Tanks and low hedgerows

[MikeyD]

not adding them in because it was rarely done doesn't cut it in my opinion

That's a misinterpetation of the reason why they're not in the game. It would've been easy to do tank riding VERY BADLY in the game, but there's a laundry list of inter-related behaviors (for both tank and infantry) that have to be worked out first before they're in the game successfully. Luckily, in Normandy tank riding was tactically insignificant so there was no pressure to do a rush hack job of it.

[Blackcat]

"owing to the fact that wire fencing and wooden fencing slows down a tank as much as running over a stone wall and damages the tracks the same amount."

Wengart,

You keep saying this and yet I can not reproduce the effect you describe. I have today driven tanks through wire fences, wooden fences and stome walls with no damage or noticeable loss of speed. Please can you provide a save file to substatiate your claim.

[Broadsword56]

It's also worth remembering that that earthen mound usually had stones at its core. I'd guess that it began as a kind of crude wall of stones cleared from the fields during plowing. The wind would then have deposited soil and seeds on it. Maybe later the farmers would have added some trees or they might have seeded naturally. As brambles grew they would have captured more soil permitting further growth and so on.

Michael

Yes, I've seen some of this process in Northern Virginia, around Civil War battlefields -- you can see where the old rail fencelines used to be, because after 150 years there's now a line of scrub and cedar trees grown up in their place. It happened naturally as birds perched on the fence, pooped out seeds, and the seeds took root. Imagine if you had several more centuries for the thicket to develop, and imagine if the rail fence had originally been a stone wall or an earthen berm. Voila - Norman hedgerow.

(yes, I know -- fence and hedgerow grogs!)

[Wengart]

That's a misinterpetation of the reason why they're not in the game. It would've been easy to do tank riding VERY BADLY in the game, but there's a laundry list of inter-related behaviors (for both tank and infantry) that have to be worked out first before they're in the game successfully. Luckily, in Normandy tank riding was tactically insignificant so there was no pressure to do a rush hack job of it.

That was what this was for "Just to note, that although I am not fine with he too dangerous to be worth developing argument, i'm perfectly alright with the we just didn't have time argument."

Although rereading it I can see that I wasn't being very clear.

You keep saying this and yet I can not reproduce the effect you describe. I have today driven tanks through wire fences, wooden fences and stome walls with no damage or noticeable loss of speed. Please can you provide a save file to substatiate your claim.

After doing some tests it appears that running through a fence does not cause a damage step to the tracks (from green to yellow). The few times I've gone through fences and paid attention I did indeed take a damage step, however they were all done under combat conditions so it appears that my tracks were slightly damaged before hand, and the act of running over a fence was enough to cause a damage step.

However, running over a fence still brings you to a crawl, which imo is uncalled for, and there doesn't appear to be any real difference between running over a stone wall and a wooden fence.

Also of note I appeared to have found a bug with vehicle path-finding. The collision pause is triggering when vehicles are 10-20 meters apart, and when they are not in danger of running into each other.

[SNAFU]

However, running over a fence still brings you to a crawl, which imo is uncalled for, and there doesn't appear to be any real difference between running over a stone wall and a wooden fence.

Also of note I appeared to have found a bug with vehicle path-finding. The collision pause is triggering when vehicles are 10-20 meters apart, and when they are not in danger of running into each other.

Yes--I've noticed both of these behaviors as well.

[C'Rogers]

The argument that something was too dangerous and rarely done, is a bad one imo, for not including something in a game that is attempting to realistically portray combat.

Does Steve need to show up and give his cow example?

Many things in battle could be technically possible, and could have been done, that doesn't mean they should be in the game. If something is possible, but always tactically a bad idea, then why model it? The problem comes up when people use things in a "gamey" way. We'll use tank riding. US soldiers were instructed not to ride on tanks into battle. So you say, why not let them suffer the bad consequences?

Well, the player could get around them. In a battle the player will often have knowledge that real life commander might not. The player tends to know where the set up zones are in attacks, assaults, etc. So he can mount up his soldiers on tanks, ride them a 100m forward, then dismount, knowing they'd never be in danger. However, that is knowledge that a real commander would never have.

Let me give an example using American football.

At any time during a game any player can lateral the ball to any other player. This can happen an infinite number of times so long as the ball does not go forward or out of bounds. So as this is always an option it should clearly be in football games (ala Madden.

It isn't (outside scripted plays), for a very obvious reason. It rarely happens when a player who is not the quarterback laterals the ball. Occasionally, yes, but rarely. However, if it was in the game, players could use it constantly.

In your scenario, you would have them model it, but also model the negative effects. So you need to model fumbles, chance of bad throws, but you also have to model the defense to be prepared to respond to this. And still players will use it in a gamey way because they can plan for it, while most players 'in the game' wouldn't suddenly think of it unless that was the plan.

As much as I am for added features, you also have to factor in how people will be able to use it within the context of a CM game, and whether that is radically outside the context of an actual WWII battle.

[The_Capt]

Okay so we currently have the ability to drive over obstacles, fences, low walls, even bocage with a Cullins device. So if the code was flexible enough, and I suspect its not owing to the fact that wire fencing and wooden fencing slows down a tank as much as running over a stone wall and damages the tracks the same amount.

Then you could just slow the tank down some more and increase the damage done to it, and throw in a chance for bogging.

Tanks were developed in WWI to overcome a stalemate in the trenches, but this didn't mean mass infantry assaults stopped until the tanks came rolling along.

The argument that something was too dangerous and rarely done, is a bad one imo, for not including something in a game that is attempting to realistically portray combat. If it is a bad idea then players will learn quickly enough not to do it, but there are occasions where you want to run a tank over some bocage, and even though it might take 45-60 seconds and you might bog your tank or get it blown up It might be something you need to do.

Same with tank riders, not adding them in because it was rarely done doesn't cut it in my opinion. If I want to load up a platoon onto the backs of some Shermans and race across an open field and get everyone killed, that is my perogative.

Just to note, that although I am not fine with he too dangerous to be worth developing argument, i'm perfectly alright with the we just didn't have time argument.

We seem stuck on the dangerous and rare versus ease of programming argument. Even if we accept it was done and can easily be coded based on features already in-game, you still fail to answer the other issues raised on my first post.

What percentage of immobilization should be used? How do you factor in crew quality? Again these are very important questions with no historical data to back them up.

These also open the door as has been mentioned to more than one potential game-play problem ie terrain effects.

I simply fail to agree that this feature should be put into the game based on the fact that a tank can run over a fence.

[GSX]

That's a misinterpetation of the reason why they're not in the game. It would've been easy to do tank riding VERY BADLY in the game, but there's a laundry list of inter-related behaviors (for both tank and infantry) that have to be worked out first before they're in the game successfully. Luckily, in Normandy tank riding was tactically insignificant so there was no pressure to do a rush hack job of it.

While I agree with almost all of your post I would add that the phrase rush job doesn't sit well as this game has been in development for at least 3 years. Other fish to fry maybe, but surely not a rush job.

[YankeeDog]

While I agree with almost all of your post I would add that the phrase rush job doesn't sit well as this game has been in development for at least 3 years. Other fish to fry maybe, but surely not a rush job.

Yep. "It was decided that limited resources were better allocated elsewhere" is probably a better way to put it.

I'm sure they could have sacrificed on-map indirect fire, or some other major game feature to get tank riding in. FWIW, I think they made the right choice; I'm not sure there is anything the game right now which I would choose to live without so that I could have tank riders.

[Wengart]

If something is possible, but always tactically a bad idea, then why model it?

Because they are not always tactically a bad idea. It's a risk versus reward choice for the player.

you still fail to answer the other issues raised on my first post.

I don't have knowledge of how bogging is currently done, but assuming there is a % chance and this chance is always reduced by the same amount for each level of crew quality, then you could just do y% chance - x% based on crew quality.

C'Rogers, my point is there isn't any new development needed, unless there are limitations in the code that are not apparent to me. Play Busting through the Bocage and you will see tanks going through Bocage which has a damaging effect on the tank. At a minimum all that would be required is enhancing the damage, time, and possible bogging aspects.

Also just to be clear I'm talking about the low bocage.

Just for the record I understand that tank riding couldn't make into the game because of a lack of time and too many other features, which I have no issue with.

[The_Capt]

I don't have knowledge of how bogging is currently done, but assuming there is a % chance and this chance is always reduced by the same amount for each level of crew quality, then you could just do y% chance - x% based on crew quality.

Not quite the approach I think BFC is looking for to be honest. I would argue that finding y and x, in the case in particular is a lot harder than it appears. Hear me out one more time and then perhaps time to simply agree to disagree.

There are core components to this game; Fire, Manoeuvre, C2, Morale, Graphics, UI to name some big ones. These components are inter-connected in great detail.

Manoeuvre, and here we are talking the traditional definition of positioning of systems in the battlespcae that can deliver or threaten to deliver kinetic effects.

Terrain, of course, has a big effect on how these elements all play out. CMBN is aiming to recreate a very dense and close manoeuvre environ where tanks were at a distinct disadvantage so the bocage really becomes a central terrain feature for the game, particlarly on how it affects gameplay. Right now there are three types;

Hedges, slow movement of vehicles and troops, have less cover but have open LOS for both.

Low Bocage, no movement for infantry and tanks, greater cover but LOS is open for both.

High Bocage, no movement for either, best cover and LOS for infantry.

Now I will let the tank grogs speak up on bogging on normal terrain, there is at least historical accounts of this and what type of ground did what that can give at least a decent idea of how to calculate Y and X.

With bocage jumping there is little to no data. It did happen but what X and Y were is very hard to determine as it was by no means a standard action. If anyone has hard data plse jump in here.

So that leaves guessing based on veh performance and the obstacle. As I noted if you get it wrong, beyond being inaccurate, you can 1) make it so dangerous as to be useless or 2) too easy and reduce the effect of terrain on Manoeuvre..no small issue btw. So that leaves us with play balancing the issue, which btw is a lot of trial and error.

This is all beginning to sound like effort to me and despite what it may appear on face value. All for a feature that really wasn't common or central to tactical operations in the setting of the game.

[Wengart]

I see your point, although I feel like it is something they could have done with their 3-4 years of development. I'm sure the betas would of had sometime to get it working well.

Anyway I'm currently more worried about vehicles habit to slow down when hitting a fence. I feel like that is something that just shouldn't slow down a 30 ton tank.

[JonS]

Anyway I'm currently more worried about vehicles habit to slow down when hitting a fence. I feel like that is something that just shouldn't slow down a 30 ton tank.

The driver is being careful.

[sand digger]

Does driver experience come into any of this? It's as relevant to mobility as anything else and more relevant than most.

Anyway if a player can visually tell in advance what is passable and what is not then no problem.

[JonS]

Anyway if a player can visually tell in advance what is passable and what is not then no problem.

It may also be worth pointing out any tank can drive over any bocage in the game, it'll just need some assistance creating a breach first. Assistance as in sappers with breaching or dems charges, or another tank with a Rhino, or direct fire HE (a lot of it) or indirect fire HE (again, a lot of it). The bocage isn't protected by a magic forcefield, but it isn't made of mallowpuff either. If you want to go through, you're going to have to prep the ground first, and announce your intentions to the enemy ... which is as it should be.

And if you didn't bring any sappers with dems charges, or you've used them all up? Sad biscuits. You're going to have to figure out another route. But, on the other hand, your opponent won't necessarily know you can't cross the bocage anywhere ...

[The_Capt]

The driver is being careful.

Actually this may be the case. Wire fences can do nasty things to track. Once it gets wrapped up in the drive sprocket it can easily pop off the track, seen it happen more than once. Crew commander could be slowing down to ensure the tank is clear of the wire....not sure if we modeled that though.

[JonS]

Actually this may be the case. Wire fences can do nasty things to track. Once it gets wrapped up in the drive sprocket it can easily pop off the track, seen it happen more than once. Crew commander could be slowing down to ensure the tank is clear of the wire....not sure if we modeled that though.

Yep, there's all sorts of things. I mentally put it under the collective heading of "yeah, it's a tank, but it's still fragile in it's own way, and driving across a _____ is not the same as driving down a road."

[The_Capt]

I see your point, although I feel like it is something they could have done with their 3-4 years of development. I'm sure the betas would of had sometime to get it working well.

Anyway I'm currently more worried about vehicles habit to slow down when hitting a fence. I feel like that is something that just shouldn't slow down a 30 ton tank.

You would not believe the time spent on what may seem simple to the outside. If we had focused on this something else would have gotten dropped and that was not worth it to the Steve and company...it is their game after all.