Immobilisation - can BFC be moved on the Issue?

[The Coil]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

[QB] This whole majority this, majority that thing is of no use at all.

True. Fact is, nobody has any idea where the majority lies, given that the vast majority of people that play CM are unaccounted for in this discussion. Any one claiming "most people want..." is just being silly.

I see that you are frustrated by the way the CM1 game engine handles bogging. But while Steve stated the principle of 'bogging' will remain in CM2, you simply cannot suppose that it is handled the same way as in CM1.

I myself would appreciate some hints in the manual as to what behavior could trigger certain 'bogging' effects, like not turning on certain types of ground, or allowing Stryker crews to place their coffee mugs besides the weapons control system .

I think this is exactly the point. Steve appeared to be saying there were going to be more random bogging effects out of the players control.

The whole issue, I'll state one more time, is not about making the game more realistic (although everyone seems to continue to insist it is). It is about making it more fun. Nobody wants a totally realistic game. They want a fun game. To most people playing CM realism = fun, to a point.

Here's a sample list of realistic things I don't think anyone wants in the game:

*FO calls in a strike - is told that battery is busy on another fire mission, they'll get him his strike in 30 minutes.

*Every once in a while a plane flies through and friendly fire smart bombs your troops.

*You spend an hour setting up your forces fro a battle. 3 turns in, your recon elements are creeping forward. Suddenly the general calls, telling you the attack is called off.

Woohoo! Realistic! What fun we are having. Simple fact is, the amount of realism people want is variable. What tends to annoy people about games is when Act of God happenings have too great of an influence on the outcome of a game. Thus, it seems to me that it makes good sense to give people options about Act of God things. What concerns me a little is that Steve seems to be saying that the trend is toward more of this sort of thing.

Only reasons not to give people the option are

because of the time it takes to put in and because at some point, 100 toggles gets sorta umplayable. It seems like it wouldn't take a lot of time. Given that there are no toggles for anything like this now (except maybe FOW - interestingly, seems like if you don't like an immobility toggle, you should also be lobbying for removing that option too), I think we're a long way from unplayability.

I'd be interested to know what else changes with the 'realism' toggle (hmm...maybe FOW).

Set the game to a lower realism, and voilà, no more bogging. You have to live with some other things turned off as well, but that's how it is.

Seems like in the name of appeasing the 'no boggers' we could end up with an option nobody likes.

Anyway, my point continues to be: give me as much choice as you can. If you've gotta make choices about what options you put in my hands, concentrate on giving me choice over Act of God effects. I know there's a limit, in terms of resources and playability, just doesn't seem like we're near it.

*Attempt to pre-empt stupid response posts:

1) If you don't understand the difference between a tank bogging in a road on turn 1 and someone shooting your tank, think about it real hard. Resist the urge (as so many have not) to assert that this is some sort of counter argument to anything that is being discussed here.

2) Don't explain to me why my realistic scenarios that nobody wants in CM aren't really realistic. I'm no grog. If you don't like mine, make up some of your own. Point remains.

3) Having an immobilization toggle will not make it impossible to find PBEM games. Especially because of the overwhelming majority (ha ha!) of people who will be playing with it set to 'extreme wacky chaos'

[flamingknives]

The Coil:

Oooo,

I like being called stupid, do it again.

I'll see if I can help.

How is a tank detroyed on turn 1, (or any other turn) by a freak weapon shot, any different to a tank immobilised on turn 1 (or any other turn) by a freak bogging event?

Freak chance occurs in all aspects of the game. Why is bogging so different.

Hint: before writing off this argument off as stupid, or unintelligent, think about comparing things equally.

Paul AU:

Thank you for your considered and well written reply. To which thread do you refer? It may be worthwhile to note that I've participated throughout both.

Is my appreciation of your post wrong? I agree with BFC's position, so, as I understand your post, this must make me unintelligent.

As for your "16 minutes of coding" or 12, I suppose it would be too much to ask for some consistancy, how do you come by that figure? Do you code games for a living? Do you know what such a toggle would require in terms of the CMX2 engine?

And what did you think of my anecdote regarding the reliability of modern vehicles?

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by The Coil:

*Attempt to pre-empt stupid response posts:

1) If you don't understand the difference between a tank bogging in a road on turn 1 and someone shooting your tank, think about it real hard. Resist the urge (as so many have not) to assert that this is some sort of counter argument to anything that is being discussed here.

The point I was making, and I knew I should have spelt it out, was if the game becomes "crap" when a single vehicle bogs on turn 1 then you're relying too much on one piece. You need a plan B, and, if possible a plan C. The lesson to be learned, should your King Tiger bog on turn 1, making the game "crap", isn't that bogging is the problem, it's that you need to plan better.

Throughout the game you're going to lose important pieces, and sometimes that means your plan goes up in smoke. That can happen through bogging, immobilisation hits, gun hits, lucky or otherwise, and sometimes that expensive air support will riddle your own units with bullet holes, but that's when having a plan B in your back pocket can save the day.

CM isn't an "on rails" experience where everything performs as you'd expect it to, and that's a large part of the game experience.

I'm not against a "realism slider", but I wouldn't like the CM series to lose the hard edge it has because it's that hard edge that sometimes kicks us in the backside and provides the real challenge.

[birdstrike]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I see that you are frustrated by the way the CM1 game engine handles bogging. But while Steve stated the principle of 'bogging' will remain in CM2, you simply cannot suppose that it is handled the same way as in CM1.

I myself would appreciate some hints in the manual as to what behavior could trigger certain 'bogging' effects, like not turning on certain types of ground, or allowing Stryker crews to place their coffee mugs besides the weapons control system .

I think this is exactly the point. Steve appeared to be saying there were going to be more random bogging effects out of the players control.

The whole issue, I'll state one more time, is not about making the game more realistic (although everyone seems to continue to insist it is). It is about making it more fun. Nobody wants a totally realistic game. They want a fun game. To most people playing CM realism = fun, to a point.</font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

No seriously, you are right, there is no appeal to a game that is determined by Acts of God. But this is a blatant exaggeration of what we are talking about. Why do you even assume that tanks bogging on open roads is a 'regular feature'? I've been playing CM1 for years now, and never seen a tank bog in an open road.

To reiterate and further reinforce birdstrike's post, I've seen more tanks immobilised on a road in real life than I have in CM, and I've seen more tanks in CM than I have in real life by several orders of magnitude.

[The Coil]

Stupid was probably too harsh - sorry if I offended. In answer to your point:

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The Coil:

How is a tank detroyed on turn 1, (or any other turn) by a freak weapon shot, any different to a tank immobilised on turn 1 (or any other turn) by a freak bogging event?

Freak chance occurs in all aspects of the game. Why is bogging so different.

Hint: before writing off this argument off as stupid, or unintelligent, think about comparing things equally.

I see the difference as this:

In order for my opponent to get a lucky first round kill, the following things need to happen-

1) My opponent needs to place a gun/AFV/whatever in a place that has LOS into my set-up zone.

2) I need to place my unit somewhere where there is LOS into my opponents set-up zone.

3) My opponent needs to decide to have his unit shoot at my unit, thereby exposing it to fire.

4) A random 'die roll' is made to determine if my unit lives or dies.

In order for me to lose a vehicle to bogging on the first round, here's what needs to happen:

1) A random 'die roll' is made to determine whether or not my vehicle bogs

The second sort of thing is what I'd call 'Act of God' events. FO runs across open ground, and gets shot from 600m away by enemy sniper - unfortunate, but part of the game. FO runs across open ground, steps in a hole due to random event and breaks leg - kind of annoying Act of God event.

Of course, the next argument, which has been made in the past as well, is: you take your chance when you select tanks. Not a bad point, but it ignores scenarios, where you have no choice. And let us not forget, QBs are a very unrealistic way to play CM...

I don't think it's a stupid or unintelligent argument, it's just one that has been made and responded to several times in this and the other thread, and people keep making it as if it should settle the issue.

[The Coil]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Nobody wants a totally realistic game - true. But I am not talking about a 'totally' realisitc game. I want a game that is a reasonably realistic simulation of a battlefield - including the unpredictability of it (The key word here is 'reasonably realistic').

Birdstrike - I'm in total agreement with you here, and in substantial agreement with the rest of your post. A few clarifications:

1) I think most of the anti-bog folk don't want bogging out altogether, just open road/open ground bogging. Driving your tank through a marsh = asking for a bog. Driving your tank on the road and having it bog = Act of God (as per my definition above).

2) I don't think open bogging is a real major issue generally, haven't really had it happen that much.

3) I'm not demanding an option, just making a plea that I think is in the general interests of everybody, BF included. Me demanding anything isn't likely to make a difference, and I think Steve has been fairly clear that his mind has been made up on the bogging issue.

It boils down to this, all talk of realism, lucky shots, and whether or not anyone should play chess aside:

1) People differ in their preferences as to what constitutes 'reasonable realism.'

2) One of the main areas people (who are all looking for a generally realistic game) differ about is concerning the extent to which 'Acts of God' should affect the game.

3) If BF has limited resources available to give the player control over how the game plays, concentrate on giving the player control over Act of God effects.

4) This allows lots of players to play the game in a way which maximizes their enjoyment. More fun = more money for BF, more opponents for me, more cool games from BF

5) Reasons not to include abilities to toggle these features on or off include: It takes too much coding time and too many toggles make the game unplayable. Steve has indicated that it would be relatively easy to code. There is currently one toggle that affects gameplay (FOW), it seems like we're a long way from too many.

Given all that, I don't see a downside to including an open road bogging toggle. Doesn't mean take it out of the game totally, just give people the option to turn it off. Everyone wins. Like I said, I don't think bogging as it stands now is a huge issue, but the trend seems to be towards adding more 'Act of God' factors to CMX2. I just want the ability to turn them off if BF's idea of 'reasonable realism' differs too much from mine. I would think it'd be in everyone's interest to have that ability as a player. You might like their choices now, you might not in the future. Again, I just don't see a downside. 'Nuf said, last post on this topic, I promise...

[birdstrike]

Coil, thanks for the clarifications. There is no doubt about people having different opinions. You having a different idea of realism is not the problem. It was the way you (and others) presented the plea for a bogging-toggle (or AoG-Toggle in general). Specifically, referring to incidents like bogging in dry, open-ground or on roads as if they happen all the time. They do not. Period.

There is a certain randomness involved in bogging that seems not to be there in other aspects of the game, but I got the impression you are focusing too much on that single issue while not wanting to see that there is randomness all over the game.

For example in shooting (that's the reason we keep coming up with it ):

- hitting another tank - there is only a certain chance of a hit. Why only so much and not more/less?

- how much damage/how many casualties caused by a hit - based on firepower, yet still some randomness.

Yes, you can keep a unit out of enemy sight and you are not being shot at. As well I might say, you don't need to move a tank and you don't risk bogging. Of course you will tell me (and rightly so) that, in order to win a battle, you will have to move your tanks around. But, if you want to win the battle you sooner or later will have to engage with the enemy, too. Sooner or later you will have to put your units into a position where they can fire and being fired at. You can apply certain maneuvers and tactics to avoid your infantry getting caught in the open, or to flank a tank you couldn't take out frontally. But in the end, you will be presented with a situation where it comes down to sheer luck of hitting the target and causing damage.

I had a battle in a town where I managed to get two Shermans to both flanks of a Tiger. Range was less than 100m. I scored several hits, penetrations, partial penetrations, armor flaking. Side and rear. The Tiger took both my Shermans out and kept going. What did I do wrong? I was in a perfect position, at point blank range, I hit my target multiple times, yet I ended up with two burning Shermans. You tell me how this, in any way, is less annoying and less based on randomness than boggin on a road on turn one.

Do I consider it a flaw of the game that makes the game less fun to play? No. It was disgusting the moment it happened, but it was a one-in-an-hundred incident. The only difference between your bogging and my failed assault is that my tanks went out with a bang. I somehow have the impression, the anti-bogging faction is mostly annoyed by the fact that they lose a vehicle without a mark to show for it (at least, that's what bothers me most ).

The second thing I'd like to question is the bold assumption that bogging (and related incidents) will be transferred 'as they are' into the new game engine. Why can't you just wait and see how the new engine works and deals with the problem. Bogging in open ground, for instance: please remember the fact that 'open gound' was anything but open in CM1. Ground will be much more detailed in CM2 - why should boggin not be handled accordingly? You said yourself, bogging in a marsh is normal. Why should throwing a track when turning on rough terrain be not? You don't drive through a marsh, you don't turn on rough terrain. If I drive my Stryker over some sharp rocks, I risk losing a tire or two. If I know these things and can identify them clearly on the map, avoiding them is as much of an issue as staying out of the enemy's line of fire. If there really will be some freak-boggings left in CM2, it won't be more of a problem than in CM1. If I really happen to lose a game because of one in a hundred tanks bogging on a road... I deserve it.

Steve said that there will be more unpredictable incidents happening. In general this means a wider variety of incidents, not necessarily more incidents in a single battle, since Steve was talking about 'single vehicles' in a game, not whole platoons of Strykers or Abrams.

On the other hand, we could be faced with more 'smaller' annoyances like radios not working or turrets not traversing, etc. I understand that you don't want to see your units crippled. I understand that you want a certain control over whether or not you are faced with a sudden lack of fire support because your Abrams was hit by a meteor. You (and others) want to have confidence that a system is functioning as long as they don't do something stupid. But CM2 is not supposed to simulate 100% reliable equipment. Steve said the game would be different if it wouldn't include the occasional system failure.

I am not against including more options. More choice is never a bad thing. (as you said, people like myself could still play the game in full wacko-mode as much as they like ). But it is neither you nor me who decides what is worth coding and what not. If the guys who make a game decide that a certain aspect is essential, it is after all not only a question of time or ability, but of sticking to what they wanted the game to be.

[Battlefront.com]

It continually stuns me when a topic comes around like this that is so clearly evident that one side is asking for some sort of "gamey" change, yet they can't see it. Yes, sometimes there are hidden agendas and gamey types are asking for things they know darned well are gamey. However, it would appear that the likes of Paul AU (not so much The Coil) honestly don't realize that they have zero case to make except "I don't like this, it pisses me off, remove it". I think Birdstrike did a really nice job (again) making that case very clear.

I'll put this in real life terms that perhaps might illustrate things a bit better.

A little while ago West Point's top female cadet (African American too) was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. By all accounts she was an extraordinar leader and warrior. Yet she died doing some rather insignificant convoy duty at the hands of a weapon that doesn't care what your skill level as a soldier is. It just kills, or doesn't, based largely on luck. It's not "fair", it isn't "fun", but it is realistic. The logic I've seen trotted out to support the removal of bogging is akin to asking us to not put in IEDs, or at least making sure that IEDs only kill non-esscential personnel. Otherwise, the game would be no fun.

Fooey!

So, here's the score so far....

1. Original thread linked to certainly had the majority in support of bogging, not against it. Paul, if you doubt that then be so kind as to do a tally of unique people responding. Then someone else doublecheck his math because I'm sure it won't be accurate

2. We do not put things into the game based on democractic principles. Things go in that are realistic, things don't go in if they are unrealistic. Obviously there are some technical things that can mess with this principle, but in no way shape or form have we ever yanked something realistic and technically feasible simply because people don't like it.

3. Real world tankers have come to our defense, clearly telling the anti-bogging people that they are wrong. Nobody on the anti-bogging side has tried to counter this, instead it goes back to what I said above... they want it gone because they don't like it, not because it isn't realistic.

4. There are all kinds of random and semi-random events that influence how games play out. The notion that we should try to restrain, or even eliminate, real world chances simply because someone doesn't like the end results, is an argument that will never fly with us. Go play an RTS game with hit points and other completely divorced from the real world elements if you don't like a game that is based on realistic battlefield conditions. I know, I know... the anti-bogging crowd HATES this being tossed back at them, because they are delluded that they aren't asking for the game to be made less realistic (see previous points).

5. The anti-bogging crowd has tried, many times, to either dodge or deflect the impact of random and semi-random game models within CM as a whole. Instead, they have cherry picked one thing they personally don't like and are trying to present an argument that justifies this singling out. Hence trying to claim it is either unrealistic as is or somehow totally different than all the other random stuff that is going on.

So that's it... we're right back where we started. A certain group wants to have a realistic battlefield condition stripped out, or greatly reduced, because they don't like having to deal with the possible outcomes of such an event. They have no claims that their request is anything but a suggestion for a "gamey" alteration. Which is why this discussion drags on and on. Those of us who see the utter contradiction and errors in the way the case is being argued can not help but debunk the proposal.

That being said, it is possible that we might put Bogging into some sort of general "dumbing down" of the realism. We are not, however, going to have individual toggles for individual elements in the game engine. That's giving the player far too much flexibility and creates headaches for us.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Paul AU,

But BFC could be “blinded by their own personal opinion”, so we (well, “me”, actually) ) must stop trying to help them.

Ah, well... with help like that, we might as well make RTS games instead

Sorry Paul, you are the one who is blind and biased beyond all reason on this issue. You've made highly flawed and inflamatory arguments that have been completely debunked. Yet you don't get it... you're asking for something gamey. That's fine, I really don't mind that at all. Just get off the high horse because you clearly don't know how to ride it.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Maybe some people need to go revisit Clausewitz's definition of "friction" in war. I've seen it stated this way: "In war, everything's hard." To me, bogging, painful as it may be at times (lost a veteran Jagdpanther on dry ground in ROW to it, for example, not as part of a cherry picked QB force), is merely part of that friction. I think bogging's effects tend to be magnified by the absence of many available "get well" options from the game. The current batch of CM games lacks, for example, functional ARVs, towing, unditching beams, on vehicle winches and more. That such activities were pretty common is reflected in the draconian Kursk order to Panzer troops not to stop and assist their fellows.

As far as CM:SF goes, the Strykers and to a lesser extent the Hummers, should be far less vulnerable to single point failures, such as a broken track, can't readily have their tires shot out (run flats), can survive one (for Hummers) or more more (for Strykers) wheels being destroyed and still be able to at least exit a kill zone

under their own power. There should be both towing provisions and some way to push vehicles

with other vehicles or to clear them off the road. As noted before, though, the combination of dirt roads and open sewers is bad for all sorts of vehicles, as is the Middle East peculiar

sabka? (sand encrusted tar deposit) soil type.

People like to think that American high tech works perfectly, routinely. Quotes I've provided from GENERATION KILL, though, show practically the opposite. Units couldn't communicate with each other because of encryption incompatibilities, sunspots, decrepit radios, encryption gear which was tempermental, overloaded nets, shot away antennas, etc. The higher tech a formation is, the more such issues impact directly on combat effectiveness, and this is magnified in small, high capability units where each element embodies so many capabilities.

This is one of the reasons why I've repeatedly discussed the electronic warfare/nonnuclear EMP issues as high leverage counters to anything like the SBCTs. The Stryker force lives or dies not so much on firepower but its ability to see the battlefield in real time, move swiftly and bring powerful nonorganic assets to bear. If the various systems get overloaded, break down, are jammed, fried or simply can't communicate because mortar fire stripped off key antennas, then things can go bad in a hurry. Compared to dozens of electronic issues possible as in game failures, I think we'll see people begging for turret traverse problems, which would be minor by comparison.

Regards,

John Kettler

[PSY]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

As far as CM:SF goes, the Strykers and to a lesser extent the Hummers, should be far less vulnerable to single point failures, such as a broken track, can't readily have their tires shot out (run flats), can survive one (for Hummers) or more more (for Strykers) wheels being destroyed and still be able to at least exit a kill zone under their own power.

Excellent point John. I've been doing a ton of reading about the Stryker (mostly in preparation for SM:SF) and there are quite a number of reports which support exactly what you've described. Strykers are often able to exit combat after being hit and losing tires, where a tracked vehicle in the exact same situation might very well have been immobilized with a track problem. On the flip side, presumably there are going to be situations where going off-road on a Stryker is going to be a big immobilization risk, whereas a tracked vehicle would be fine.

[SlapHappy]

I think this thread can be summed up pretty nicely like this: Many players want a realistic combat game experience as long as that doesn't create situations which they cannot control and lead to the possibility of them losing the game.

But that isn't reality, now is it?