Immobilisation - can BFC be moved on the Issue?

[Paul AU]

Here’s a CM:BB thread (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=010635;p=1) 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 :D

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 smile.gif )

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 :D

-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]

smile.gif

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.

http://www.handlebarandgrille.com/images/giant%20lobster.jpg

hope you have some SMAW's!

[Fly Pusher]

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

http://www.handlebarandgrille.com/images/giant%20lobster.jpg

hope you have some SMAW's! That, to me, looks much more like a giant Space Crayfish.

Nowhere like as nasty as Lobsters....

But significantly more manuverable than the Space Mussles, Clams and Limpets.

Personally, I find Space Welks offer the best balance.

[Kong]

Once again Steve tries to explain why CM is a classic to those who live in glass bubbles. Maybe the "war is a clean, perfect, precise" crowd should go back to Chess.... well right after they buy a few copies of CM:SF!! smile.gif

I'm assuming the failure ratio is going up in CM:SF because there is SO much more stuff that can fail. Makes sense to me.

Side Note: Regardless of what type of crustacean it is, anything that size is going to completely ruin ANY scenario!!! BFC FIX or DO SOMEFINK!!!!

[The Coil]

As in the thread on the CMBB forum, the pro-bogging crowd seems to be missing the point of the anti-boggers (full disclosure: I don't have strong opinions on the bogging issue, I'll buy it and play it either way). The point is NOT whether or not boggin is realistic. The point IS that bogging a significant risk into the game that the player can not control/avoid/mitigate in any way. The pro-bogging crowd seems to not want to answer this point, instead advancing several unrelated arguments:
1) It's realistic (everyone agrees to this, on both sides).
2) There's chance involved in every aspect of the game (sure, but the issue isn't the element of chance, but whether or not a player can influence the level of risk involved).
3) Everyone likes bogging.

It seems to me (as a somewhat neutral observer) that it makes a lot of sense to give the user control over the issue. People who like random chance events can toggle "wacky catastrophe mode" on, and have their radio communications interrupted by sunpots and their FO's struck by lightening. People who don't want their company commander to desert mid-battle to be with his Syrian girlfriend can toggle it off. Everyone is happy. As (I believe) JasonC said in the CMBB thread, giving the player more control over the parameters of the game tends to make happier players who play the game more.

Possible reasons to not include such a mode, that occur to me off the top of my head, include:
1) Adding this feature would mean not adding some other, better feature (or be too much trouble to code, or something).
2) We make the games, you just play them, little maggot.
3) We put features in the game only in response to majority opinion, as it is expressed in non-random sampling of really old threads.

There may be other, better reasons that I haven't thought of or that haven't been mentioned. In my mind, the only decent reason is reason #1, some technical limitation. #2 isn't. #3 is just silly (opinions should be weighed, not counted, a wise man once told me).

Anyway, like I said, no strong opinion on the bogging, BUT I see no downside for increased player control of any aspect of the game, as long as it's technically feasible. If a feature gives me a greater ability to customize the game to my own liking, I think the question for me becomes, "why not include it?" Because you don't like the idea that someone else somewhere else in the world might be playing CM with no chance of their tank throwing a track?

[C'Rogers]

The pro-bogging crowd seems to not want to answer this point, instead advancing several unrelated arguments:You missed one.

The rate of blogging and how it affects the game is grossly exaggerated by some players. As evidenced by those (like myself) who have never seen a bog that didn't make logical sense and felt that there was control over. This meant people's complaints about bogging where about an incredibly minor issue.

[Battlefront.com]

The Coil,

The pro-bogging crowd seems to not want to answer this point, instead advancing several unrelated arguments:Not at all. It's just that the anti-bogging crowd doesn't like to hear it. And that is "war is chaotic, CM simulates war, therefore it simulates chaos. If you can't get over that, then why not play an RTS or something else less realistic and more predictable?". The anti-bogging crowd tends to not like this line of argument :D

Possible reasons to not include such a mode, that occur to me off the top of my head, include:You've missed the most important, most consistently voiced reason to not include such options; CM is about realistic combat behavior, so if you don't want realistic combat behavior then why are you playing CM? That's my reason for not catering to features like this, and since I'm the one designing the game I'd say that makes it the most important line of reasoning :D That's the thing I object to.

Anyway, like I said, no strong opinion on the bogging, BUT I see no downside for increased player control of any aspect of the game, as long as it's technically feasible. It's technically feasible, and we might even support a broader realism toggle. Meaning, you can turn down the overall level of realism, not a pick and choose what to toggle on/off. We've had this in the design of CMx2 from the start. So if you don't want to have your tanks bog, fine... turn down the realism and not have your tanks bogged. But you'll also have other features turned down/off as well. If you don't like that, then suck it up and deal with the chance of bogging and have the other stuff working as well.

Steve

[Capt. Toleran]

My 2 cents -- Please keep the bogging. As much as it sucks to have a tank bog where you can't use it, that is reality, and us CM fans love reality above all else. There are plenty of games that sacrifice reality for fun, and that's their perogative. I play CM because it is fun, but for me, it is fun because it is real, and that extra challenge is what makes winning so rewarding. You wouldn't have a hurdle race without hurdles (or ones that were 2 inches off the ground), right?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Kong:
Side Note: Regardless of what type of crustacean it is, anything that size is going to completely ruin ANY scenario!!! BFC FIX or DO SOMEFINK!!!! I have been authorized to announce that the Pentagon has been working on a Top Secret crash program to develop an armored vehicle based on the chassis of the M1 Abrams that tows a huge vat of drawn butter and can fire it through a modified flame thrower nozzle. Since Space Lobsters and their Crawfish allies are not signitories to the Geneva Convention, the JAG anticipates no legal problems with the use of this weapon.

Michael

[The Coil]

Steve,

I hear what you are saying, but I still think the main issues are being a little oversimplified. Let me attempt to clarify: this is not a debate between those who want CM to be totally predictable (call 'em chess players) and those who want it to be totally unpredictable (call 'em bingo players)(cue bingo grogs rushing to their keyboards to insist bingo takes a considerable amount of skill). Rather, it is a debate about where on the continuum it should be. Some want it to be a little more predictable, some want it a little less. Nobody wants complete predictability or complete randomness - otherwise they'd go play chess or bingo. The want to play CM, because it is a fun game - they would just prefer to play it at a place on the luck/skill continuum that is most fun to them.

In the same way, nobody wants a totally unrealistic game. I don't think many people want a totally realistic game. I, for one, don't want my soldier to keel over from an asthma attack, or see my platoon commander fragged by one of his troops because they had personality conflicts. There is an acceptable level of realism that I find fun in CM, without taking it too far. Other people may have a different idea of what that level is. Some people may like it when the fleem sprocket on their tank fails, others might not. The reality is most people play CM because they like it a lot better than RTS games. I would venture to say most people playing CM would land at the high end of the reality scale. I don't think the goal is total realism.

For instance, choosing the parameters of a quick battle has nothing to do with realism. A 'real' commander doesn't get to choose the size of the map, he doesn't get to choose whether he wants to attack or defend, he doesn't get to pick the weather conditions. These are not 'realistic' options - they are included because they make the game more enjoyable and enhance the game's replayability. If I want to play exclusively meeting engagement quick battles, I can do that, even though they 'hardly ever happened.' If I want to fight 20 Tigers with 100 Stuarts, I can do that (I think). If you don't like it, you can play purely historical scenarios. However, if you went the realistic route, and set the game up so that it only let people play historic scenarios with verifiably realistic force mixes, and didn't let people choose what kind of battle they wanted to play, but just ordered them into combat (real commanders don't get to decide how many points their command is), you'd have a more realistic game, but I bet not many people would want to play it.

Here is my basic point (if anyone is still reading this): we all have a different idea about the 'proper level' of realism that makes the game most fun. The less control you give me over the game, the more I am stuck playing a game that is set to your idea of the 'proper level.' The more control you give me, the more I can adjust it to my own idea of the enjoyable game. I will keep playing CM because it is an unbelievably fun game. I don't want to play bingo or chess or RTS games, because I don't find them as fun. However, if I had more control over more parameters in the game, I could make it even more fun. Someone else has a different idea of fun, let them set things their way. We'll all be happy.

Like I said before, I'm not so much arguing against immobilization as I am arguing for giving players as much control as possible. I think the question really comes down to: are you making the game that you think is the ultimate game, or that I (and your other customers) think is the ultimate game? I think most people playing CM share most of your idea of what the ultimate game should look like, otherwise they would be playing other games. I just want control over those areas where we disagree.

I realize that there are a skillion different options and toggles you could throw in the game, and that's where you as the developer have to make choices. My plea is: give me as much control as you can. In that vein, I think the realism toggle is a great step (although when I turn it off, my tank better not have hit points).
Hope I'm not sounding too critical - I think CM is a great game, just don't want to miss a chance for it to be even better.

[Battlefront.com]

The Coil,

Yeah, like I said I understand the arguments on both sides :D The fundamental problem is that we, meaning the designers, have to decide what to include and what not to include. Therefore, no matter what, the player is "stuck" playing the game that we create. If they don't like our choices they can go play some other game instead. Therefore, we designers have to be concious that there is choice out there and we had better not alienate customers that we had expected to sell to. Likewise, customers should be concious that we can't sit around all day catering things to their individual wants and desires. So in the end if they don't like our choices, go play something else.

Toggles are a pain in the ass for us to manage. The main problem with them is exactly what you illustrated... there is no one right answer. We could put in 50 toggles and yet have another 100 being requested on top fo the 50. At some point we have to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH... PLAY THE DAMNED GAME OR GO AWAY". That's just the way it has to be. The people that can't accept this, and instead DEMAND that we bend the game to their particular pet feature/peave, need a reality check. That's part of my job too tongue.gif

Typically we try to draw a hard line when it comes to realism. If we think it is realistic and relevant, we try to put it into the game. And since it is in the game then we obviously feel it is reasonable to expect people to deal with it. Otherwise (again) they can go play something else more to their liking.

Note that the original thread, and this one, was not about choice but about making everybody play without bogging as a feature at all, or at least greatly reduced. And I quote from Paul AU from the first post of this thread:

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.He is posing that the feature should be removed because, in his opinion, it is a fun killer. This despite the fact that the thread linked to had probably more people saying it was a fun enhancer. Just pointing out that some people feel that if it isn't good for their style of play then it isn't good at all. That holds a lot less water with us than those who want something retained because it makes the game more realistic.

Steve

[Elementalism]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The pro-bogging crowd seems to not want to answer this point, instead advancing several unrelated arguments:You missed one.

The rate of blogging and how it affects the game is grossly exaggerated by some players. As evidenced by those (like myself) who have never seen a bog that didn't make logical sense and felt that there was control over. This meant people's complaints about bogging where about an incredibly minor issue. </font>[/QUOTE]I have been getting back into Combat Mission. I never really played CMBB eventhough I bought it because I liked the Wests equipment more. Anyways my CMBO disk is long gone so I have been playing with CMBB.

One thing I did notice in my QBs was how much more bogging was going on than in CMBO. I had a Panther bog on an open road in my first QB back. And have since had several conk out without ever firing a shot.

The issue I think isnt so much the realsim, which I think it is correct to model. The fact that the player has little control over a blown transmission. In the grand scheme of things, yes a blown tranny, a bogged panther in mud, a track falling off is real. But the games we play is a small instance of the grand scheme of things, where it is a game between people that has no effect on the grand scheme of things.

Thus when people lose their tank to a blown tranny it irritates them because the game must go on. Where in the real world it is possible the attack would have withdrawn itself and the tank for repairs.

To sum up my opinion on the matter.

1. Bogging is realistic
2. You are applying a realistic situation to a fake instance that has no effect on the grand scheme of things.
3. Allowing players to control the amount of equipment failure isnt a bad idea. It will please both crowds, the ones who want uber realism, and the others who like to play the game without worrying if their crews will blow a tranny on an open road or drive into a swamp.

[The Coil]

Steve,

Thanks for your thoughts (and for reading those absurdly long posts). Final thought, and I'll keep it quick. As you noted, for me the issue really isn't immobilization, it's player control vs. developer control.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The fundamental problem is that we, meaning the designers, have to decide what to include and what not to include.This is undoubtedly true. Anything you chose to put in means something else doesn't make it in, opportunity cost, blah blah blah, etc. For you, it is probably fun to design what is in your view the ideal game. For me, playing your ideal game is a limitation. I want to play my ideal game. Now, you could, justifiably, say to me 'well, go make your own game, then, buddy.' Reality is, you do it better than I could, and 99% of the time I agree with your version of an ideal game. I'm just saying, give me as much control to fiddle with the other 1% as you can, so I can make myself happier playing your game. When it gets to cumbersome/annoying/technically impossible to give me control of something, don't, and I'll have to live with that. But when you give me (and others) more control, we play it more, play it longer, and convince other people to play it. More people playing CM is good, for you, for me, for everyone, even if other people are playing it in a way I personally think is stupid. I think giving the player control is especially important when dealing with deus ex machina-like effects that the player can not act to mitigate, since these are the things that tend to annoy players to the point of not playing a game any longer. 'Nuff said (too much, actually). Steve, thanks for taking the time to hear my concerns - no need to respond further.

[flamingknives]

The player cannot act to mitigate fluke shots either. They're about as likely.

The player can mitigate bogging effects though. Don't take the vehicle, don't take small numbers of vehicles, don't base your plan exclusively around having the vehicle and have a back-up in case the vehicle is lost.

[C'Rogers]

For me, playing your ideal game is a limitation.I am kind of curious on this issue whether game designers play the games after they design them (other then for testing purposes). Was CMx2 ever interrupted in design because Steve and Charles decided to take a day to just have some fun and play CM:BB?

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

I'm not sure if Charles has ever played a game of CM against another person, and I know for sure he has probably played less games in total than most of you play in a week 3 years after buying the game. I'm not that much better. I played CMAK once in the last 3 years. It is the game developer's curse... you get into gaming because you love gaming, but then you spend so much time making them that you have no time to play them.

The majority of features in CM are not in there because Charles or I personally want them to be there. The features are there because we feel they are the right thing for our audience. Sometimes we denny features that players want because it violates overarching design goals and/or capabilities, but that's just reality rearing its ugly head.

As we've said all along... we make wargames not wargame kits. Hardly any games out there offer the minutia of controls people request of us, so we don't feel like there is much reason to devote time and resources to such control. If we please most people most of the time with the features we put in, then we've done all we intended on doing. The rest just have to deal with that.

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

If I understood Steve's posts on the subject of realism correctly, there will be a couple of different realism settings in CMx2, just as there were different fog of war settings in CMx1. I expect the issue of bogging to be included there. And that's perfectly fine with me.

If you want your realism all the way up, don't complain about a bogged tank. Otherwise, turn down the realism. I fully agree with Steve that providing dozens of toggle options is not the right way to go.

Dschugaschwili

[Battlefront.com]

Hey Dschugaschwili, nice to see you again. You been in a detention camp like your namesake, or just busy? :D

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

I went into lurker mode a while after CMAK came out. I still play the occasional game of CM, but time is limited and my computer hasn't been upgraded for more than five years.

Besides, as a simple non-grog who doesn't really care about the setting (actually, I would have preferred if you had gone with space lobsters immediately to side-step the discussions about real-world equipment) and doesn't know anything about real weapons my input doesn't seem to be all that important here.

I am somewhat surprised though that you still remember me. smile.gif

Dschugaschwili

[Battlefront.com]

For some reason I remember a lot of you old hand buggers :D

Steve

[Paul AU]

“BTW, just for giggles”… Well. Already I can see where this is going. My posts were not “for giggles”. But I see now.

Meaning, "the link Paul finds so overwhelmingly important actually defeats his argument IMHO."

Well. That’s illuminating. (No intelligent person who reads the thread (for giggles) can agree with BFC's position, IMO).

If you think that… then the Topic is closed.

As for “majority”…. No, I think you’re wrong about that, or I wouldn’t have raised the issue. The majority hates the effect I’ve so painstakingly described.

But you’ve shown you really don’t get it. (or don't care, and are ready to ridicule people who bring it up) Or don’t understand the system design fault inherent.

So BFC’s wargames will still be the best around (by a mile), and will still be just a little bit crappier than they need to be. (16 minutes re-coding would fix it).

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


And there was much rejoicing

[flamingknives]

Oooookay.

If I understand that last post right, Paul AU:

* Anyone who disagrees with you is stupid
* You have conducted some kind of poll to determine which is the majority view
* You know more about designing and coding that the BFC team.

So, where do I go to get Paul AU wargames? They must be terribly good.

As relevant bit of experience, lately I've been doing a bit of trials work involving armoured vehicles. In two out of three trials the vehicle has suffered a mechanical breakdown, that took it out of action for an hour or so, and during the third a vehicle threw a track nearby while negotiating a knife-edge.

The two breakdowns occured on flat, smooth and straight roads - you couldn't ask for better surfaces* - and we weren't pushing the vehicles very hard at all. This is with reasonably modern vehicles with good logistics backup.

The point remains that the entire game is based on chance. I can conduct a perfect attack, but chance shots (hits for the enemy, misses for me) can completely turn it on its head. I cannot act to mitigate this, so surely this is every bit as much of a problem as bogging. Could someone explain to me why this is not the case?

*Actually, you could, because hard roads actually set up some severe vibrations. But from a 'bogging' point of view there's little better.

[Paul AU]

“BTW, just for giggles”… Well. Already I can see where this is going. My posts were not “for giggles”. But I see now.

Meaning, "the link Paul finds so overwhelmingly important actually defeats his argument IMHO."

Well. That’s illuminating. (No intelligent person who reads the thread (for giggles) can agree with BFC's position, IMO).

If you think that… then the Topic is closed.

As for “majority”…. No, I think you’re wrong about that, or I wouldn’t have raised the issue. The majority hates the effect I’ve so painstakingly described.

But you’ve shown you really don’t get it. (or don't care, and are ready to ridicule people who bring it up) Or don’t understand the system design fault inherent.

So BFC’s wargames will still be the best around (by a mile), and will still be just a little bit crappier than they need to be. (16 minutes re-coding would fix it).

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


And there was much rejoicing

[Paul AU]

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

Unintentionally making the point, rather well.

2% of games (5%, 10%?) of games are crap on turn 1, because of this.

This can be fixed with 12 minutes of programming.

Do I care, 88% of the the time?

Twelve minutes is less time than I spend setting up.

[ September 30, 2006, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Paul AU ]

[Paul AU]

Oooooka, flamingknives?

You didn't read the thread either, did you.

[Sirocco]

If the game becomes "crap" when a tank bogs on turn 1, is that also the case if it's knocked out?

[birdstrike]

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

Do we hate bogging? Yes.
We hate it as much as seeing our Shermans getting blasted by a Tiger that shrugs off anything we throw at him. We hate it as much as seeing our Tigers getting immobilized by a Mine where the PSW2 drove though without any problems.
As has been said before, if you center your whole tactic around a single vehicle, you are doomed if it's gone, no matter how it has been taken out. Take more armor with you and it's a whole different ballgame. You lose a tank to an 88, another one gets bogged, one gets its gun damaged, all not nice, but if you got a whole platoon, the single one lost to bogging is hardly notable (and it's not even really lost). Yes, I had scenarios where 3 of my 5 tanks got bogged, but I also had scenarios where out of 10 tanks not a single one bogged down.

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 :D .

You have every right to ask fo an option to turn off bogging. But you have no right to demand for one.
There are games that allow customizing gameplay to a high degree and there are games that don't. Flighsims, for example, often include a lot of realism options. Reason being, to allow newbies to slowly accustom themselves with the complex nature of flying an aircraft. Or to compensate for players lacking controller hardware (like pedals, thrust control, etc). And even then some aspects will remain beyond the player's control. For instance, going into a tight turn with your P51 and next time you want to fire, 2 of your 6 MGs are jammed because the cartridges got wedged.

Much of the complexity a player has to deal with in a sim will be handled abstractly by the 'pixeltruppen crew' in CM2. You won't be required to know how to operate a specific vehicle or aircraft. You don't have to worry about how to insert target data into the targeting computer to fire a shot. You won't have to worry about the oil pressure or torque. And you don't need to cope wth the shortcomings of a 8-year old Joystick for avoiding hitting trees in low-level flight. Some options for turning on/off certain aspects in a sim are a necessity to play the game at all, in CMSF they are not. You tell your Bradley where to go and what to attack, that's all. You have no more control over what your crew does in the vehicle as I have as a pilot of where the bullets from the flak shooting at me are going.

As it is, bogging is considered an integral part of gameplay. People make mistakes, especially in a combat situation. They miss a target that should have been a certain kill. They panic when getting shot at by a lone sniper. They drive their tank into a ditch and can't get it out again.

CM2 will include options to make the game easier. It will just not be that much customizable as it 'could' be. 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.

Why not wait and see how everything plays out in the end? You might even end up enjoying it.

[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 :D . 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 :D . 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>[/QUOTE]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'). Maybe I get you wrong here, but it seems that for you, arguing for bogging is the same as asking for an option where real pain is inflicted onto the player as soon as someone gets shot.
Bogging is a challenge of the changing environment a player can adjust to. The other thing is something out of a Bond movie that has little to do with tactics. (Besides it being a real turn-off for buyers - unless you're a masochist ;) ).



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.[/QB]1. Ironically enough, IIRC the delayed fire support will be in CMSF. (Tell me if I'm wrong.)
2. AFAIK friendly fire from aircraft will be part of the game, as it has always been in CM1.
3. Let's just stick to gameplay relevant features - calling off an attack has nothing to do with how certain aspects of the game engine affect gameplay itself. (Though, you could argue that the forced cease-fire in CM1 is somehow like that...)


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.The whole point of playing a game like CM is realism (not total realism - we agree there). If I want to play a "fun" game without bogging tanks or friendly fire, I play "Dawn of War" (and there are Orks in it! smile.gif )

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. (I've seen a paved road on fire, however :confused: )
The way you present it, you are constantly confronted with random acts of tanks bogging in perfect terrain. This either means, you have all the world's bad luck on your hands, or you simply overreact and see things much worse than they really are.
As for CMSF, an increase of 'incidents' does not generally mean an increase in vehicles totally breaking down. Neither does it mean an increase in "freak-incidents" like spontaneous combustion of tank crews. The way I understand it, we are more likely to see minor system failures in addition to the old bogging. For instance, a broken radio that might increase the reaction time, but does not mean you cannot move or fire the main gun.


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.Since when did I lobby for the removal of an option? I merely stated that "demanding" for a new option like bogging to be a toggle, is none of your business. You may ask for it, nicely, and that's all. If BFC says no, you will have to accept it.
Besides, I consider FOW one of the 'learning aids' for new players. This gives them the option to have more information about the enemy and the situation on the battlefield. It does in no way influence how their troops react to enemy fire or what targets they can shoot at. You may argue that "if I know an enemy tank is behind this patch of wood, I will use a different tactic to take it out than I would use if I couldn't see it - thereby I am less likely to lose a tank of my own" - true, but if I know that deep snow or soft terrain is more likely to result in bogging, I will try to stay away from it. I am not talking about "freak-incidents" here of tanks bogging in open road - I'm talking about applying common-sense tactics to avoid unneccessary loss of a tank. If I know the terrain is soft, I try to use vehicles with wider tracks, or better suspension. I avoid crossing rough terrain or vineards. Bogging can still happen, but much less often.
The way you want to have it, your tanks can rush at full speed through forests, deepest mud and over rocks without ever getting stuck or throwing a track. This would only encourage unrealistic usage of such units. (Yes, this is exaggerated, but it's the way you arguments appear to me.)


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.I think it is not only about resources. It is also about the nature of the game. The way the game is supposed to be. You cannot expect a company to adjust a game to your personal wishes. And I don't think you are in a position to judge how near we are to BFC's limits.


*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' [/QB]1) Yes, there is a difference between a tank bogging in a road on turn 1 and someone shooting your tank: the former happens only so often while the latter is a routine. I lose battles because of the latter, never have (and never will), because of the former.
2) The realism of your scenarios has nothing to do with bogging. And I don't get your point, wherever it may remain.
3) Neither will the absence of it. I wouldn't see PBEM as an argument for or against bogging.


Hopefully, my response was not too stupid.

[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 :D

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 :D

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?