Why do my vehicles keep getting bogged?

[theike]

Further...yes.

But also longer?

...just wondering

[lcm1947]

I also always reverse when I get bogged. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. What's a driver to do? I'll continue to do it though as it hasn't been shown that it doesn't help.

[theike]

LOL; the freaks we are...

[tar]

Further...yes.

But also longer?

Not longer. But I don't consider the time to bogging to be a relevant factor, just distance.

If I'm moving on the map, I care more about how far my vehicles will go rather than how long they will be in motion. When I move vehicles, I generally want them to get to particular places, so I care a lot more about how far they can go than about how long they will be moving. (Except that I also want them to generally get to places quickly.)

That being the case, I can see no benefit to moving at slow speed. Not only is it likely that in bogging conditions you won't get as far, but also that it will take you longer to get anywhere even if you don't bog. There is no benefit to moving more slowly and for shorter distances.

[tar]

I also think that as a design principle, it isn't a good idea to have commands available which do not give you interesting decisions to make. If one particular command or order is clearly inferior to the other choices, one can simplify things by just not having it.

I feel that the movement orders for vehicles work that way. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to the "Move" order, other than perhaps keeping better pace with infantry with a "Move" order. But that can probably be done more effectively using a combination of "Pause" and "Fast", with less bogging and no real disadvantages.

I think that there should be some tradeoffs in the choices of orders. Now if the bogging chances were restructured so that going Fast made it more likely, there would again be a tradeoff in the orders choice for people to consider. As it stands right now, I just don't see any reason to use the "Move" command for vehicles at all.

I suppose that there are differences in spotting ability, but Hunt gets vehicles better spotting and faster movement, so it would also seem to be a better choice than Move -- at least for vehicles that have the Hunt command. I suppose there might be a place for using Move to make spotting easier for non-Hunt capable vehicles, but that is a pretty small niche.

[Edward Windsor]

I've just had a thought ... rare, I know. Presumably CMAK will throw up some more interesting wrinkles - will faster-moving vehicles produce larger dust clouds? I don't know if the game can model it, but will stopping and starting on sand increase chances of bogging (one way to do it might be to give stationary vehicles a chance to become immobile every turn they're not moving)?

Quizzical Teddy

[Bruceov]

I try renewing the move each turn.

[Prototype]

Here is one more person that is a bit annoyed with this bogging feature.

I think the modeling is not good enough to justify this high bogging rates especially when weather is dry or better.

If the modeling is based on very simple calculations about ground pressure it should have some effect only on obvious ground conditions like wet, mud and soft.

Otherwise it is simply too big unreal variable without justification.

Couple of arguments/opinions:

Speed should definitely decrease bogging when it comes to getting simply stuck.

A vehicle has more inertia with speed that helps it to keep on moving over and trough obstacles, snow, ice, soft ground etc. which would otherwise stop it.

I think this should be quite clear to everyone. Damage and lost of controll are the only main reasons why to slow down in difficult terrain where you can get stuck.

WET CONDITIONS, bogging rate ok

On wet conditions even speed and skill is sometimes not enough so bogging is be justified, because ground can be simply too soft.

GOOD CONDITIONS, bogging rate NOT ok

Damage, lost of vehicle controll and technical problem arguments are the only ones that could apply to bogging on good conditions with these rates, but it would require more modeling and explanations before they could be accepted. Tracked vehicles simply do not get stuck that easily when ground is dry.

This would require taking into account crew experience and used vehicle with somekind of technical reliability and damage resistance/tolerance.estimates.

With these arguments one should be able to decrease the probability of being bogged with right choises like

- By decreasing driving speed in scattered trees or in rough you should be able to decrease possibility of damage. Not possible.

- An Elite crew would not brake the gearbox as likely as a conscript. Not possible

- Choose more reliable vehicle. Not possible.

Vehicles also slow down even if they pass only a couple of meters of scattered trees or rough which can only be explained by more cautious driving.

This should offset most of the claims for track damages, since if a tank were to drive at full speed from road to trees the trees in its way would do only one thing - turn into toothpicks.

In that case tanks should not slow down that fast when entering area with trees or rocks at high speeds, but enter the area without loosing much speed in first 20m or so.

Then you could justify track damage.

Before the crew experience and technical issues are modeled at least somehow the bogging and immobilization rates are way too high on good weather conditions.

I understand that game must generate uncertainty about outcomes from different choices, but making it this way is same as tracked vehicles would randomly blow up when sun is shining

That would be ok if the game was not designed to somehow simulate reality.

Proto

[Sergei]

Speed should definitely decrease bogging when it comes to getting simply stuck.

A vehicle has more inertia with speed that helps it to keep on moving over and trough obstacles, snow, ice, soft ground etc. which would otherwise stop it.

I think this should be quite clear to everyone. Damage and lost of controll are the only main reasons why to slow down in difficult terrain where you can get stuck.

Experience with driving a car in difficult conditions might be illuminating here. On a slippery road, I don't think driving at top speed will do much more than increase your chances of getting off the road. Moving at slow speeds allows the driver to better see what kind of terrain is in front of him, thus allowing him better to drive around a muddy spot or to temporarily accelerate to get through it. The going-around bit of course being safer. Now, you don't see the tank constantly maneuvering or changing its speed in hard conditions, you just see it going forward at an average speed. But this isn't a tank sim, this is a strategy game. You don't need more than the average speed.

Originally posted by Prototype:

- By decreasing driving speed in scattered trees or in rough you should be able to decrease possibility of damage. Not possible.

- An Elite crew would not brake the gearbox as likely as a conscript. Not possible

- Choose more reliable vehicle. Not possible.

Have you actually tested this? It is clear that vehicles with more track area per weight bog down less, so picking a Pzkpfw V over a Pzkpfw IV obviously helps. Reliability is not modelled, but neither are mechanical breakdowns. In my tests moving slow decreased the chance of immobilization compared to fast, though I wouldn't count those as statistically conclusive. One would assume that a more experienced driver would be better at choosing good routes and keeping the thing moving, so it would be interesting to hear if you have tested this enmasse and found this not to apply.

[ January 11, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Prototype]

SPEED & PATH

Originally posted by Sergei:

Experience with driving a car in difficult conditions might be illuminating here. On a slippery road, I don't think driving at top speed will do much more than increase your chances of getting off the road.

I think this is more misleading than illuminating, because driving off-road and on-road are quite different things.

Driving on a slippery road is quite the opposite to driving on a muddy field.

At least two things that have a TRADE_OFF should be considered: Inertia(higher speed) and Path change(lower speed)

And

1) One must be able to move to get damage or worse path.

2) One must be able to move before he can follow a path

3) On-road you have a quite clear path to follow, off-road one must find/quess it

4) Maneuvering and speed changes increase bogging.

5) Low speed itself increase bogging (Low inertia)

6) Higher speed increases possibility of damage and worse path.

7) The worse is the conditions the higher is the minimum speed required not to get bogged.

Then it follows:

a) When the probability of bogging is higher the importance of inertia increases and optimal path becomes more straight.

It is less use to do anything else than keep up speed, since changing path would require speed changes and maneuvering that will get you bogged.

The primary concern is keeping high (speed) inertia to prevent boggin.

Utility from changing path is smaller than utility from inertia.

On the extreme this would be the case in muddy field where you drive as fast (and straight) as you can just to keep vehicle moving.

When the probability of bogging is lower the importance of inertia decreases and importance of path change increases.

It is worth to drive more slowly, because the primary cause that will stop you is not bogging, but possible damage and/or getting into worse path.

The primary concern is to find a path which avoids damage and/or worse path, because there are better possibilities for maneuvering and speed changes.

Utility from path change is higher than utility from inertia.

On the extreme this would be wet icy road (extremely slippery road) where you drive as slow as it takes to keep a truck on road (path).

Originally posted by Sergei:

Moving at slow speeds allows the driver to better see what kind of terrain is in front of him, thus allowing him better to drive around a muddy spot or to temporarily accelerate to get through it.

This is the case when chance of bogging is relatively low.

In bad conditions this does not hold (1,2,4,5,7).

BOGGING RATES

Originally posted by Sergei:

It is clear that vehicles with more track area per weight bog down less, so picking a Pzkpfw V over a Pzkpfw IV obviously helps

My point was that bogging rates are too high on good conditions when there should not be much actual bogging and arguments in favor are not acceptable.

It should not have big difference on very dry conditions which tank to choose when it comes to bogging, because any chosen tank should get bogged on extremely low probability.

So the current rate of "bogging" on good weather should be based on other argument than tanks getting stuck and that is not acceptable within the used model as said in my previous post.

At the moment the bogging rate on good weather reflects something else than tanks simply being bogged and this is too big and most of all unreal variable that player can't affect with his own actions.

TESTING

My quess is that the bogging probability is calculated with quite simple equation and exhaustive testing would only give some hint about the distributional parameters used. I'm not interested in.

Proto

[nevermind]

All things considered,i dont have a problem with bogging.As long as you use common sense and arent either in bad ground conditions,or using late war german equiptment(like the KT).It is atleast acceptable for this iteration of CM.It is typically pretty rare and random that a vehicle gets bogged(for me atleast), outside of the conditions listed above.i use hunt almost always,and stay out of low lying areas,and stick to roads as much as possible.

The problem i do have.....there is no way that the "hunt" command should result in a vehicle moving faster than "move".I have never gone on a hunting trip and seen hunters sprinting thrrough the wooods after prey.You move slowly and carefully while scanning the horizon and etc.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Prototype:

Driving on a slippery road is quite the opposite to driving on a muddy field.

While driving on a muddy field, you still try to keep your vehicle on the less muddy side rather than dive into the abyss. How is the driver going to do this if all he does is press the pedal down and drive straight?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Proto:

So the current rate of "bogging" on good weather should be based on other argument than tanks getting stuck and that is not acceptable within the used model as said in my previous post.

It is based on other reasons than just bogging. "Bogging" int he game really includes any breakdown of the vehicle.

Ie Driving thru mud at top speed might result in overheating the engine. It might result in throwing tracks.

The icon sinking into the ground is just a graphic display of one reason - others are harder to portray.

Gruß

Joachim

[DavidFields]

Interesting how the issue of bogging can cause so many topic threads.

I only have CMBO, but my observations are as follows:

1. I have not had much trouble with bogging. Granted, I stay on the roads in poor weather. Or, I move as little as possible--that is simply part of the tactical challange. When I look out my window in RL on a rainy day, I have no doubt that a hunk of steel rolling across a muddy field could end up bogged (especially in combination with some ditch or obstuction too small to be modeled on CM maps).

2. After seeing many discussions about bogging and speed, I just go the speed most appropriate with the situation. The association must not be obvious or overwhelming, so other considerations take precedence.

It may be a quirk of CMBO, but I find the Move command to be very useful. Given the closed in tactical situation of many of the battles, and the need to keep infantry in front of me, Fast often does not seem the right command when near the enemy. I want the tankers to take as much time as they need to scan for enemy units. I probably underuse Hunt, but I often seem to want to slowly move down a road, for example, blasting infantry units way ahead of me (with my own infantry ahead flanking the road) and do not want the tank to stop when it sees the first target. Or, I have a specific enemy unit targeted, and want to move slowly toward it--blasting away.

And if I need a tank somewhere -fast-, then I just have to go Fast.