Herr Oberst Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Hmm... From what I read here on the CM site, I would rate the CC series and CM as very different games. My own bias comes from having grown up on Avalon Hill games, owning and playing every game that Atomic has made, and working as a software developer for 13 years. Sure, there are better and worse choices between the two games. LOS issues - in CC3 there are errors in the maps, often frustrating ones that you find by hearing a big BOOM and watching your T-34 or MkIV go up in flames when you thought it was safe. There are also a number of dedicated CC gamers who are generating their own maps and campaigns, and being very careful with graphical look and elevation/LOS generation. Question 1: Will CM allow players to perform similar tasks with maps? The initial technical data from Atmoic / Microsoft is flawed as well. Ammo loads, types, armor, weapons effectiveness, etc. At the Close Combat Center, we fix these issues to produce a more technically accurate game. Creating new armor, changing unit composition, weapon loadouts, etc. We even have one dedicated fellow who is working on a Grossdeutschland mod to follow that particular group through the eastern campaign. Question 2: Will CM have that type of capability for players? From what I see, CM will be a really cool game, and I am debating a pre-order based on about 2 hours of browsing the site, watching mov files, and reading discussion. But I will still play the CC series as well, working through newer custom battles, scenarios, and campaigns. One last question: Does CM handle the difference between cover and concealment? One keeps you from being seen, the other from getting killed. A wheat field provides excellent concealment, but little cover. A stone wall provides less concealment, but excellent cover. And yes, I'm talking about direct-fire smaller arms in this particular example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Hello there! In terms of the map data, what you see is what you get. In other words, CM's terrain stats are all built off of the physical model of the map. There is ZERO chance of error like in CC. If there is a steep slope in the map, it is there in the data too. Also, unlike CC you can create your own maps without hacking files and wading through garbage data Cover and protection are indeed different in CM. Like you say, wheat is a great thing to hide behind if eyes are aimed at you, but does it do much for you if a 155 round goes off 10m away? Nope! The direct answer to your "mod" question is no, you can not screw around with the core data within CM. The simple reason is that you will not have to. Atomic has FORCED you guys to fix stuff in CC because a) the data is far too often dead wrong, Atomic refuses to fix stuff on their own, and c) some of the errors are intentionally put in for game play purposes. On top of that there are lots of modeling aspects that are plain wrong as well (like survivors carrying the weapon/ammo loads of dead comrades), and there doesn't seem to be clean ways for anybody to hack around them. All we have to say is UCK! Anyways, making a highly accurate game is the developer's job, not the customer's. This is the way it SHOULD be for ALL games. We are hardcore, dedicated researchers with plenty of development and research experience under our belts (personally I graduated with a BS in History). But of course we aren't perfect. What we miss our hardcore, dedicated testers are likely to pick up on (note that most are VERY upset with CC3...) What we all miss will be patched whenever someone can document a mistake. CM also has a few data advantages over CC. Since Combat Mission is modeling vehicles in 3D, and in great detail, all statistics are applied from real world numbers. Armor thickness, type (spaced, hardened, poor quality, etc.), slope, etc. are all scooped out of dozens of books lying around our offices. They are as good as they are going to get because they are REAL values. No tweaking a Jagdpanzer IV's frontal armor from a 3.5 to a 3.65 to simulate several statistics at the same time! We have the correct real world values in there for the top and bottom hull, as well as the mantlet. Of course we have all the other stats in there as well Say you are playing Combat Mission one day and you see something really odd, say a 10 man German rifle squad. Well, something is wrong with that so you send us a note or post on the boards here, supported by documented research. We check into it, find the error, and the correction will go out ASAP. Or if people tell us that the HMG42 seems to be too weak, and cite some good examples of how this is so, we will explore changing even that sort of data. Simple as that. The point here is that we are going to be the gate keeper for the data. We really don't like the fact that CC comes in 100 different flavors, some of which probably contain their own areas of contradictory and flawed data. This kind of "historical chaos" is an unnecessary mess we are going to avoid. Mind you, we don't fault you guys for trying to make something better out of CC. We just don't think that the customer should be responsible for making a game live up to its marketing hype. Short of it is -> we want to get it right, and we fully expect that we will. The few things that slip will be corrected when identified. No fuss, no calling our customers "morons", no trying to defend Elephants with MGs... you get the picture Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-27-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Hehe I can identify with that last line Herr Oberst, while BTS won't be allowing players to hack the files and make mods etc they WILL (and I have total faith in this) take any and all errors found in the game and release quick free patches for them. They've been realy open to discussion on things before and I am sure will be again. match that with the fact that most of the testers will, I am sure, be really hard-core grognards who WILL look up the data in their own personal libraries to verify accuracy and you have an assurance of something really cool coming your way at the end of the summer (ps. I'm talking abotu Combat Mission here hehe ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No tweaking a Jagdpanzer IV's frontal armor from a 3.5 to a 3.65 to simulate several statistics at the same time! We have the correct real world values in there for the top and bottom hull, as well as the mantlet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is certainly more transparent. Do you also calculate where exactly (geometrically) a shell hits the tank such that one can tell from the visuals where the tank is hit (see also: Panzer Elite). If so, then the only chance to introduce random noise is when and how the shot is fired. I.e. the initial velocity vector of the shell determines its history in the CM environment. If that is the case I am again impressed, because that means that you have to have an AI for the gunner calculating lead and knowing the weak spots of the enemy ! Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 05-27-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted May 27, 1999 Author Share Posted May 27, 1999 Seems that there are some real fans here. What sources does BTS use for its technical data? I know the CC3 Center has had input from retired personnel from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, active military, as well as just plain serious gamers. You know, the guys who get wierd looks from their wives when they go to the bookstore and buy the War Departments Technical Reference on WWII armor, weapons, etc. Not that I would ever do that... Additional information has come all the way from Germany, where some of the technical specs for equipment come straight from the military archives. Might pay to open a dialog with the folks there. I'm gonna start probing for data on my own as well. If I find any excellent resources, I'll be sure to forward them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted May 27, 1999 Author Share Posted May 27, 1999 Sorry for the double post, but this came to me just as I clicked the Submit button. DOH! Are there any plans for providing tools that would let players generate their own maps/scenarios and submit them? I have always wanted to see a good game based in Italy. It would be sheer hell to work a force through the mountains. Perhaps scenarios based on individual specific battles that are unique due to force mix, or terrain, or whatever. What about Hurtgen Forest? Or some of the less "famous" battlegrounds? Oh, and finally a reply to Thomm... If the shooter and target were stationary, then yes, initial values associated with the shot determine the hit location. Or given a moving target, if the terrain were perfectly smooth and speed was constant. Were it me, I would absolutely have to introduce a random variant to account for irregularities in speed, terrain, etc that just can't be modeled due to memory/CPU cycle constraints. [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 05-27-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Melde gehorsamst, Herr Oberst: It seems that CM traces the path of the shell physically correctly from the moment it leaves the muzzle, that is, the path of the shell is determined at this time. The only influence the AI has on the shell flight path is thus the vector at which the gun barrel points at the moment the shot is fired. The rest is physics. So you would not need any modifiers for enemy speed, facing or such, but just trace the shell to where it hits. This is of course computationally expensive, but due to the turn-based system there seems to be enough ressources for this. Anyway, the problems are shifted from guessing modifiers to a rather complex gunner AI which has to AIM in the original sense, "shaking hand" and lead and all, since afterwards the physics engine takes over and that was it. I hope that Big Time Software will confirm that it works like this ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Can't really answer on the physics part, but yes, CM will come with exactly the same scenario/campaign/map editor tools that BTS will be using to do the scenarios and campaigns included in the game. From one of Steve's earlier posts I also understand that Battlefront.com will offer free custom made scenarios for download. As to the "less famous" battlegrounds: since most of the "more famous" battlegrounds involve battles at divison scale, I could imagine that a lot of scenarios in CM - with its focus on company/battalion action - will invlove the "less famous" battles. Try it yourself - try to find detailed accounts of company or battalion action, and you will realize how much of what is available out there (books etc.) really only describes divisions and regiments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Herr Oberst said Seems that there are some real fans here. What sources does BTS use for its technical data? I know the CC3 Center has had input from retired personnel from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, active military, as well as just plain serious gamers. You know, the guys who get wierd looks from their wives when they go to the bookstore and buy the War Departments Technical Reference on WWII armor, weapons, etc. Not that I would ever do that... I AM that person . A really nice start is the US War Department's Handbook on German Military Forces. They have a nice one on the Japanese too and also on the British army. Most anything from Peter Gudgin is good for tanks and then you have the stalwarts liek Doyle and Jentz for tanks.. Other nice books include Gander's Germany's Guns 1939-45 (not ultra-detailed though :-( I have all of these and can attest to them being good books. For the sea war you can't beat buyibng Groner's 2 volume examination of German warhsip 1885 to 1945 and when matched with Wynn's exhaustive U-boat patrol logs and Clay Blair's two volume U-boat war summaries those 6 books covering everything you need to know about the technical aspects of Ww2 German naval combat .. a couple of battle histories would be nice but you can choose those for yourself. Additional information has come all the way from Germany, where some of the technical specs for equipment come straight from the military archives. I'm actually in the process of having the original Tiger manuals translated from the German and hope to post them to the web. Then its the Panther manual. If anyone knows how to get my hands on other manuals I'd really appreciate it. I have a good lead on the 1942 U-boat commander's handbook which should make a fascinating read and an 8th Air Force navigator's manual (including survival tips if shot down etc) but I won't get them for a few weeks at the earliest :-( Might pay to open a dialog with the folks there. I'm gonna start probing for data on my own as well. If I find any excellent resources, I'll be sure to forward them. Ask grogs for sources. We've been through the initial search before and can save you LOTS of time and money. Ps. If people like us are salivating over CM's accuracy after spending 100s and often 1000s of dollars on books and years reading and researching then you can be sure it is good. For the record I think CC3 is one of the least accurate games it has ever been my displeasure to have on my hard drive. It is fun but if that's accuracy I'll take a 9mm painkiller to the head right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 One place you can go for information on all things tank related is WWW.Tankers.net. It is a web discussion board for armor enthusiasts. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 27, 1999 Share Posted May 27, 1999 Various answers... We have extensive collections of data, including stuff from US Gov't sources (I forget the ballistics data Charles got, but only a mathematician could love it <g>). We also get official data here and there from "fans". Just to give you some idea about how much we invest in research materials, I would guess that Charles and I spend about $4-5,000 on books every year. Probably more, but I am too afraid to do the math Combat Mission has, as Moon states, a full scenario and campaign editor. These tools are the same exact ones we are using. However, you can not do Italy per se as we would need to include more stuff than was available on the Western Front. Well, I suppose you could do up a scenario and call it Italy , but you won't get special things like Panther pillboxes, Elephants, rail gun support, various arid terrain types, etc. The Med. Theater will likely be the third version of Combat Mission, including North Africa, Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia (we hope!). In terms of tracking where tank shots actually hit... there is no visual damage to show where the hit happened, but you can see the round and can line up the target with the shooter. We would like to have put in "hit" marks, but found that it was too difficult to do because of all the models we have. A section of code would have to be written to know exactly where on the model to place the graphic, at what angle, etc. Something we might do for the next version though... Gunners do calculate lead and the vulnerability of the target at the particular angle. The better the tank crew, tank, and firing conditions the better the aim. Once the shell leaves the barrel, the ballistic physics kick in. This includes shell shape, weight, velocity, and probably everything else you can think of Thankfully I am totally ignorant about this sort of math!! Fionn, why translate the Tiger manual when you can just buy a copy in English? Check out our Links section in the Resources Area. Look in the books links for Portrayal Press. They don't have too much foreign stuff, but they do have the Tiger manual. These people totally rock! I bough my M29c Weasel manuals from them (soaked and streaked with grease already <g>) as well as a book on how to drive tracked vehicles. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 "The Med. Theater will likely be the third version of Combat Mission, including North Africa, Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia (we hope!)." AHHHHHH!!! NOOOO!!!!! Pacific Theater! Pacific Theater! Pacific Theater! please..... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Sorry Scott, no such luck The rough lineup is: Western Front 44-45 Eastern front 41-45 Med. Theater 41-45 Early War 39-41 *IF* we get this far, then perhaps the Pacific Theater will be visited. But this isn't an area we personally are much interested in, and therefore it sits at the bottom of our list. We only have so much time and money, and as it is the 4 listed above will represent about 6 calendar years of our lives. So much to do, so little time... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 In my opinion, the Pacific Theater deserves a completely different game engine. Jungle warfare, beach assaults and flushing out defenders from caves is a large part of the Pacific Theater (correct me if I'm wrong) and I don't think that the current engine can handle any of these aspects satisfactorily (again, correct me!) That certainly leaves the door open for someone to do it! Marko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Mostly correct. We *could* do the Pacific but it would require a lot faster machines and loads of programming time to do it right. It would probably also need to be bumped up to Platoons being the smallest unit and each turn being something like 5-10min long. Plus, our expertise is in the ETO, not PTO, so development would much slower and prone to error because we don't know 95% of what we need to off the top of our heads. Since CM is so detailed we can't just simply change the databases around, toss in new graphics, a couple of pieces of terrain, and call it PTO combat. Another series might do that, but we can not do such a thing (our Grognard nature prohibits such generic garbage). So PTO is very much not on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 BTW, Herr Oberst, I asked the same question, and yes, Hurtgen will be in there. And won't *that* be fun for the Yanks... As for editing the data, I had my doubts about this for a long time. I liked the idea of being able to modify or (especially) creat new units. Discussion on this board has brought me around - there are just too many potential problems with dozens of versions floating around, and they simple aren't needed if the developers support the product. I'm confident they will. Why? Because CM is the game this pack of mad grogs want to play themselves. All the games I can think of that receive solid ongoing support are made by people with a passion for their games - Norm Koger's games,the old Falcon 3, TacOps, the HPS games... and now Combat Mission. Yeah, I guess there are a few fans here. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 05-27-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 "it would require a lot faster machines and loads of programming time to do it right." Why? "...need to be bumped up to Platoons being the smallest unit and each turn being something like 5-10min long." HUH? Not the way I see it. Your scale is fine. If anything SMALL units not bigger. The rest I'll buy But one last thing...do you really think the MED and the Early War mods will sell as well as a Pac game? A theater NEVER done before on this (and almost any!) scale? ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Scott, I say faster machine (if it were done today) and higher scale because of the amphib assaults. Without those the PTO is about as empty as this bottle of Guinness in front of me (trust me, not a drop left in it ) As has been sated several times here, CM's scale is just not very good for amphib ops. However, once inland you are correct that SMALL scale unit actions are needed. UGH, two scales?... Anything ETO will outsell anything PTO when it comes to land combat. Grogs are DROOLING to do Crete, Monte Cassino, Tobruk, and earlier battles in Poland and France. Very few games support these areas, and they are generally pretty flawed ones. So they haven't been done well at all. Nobody has really done up Yugoslavia to my knowledge either, and that area is really cool at CM's level. The whole thing comes down to what is more fun to play. PTO land combat is fairly static and lacking in grand tactics when compared to anything in the ETO. Then there is the fact that most combat took place in jungle and beaches, which lacks the variety of terrain and climates that something like the Med theater has to offer. Also, I don't know too many people that have been itching to play the Japanese Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-28-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Slight clarification... Charles tells me that he wants to keep the PTO option open, but that it is still at the bottom of the list for all the reasons mentioned. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Sorry if I missed an earlier explanation on this but am not understanding something. In an earlier LOS thread I came to understand that vehicles are not as a box on weels but rather as a point to which los can be traced (am I right about that?) so when you say that all armor values are real world values I get confused as to why this much detail matters. is where the round impacts determined randomly? Sorry if I'm being dim but could you walk us through a tank being spotted, targetted, and recieving incoming fire and how it works please. I keep thinking of the LOS walkthrough where even though the sherman is behind a house he is not out of the panthers LOF. This makes total sense in the real world but I don't understand how you make it work if the shermans center is used for LOS, do you use the "footprint" for LOS? BTW if you see that I am missing a simple point, maybe just clarifying "it" rather than going over it all again would be sufficient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Arabian Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 RE the theatres of operation, this isn't a 'suggestion' per se, but I've always wanted to see a game focusing on the asian conflict (Chinese/Japanese starting from perhaps just after the manchurian invasion). Has anyone ever seen that theater covered? My general belief is that there is so little recognition of the conflict in america that no one thinks it would sell. Is this so, or have I missed games that have come out on this topic? A. Arabian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 Fionn, why translate the Tiger manual when you can just buy a copy in English? Well Steve, I'm a sneaky bastard basically . I found out that if I use a reprint of the ORIGINAL German NAZI manual then I am free from copyright. Nazi films and copies of such Nazi government films are for the main free from copyright issues as far as I know. So, after aking a few people who have dealt with this before I realised that by going through the hassle of translating an original manual I can then publish the results anywhere I like. e.g. My site. So the actual original manual allows me to post all the stuff to the web whereas otherwise I'm not allowed to . Sneaky huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 To Lokesa: If I have understood it right then the center of the tank is used for LOS calculation because this calculation has to be done much more often than the shell impact evaluation. I think that the LOS picture with the Sherman in it gives the impression that the attacker could even spot a protruding gun barrel ! On the other hand this is not stated anywhere. If I recall the text correctly it says: "If it can be spotted it can be fired at" ... a redundant, though correct statement. Nevertheless you have to consider that while units are looking around all the time, tracing shots is a task which has to be done much less often, thus it can be done more accurately. You could for example cut a bounding sphere of the tank with the line segment between the position of the shell at the beginning and at the end of the time increment.If you find an intersection point then you start to check what particular polygon of the tank was hit (see Panzer Elite). I think this is done in Combat Mission, too. Pretty cool, if you think about it. Unfortunately I do not know how the CM damage model works, but if they really calculate where the shell strikes, then the rest should be fairly easy ! Regards, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 05-28-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 In the tank penetration discussion, what obviously everybody forgot is those nice colorful penetration diagrams. As far as I understand, this is where all hit location and penetration calculations are coming together. Look at them - it seems to me (if I understand correctly) that once you know where the shot is coming from, you know the percentage by which the shell is going to take out the target. Armor slope, thickness and angle are all taken into account on the graphs already, so there is no need to trace the impact pixel anymore... but of course I might be wrong... Fionn: As to copyrights: if somebody reprints an old war document, he still doesn't earn a copyright on it. He can only copyright new material (like his comments or clarifications), but not the old document. You are free to quote (even use graphics) from the reprinted document. It shows good manners, however, when you at least mention the source that reprinted the document. I have looked into this copyright thing myself before I posted parts of the "US War Department Book on German Military Forces" on my site... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted May 28, 1999 Share Posted May 28, 1999 When the chance of armor penetration is listed as x%, does the game engine "roll a die" or something? How is it determined if the shell will be one of those x% that does anything? Please just release the game now. Please? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts