gunnersman Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I am reading the book "Tiger Ace" by Gary L Simpson. I am sure many of you have read it. But for those of you who haven't its about Michael Wittman, SS Tank Commander who is famous for 135 tanks kills on both fronts. Anywho, I was reading where Gary Simpson mentions how the StugIII would lose a track and how that limited mobility severly but they could still turn, albeit difficult. I have always wondered why this wasnt simulated in CMBO or CMBB. Why wouldn't a tank at least be able to turn with one track, hmmmmmm? 'Splain that one. The Other Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 1 or 2 examples of a tank being able to move on 1 track, of the 100's of 1000's of immobilized tanks does not warrant inclusion in any simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by TwoSheds: 1 or 2 examples of a tank being able to move on 1 track, of the 100's of 1000's of immobilized tanks does not warrant inclusion in any simulation.Yes, but, explain how a tank with one track couldnt at least turn. Granted it would be difficult and slow. Why not a "rotate to" command still available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by TwoSheds: 1 or 2 examples of a tank being able to move on 1 track, of the 100's of 1000's of immobilized tanks does not warrant inclusion in any simulation.Huh ? ALL tanks are able to rotate around with one track only ! That would be sorely needed for all those who ever got their StuGs immobilized in silly positions with enemy just 5° out of covered arc ! :mad: :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoSheds Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 my point is "Immobilized" does not equal "lost one track" a lot of damage occurs to cause a tank to immobilize. an AP or HE round does not come in with a wrench and remove exactly one tread leaving the tank in otherwise 100% perfect condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Besides, some AFVs got immobilized for reasons that did not involve battle damage or throwing one track, such as bogging in soft mud or snow. And in addition to that, either through battle damage or just plain old breakdown an AFV might lose its engine or transmission, which would preclude turning in place as well. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Ok, not all immobilization are one-track-out. But maybe 75% are (all AP hits on tracks for example, even if they also destroy a pair of wheels)... So why not allow those tanks a slow and somewhat random rotation ? Say it rotates at 1/4 speed with 30% per turn of becoming totally immobile. Frankly I think it's a real issue for the Assault Guns and turretless TDs, that make them sensibly weaker than they should. Perhaps the ugliest is when they got bogged, unable to move one inch - same solution here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 My colleague, Arthur "TwoSheds" Jackson has the right of it. CM includes many things (destroyed transmission, blown engine, broken sprocket) under "immobilized" in addition to the "simple" breakage of a track. To avoid the complexity of coding a separate conditional impact for each "type" of immobilization, they lumped them all together to form one overall, complete-immobilization category. But maybe 75% are (all AP hits on tracks for example, even if they also destroy a pair of wheels)... So why not allow those tanks a slow and somewhat random rotation ? Say it rotates at 1/4 speed with 30% per turn of becoming totally immobile. Frankly I think it's a real issue for the Assault Guns and turretless TDs, that make them sensibly weaker than they should. Perhaps the ugliest is when they got bogged, unable to move one inch - same solution here.Do you have evidence? We all know that one of BTS' bedrock principles is requiring strong-enough documentation that a change is needed before a change is made. The condition known as "bogged" doesn't indicate a broken track. It indicates that the tracks are so mired in mud, snow, thick brush, that they simply will not move, regardless of being intact etc. Once a vehicle has bogged down, changing to immobilization might mean a track has broken, or it might mean a tranny has destroyed itself, or an engine has seized, etc. There again, you go back to the complexity of coding several different types of immobilization. DjB [ October 09, 2002, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Doug Beman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 Aaaah, I see now. Well with that said, wouldnt it be interesting if they did model one track thrown thus being able to just turn? Wouldnt that be realistic as well? Im no pro on this but surely that happened just as often, or no? [ October 09, 2002, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: gunnersman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Schultz Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Yep, usually I get immobilized from being waist deep in mud. No tank is going to budge in that situation. You try to go or pivot anywhere ... you just go one direction ... deeper into the ground. Begin Fantasy ..... I know it is well beyond the scale of most CM games .. but for those of us who play real long ones(we have up to 120 turns in CMBB I think) I think a prime mover/tank tower might be nice. Hook up and drag that puppy clear. Make it take 10-15 turns or so. I would spend points on one for sure. Would be a great addition to Ops as well. You only get the immobilized/abandoned tanks back that you tow away. End fantasy [ October 09, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Sgt. Schultz ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 When I was serving in the Finnish Army (ooh boy, here we go again...) as an AT man, I was told by an officer that when a tank looses a track, it still can move forwards and backwards, but cannot turn. :confused: Go figure. In reality there surely are more than just one kind of way a loss of mobility can happen, CM offers just one. But it would be more useful if we had any actual stats about how often which result did happen. Otherwise we only have assumptions, and these kind of assumptions have a huge effect on play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Ok, I see the point : we DON'T know precisely how the vehicle has been immobilized, or its exact degree of "boggedness". When I said "75% of hits" I reffered to the fact that in my experience 75% of immobilization wre labelled "track hits" - even if it COULD mean gear is destroyed !. And OK it'll be difficult and not very useful to go to the complication of detailing this. So if the "immob" situations are a mix of "partial" and "total" immobilizations, why not let a random % chance of moving/rotating ? It won't be much trouble and indeed be consistent with the game detail level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: So if the "immob" situations are a mix of "partial" and "total" immobilizations, why not let a random % chance of moving/rotating ? It won't be much trouble and indeed be consistent with the game detail level.I second that. At least on the still being able to turn aspect. [ October 09, 2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: gunnersman ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Adding such enhanced damage fidelity is what we aim to do once we write the new game engine. It is not possible now. All immobolizations are treated as COMPLETE, with the vehicle not being able to move at all. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I don't know whether a StuG could turn on just one track or not - but if it could, it would seem like it would only be able to do so on pavement or really really hard ground. The ground pressure of the vehicle would pretty much double if it only had one track (even if the rest of the vehicle rested on the roadwheels on the trackless side), for example, and the Stug's ground pressure is not great to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Well, haven't I said it all the time??? We need a more detailed damage model! The current one is just to simple and causes many missunderstandings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: Ok, not all immobilization are one-track-out. But maybe 75% are (all AP hits on tracks for example, even if they also destroy a pair of wheels)... So why not allow those tanks a slow and somewhat random rotation ? Random rotation? Honestly that's just plain silly. If your left track is damaged, then you will not be able to turn right at all. There's nothing random about it. You should be only able to turn left at a slow and awkward rate. My point is, if BFC is going to take the time to code the modeling of which track is damaged, then they might as well do it correctly. They shouldn't code a randomness into it, unless it's to model artillery that immobilizes a tank. Since coding this is out of the question for CMBB, we can request it for then CM engine rewrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 There are probably instances of a soldier cleaning his rifle, which suddenly and unexpectedly went off sending the cleaning rod in an arc 300 meters towards the enemy lines only to spear a hapless individual who was at that very moment sitting down to enjoy a tin of coffee. That is no reason to include cleaning rod launchers in CM. Think for a moment. While the ground might be hard enough, or frozen enough, at a particular point in the war for a tank with one track to move itself slightly in one or the other direction, normally and probably 99% of the time, a tank missing a track and weighing several dozen tons would merely dig itself into the ground on the side missing the track when, and if, such an attempt was made. It would most likely only result in (a) the slightest of changes in direction, and (, an impossibility of any further change in position, and ©, since CM simulates normally only a few minutes of battle, it would in all probability take that much time if not considerably longer to effectuate such a minor adjustment. [ October 09, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I'm also thinking that the crew an AFV with a broken track might be loath to move it on the grounds that that would risk inflicting yet more damage to the running gear. In an army that carries fewer spares than the US Army did, that's a real concern. Of course, it might be argued that that would be preferred to having it shot up by the enemy... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Hmmm, I am in a tank that has just been hit and immoblised. What do I do... 1. Continue trying to move the tank and show that I am still alive and what more rounds my way. 2. Stay still and quietly get out of the vehicle. Now this is me, I am a coward. I get out of that vehicle asap. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 ...And I am right behind you out that hatch. Move it son! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted October 9, 2002 Author Share Posted October 9, 2002 Cowards! Cowards! The both of you! Fight to the death! Acheive the objective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 Interesting thought: Combat Mission is basically a computerized version of a tactical table-top wargame with the obvious differences of 3D landscape and the "we go" principle turns. There isn't a table top game, AFAIK, that actually determines if a tanks left or right track is damaged and then only lets the player rotate his tank in one direction. Although Combat Mission currently has elements of a simulator as well as a wargame, the future CM rewrite that will model damage more accurately will make the game more of a simulator - as far as the damage model is concerned anyway. It will certainly make old table top games such as Squad Leader more archaic than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 I Have only played the demo a couple of times and I was wondering those who have the game do you see more of the above. I.e. Immobile and then a bail? I know some crews did and some stayed but in CMBO it seemed like all crews stayed and I would like to see crews bail after the vehicle becomes immobile. Any views on this? Evidence in the game? H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 9, 2002 Share Posted October 9, 2002 So far I've only witnessed imobilizations in the Citadel scenario of the demo. One was due to bogging and the crew stayed in the tank. The other was due to the engine getting shot out and the crew bailed. There was also a case of a bogging that got free. Obviously the crew stayed with that one too. Michael [ October 09, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts