Jump to content

Normandy: Immobilisations


Recommended Posts

You are correct that Wet isn't nearly as bad as Mud or Deep Mud. However, if there was no difference between Wet and Dry we wouldn't have included Wet, would we? :D

arhg. there's more to CM than tracked vehicles, such as T-34, move on open flat ground. stuff like a jeep towing AT-gun up a hill on wet open ground, arty fires etc.

Mother Nature just thought it would be funny to watch me spend an hour in the blazing sun trying to get a piece of tree out of my suspension system :(

exactly. the difference between "wet" and "dry" ground conditions wouldn't have really made a huge difference.

How much experience do you have driving vehicles, tracked or wheeled, off established trails in a variety of terrain conditions? I've got a pretty good amount and some of those with military experience have already chimed in long ago. It would appear that our opinions are shaped more by the differences in experience vs. theory.

yes, it's just because of my irrationality, insanity and naivety that 1:800 figures appear absurd to me. everyone else, especially those with military experience, think they are spot on right.

i believe our opinions are far more shaped by different interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously any potential bogging toggle would need a name: boggle. I hereby copyright that term.

Henceforward, and forthwith, all players would ask their opponents, "Boggle on or off?"

Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.

Ken

You're too late I'm afraid :)

boggle.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

URC,

arhg. there's more to CM than tracked vehicles, such as T-34, move on open flat ground. stuff like a jeep towing AT-gun up a hill on wet open ground, arty fires etc.

Of course, but I'm unaware of why tracked vehicles should be exempt from some weather condition changes. They shouldn't be, but obviously they should do proportionally better than those things you listed.

exactly. the difference between "wet" and "dry" ground conditions wouldn't have really made a huge difference.

Of course it wouldn't have because I was on a trail made up of tree branches specifically to mitigate wet ground conditions. But if I drove off the trail I was on, it might have mattered or might not have. Depends on how lucky or unlucky I got. I certainly would have had a worse chance of getting bogged if the ground were wet vs. dry.

Again, you appear completely unconcerned with mixing and matching things. It simply is unsupportable to make the comparisons you've made because you're comparing apples to oranges. When I've pointed that out you've tried to convince me that an apple is basically the same as an orange instead of testing an apple to an apple as I've suggested. Now that you have CMBB in front of you, and a test scenario already done, why not just change the ground conditions as I've suggested and give it a shot? Certainly that would be more interesting than trying to argue a lost cause?

yes, it's just because of my irrationality, insanity and naivety that 1:800 figures appear absurd to me. everyone else, especially those with military experience, think they are spot on right.

No, it's irrational to keep putting up that 1:800 figure (is it my imagination or did it grow on its own?) when you can't support it. Might as well say that you looked out the window today and found it to be rainy, therefore it is inconceivable that it is sunny where I live.

I'll put this as bluntly as I possibly can. Your tests are flawed, your data comparison is flawed, and therefore your conclusions are meaningless and worthless. I find it extremely interesting that you would rather argue an obviously flawed position instead of trying to improve the "science" behind your examination. If you really were interested in an honest examination of bogging I don't see why you wouldn't try to tighten up your methodology instead of belligerently arguing with me when it is clear I'm not going to be swayed. ESPECIALLY because I have specifically, and directly, offered you alternatives to test and examine. Even if you think I'm wrong to suggest those matchups, your complete and utter lack of interest in alternative points of view doesn't make you more credible. For all I know you did the tests as I suggested and found it undercut your point, therefore you have instead decided to continue arguing something which is fundamentally flawed.

I've said over and over again that I'm in no-way-shape-or-form saying that the CMx1 system for bogging is correct and beyond questioning. I'm only saying that so far nobody has come close to showing that it's off the mark. Do your homework and then come back to the discussion, otherwise I don't think there's any point in continuing to "discuss" this with you.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing one variable in the Editor and re-running the test scenario you already made, and have argued about for days now, is "not worth it"? If you weren't interested in the subject enough to do relevant tests, then I'm really perplexed as to why you invested so much time into this.

The reason I kept at this thread should be obvious to anybody who has seen me debate "tests" over the last 10 years. I can fully accept problems in the games I make when the tests are honest, accurate, and meaningful. Otherwise I point out where the flaws and give the person making the claim the opportunity to present their case again with data that has a better chance of being relevant. It's a fairly simple concept and a very simple process that works out well for both us and you customers. Therefore, I've stuck out this long and rather tiresome thread to remind people that personal opinions are important enough to discuss, but implementing them without a good reason is simply not something we're interested in doing.

Think about it... if we went about changing things in our games simply because someone claims the results aren't what they should be, with no debate and no insistence on minimal scientific standards, we'd find ourselves adrift in chaos. A minimum standard of "proof", which is both reasonable and obtainable, is good for everybody including the person putting forth the claim that something is wrong. Well, that is if the person putting forth the claim really wants to see things improved. Sometimes I get the feeling that's not the case, unfortunately.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaahhhh!!!! URC, why did you delete that last post???

Based on the time stamps, I must've read your whole post while you were in the midst of deleting it. It was actually informative... Now that it's gone, it'll never get the "Post of the Year" award. ;)

Seriously, you had some cogent arguments with good perspective in it.

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c3k,

Seriously, you had some cogent arguments with good perspective in it.

I would have liked to see them as well because, thus far, that's what I've been waiting for.

Flamingknives,

I meant URC could just rerun the test he had set up the other day, not a test you set up 4 years ago :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i deleted that post because after reading the post, and seeing it's basicly just the same old stuff, though perhaps explained a bit better, the discussion appeared so bogged that i felt frankly, Scarlet, i don't give a damn. :)

Steve, again, that 1:800 comes from CM tests between "wet dirt road" and "wet open ground". actual figure is 1:792 -- i just didn't remember that last digit and rounded it up. yes, the ratio doubled because my tests gave twice the number of immobs as that old test in the linked thread.

i had to dig that XP computer from a closet and set it up on kitchen table to do those tests. wife was not pleased as you can imagine and the XP computer is now back in the closet. :)

i actually did two tests with "dry" conditions back when i did those tests. one with "fast" and one with "move". "fast" gave zero immobs, "move" gave one. i didn't post those figures, like i didn't post some other figures, because i didn't have time to do a proper number of tests. the margin of error is just too high even with a single test that has 100km worth of movement -- the randomness is potentially as large as the maximum effect. in any case, Vulture's tests on "damp dirt road" gave zero immobs so we would need even more extensive tests to be able to get a ratio for "dry" conditions. and then, in the end, it would change nothing.

i am not interested in reverse engineering CMBB, especially as there are no patches coming. my interest is in the historical stuff. rather than discussing "worthless" and "illogical" points to eternity, i use that time to read real world combat accounts and studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, no problem. So where we leave it is this... there's been no problem established based on any of this discussion. There's been some irrelevant and incorrect conclusions put forward based on flawed statistical analysis and accounting for variables, sure enough, but the arguments I've made against them are here to read.

Once again I'm not saying there weren't problems with CMBB's handling of bogging. There very well might be. But so far nobody has shown that to be the case. Not in general terms, not in specific circumstances. Not that it matters much since we're not going to change 7 year old code in a game we stopped supporting 6 years ago :D

Remember, it's not up to me to prove a skeptic's point of view... it's up to the skeptic to convince me there's a problem. And for that I need to see a strong case that I can't easily kick holes into. We have a long history of making changes to our games based on successful customer presentations, so we're quite content that our standards are reasonable and in everybody's best interests.

On that note, I'm locking up this thread. It's almost at the 300 mark and I doubt there will be anything new and interesting to discuss in 15 posts.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...