Immobilisation - can BFC be moved on the Issue?

[Paul AU]

Here’s a CM:BB thread which I think contains a strong argument that the immobilisation regime in CMx1 represents a small game-design problem, and suggests a simple potential fix that should be incorporated into CMx2.

It’s a long and often annoying thread, and I would have quoted what I think are the salient points here, but that may just encourage others to restate objections to ‘what I think’ and basically repeat the original thread here. I’m pretty sure everything that’s worth saying about the subject, and much that was not, has already been said at least twice – which is probably enough.

I am however interested to know that BFC is aware of the sentiment about unavoidable game-detracting immobilizations, the reasons for it, and whether they think CMx2 will be any different.

The game-spoiling critical-bog on-turn-1-on-the-road while-moving-slowly phenomenon is more of a problem the fewer vehicles there are in the game. I have the impression that CMx2 will generally involve fewer vehicles than a typical CMx1 game. If many people thought there was a problem with CMx1, they will have a bigger problem with CMx2.

I will repeat one salient point: I’m not saying it’s a big problem, but I am saying it’s a problem that doesn’t need to be there.

[Battlefront.com]

We are actually increasing the number of unpredicatable possibilities that will take out vehicles, or systems of a vehicle, in realistic ways. Not sure how much we'll get into the first round of CMx1's engine, but eventually things like playing with a tank that can't traverse its turret or wheeled vehicle that's lost some of its tires but can still move. That sort of thing. Meaning, bogging won't be the only thing people will have to complain about

My opinion is that a sceanrio that is based around the success or failure of a single vehicle is a bad scenario.

Steve

[Wicky]

Good, It'll help people learn the necessity of improvisation.

edit; Never had a problem in CM with immobilisations, if it did happen I worked around it.

[ September 16, 2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Does that mean short tracking is in? Love the idea of modeling various realistic component and system failures!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Wicky,

I couldn't agree with you more. What's the tactical difference between getting a tank shot up and a tank stuck in the mud? Arguing that a tank bogging down ruins a scenario is like arguing that losing your tank to enemy fire runis a scenario.

John.

Yes, shots hit specific parts of vehicles and have a chance of damaging components that are associated with the area hit. For example, a rear penetration of a tank will likely take out the engine, not the driver. If you are in a tank that requires the engine to be running in order to traverse the turret, your're screwed.

During a quick game I had a Stryker take an RPG hit that didn't damage the vehicle other than some tires. Driving was a bit akward from that point on (NOTE... too akward... but this is a Beta afterall )

Steve

[Paul AU]

We are actually increasing the number of... ...game-deciding events that are out of the player’s control?

I’m sure that will add to the player’s enjoyment, in the same way that CMx1’s bogging regime did.

(Why fix a problem, when you can multiply it).

My opinion is that a sceanrio that is based around the success or failure of a single vehicle is a bad scenario.

Or two, or three, or four vehicles? I don’t think there’s a full appreciation of the consequences here.

I said I wouldn't re-iterate the original thread, but,

I don’t mind getting my one (of three) Bradley’s shot because I did the wrong thing with them. Or bogged because I did. I do mind losing 30% of my armour on a random whim over which I had zero control. I don’t want to continue a fight where my opponent has just lost 25% of her armour on turn 1. Because she dared to move at all.

The quote would be, "Well sorry, we all wasted our time setting up. I guess we have to start again."

But… this had all been laid out in the original thread (which I can see from this thread, has not been properly read).

Arguing that a tank bogging down ruins a scenario is like arguing that losing your tank to enemy fire runis a scenario.

Actually, it’s precisely and definately not like that. Which is the entire point. Take a week to read the link I provided.

But you won’t.

But, ok, I have my answer.

Thanks for responding.

[hoolaman]

I can only assume the pun in the thread title was intended :cool:

[Paul AU]

How could you doubt it.

BFC - read the thread.

[Moronic Max]

I’m sure that will add to the player’s enjoyment, in the same way that CMx1’s bogging regime did.

Going by the examples he provided, that should read "in the same way the CMx1's armor penetration/damage model did"

I'm assuming you'd only lose the ability to traverse your turret as a result of incoming fire. Ditto losing multiple wheels (if your wheeled vehicle loses multiple tires, you're either being shot at or driving like a madman).

[flamingknives]

What about losing a given percentage of your armour force because some anti-armour team makes a 1-in-1000 shot through a crazily small keyhole on the first turn? Start over?

What about a string of adverse happenstances where a single RPG team, deployed in an otherwise daft location, wipes out all of your armour? Start over? You did nothing wrong and your opponent did something that shouldn't have worked.

Personally, I can count the number of times that a bogged vehicle spoilt a game of CMX1 for me. Once. It was a QB I started to see how a King Tiger could be employed tactically and it bogged in open terrain. Other than that one instance in thousands of games, it's nevers bothered me, because I don't expect a wargame to be like chess, where every move, action and reaction can be accounted for.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Paul AU:

We are actually increasing the number of... ...game-deciding events that are out of the player’s control?

Well, I don't know about bogging, but there have been plenty of instances where I've cursed how I've lost a vehicle to an impossible shot, or had a vehicle miss a simple one. That is the nature of the game, and one of it's strong points; frustrating things happen out of the blue, and, yes, sometimes that can lose you games.

[flamingknives]

As Sirocco says, it's the nature of the game - a series of chaotic events over which the player has only marginal control at best. You can influence things, but never control them.

[C'Rogers]

Well I read that entire thread. Paul AU I think you are saying that thread contains a strong argument for addressing the issue because, well, you are one of those making that argument.

The proposed switch, a toggle option, I don't think is by any means easy. As was pointed out in that thread that may require additional AI coding and makes finding players in multiplayer more difficult. Even if this took a week to get in that is a long time to fix a minor problem that isn't even viewed as a problem by some.

It also starts down the road as mentioned in that thread of "how many toggle options should there be". If they cave in on this what else will they have to put toggle option in for.

As was stated by some others I have played the game many many times and can not ever remember a specific game costing incident of bogging. Also I do play very small battles, under a 1000 points generally, but very rarely do I buy vehicles critical to the overall battle. There are elements of chance in the game far more likely to throw me off besides bogging.

[Drusus]

The real problem is that in small scenarios luck is a big factor. If you have one 60% to 40% engagement with tanks, you are going to win only 60% of the time. Do the same with ten tanks against ten tanks, and you are much more likely to win. Ofcourse the great thing about CMx1 is that if you do things correctly, you are able to pick your fights and thus winning in even small scenarios isn't too random.

Having said that, I don't like the idea of increasing random events if the player has no control over them. That is, if you are going to get bogged even if you drive on the road, then it sucks. If you are getting bogged because you drive like crazy on muddy ground, then no problem.

I happen to be a bit competitive when playing, so losing just because a bad roll when trying to drive to the combat along the best possible route isn't too fun. Losing because you took the chance to go / had to go to a 50% - 50% fight and having a bad roll is a different thing.

So, I am claiming that there is a difference between bogging down and getting a bad roll in a firefight. Most important thing is that if I lose in a firefight even if I had 60-40 chance, I feel that I should have been more careful. If I lose a tank because of bogging down I think that I am going to lose the fight because of bad luck.

I understand that simulation is a different thing than competitive playing. A realism setting would be the perfect solution from the customer point of view.

[flamingknives]

If you lose a firefight on 99% -1% chance, have you done something wrong? Those kind of odds do come up. More frequently than bogging too.

Losing because you took the chance to go / had to go to a 50% - 50% fight and having a bad roll is a different thing.

How? I really don't see how a roll in combat is different to a roll elsewhere. The use of even or near-even odds clouds the issue too. The chance of bogging, in my experience, is small. I've seen more really lucky shots that have completely changed a game than bogging doing the same. We're talking a 1% chance of hitting, with another small chance of a kill.

You have a tank/vehicle. You risk it bogging/breaking down. That seems like an entirely valid choice to me. You gain mobility, protection and firepower against the risk of it failing.

From what Steve is saying, it seems to me that the CMX1 "bogging" is going to be split into component parts that CMX1 abstracted. So: mechanical failure, accidents, fuel and ditching will be considered.

The various probabilities will no doubt be factored into points cost and scenario design. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

[Wicky]

It seems to come down to whether you want to live life in a 'groundhog day' - the motion picture way' and if things don't work out in your favour you just go back to bed and start again.

Or if your car doesn't start or has a flat tyre in the morning of a job interview and you have to adapt very quickly at this frustrating reality beyond your control and get a bus, push bike, get a taxi.

Even in MotoGp or GrandPrix occurances of stalling, breakdowns, punctures on the grid occur despite the best back up crew happens - what do the riders do give up and whinge no they bloody well do their best to get going and finish as best they can. (Afterwards they kick up and whinge, but their first priority it get what points they can)

I'm glad steve et al are going for the **** happens model of reality.

[C'Rogers]

This is slightly off topic but as BFC hasn't said it expressly when a tank does break down or why it is damaged I hope there are more explanations for what has exactly happen. The end result is the same, an immobolized or abandoned tank, but providing more information gives a better picture of what happened and more feeling to the game.

I expect that is what will happen as they have stated the engine now tracks indiviual components, just bringing it up to be sure.

[ScouseJedi]

I hope we will be able to place empty / immobilised tanks on the ground before a scenario starts.

I think it was on this site somewhere that someone started a destroyed Merkava was only imobilised due to its internal fire extinguisher forcing the crew to abandon. I assume what followed was an immediate attempt to send assets to said vehicle until it could be moved away.

Sounds like a nice scenario for CM:SF

[rudel.dietrich]

IF BF really wanted to be pricks about it, then they would model Syrian forces in such a way that breakdowns were the rule rather than the exception, and for no good reason.

Syrian equipment is very poorly cared for and the flow of spare parts and technical assistence dried up long ago.

That is why over 50% of Syrian armour is mothballed or has been dug into the Golan.

And that is also why most of their helicopter fleet is grounded.

They got tired of pulling the charred bodies of their pilots out of the wreckage after their tail fell off or some other randon act of disaster.

The same is also starting to apply to their airforce.

Those shiny Mig-29s don't do much good when they fall out of the sky because the engine matinence was a little lax.

So count your lucky stars if BF decides to be nice and let most of your Red force equipment stay mobile.

[Kong]

One of the greatest strengths of CM was it's purposely designed unpredictability and randomness. If you question or doubt this actually happening I highly encourage you to read some first person accounts of combat. Equipment failures from big to small happen regularly in combat.

The one given in combat is that the bizarre is going to happen.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kong:

One of the greatest strengths of CM was it's purposely designed unpredictability and randomness. If you question or doubt this actually happening I highly encourage you to read some first person accounts of combat. Equipment failures from big to small happen regularly in combat.

The one given in combat is that the bizarre is going to happen.

I agree completely!

Steve jumped on this one right away and his answer sounded definitive to me:

We are actually increasing the number of unpredicatable possibilities that will take out vehicles,

That sounds GREAT to me

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

In the Marine's battle for Nasiriyah the entire tank platoon assigned to take the city got bogged down, along with some AAVs and even the tank recovery vehicles, in a cesspool (basically that is what it was). These tanks could have played an important roll in the battle and it was partly to blame for the Battalion commander being out of touch with the rest of his forces since he was concentrating on getting the armor out. I wonder if he would insist we read the thread and do somefink.

Read real life AARs of tankers and you'll find all sorts of references to mechanical things going wrong in battle. The US units defending Schmidt and Kommerscheid had plenty to bitch about when they managed to only get a few tanks destroyers to the frontline and a fair percentage had mechanical breakdowns. One couldn't traverse its turret out of a significantly slewed position (like 2 o'clock or something), another one had an engine failure, and a third one had an oil leak that prevented it from moving very fast. Did the US commander yell at God that he should fix it or somefink? Did he ask the German player for a "do over" because war isn't fair? No, the US commander adapted and made do with what he had. He got the slow tank into a hull down position and left it there. The broken down one stayed where it was and just hoped that some Germans would come into LOF (I think it did happen), the one with the crap turret simple went into hull down positions sideways. And they did a lot of damage to the German attackers.

As stated before whining about bogging is akin to whining about any number of things which are outside, or mostly outside, of the player's control. For example, friendly aircraft taking out one of your most important vehicles, fog, AP shots shattering instead of penetrating, Bazooka/Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck hits doing no damage, wooded maps with armor unfit for wooded battles, units Routing when someone just took a potshot at them, firing 6 times at something and missing then the thing fires back once and hits, an Elite unit Panicking when it loses a single man, a terribly quality enemy unit taking out a larger sized better unit simply by luck, etc. There are hundreds of things like this. They are in the game because they are realistic because combat is chaotic, unpredictable, and very often unfair to one side or the other. That's just the way it is, and that's the beauty of CM.

The people arguing against bogging are arguing for an arbitrary reduction in realism to cater to some realistic aspect of the game that they, for some reason, have trouble coping with even though just about everybody else doesn't have a problem. I have no more pity for someone who gets their tanks bogged down than I do for the people that claim their Tiger or King Tiger shouldn't have been killed by blah, blah, blah. I've heard it all before and it doesn't impress me. The issue is 7 years old, dead, and buried as far as I am concerned.

Will "system" failures occur at random during gameplay? I don't know. Eventually it will happen, but I am not sure if we will have the time to sufficiently research and test the modeling for CM:SF. While I disagree that such features should be left out, I do agree that they shouldn't be put in if they can't be defended as being realistic. I'd rather have nothing than a failed portrayal.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, just for giggles I looked at the thread in the CMBB forum rather quickly. Typical... someone with a strong view points to a thread and says "see, this is why you must change things". I would be curious to see what the actual stats come out to be, but my quick take on it was there were MORE people in that thread saying that bogging should be kept in, and not dramatically changed, than those saying it should be taken out or dramatically reduced. Not surprisingly, the people with direct, real life tank experience came in on the "it's realistic, deal with it" side of the argument.

I just think it is funny to see people so blinded by their own personal opinion that they can point to a thread where their side of the argument was in the minority, or at least strongly countered, and yet say think that it is somehow clearly favoring their side of the argument. Meaning, the link Paul finds so overwhelmingly important actually defeats his argument IMHO.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Now THAT's the customer service we all know and love about BFC!

Thanks for the update Steve.

-tom w

[Lee_DiSantis]

let's not forget about the 1.5% chance that a giant lobster will attack on turn 1.

hope you have some SMAW's!