Bog Test Results Part 1

[Maxx]

Yep they all run an 800m length, but as I mentioned above, the majority of Tigers are kaputt before traveling 150m in scattered woods.

In any case, as a Soviet player, this adds an element of strategy that I kinda like.

[Fly Pusher]

Nice work Maxx,

I think you may well have stumbled on something significant. Its also nice to see a thread where someone does the tests and allows a debate to be conducted against a backdrop of information rather than a 'feeling' that someting might be wrong.

I think there was a thread started after the demo came out reporting unusual bogging behaviour in the long thin German attack scenario (I forget the name now). Madmat accepted the reports as a bug and said it would be fixed for the release. Maybe the fix needs tweaking again ?

A comment from on high would be much appreciated...

Maxx.. can you post a link to your test scenario or maybe E-mail it directly to Madmat ?

Thnx.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by GJK:

Eden: Did you just use a "blockquote" to keep the formatting?

No, it's "CODE", like I said- change K to C and you're there:

[KODE]Nifty data with bad Chi[/KODE]

[bOG]Eden's tanks[/bOG]

Eden

[tar]

Of course, if the relevant variable is time spent moving in the given terrain (rather than distance traveled), then slow vehicles (like the Tiger) will always bog more than faster vehicles. The fact that slow vehicles will typically also have higher ground pressures probably just compounds the problem.

It does seem that bogging chance should be adjusted based on the actual over-ground speed of the vehicle and not just based on the order type. This would fix the going fast makes you less likely to bog. On the other hand, maybe you really are less likely to bog if going fast. I would expect that immoblizing as a result of bogging would be more likely at fast speeds, though.'

[General Panic]

Originally posted by Uedel:

If the results of the Test would be realistic Germany would got have real difficuluts placing Tigers on the Front, think about a Tiger Factory every 2 Km on the whole front, because u dont wanna make it more then 2 km´s with a Tiger lol

Tigers normally didn't travel to the front by themselves, but were transported by train. That was one of the great advantages of Sherman's and T-34's over Tigers and Panthers. The Allied tanks could simply drive to the front without breaking down.

[GJK]

Originally posted by General Panic:

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

If the results of the Test would be realistic Germany would got have real difficuluts placing Tigers on the Front, think about a Tiger Factory every 2 Km on the whole front, because u dont wanna make it more then 2 km´s with a Tiger lol

Tigers normally didn't travel to the front by themselves, but were transported by train. That was one of the great advantages of Sherman's and T-34's over Tigers and Panthers. The Allied tanks could simply drive to the front without breaking down.</font>

[General Panic]

Originally posted by GJK:

But aren't we at "the front" already? Surely the trains didn't drop off the Tigers right into targeting range of enemy AFV's/guns (intentionally).

No, but the original question was how they got Tigers to the front without them bogging every few kilomiters

Originally posted by GJK:

I personally don't like knowing that I have an advantage playing as the Russians if I see a Tiger move into scattered woods, it's going to bog and immobilize. I also don't like knowing that as the German commander that I must have Tiger's avoid scattered woods or else they will bog/immobilize.

Maybe more tests are needed, however I think that Maxx ran like a 100 iterations of the thing.

The test didn't show that Tigers bog every time they hit scattered woods, only if they had to travel through it for a prolonged time. Makes sense not to do that anyway. I don't run any of my tanks through hundreds of yards of wooded areas. Too easy to get ambushed by infantry.

[ December 03, 2002, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: General Panic ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by General Panic:

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

If the results of the Test would be realistic Germany would got have real difficuluts placing Tigers on the Front, think about a Tiger Factory every 2 Km on the whole front, because u dont wanna make it more then 2 km´s with a Tiger lol

Tigers normally didn't travel to the front by themselves, but were transported by train. That was one of the great advantages of Sherman's and T-34's over Tigers and Panthers. The Allied tanks could simply drive to the front without breaking down.</font>

[Maxx]

I've combined all the tests here. This is over an 800m test track. 50 iterations per tank. Your mileage may vary. Thank you Eden Smallwood for the formatting code.

This table shows percent of tanks that IMMOBILIZED due to bog.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> T34/76 T34/85 MkIVJ Panther Tiger

--------------------------------------------------------

Clr damp fast 2% 0% 4% 4% 6%

SW damp fast 20% 42% 66% 54% 100%

Clr damp move 2% 2% 2% 2% 16%

SW damp move 14% 32% 56% 54% 100%

Clr damp hunt 2% 2% 2% 4% 12%

SW damp hunt 6% 26% 56% 42% 100%

Clr WET fast 2% 0% 16% 14% 78%

</pre>

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Bastables:

[QBHere is a bit of cut in paste, but please do a search.[/QB]

What sources are you using for this? I've been looking for reliability info of this type.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

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

[QBHere is a bit of cut in paste, but please do a search.

What sources are you using for this? I've been looking for reliability info of this type.[/QB]</font>

[Tarquelne]

I've combined all the tests here.

Thanks, Maxx.

Here's another interesting test:

Make a map, about (IIRC) 1200 wide and 1k deep.

Cover the map with the terrain of your choice. (Dry, flat and all Scattered Trees, for example.)

Take 50 tanks of your choice. All the same tank. Line them up along the edge of the map, with a little space between the first 25 and the second 25.

Plonk down a stationary enemy unit somplace.

Make the "scenario" 40+ turns long and save it.

Start a game using the map and units. Tell one group of 25 tanks to head straight acrosss the map using "Fast", another using "Move"... or whatever movement orders you want to check out.

When you're done you'll what looks like a nice little graph, each Immobilized tank a point on this graph, showing how far it went before becoming Immobilized. It'll be easy to see how the move types compare. Use more tanks for more accuracy.

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Jentz (Panther and Panzertruppen II), British ORS reports (the one used above is also in Jentz work) and Spielberger (Panther).

Thanks. This quote may also be of interest, from Rich at the TDI forum:

And, before anyone starts making erroneous assumptions about German AFV "unreliability" it should be mentioned that the "long-term" repair in German practice was more similar to the American 4th Echelon repair. That is, in American practice those vehicles that were not repairable by division maintenance, which were evacuated to army or Communications Zone repair. In essence that meant that in US practice all of the vehicles held for repair in a unit were usually repairable in under 48-hours, while in German practice "short-term" repair meant that it was repairable in under two weeks. As a result, American operational readiness for tanks was typically often over 90 percent, and sometimes as high as 95 percent, while German operational readiness typically appears to hover at around 60 percent.

[Duke of Earl]

Bonjour fellas,

Here is what Battlefront.com had to say about bogging in an earlier thread posted on September 10, 2002:

The official word is that things have been tweaked for the first patch

The problem was a mathematical one, not one of modeling. Not even technically a bug, but rather a value in a spot that should have been lower. Easily corrected

The basic problem had to do with the number of vehicles moving at one time. Those of you who used bounding overwatch probably didn't see many (or any!) bogging. Those of you that had all the vehicles moving at once (in Fast, probably) would have seen an increased changed of bogging.

I have to say that I personally played this scenario a dozen or more times and never once saw a tank bog. I also don't recall any testers mentioning bogging. But with the number of players greatly increased, and people playing multiple times, that pretty much flushed out the problem

Having read this... and the rest of the thread... I try to avoid moving all my armor over open ground... or steppe... or even through scattered woods... at the same time...

Instead, I try to move platoon by platoon if possible... unless there is a road handy... and even then I still remain cautious...

As to whether the 'bog' tweaks in the patch are really working... that remains to be seen... but my initial observations have not seen very much improvement... at least for the Panzers...

Cordialement, Duke of Earl

[Maxx]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I've combined all the tests here.

Thanks, Maxx.

Here's another interesting test:

Make a map, about (IIRC) 1200 wide and 1k deep.

Cover the map with the terrain of your choice. (Dry, flat and all Scattered Trees, for example.)

Take 50 tanks of your choice. All the same tank. Line them up along the edge of the map, with a little space between the first 25 and the second 25.

Plonk down a stationary enemy unit somplace.

Make the "scenario" 40+ turns long and save it.

Start a game using the map and units. Tell one group of 25 tanks to head straight acrosss the map using "Fast", another using "Move"... or whatever movement orders you want to check out.

When you're done you'll what looks like a nice little graph, each Immobilized tank a point on this graph, showing how far it went before becoming Immobilized. It'll be easy to see how the move types compare. Use more tanks for more accuracy.</font>

[TSword]

Maxx,

thx for the test !

If this figures are right, then boggingrates still need some tweaking. 16% and 78% bogging on damp or wet ground for Tiger at 800 m run is just ridiculous. If true it would have meant that the Tiger could not be deployed at all in the East, because after 5 days all Tigers of an Abteilung would be bogged down. As a Tiger battalion only had around 6 18 ton trucks (at very best) and 3 were needed to tow one Tiger (in good ground conditions) most of the bogged Tigers would have been lost in 1944 after one week of retreat. As we all know this was clearly not the case !! And as we know further Tigers were deployed almost everywhere and at any time during the year even under most severe groundconditions (Mud in Russia wasn't just a bit mud but instead many times kneedeep or more !! (After a heavy rain in the Steppe for instance)).

Furthermore the Tiger had a relatively short trackrun which is of some benefit when one needs to apply correcting steering for instance in mud or heavy terrain -> braking track is under less stress.

Adolf Dickfeld mentions a Tiger which towed his VW-Kübelwagen over the Rollbahn in deep mud (His Kübel was completely hopeless under this conditions). They drived for hours without any problems to the Tiger.

IMO, the bogging tendency of the Tiger needs to be adjusted a bit down into the range of Panther.

Greets

Daniel

[Matias]

Thanks for the "official quote" Duke,

Although I must confess it worries me somewhat - now I'm not one to quibble with any aspect of the game's realism or simulation choices (I'm far to ignorant of the topic for the former, and far too well aquainted with the tough tradeoffs involving the latter). Thus when somebody contends or even proves that the trenches in the game cannot be used quite the way they were hoistorically (for example), I have to shrug and say "I know very little of the history upon with to judge and it seems very likely to be an inherent limitation of this game engine - too bad."

However, in this quote there is some detail implied into the way in which a particular effect is simulated that doesn't make sense to my rudimentary knowledge of statistics.

Namely, its suggested that the chances of one particular vehicle bogging are somehow related to the total number of vehicles moving at one time. Again, I'm no mathematician, but this I don't understand. While it may reward good tactics (bounding overwatch), it seems to me that the odds of any one vehicle bogging should be independent. That is it shouldn't matter wether there are twenty tanks moving across the steppe at the other side of the map, my chances of getting this one heavy tank through these scattered trees should be the same.

Perhaps this logic is included to counteract some other unseen factor arising from things like moving faster actually reduces bogging chances because of the shorter time spent in the terrain, and in most cases is a wash when the game is played properly. However if so I would like to see confirmation from BTS and would also respectfully recommend that such a fact be reconsidered or, if that's impracticable due to time and complexity of coding, made explicit to the players in the README.

Why? Because to a new player who is trying to "learn by doing" as BTS recommends, this fact is undiscoverable. The first time I played Death Ride of the 424, I lost a third of my tanks to bogging. Given that this is a short scenario with only tanks its easy to see why that might be the case if the odds are indeed based on the number moving. Certainly even if I had know to practice good overwatch tactics I would have been tempted in many cases to just charge ahead because time is so short. As it was I drew no such conclusions, decided instead that the Russian mud was an enemy of equal to Stalin, and decided to try and beat the scenario by keeping my tanks to the roads. I think that's a reasonable conclusion given the popular impressions of the Tiger and the Russian winter! Bounding overwatch? I had no clue that this was the solution to bogging.

I guess my point is that I don't feel it is sufficient that the game be realistic when played realistically, but that it should punish you realistically so that you have a chance to learn realistic tactics, OR (more likely given the nature of simulation) should instruct the player explicitly to do or avoid certain things.

Please, official comment on wether or not this impression of mine is mistaken?

(BTW, this seems like a perfect candidate for a boot camp scenario: Bounding overwatch is a simple concept for advancing into hostile areas ...blah blah blah... its also good practice because due to the limitations of the game engine, etc. )

[Maxx]

I would only add that the majority of the immobilized Tigers in the scattered tree tests did so within the first 150-200m.

Of course I'm not complaining, but as I always play Soviet, my new (and really fun!) tactic is to try and pull the GE AI (or human) armor through non-clear terrain tiles especially if he has heavy armor. I haven't run the tests on the King Tiger, but I can say it seems to have at least the same results as the tiger, perhaps it's even worse (better ).

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Maxx:

I haven't run the tests on the King Tiger, but I can say it seems to have at least the same results as the tiger, perhaps it's even worse (better ).

If they switch to a Mean Maximum Pressure system from the Nominal Ground Pressure system they are using now it will fix all that, being as how MMP takes into account different suspension and track designs. Tigers I and II, Panther, and Churchill would benefit the most.

It may be something they want to research more, and then incorporate into the next game if they have enough faith in it. Something like how the optics situation worked. Shame though, as getting the floatation values correct is probably the most critical on the east front.

[PeterX]

If they switch to a Mean Maximum Pressure system from the Nominal Ground Pressure system they are using now it will fix all that, being as how MMP takes into account different suspension and track designs. Tigers I and II, Panther, and Churchill would benefit the most.

BFC's silence on your research is baffling, Paul. OTOH, maybe they have their reasons. I've seen some convincing objections by posters shot down equally convincingly by Steve. So I don't know.

Implementing your system would turn the entire flotation model in CM upside down. Or rightside up. BTW, I don't think it probable or reasonable that EVERY Tiger, in a given test, would bog down in lightly wooded terrain after a hundred or so meters.

[PJungnitsch]

BFC's silence on your research is baffling, Paul.

Hmm, hard to know what to think. I'm sticking with the theory that they want to check it out more carefully before measuring all those track links and suspension bogies. That and they seem busy enough with everything else.

BTW, I don't think it probable or reasonable that EVERY Tiger, in a given test, would bog down in lightly wooded terrain after a hundred or so meters.

Agreed. The Elephant had a bad rep for bogging, but the Tigers never did AFAIK, ie quotes like this:

"Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own"

And

"The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down. On one occasion I saw at least ten Royal Tigers make a counterattack against us over ground that for us was nearly impossible."

Tigers and Panthers do have a reputation as being very difficult to recover when they did get buried, mind.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by PeterX:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If they switch to a Mean Maximum Pressure system from the Nominal Ground Pressure system they are using now it will fix all that, being as how MMP takes into account different suspension and track designs. Tigers I and II, Panther, and Churchill would benefit the most.

BFC's silence on your research is baffling, Paul. OTOH, maybe they have their reasons. I've seen some convincing objections by posters shot down equally convincingly by Steve. So I don't know.

</font>

[PeterX]

Maxx posted:

This table shows percent of tanks that IMMOBILIZED due to bog.

code:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T34/76 T34/85 MkIVJ Panther Tiger--------------------------------------------------------Clr damp fast 2% 0% 4% 4% 6%SW damp fast 20% 42% 66% 54% 100%Clr damp move 2% 2% 2% 2% 16%SW damp move 14% 32% 56% 54% 100%Clr damp hunt 2% 2% 2% 4% 12%SW damp hunt 6% 26% 56% 42% 100%Clr WET fast 2% 0% 16% 14% 78%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SW=Scattered Woods. Clr=Clear terrain.

So, the lesson is: use HUNT whenever bogging fears are a consideration. (Hehe, I was right).

[Maxx]

Originally posted by PeterX:

(Hehe, I was right)

I wouldn't make the assumption that hunt is best. Looks like it falls within the 'noise' of the statistics to me. Especially 'move' versus 'hunt'.

[Battlefront.com]

Paul,

Hmm, hard to know what to think. I'm sticking with the theory that they want to check it out more carefully before measuring all those track links and suspension bogies. That and they seem busy enough with everything else.

You win a prize We have been checking this thread out, but unfortunately... this is one of those things that Charles needs to answer. I think I can only partially address the issues here so best not to until I can address the rest. I don't know when that will be, but this is the obvious place to do it

Usually we try and post just to let you guys know we are aware of the thread, especially since there is a VERY good chance we will miss it due to the volume of postings (I only noticed it after it hit 20 posts or so!). But I think Matt thought I was and I thought he was, so nobody did until now.

As for bogging in general... the system in place is VERY simplistic. And simplistic it will remain. There might be some problems that can be addressed, or not. That is the part I can't comment on without Charles first checking into things.

Thanks,

Steve