t34/85 boggs WAY too easily

[KursruK]

has anyone else noticed that the t-34/85, with it's very low 11.1 psi, boggs frequently? Yes, I have the latest patch. I have played 100s of QBs, so this post is not a whim. I seems to me the t34/85 boggs about a frequently as a stug. It is all while moving "fast".

If the response is, well don't move the t34 "fast" then I say that is crap. if the t34 cannot move "fast" with comfort and ease in combat .. . then russian armor is truly worthless in cmbb.

[Sergei]

AFAIK it's been proven that speed of vehicle does not affect bogging chance. It's the time you keep moving, not the distance travelled.

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Sergei:

AFAIK it's been proven that speed of vehicle does not affect bogging chance. It's the time you keep moving, not the distance travelled.

well that's not in the manual (surprise surprise). So if it's been "proven", please provide this "proof".

It happens to me over short distances and long. Seem wholly ridiculous to me. t-34 has nothing if it doesn't have a serious mobility advantage.

[Thin Red Line]

On open ground, i find T34s very reliable.

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

On open ground, i find T34s very reliable.

on open ground . . . .I find the t34/76 VERY reliable . .. . I'm talking t-34/85 specifically. I don't think I have ever (again in literally 100s of QBs) seen a t34/76 bogg.

[Kingfish]

I've yet to bog a T34, be it 76 or 85. Granted, I avoid the likely trouble spots whenever possible, but when I do have to cross soft or rocky ground I always slow the vehicle down to 'Move'.

[Sergei]

Maybe if you did a search, you'd find it. I can't be bothered, just thought I'd mention because you were saying "if the t34 cannot move "fast" with comfort and ease in combat..." So that shouldn't be the issue in any case.

I don't really know so much about T-34-bogging in particular, only that tanks in CMBB bog a lot in general. Have you thought of setting up a test to see how often T-34's bog compared to some other tanks, say a StuG?

It occurred to me, as you're saying:

t-34 has nothing if it doesn't have a serious mobility advantage.

If the point about T-34 is their mobility, then they are normally moving more than other tanks. Which makes them more likely to bog. Not that this is the only possible explanation, but you can only rule it out by setting up a test. Even while you have lots of game experience, that is more situation-specific.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by tigger:

has anyone else noticed that the t-34/85, with it's very low 11.1 psi, boggs frequently?

Tigger:

I think the correct spelling is bogs as in one "g".

Hope this helps!

[MikeyD]

I've heard other reports of T34s in v1.02 bogging much more easily than T34s in v1.01. It's happened to me too, but not consistently. A week ago I was having problems with it, but since then everything's been okay. I haven't been able to figure out what specifically makes this bog anomaly occur.

[Redwolf]

As you mention you are playing Quickbattles: you realize that the Quickbattle parameters don't have a ground conditions entry and you cannot prevent CMBB from coming up with "damp" ground and in fact you get that a lot?

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Maybe if you did a search, you'd find it. I can't be bothered, just thought I'd mention because you were saying

No offense, but it is not my job to substantiate your statements . . . .you said it is "proven fact" . . . I simply ask for you to substantiate that.

What I do not understand is why the t34/85 has a tendency to bog, while moving "fast", in open terrain. I am critical to this tendency only relative to how often tanks with high PSIs bog. Of course, maybe no one else has had this experience. Just wondering if anyone else noticed this. It could just be really consistent bad luck.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

[KursruK]

Originally posted by redwolf:

As you mention you are playing Quickbattles: you realize that the Quickbattle parameters don't have a ground conditions entry and you cannot prevent CMBB from coming up with "damp" ground and in fact you get that a lot?

yes of course.

[V]

I have never seen a T-34/85 bog and I have had this game since release.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by tigger:

No offense, but it is not my job to substantiate your statements . . . .you said it is "proven fact" . . . I simply ask for you to substantiate that.

I don't understand what in my "statement" bothers you, as it's not in disagreement with you, but it doesn't matter. I set up a test to see whether T-34/85 really bogs as often as StuG, as you claimed.

20 T-34/85's, model 1944, move fast across about 800 metres of open, dry & level terrain. 20 StuG IIIg's do the same. I repeat this test 5 times, and what happens?

Only one T-34/85 bogs, compared to 7 StuG's (of which 3 become immobile, but that is irrelevant). This was with 1.02. You have to test it yourself whether it bogs more than other AFV's with the same PSI rating, but at least it's not comparable with StuG's.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sergei:

20 T-34/85's, model 1944, move fast across about 800 metres of open, dry & level terrain. 20 StuG IIIg's do the same. I repeat this test 5 times, and what happens?

Only one T-34/85 bogs, compared to 7 StuG's (of which 3 become immobile, but that is irrelevant). This was with 1.02. You have to test it yourself whether it bogs more than other AFV's with the same PSI rating, but at least it's not comparable with StuG's.

Wait a second, you say that 7% of StuGs bog and 3% become immobile when moving 800 meters on dry, flat, open ground?

That doesn't sound realistic and must be new in the 1.02 patch. I didn't run any bog tests with 1.02 yet but I am sure I would have spotted such a high bog rate in previous versions.

And besides, the StuG III may have small tracks for its weight, but a first-class wheel assembly, rating it purely by ground pressure doesn't do it justice. But we had that discussion before.

[ March 10, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Sergei]

Seems like that. Of course, the immobile-bit is too small a figure to consider. It's not 3 immobile out of 100 StuG's, it's 3 immobile out of 7 bogged so not statistically comparable - not that I ever was a statistician...

[Pvt. Ryan]

I have been playing an operation with numerous T-34/85s. The ground is wet and they do bog occasionally; hwever, if I cancel the bogged tank's movement order it usually unbogs itself rather quickly, but I have had a few immobilizations. I believe 1.02 reduced the chances for heavy tanks to bog, but did not alter the chances for medium tanks.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I just did a quick test to see if anything appears to be out of line:

10xT-34/76 (10.7 psi)

10xSU-152 (11.1 psi)

10xKV-1 (11.4 psi)

10xSherman (14.4 psi)

I issued each a single move order for 900m over open, dry ground. The results were 1xSU-152 Bogged and Immobilized, 1xSherman Bogged for 1/2 of one turn. That was it. So out of 40 fairly heavy vehicles, only one immobilization. That doesn't seem out of line to me.

Also remember, moving in one long, uniterrupted move like this is hardly ever going to happen in a real game. Therefore, tests of this nature are not directly applicable to ingame play results.

Steve

[KursruK]

The bogging usually occurs when the ground is "damp". Now you say, "well don't move 'fast' when the ground is damp". OK sure, but the bog rate for t34/85 is actually a bit worse than the Stug (mid) in "damp" conditions. That doesn't seem to account for the PSI ratings.

I ran a test with damp ground. 12 stugs (mid), 12 t34/85s. I had them move "fast" on open ground for 7 turns. results: 3 t-34/85s immobile, 2 stugs immobile.

I didn't clarify it when I originally posted, but this is where it feels unbalanced.

When it snows, all cars are hindered to some effect, but some do better than others in it. Along the same lines, "damp" should yes, effect everyone . . . but shouldn't t34/85 do much better than Stug under these conditions?

[ March 10, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

[Redwolf]

From my tests (not in 1.02, though) you get more meters on average by using "fast" on difficult ground (mud, snow), not less.

You bog in less minutes but after more meters on average. To actually get somewhere "fast" is a good idea.

[CombinedArms]

I'm not sure if there's a problem here or not. In several recent pure armor battles I've played with the AI, T34/85s bogged and sometimes immoblized repeatedly in dry conditions. In a recent PBEM, I had several platoons of T34/85s and two of them became immoblized in dry conditions, one in open ground, one in scattered trees. A third bogged in open ground the middle of a reverse order and came unbogged just as an enemy tank nailed him. Without the bog, he would have escaped. Yet I've also played other battles where my T34/85s have gone the distance without bogging once.

So I'm not sure if I've just been the victim of quirky bad luck in a few battles, or whether T34/85s really do have a penchant for bogging? Note the Steve tested T34/76s, which nobody's complaining about.... BTW, I played a recent battle as the Axis in the mud with a bunch of StugIIIG's and none of them bogged over 30 turns, even when moved through scattered trees. None of this goes beyond the anecdotal, but it does make me wonder....

[ March 10, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Three_Oh_Eight]

In CMBB (and CMBO for that matter), does "bogging" include throwing a track and other mechanical malfunctions that can stop/immobilize a vehicle?

[thewood]

Not again...I thought this horse had been beaten a few times already.

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I'm not sure if there's a problem here or not....

So I decided to do a test. I started with 12 StugIIIG's (mid) (14.7 psi) and 12 T34/85s (11.1 psi) going 1200m fast on a flat map in dry conditions. No AFVs for either side bogged or became immoblized.

So I upped the ante and did the same test with DAMP conditions. This time, all 12 T34s still made it without bogging or immobilization. BUT 5 of the twelve Stugs suffered bogging somewhere along the way and 2 became fully immobilized.

So, while this may not be a fully significant test statistically, I saw 24 T34/85s complete their course w/o bogging in either dry or damp conditions, while 5 of 12 Stugs bogged in damp conditions. That seems about right to me. Others may still have their doubts, but I've seen enough to be ready to conclude that I was the victim of bad luck with some of my T34s as earlier reported, and that things are really working about right. If anyone wants to run further tests on this, I'd be glad to send the setups. I'll be out of town for the next few days, but you can have them when I get back.

[ March 10, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Battlefront.com]

First of all... there is absolutely NOTHING special about the T-34/85 that needs to be considered here. Only PSI ratings. That means my test of the SU-152 is absolutely equal to a test with a T-34/85 since they have the same exact PSI ratings.

As others have shown, it all comes down to luck, terrain, ground conditions, and use of orders.

Yes, "bogging" is meant to cover throwing a track or otherwise having something go wrong with the mobility of the vehicle. This could simply be a build up of brush in the drive sprocket as much as it could be sinking in mud.

BTW, 11 psi is not all that great. It isn't horrible considering some vehicles are much worse. The lore of the T-34's greater mobility was the early T-34s (not the T-34/85!) in comparision to the German tanks of the same time period. The German Mediums were about 11 - 13 psi while the early T-34/76 were around 9 psi. That is quite a difference! Meaning, REALATIVELY SPEAKING the T-34 was less likely to bog and therefore more likely to remain mobile in adverse weather conditions. Nowhere in anything I have ever read does it say that T-34s were anything moree than comparatively better than the German stuff.

To put this in perspective, my M29C Weasel has a PSI rating of a little over 1.2 unloaded. This is less PSI than a human wearing boots. And guess what? I got myself "bogged" in Scattered Trees in the middle of a very dry summer. Tracks are not invincible, no matter what the PSI rating is.

Now... having said all that... is our bogging model too simplistic? Yup. Does it not take into consideration things like uneven weight distribution? Nope. Does this make some vehicles slightly more or less prone to bogging (on average) than they perhaps should be? Yes, but we do not think wildly so. This is a very difficult aspect to simulate fairly without an exhaustive study of each and every vehicle with data that is unlikely available for even the most common vehicles, not to mention rare ones. We feel that the system is, if anything, too forgiving to tracked vehicle movement and therefore on average it probably balances out OK.

Steve