aka_tom_w Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Mikser: This reminds me that someone pointed out in another thread that Mean Maximum Pressure might be/is a more accurate way of quantifying mobility in cross-country terrain than Nominal Ground Pressure... Any thoughts on that?That is a good point Which thread was that? Can you post a link. I don't think this discussion would be complete without some mention of Mean Maximum Pressure. -tom w [ January 11, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I don't think this discussion would be complete without some mention of Mean Maximum Pressure. LOL! I don't think a *Goodale Waffle* would be complete with some mention of MEAN MAXIMUM PRESSURE!! :mad: :mad: GRRRRR!!! ( Waffle de-mining booties; $49.95 ) Eden 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Colonel Deadmarsh, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So why all the dark secrets?There are no more "secrets" here than in any other part of the game. I don't know why it is that you and a few others feel that bogging is some sort of exception to the rules. It is just like any other element in the game, including the player having imperfect/imprecise knowledge of exactly how it works. We would have had to release a 2000 page manual to explain everything in great detail equally. I'm particulary interested in solutions to my old example where I had a heavy tank that I wanted to move from one side of a steep slope to another. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Just as a point of reference this Strategy Guide (if it is correct) lists the Ferdinand (Elephant) with a PSI of 16.9 That is a HEAVY tank, possibly one of the heaviest in the game PSI wise! If this WHOLE thread is about the unrealistic bogging of Elephants (with the PSI of 16.9) then I might suggest ALL this attention and bitching about the bogging model in CMBB is unwarrented and highly over blown :eek: . (IMHO) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mikser: This reminds me that someone pointed out in another thread that Mean Maximum Pressure might be/is a more accurate way of quantifying mobility in cross-country terrain than Nominal Ground Pressure... Any thoughts on that?That is a good point Which thread was that? Can you post a link. I don't think this discussion would be complete without some mention of Mean Maximum Pressure. -tom w</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by mididoctors: The real problem I suspect people have with the bog sim...(not me BTW) is that it just happens with no warning and the player can do little about avoiding it or being aware of the chance it may happen in any given moment...only a vague guess which is adequate IMHO in comparision with the detail elsewhere in the sim... People are asking for more micromanagement.... however what could be done in an engine re-write Good point. As most other people I have no real data to say whether CMBB has too high or low bogging rates. However, there are edges in the CMBB bogging which I think annoy players for bad reasons. They include: 1) You may play to have all your vehicles on roads, at all times. However, sometimes they drive off the road on their own behalf - when retreating, when untangling a traffic jam, when your path was plotted too near to a nonpassable terrain (and you tried to save waypoints). 2) The bogging probablity based purely on the average ground pressure of the whole track is not accurate and makes some vehicles bog more often where it shouldn't. As disussed in the other thread, there are more details to bogging probablity, especially the wheel configuratio, the width of the track bits and the suspension. My pet example is the difference between the StuG III and StuG IV. In CMBB there is a large difference in bogging probablities between these two, the StuG III is practially unusable in mud and snow, the StuG IV is one of the best late-war-capable Axis armor pieces. Some time back I consumed every bit of info I could find on StuGs and nowhere did anyone ever mention that the StuG IV was better from a bogging standpoint or had better mobility in bad ground, something I am sure people would have noted when getting StuG IVs after IIIGs. 3) Some other edges are underdeveloped and would require more tinkering. For example, compare a German 8-wheel scout car in snow with a tank. You will be surprised. -- So, overall, as in other threads before, I think a game like CMBB has to be less strict with some take-control-away-from-players points than a pure model of reality would imply. There are some edges in the engine where models are incomplete. All models interact, to come to a most realistic overall result, you may have to soften one model to acommodate for other weaknesses. In this case, let us assume that the overall bog probablity in CMBB is exactly realistic on average, like if we had real data. Then still, at the details of individual vehicles, at the level of TacAI which may drive the vehicle where you don't want it (and you can't set SOPs), you get unrealistic results. There is some control the CMBB doesn't have but that a real commander would have - a realistic bog per meter probablity leads to an unrealitsically high bog per 30 minutes probablity. So I think a more forgiving bogging would lead to more realistic battle results overall (and more game fun). [ January 12, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: So I think a more forgiving bogging would lead to more realistic battle results overall (and more game fun).[/QB]I agree that it would lead to "more game fun", I'm just not so sure about *realistic*. I think that in CMBB *more realistic battles* would actually translate into less game fun. KC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 "1) You may play to have all your vehicles on roads, at all times. However, sometimes they drive off the road on their own behalf - when retreating, when untangling a traffic jam, when your path was plotted too near to a nonpassable terrain (and you tried to save waypoints)." you could look at this two ways i) War is hell, and it was an accident pain and simple just more combat SNAFU, the unit slid off the road, bumped into an other vehcile and slid in the ditch, or whatever. ii) it is unrealistic and the player "should" have more control so that tanks that were intended to NEVER leave the road because the player KNOWS they might bog down, don't leave the road. I don't like to complain about the game too much but it really does BUG me when a vehicle BOGS and gets permanently STUCK because it left the road of its own accord when it had "STAY on the road!" orders. BUT from that you learn, you have to space out the vehicles in a column and excersice caution and care when plotting road movement orders. ( This, as some have mentioned, can be QUITE tediuos! ) -tom w [ January 12, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I don't like to complain about the game too much but it really does BUG me when a vehicle BOGS and gets permanently STUCK because it left the road of its own accord when it had "STAY on the road!" orders. While I'm not sure that I have ever bogged when forced off the road, I've certainly been concerned that it might happen. I think that this is another variant of the we-need-a-follow-road order, rather than a bogging complaint. WRT bogging, though, I'm pretty happy at how BB treats it. I'm extremely cautious with when I have larger tanks in other than dry conditions, usually just using the Move, or Move to Contact order. I suspect that real WWII tankers were likewise cautious. Interestingly, though, being required to use Move to reduce the possibility of bogging makes the heavy tanks even more slow, in practice, than they would be if you just compared their speeds to smaller tanks with better flotation. For example, not only is a T-34 faster than a, say, Ferdinand, if you compare their maximum speeds - but in the game, the T-34 is even faster than that suggests (i.e., it is "effectively faster") because you can confidently zoom the T-34 around at Fast speed on damp ground, whereas you better move the Ferd. at Move, or keep it on the roads. [ January 12, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well I seem to have activated the panic circuit in my computer. Right after I post praise about the ability of Soviet tanks to go anywhere I bog a 34 on a road in deep snow. :mad: Oh well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I see a lot of remarks that "move" is better against bogging than "fast" or "hunt". Last time I tested the vehicles made on average more meters in "fast" (although of course they bog more often counted by time). [ January 12, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Colonel Deadmarsh, Does driving laterally across a steep slope increase your chances of bogging more than driving straight up or down a slope?No, the system is not sophisticated enough to know the difference. By the way, since you mentioned that all bogging is abstract (no specific instances like thrown tracks), I'm lobbying for you to consider the idea of decreasing the immobilizations that occur from bogging and instead increase the time it takes for that tank to unbog. At least then, the player has a chance to use that tank later on in the battle instead of being out X number of points.Apparently you don't listen so good We do NOT make changes based on "gamey" requests. We make them based on arguments of realism. What you just requested has nothing to do with realism and therefore is irrelevant to the way we do things. You would think everybody would know this by now Now, something that will make some of you cheer. I just downloaded a new beta of 1.02 to play around with. I haven't played previous betas so was not all that up on what had been changed. Interestingly enough, there is a line item in there about reducing the chance of bogging, slightly, for heavy AFVs. Me thinks Colonel Deadmarsh will be happy at least, even if the difference isn't all that big And this change was made not because Ladder Players were worried about losing points (like the Colonel) but because it was determined by Charles that a realism tweak was necessary. Big difference, even if coincidentally they have the same effect. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Redwolf, Last time I tested the vehicles made on average more meters in "fast" (although of course they bog more often counted by time).Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. As for the whole thing about min/max ground pressure... this is something that is very difficult to do for the number of vehicles we have and the data at our fingertips. With the new engine we hope to do a more exact accounting for Ground Pressure. We also should have the ability to allow vehicles "options" like track widening options such as used on US and some German vehicles. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Redwolf, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Last time I tested the vehicles made on average more meters in "fast" (although of course they bog more often counted by time).Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. As for the whole thing about min/max ground pressure... this is something that is very difficult to do for the number of vehicles we have and the data at our fingertips. With the new engine we hope to do a more exact accounting for Ground Pressure. We also should have the ability to allow vehicles "options" like track widening options such as used on US and some German vehicles. Steve</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Steve, Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Redwolf, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Last time I tested the vehicles made on average more meters in "fast" (although of course they bog more often counted by time).Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: Steve, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Redwolf, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Last time I tested the vehicles made on average more meters in "fast" (although of course they bog more often counted by time).Correct. The movement rate affects the chance of bogging. I'd rather move slower and get just as far eventually and not bog than to blitz ahead and get stuck in the process. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: BUT we know (at least I thought we "knew") that issueing the slower "move" order ensures that you have a greater chance of NOT bogging during your move. :confused: What do you mean "we knew"? As far as I can tell I'm the only one running actual tests in this thread - again I just re-ran a deep snow test. The fast moving vehicles get farer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: What do you mean "we knew"? As far as I can tell I'm the only one running actual tests in this thread - again I just re-ran a deep snow test. The fast moving vehicles get farer.So your tests are telling you that AFV's moving over damp ground and deep snow at *fast* are giving you better results than *move*? Are you finding many more immobilizations? Not doubting at all, just trying to get this clear. I need as much help as I can get. KC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I had always assumed that if a "move" order was issued the chance of bogging was MOST minimal of all the possible orders for movement :confused: . -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 See, folks, noone believes me anyway so why should I bother? Why don't you set up some tests with 200 vehicles, 100 fast and 100 move and see how far each of them goes? [ January 12, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 redwolf, i'll take your word for it that 'fast' is better than 'move' for not bogging. i've bogged tanks with either type of 'move' so if you've been testing this i won't argue. i think that the point here might be that it was an elephant immobilization which seems to have spawned this thread. my recommendation in that case would be to go with jadgpanthers instead of elephants. in any case it is good to hear that there will be less bogging of heavies in 1.02... to answer the question posed in the thread title, i don't think luck counts as much as skill overall. luck counts more in certain situations, but overall skill is king. i believe - as with others who have posted on this one - that there is actually more skill needed in cmbb than there is in cmbo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: See, folks, noone believes me anyway so why should I bother? Why don't you set up some tests with 200 vehicles, 100 fast and 100 move and see how far each of them goes?You know something....that is a good idea! KC 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.