Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch?

[Nomada_Firefox]

I would like to make one petition to the WAR makers, please remove the tracks break on tanks. I´m sure that more people think like me. When you play, you have fear from break one track moving your tanks, it is not good for strategy. And the worst if your tanks break tracks, probably you will lose them because only the 40% is repaired. If you have only a few tanks, it is a big problem.

I see it as a big bug, on special because you can descend 30 meters on one hill without break a track and next day on one field your tank break a track.

I wait that you make it better.

[Senior Drill]

I, for one, will not join your petition, Firefox.  The probability on any one element tile is already very, very low.  Attempting to traverse multiple element tiles with a mobility kill possibilty is a commander's decision to shoot the 128 sided die again and again and again.  Lady Luck will eventually stop smiling.

Look to your tactics a bit closer.  As a former mechanized infantryman, I know that a vehcile can throw a track on a flat and level dirt road and have spent the hours repairing them - without anyone trying to shoot at me.  That sort of probability does not happen in CC.  It ain't broke and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

[Andrew Williams]

Tracks will only have a slight chance of breaking on rough terrain

Below is the types of terrain that may cause damage and the chance out 128 that it will happen.

All other terrain will not cause damage...

[Cpt Rio]

I agree with Firefox.

My tanks seem to loose their tracks on light snowy fields too often....And I always give a "Move" order instead of a "Move Fast" one....

[Senior Drill]

And yet Light Snowy Field is not on the list and an examination of the Elements.txt file shows that the probability to Bog or Immobilize on Light Snowy Field as Zero, Zed, nada, zilch, ain't gonna ever happen.

Curious, isn't it?[:'(]

[Neil N]

It's not a bug...but, if someone doesn't want to have any chance at having their vehicles immobilized, then mod the elements so that column AA says 0 for every element.  Besides fuel, tanks getting stuck/immobilized was one of the biggest problems for german tanks in WWII
 
I've never thrown a track on Lt Snowy Field

[crushingleeek_slith]

Like Normandie, I, too, was a little surprised by how often vehicles throw a track. Does the game take into account what vehicle it is when it calculates chances of tracking? Some were more reliable than others. Is it that each time you move into a NEW hexagon (or whatever the game uses), the 128-sided die is rolled again? OR is it each time you move into a DIFFERENT type of terrain that the die is rolled?
 
But it seems some people, like Sr., with way more real-life experience than me think its realistic the way it is.
I am still left wondering then, how did these tanks move all across europe with this rate of break-down? I know there was a LOT of break-downs, but at the rate we see in the stock WaR game, I'm skeptical that tanks could move from city to city let alone across countries.
 
Anyway, Normandie, isn't this modify-able? I already tweaked (lowered) the immobilization chances on my mod. My tanks run around fine, for the most part.

[TheReal_Pak40]

I have to disagree with Nomada. This would make the game more unrealistic. If you don't want your tanks to break down then don't move them through the forest or any of the listed terrains that can cause a thrown track. End of story. There's a reason why tankers stuck to the roads instead of tromping off into the forests during the bulge.

And, I have to agree with Senior Drill and Neil N, I've NEVER thrown a track on light snowy field. The soft plowed fields can slow a tank down and some areas are quite muddy which will lead to being bogged down.

[LitFuel]

Yeah, I can't sign that so called petition either. The fact was during World War II tanks as well as every other mechanical thing in the war broke down on occasion(thats being kind). Were talking 1940's here people and during war conditions and winter etc. It sounds like you want to make it into a regular old RTS game where everything just follows orders blindly and without consequences.  Heck while were at it why don't you take away the whole soldier morale system and just make them do whatever you want too...oh wait there's a game already like that...Command and Conquer. No thank you.

[crushingleeek_slith]

No need to get worked up; I'm sure everyone here agrees that vehicle breakdowns are realistic and are a good part of the game.
 
The point of disagreement among us is the EXTENT to which these breakdowns should be happening. As I said, I, like Nomada, think this rate should be less (just slightly less for me).
 
But since this can be modded, I think developers should have higher priorities on other things:
Focus on improving AI attacking ability!!
 
(and I can't help but saying, I hope one of the priorities is NOT OB smoke. lol) [:)]

[Moss Orleni]

It is curious indeed, and it might deserve a closer look.
I (and apparently quite a few others) experienced the same problem a couple of times already: fi on the Losheim map, I've had multiple trown tracks in light/heavy snowy field. The immo probs in the elements table do not seem to explain this.

It didn't happen nearly as much in stock CC4. I didn't compare element values for both yet, but if they are the same or almost the same, then something else must be playing (although I don't have a clue what [&:]).

Cheers,

Moss

P.S. the question on the probability of thrown tracks is another issue of course; I think the system should definitely discourage the deployment/movement of armor in woods. But the immo frequency when driving through fi light snowy field does seem a bit unrealistic to me.

[TheTomDude]

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni
.
.
.
P.S. the question on the probability of thrown tracks is another issue of course; I think the system should definitely discourage the deployment/movement of armor in woods.
.
.
.

I agree with you here. But I think the problems for the AI would be devastating. The AI doesn't seem to take the environment into account when placing units at the start of a round. Many times you will find AI tanks and guns in heavy wooded area where they are easy prey and can almost not move (which is one of the most annoying things when playing against the AI). With impassable woods the AI would be totally stuck in heavily wooded areas.
Maybe if the environment could be taken into account for programming the placing and movement that would be a vast improvement of the AI. But I guess it's not that easy to modify.

[Platoon_Michael]

Heavy woods and Deep water are hurting the AI ,and  snowy steep slope slows them down a lot.They dont find the bridge fast enough for Deep water and die trying.
As for the tracks I had that problem at first but now I keep my Tanks out of the heavy wooded area and more on roads and dirt roads.And I havent had a problem.
I dont see tracks being an issue over  other things.

Biggest issue for me is what Drill pointed out with ATGun and tank crews becomming almost unstoppable after they have been removed from their vehicle/gun.
I also see that any of the German Half tracks when under heavy fire report having no weapon  untill the HT gets destroyed.Once that happens they are all green with health but dont fight nearly as good as the Allied counterpart.
Mortors are really hard,they destory my HT's and ATGuns so easy most times it's only 2/3 rounds.
Only consolation is they are  almost easy to find them from the flash.
I would also like to see the soldier pop up enabled on the zoomed out map and the ability to right click said map for elevation/elements.
And have some of the LOS rechecked on the maps.

[Platoon_Michael]

Also:
Deployment needs to be fixed,Elsenbourn Ridge is the new Baugnez for the Allies on my current GC.For you die hard CCIV'ers you know exactly what I mean.
 
The strat map:
remove the ugly red/green filters whats the purpose of creating a beautiful strat map like this to only be able to view it in full color only on thae maps that have a current battle?It's pointless.
CCIV's sturcture for the strat map filters was so much better.
And a full screen mode would be better than a zommed out option for the strat map.
 
And I'd like to be able to assighn support on the zoomed out map.

[berndn]

I suffered a lot from the thrown tracks but like Michael I have adjusted the movement for the tanks. As long as I use roads and dirt roads it's fine by me. However the AI is not able to adjust and lost tanks due to it.
But I think it's OK when comparing the behavior in game with the real problems they had. So the tracks is no real problem for me.
 
And I don't know about the mortars. My mortar teams with indirect fire have to use a lot of shells to destroy a halftrack/gun and until then it can happen that I lost a lot of my men.
Are they so accurate when having direct fire ?

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

Also:
Deployment needs to be fixed,Elsenbourn Ridge is the new Baugnez for the Allies on my current GC.For you die hard CCIV'ers you know exactly what I mean.

The strat map:
remove the ugly red/green filters whats the purpose of creating a beautiful strat map like this to only be able to view it in full color only on thae maps that have a current battle?It's pointless.
CCIV's sturcture for the strat map filters was so much better.
And a full screen mode would be better than a zommed out option for the strat map.

And I'd like to be able to assighn support on the zoomed out map.

We heard you the first time...you don't like the colors (In fact, I think it is a verbatim sentence). Oh well, nothing that can be done. CC4 did the same exact thing...one color for allied occupied, one color for axis occupied...just implemented in a slightly diffferent way.

And it's not pointless, it shows who controls the darn map[:'(]

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: crushingleeek

No need to get worked up; I'm sure everyone here agrees that vehicle breakdowns are realistic and are a good part of the game.

The point of disagreement among us is the EXTENT to which these breakdowns should be happening. As I said, I, like Nomada, think this rate should be less (just slightly less for me).

Well, the whole reason I responded to this thread is the Nomada doesn't just want the rate to be less, he wants it to be removed!

But since this can be modded, I think developers should have higher priorities on other things:
Focus on improving AI attacking ability!!

I agree. Nomada is a modder himself, he should add this to his mod if he hasn't already. I'm not sure why he's petitioning for something so unrealistic to happen to stock WaR. If he wants a RTS clone, he should mod it himself.

[crushingleeek_slith]

Let's make this the first priority:

1) AI, when attacking, performs a basic flanking manuver, by seeking cover along the way to their flanking positions. Then launches a two pronged attack.

2) AI doesn't clump up soldiers so much when attacking.

[DavidTheGreat]

I think that some terrain values should be 0 instead of one , for example,
Bare Branches & Snow 1
Br. Branches & Snowy Br 1
Leaves & Snow 1
Leaves & Snowy Brush 1
Bare Branches 1
Bare Branches & Dirt 1
Bare Branches & Mud 1
This type of terrain should not be able to immobilez a tank.
Against these odds driving though a snowy field with some leaves or branches would give you almost a 100 % chance to loose a track, highly unlikely to my opinion.

[Pzt_Serk]

Personnally, I'm allright with a tank or half-track losing a track in battle. My problem is more with 60% of them being written off the force pool after the fight. As it is now, a tracked tank has a much chance to be written off as a tank immobilized by ennemy fire with a badly crippled crew.

IMO, If possible, It would be great to make a distinction between tracked tanks (or out of gas) in order for them to be back in the forcepool for the next fight while battle damaged still have the 60% written off rule.

Cheers!