with that artillery barrage.

I disagree. None of these things are under the player's control any more than bogging. Driving a tank around, even on a road in great condition, can lead to it getting killed. So what is the difference between that and driving it off road and it getting bogged? None.

And yes, I shouldn't be taking heavy tanks off-road. But bogging in dry ground is perceived as being a freakish extreme of luck.

True, but some also perceived that a Tiger should be able to stand up to a Sherman in a 500m shoot out. Some also argued that this made the game unfun/unbalanced/unrealistic/etc. Should we adjust the game to account for this perception or change the perception?

Some amount of luck is great in games and over the long term it all balances out, but the long term doesn't alleviate the frustration in the instance where it pops up. If it happens at a crucial juncture during a months-long PBEM game it's realistic, but probably not very much fun for the people involved.

Again, I TOTALLY disagree. I played a CMBO PBEM game with a friend of mine. I had an Elite, but TINY force of Germans vs. a much larger defending American force. One of my 3 Panthers and my only other asset (JpzIV) got bogged down behind a hill and only the Panther was able to do something (guarded my flank as he tried to snake around me). Was this a HUGE blow to my force? Yes. Did I find it a challenge to overcome? YES. Did I lose? I don't remember. But I do remember having a crudload of fun.

This gets back to what was said on the previous page. Some people do NOT like extreme challenges. They don't like it when their KT gets destroyed before it kills something any more than it getting bogged down. The simple fact is that they don't like losing something unless they feel they got their "money's" worth out of it. And even then they don't like it

People invest a lot of time in a PBEM game and to have one decided or influenced by one of these very, very low probability events can be frustrating.

In order to stop this frustration for these people we would havee to eliminate DOZENS of "freak" possibilities. This is impossible to do.

The opposing camp, the guys who want an accurate-as-possible simulation of The Real Thing have a valid point of view. I can't, nor do I feel inclined, to argue with it.

But at it's heart, CM is a game and as such a large percentage of your customers expect it to behave like one.

I disagree strongly. The bulk of CM's audience expects the game to behave realistically. And when they see something they didn't think of before they are (generally) pleased to learn something new.

So, to beat this horse just one more time (it's a tough horse, I think it can take it) a set of sliders in the next iteration of the engine would:

1. Alert users to the fact that these things happen by providing that information within the game interface itself.

2. Allow users who don't want to worry about freakish luck to play the game in the manner they want.

There is no way to do this. We could do this for one or two features, but then people like you would find something else that they felt should be a slider. CM is not now, and never will be, a sanitized environment. What you are asking for is an enitrely different game. One that we have no interest in making or supporting. If that keeps us limited to our current base, with modest growth, so be it. We never wanted to be the most popular game on the block, only the most realistc.

What we will do is make the game more accesable to those who want to not deal with major issues, like Command and Control, sorta like how we have Fog Of War options. Options like these are fairly easy to toggle and do have an impact without getting into an endless tail chasing exercise to purge randomness and luck out of the game. The former is a good goal the latter futile and counter productive.

Er... so did I make myself clear on what I think about this debate on "luck", which is actually a debate on bogging?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, to put it quickly in another way...

If someone played a PBEM game and threw up their hands when a vehicle got bogged... asked us to remove bogging 100% from the game... we did... then played another PBEM game (the same sceanario) and lost his big tank to a lucky shot before he even spotted the enemy... did that PBEM game experience get any better for the player? I suspect not. Same time in the game, same result... big tank did nothing after a month of manuevering it.

See how pointless it is to attack the symptoms of the problem? The problem being that some people really don't like extreme challenges. I for one love them. More extreme the better!

Steve

[Kong]

Seems pretty simple to me. I played a ME QB, put alot of points in some heavy armor, got bogged, got mad and decided to blame someone else for my bad decision. Gee, sounds like a typical American to me!

Chance of bogging pretty simple. If it is dry open ground, chance very low. If it is wet ground, or scattered tress, and as my armor gets heavier chance of bogging goes up. Like Steve said, do I risk the road, or do I risk the ground?!?!

This really leads me to one of the highlights of my childhood, I was probably 12 when this happen. Me and my best friend broke into an old truck trailer out in the middle of a field. It had nothing in it of value, we knocked over a box and heard the cling-clang of metal on metal, sounded like keys. They were, and 2 had the John Deere insignia on them. Hmm I thought, there are 2 tractors on the other side of the woods and I think they are John Deere. Off we ride and sure enought they are. One is a track type and the other is a large wheel one, you know like with 4-5 foot diameter wheels. The keys OPEN the doors and start both of them! At this point we are both beyond words. The tractors are close to houses but I am determined to drive one into the woods. I decide to take the one with wheels because it looks easy to drive and I figure it must be faster. My friend jumps in with me and away we go. We drive down a road that has recently been built with like one house on it. Then we take it off-roading! Woohoo! I let my friend drive and I start playing with the shovel. We almost flip it when he gets on uneven ground and I have the shovel at a high elevation! Oops! Man that was fun, knocking over trees, digging holes. This was a shining achievement for us 12 YO boys, much bragging rights with that one. Thanks for digging up that memory!

[aka_tom_w]

"I disagree strongly. The bulk of CM's audience expects the game to behave realistically. And when they see something they didn't think of before they are (generally) pleased to learn something new."

Perhaps you might say the target market they are most interesting in selling to..... "expects the game to behave realistically". (just to be fair)

I think everyone else is just along for the ride, because it is fun and entertaining and there is a GREAT forum here, where we can all be heard and complain about those aspects of the game we would like to see tweaked or fixed.

-tom w

[Krazy Canuck]

Ahem, equipment operator here. 30+yrs. in the industry and I've run 'em all, John Deere 350's(very small) through to and including Cat D10's(rather large). I've helped build roads all through Maritime Canada(mostly gravelly and silt type soils), oilfield roads and highways through Alberta(gotta hate that gumbo, prairie type soils very similar to the Russian steppes). I spent 4 months at the Peterbrough, England fairgrounds construction phase, dug 10 ft. deep holes with a D8N in Mesa, Arizona......enough background.

To answer the bogging question; higher dry ground= rare, low wet ground with saturated materials= very possible. I believe the game does consider the elevations and we know it considers the moisture contents. These estimates are based on the operator being average(regular?) and, here is what I feel is the most important factor, 50%+ u/c. As the u/c drops below that 50% mark the more likely you are to become immobilized.i.e.@ 40% your chains are now stretched and starting to kink,@ 30% those chains are looking like a snakes back,your segments are sharp enough to shave with, your idlers are starting to look like u-bolts,@ 20% you better not leave sound secure footing 'cause that chain is weaving back and forth so fast it is sure to jump off those segments, those once sharp segments are now mere bumps and the chains are starting to slip, the idlers are worn so bad that even new chains wouldn't stay on 'em and the bottom rollers, well they're non-existant and your just dragging that chain along the road.

Todays machines run on SALT(oops, sealed and lubricated trackchains) and have a life expectancy of 5000-8000 hrs. under IDEAL conditions and with regular maintenance. Prior to SALT u/c everything ran on *dry* chains which had a life expectancy of 60-75% of SALT, again with IDEAL conditions and regular maintenance. As u/c technology had changed little prior to SALT I expect that wartime u/c would have had very similar characteristics as the *dry* type still used today. Whew, moving right along.......

Based on first hand information provided to me by someone who was there(my father), I believe that regular maintenance wasn't all that regular(he tells of welding the pins in...a real nono) and that the u/c saw less than ideal conditions.i.e. the faster a machine travels the faster it wears out, the more silt(abrasive, think steppes) equals a quicker rate of wear again etc. etc.

Now, we have all this worthless information, how in hell do we factor this into the game engine? Can't do! So, it's my uneducated guess that the bogging factor is a bit high, but, that the immobilization factor is rather low, thus giving us a combined average that is in all probability quite close to reality. Just what formula BTS used to cover all these variables I couldn't even guess, but for me it is very believable. (even though I did once bitch about bogging ) It was at about that point that I realized that this isn't really a game. It's a simulation, one meant to convey as many real world situations and combinations as possible at any moment!

I'm sure anyone who thinks I've missed anything will jump in here and point it out ....please feel free, but be aware, I've given the lite versions of bogging and immobilization causes and expectancies, this lecture could be 4-5 times longer.

I hope this helps someone 'cause I hate to type and it is the second time I've done it, the first time I had it all done and edited, hit the *add reply* button and ...the board was down!....how does one save something like this....sheesh.

Rgds,

KC

P.S. blame any spelling errors and the poor grammer on Nancy, my secratary, as she's gone home for the weekend.

[Treeburst155]

You lost that game, Steve, because you bogged! You don't remember it because you're a grog who likes realism and one who doesn't care if he wins or loses because it's all a bloody roll of the dice anyway.

Treeburst155 out.

[ January 10, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

Ahem, equipment operator here. 30+yrs. in the industry and I've run 'em all, John Deere 350's(very small) through to and including Cat D10's(rather large). I've helped build roads all through Maritime Canada(mostly gravelly and silt type soils), oilfield roads and highways through Alberta(gotta hate that gumbo, prairie type soils very similar to the Russian steppes). I spent 4 months at the Peterbrough, England fairgrounds construction phase, dug 10 ft. deep holes with a D8N in Mesa, Arizona......enough background.

To answer the bogging question; higher dry ground= rare, low wet ground with saturated materials= very possible. I believe the game does consider the elevations and we know it considers the moisture contents. These estimates are based on the operator being average(regular?) and, here is what I feel is the most important factor, 50%+ u/c. As the u/c drops below that 50% mark the more likely you are to become immobilized.i.e.@ 40% your chains are now stretched and starting to kink,@ 30% those chains are looking like a snakes back,your segments are sharp enough to shave with, your idlers are starting to look like u-bolts,@ 20% you better not leave sound secure footing 'cause that chain is weaving back and forth so fast it is sure to jump off those segments, those once sharp segments are now mere bumps and the chains are starting to slip, the idlers are worn so bad that even new chains wouldn't stay on 'em and the bottom rollers, well they're non-existant and your just dragging that chain along the road.

Todays machines run on SALT(oops, sealed and lubricated trackchains) and have a life expectancy of 5000-8000 hrs. under IDEAL conditions and with regular maintenance. Prior to SALT u/c everything ran on *dry* chains which had a life expectancy of 60-75% of SALT, again with IDEAL conditions and regular maintenance. As u/c technology had changed little prior to SALT I expect that wartime u/c would have had very similar characteristics as the *dry* type still used today. Whew, moving right along.......

Based on first hand information provided to me by someone who was there(my father), I believe that regular maintenance wasn't all that regular(he tells of welding the pins in...a real nono) and that the u/c saw less than ideal conditions.i.e. the faster a machine travels the faster it wears out, the more silt(abrasive, think steppes) equals a quicker rate of wear again etc. etc.

Now, we have all this worthless information, how in hell do we factor this into the game engine? Can't do! So, it's my uneducated guess that the bogging factor is a bit high, but, that the immobilization factor is rather low, thus giving us a combined average that is in all probability quite close to reality. Just what formula BTS used to cover all these variables I couldn't even guess, but for me it is very believable. (even though I did once bitch about bogging ) It was at about that point that I realized that this isn't really a game. It's a simulation, one meant to convey as many real world situations and combinations as possible at any moment!

I'm sure anyone who thinks I've missed anything will jump in here and point it out ....please feel free, but be aware, I've given the lite versions of bogging and immobilization causes and expectancies, this lecture could be 4-5 times longer.

I hope this helps someone 'cause I hate to type and it is the second time I've done it, the first time I had it all done and edited, hit the *add reply* button and ...the board was down!....how does one save something like this....sheesh.

Rgds,

KC

P.S. blame any spelling errors and the poor grammer on Nancy, my secratary, as she's gone home for the weekend.

ah Perfect!

I love it when a plan comes together!

I knew a bogging and immobolization GROG would show up here at some point.

Thanks for the post K Canuck!

-tom w

P.S. Can you explain more about those things like u/c and the other short forms and abbreviations that some of us might not understand?

[Gaylord Focker]

So to make a long debate short, head to head parity cannot, will not, and should not be achieved in this game.

The game is called Combat Mission Berlin to Barbarossa, not Communist Commisions Peking to Barcelona.

[ January 10, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

If you want BFC to make changes relating to bogging you're gonna have to come up with some very good, well documented reasons.

Oh well, why doesn't BTS come up with their documents about the rate of bogged and immobile vehicels first? Would make it easier to compare with (maybe) other sources.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Question to the guys saying that booging is something "special" to worry about in terms of "unbalancing" a game...

What makes the luck involved in bogging different than other things in the game like:

1. Artillery accuracy/effect

...

Well Steve, so let me asked again for this mistery issue :

a) I give an artillety order. The shells go down to a completly wrong place. (well, tough luck, completly incompetent FO etc)

I give a correction order. The artillery goes down to the exactly same wrong place. Tough luck etc again? So whats the sense of spotting rounds at all? What have I missed?

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:

If you want BFC to make changes relating to bogging you're gonna have to come up with some very good, well documented reasons.

Oh well, why doesn't BTS come up with their documents about the rate of bogged and immobile vehicels first? Would make it easier to compare with (maybe) other sources.</font>

[Treeburst155]

Scipio,

Hitting target areas accurately with blind FOs is pure luck in CM. Whether or not your adjustment improves matters is again, pure luck. Based on my limited experience the odds are against an accurate arty strike with a blind FO. Beat the luck factor! Don't target blind.

Treeburst155 out.

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

ah Perfect!

I love it when a plan comes together!

I knew a bogging and immobolization GROG would show up here at some point.

Thanks for the post K Canuck!

-tom w

P.S. Can you explain more about those things like u/c and the other short forms and abbreviations that some of us might not understand?[/QB]

Tom W,

Hardly a grog, I think you need to be an engineer to achieve that distinction.

If you want more undercarriage(u/c) info go here. If you can wade though this and still need clarification, just ask, I'll be happy to fill in the blanks.

Rgds,

KC

[Laox]

Do we know the game bogging percentages for DRY FLAT GROUND because everything I've read seems to indicate they are rather high. In fact, extremely so..

in other words, if you took 20 tanks and ordered them all across a DRY FLAT steppe, how many make it to the other end? It would seem that if on average you lose 1 or 2, and that move takes 10 turns (10 minutes) then the lifespan of a tank on the russian front on anything other than a road, was about 100 minutes of motion, without enemy fire. Which seems just plain wrong.

I quite see the point about ordering ones tanks to avoid anything that looks boggy, as a good commander should, unless its a calculated risk. But within the game we cant walk on the ground to check it, the *best* ground is labelled dry/flat etc, and if 5 or 10% of tanks bogging in this within 10 minutes, then it doesnt seem realistic.

For the best offroad area the game should model a very low bogging chance, maybe less than 1% of tanks per 10 minutes, otherwise it is going to ruin the day with "luck"..

so what are the stats for a heavy tank on dry/flat ground? anyone know?

[imported_major_tom]

Originally posted by Krazy Canuck:

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

ah Perfect!

I love it when a plan comes together!

I knew a bogging and immobolization GROG would show up here at some point.

Thanks for the post K Canuck!

-tom w

P.S. Can you explain more about those things like u/c and the other short forms and abbreviations that some of us might not understand?

Tom W,

Hardly a grog, I think you need to be an engineer to achieve that distinction.

If you want more undercarriage(u/c) info go here. If you can wade though this and still need clarification, just ask, I'll be happy to fill in the blanks.

Rgds,

KC[/QB]</font>

[Seanachai]

AHHHHH! AHHHHH! MY EYES, MY EYES!!!!! THE HORRIBLE, BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT OF DIAGRAMS!!!!!!!!!

TREAD GROGS! FLY, FOOLS!

[Laox]

I ran some tests on a special map for the purpose.

"dry day"

the short summary is that the heaviest german tank does not bog at all travelling on steppe or "open ground" on a "dry" (but not very-dry) day .. only flat, no undulations, were tested.

My test ran 15 of these tanks the full width of the largest map and back again, and there, and back again, in 20 turns. No bogging. So on a *per-tank* basis, thats no bogging (or imobilization) for at least 15x20 = 250 game turns ...

steppe was equivalent to open ground, and wheat field and scrub the same also but just a little speed reduction.

Other strips of land faired much worse. For a heavy tank, "rocky" was a disaster.. hardly any progress at all by any of the tanks or straight immobilizations, not that it made much difference in terms of distance travelled!

"rough" was a non starter of course.

Scattered trees was another heavy tank disaster, extremely slow progress (perhaps 50-100m after 20 turns) and several immobilizations out of 10 tanks within 20 turns. This surprised me a bit. After all, scattered, is not a forest.

Shallow fords were another disaster, many boggings and subsequent immobilizations. I'd say on average a heavy tank can cross about 10 shallow fords before immobilizing. I didnt test deep/narrow fords, I guess all the rest are even worse.

"wet day"

what a disaster.. I just ran the steppe/open ground tests and out of 20 tanks, 10 were immobile within half the map covered and turn 10, and by turn 15, only 4 were still moving, none had reached the end due to bogging delays. I don't expect the entire map can be crossed by anymore than 1 or 2 tanks out of 20 n a "wet day"..

Thus the lifespan to immobilization drops dramatically from 250+ turns for a single tank for "dry", to less than 6 turns on average for a single tank for "wet" on the best ground..

So watch out for "Mud" or (good grief) "Deep Mud!" days, on even the best ground.. and be suspicious of "Damp". Only be confident when weather says "Dry" and "Very Dry" on open/steppe/wheat/bushes...

Oh and the faster you 'get outta there' the less chance of bogging it seems to be a function of how long you are in the badlands rather than speed of travel etc.