hidden data?

[Placebo]

Looking back at CM1 and all the stats that were available, I found it really useful to understand the strenghts and weaknesses of the various armour.

Can anyone tell me is this data still valid in CM2 e.g. the quality of the armour and the panther having more frequent flaws in the front upper hull?

I hope it is still modelled but without any stats and so much variability through other factors in the game I am not sure if this would be significant enough to notice.

PS I know Steve has said before it is old and everyone knows this now, but it would be good to have this data somewhere in the game, it certainly helped me as a neebie back in the CM1 days!

[ZPB II]

As far as I know, it was much easier to provide this data for CMx1 due to how much simpler the game was. The armour penetration algorithms were legit, but the actual models were simpler and weak point penetrations and such were much more probabilistic than actually modeled. Having a single plate of uniform strength is pretty rare. You have welds, seams, rivets, curvature, sponsons, embrasures for sights, optics, MGs. The engagement angle is rarely perpendicular.

Extrapolating a probable outcome and telling this to the player is harder than might initially seem.

I've been playing under the assumption that realism is BFC's aim, and I've been pleased that the results have been mainly in line with expectations I have had personally.

Now, I understand that this is problematic since a player will want to make informed decisions. Armour damage in CMx2 has been much more realistic than in other games I have played. Basically, not even an übertank will want to be hit by small caliber fire due to the inherent risk. A simple rule of thumb for me has been trying to not get hit at all. Treating all guns as dangerous and all plates as vulnerable.

I realize this isn't very helpful.

[Placebo]

I agree - the new modelling of system damage really changes the game. From memory mortars would not do anything to a tank in CM1 but in CM2 it can cripple it. As you say it makes any type of incoming fire a worry for your tankers.

I was not really refering to the calculation part of CM1 and displaying the chance of hitting but more the background data of the tanks armour/equip etc.

[ZPB II]

From my vague memories full of holes, I think it was either Steve or Mike who said something along the lines of this being the era of easily accessible information. The manual and the game provides the basic info about what a unit is supposed to do and with what tools.

More specific than that and there's the danger of venturing into essay territory and that is something that can be alleviated by Wikipedia and Google.

The theme would be that most information you can dig up about a particular piece should be reflected in the game. Not everything obviously, but. Having to write about design decisions and how they parallel reality would put up an enormous work strain. Since basically only the guys who made it know how it's done and if they spend their time telling us how everything is done they wouldn't get nearly as much stuff done.

So, uh. What was I babbling about. Not really being helpful again.

I'd love to read BFC's take on everything but I don't see it happening.

But I think much of the lessons learned from CMx1 do apply. Only everything is more deadlier I guess. My biggest gripe with CMx1 was how 80-82mm German plates were pretty much invulnerable to Soviet 76.2mm fire in CMBB. This made game balance really wonky (CMx1 was much more of a game than a simulation IMO), and I had a hard time conceptualizing how the war went if that really was the reality on the field. The worst manifestation of this problem was the impervious Super Stug phenomena. It felt like the entire frontal sector of the cheeseStug (StugIIIG I think?) was treated as solid 80mm all round with a very very slim chance of weak point penetration. I won so many games by having a wall of Stugs facing possible approaches and bouncing off dozens of rounds one volley after another. It's been a long time though, so I may remember wrong or have misinterpreted sumfink.

I think there was a lot of talk about when the APCR round was fielded and so on. What made this issue so bad was the lack of weak points to punch through.

[Steiner14]

This could be easily offered by making the unit-info window content moddable. Almost zero work for BFC.

IMO it's a shame, that we don't have this kind of info, because it was great for learning something about the different weapons.

[ZPB II]

There might be a saying that goes along the lines of "If something sounds like zero work, it isn't."

But yes, I agree, it would be nice. Personally I just alt-tab and Google/Wikipedia something that I want to know. Fast and smooth, even on my Cold War era computer.

IIRC, Japanzer had a WIP tool that did exactly that, a third-party unit info window.

I have no idea what happened, I think there was some compatibility issues regarding Japanese and English versions of Windows. Or sumfink.

Then there's the whole grey area about what is considered hacking and what is not. If I remember right it was non-intrusive and didn't tamper with the executable. Or is that even possible? It might have been the hex editor route.

Anyway, maybe someone who knows better will step in.

[PzKpfw 1]

But I think much of the lessons learned from CMx1 do apply. Only everything is more deadlier I guess. My biggest gripe with CMx1 was how 80-82mm German plates were pretty much invulnerable to Soviet 76.2mm fire in CMBB.

I think there was a lot of talk about when the APCR round was fielded and so on. What made this issue so bad was the lack of weak points to punch through.

Concerning the Tiger E 80mm side plate, thats exactly what happend vs 76.2mm BR-350 rounds, they failed vs the Tiger E side hull armour. The StuG front hull 80mm was also very resistant. Anyway the penetration in CM was probly the most accurate modeled in any wargame. Alota lovre went into it from Charles, Lorrin etc, same with the armour resistance model etc Ie, BHN, face hardened vs homogenous, degrade quality in late war German armour, the vulnerability of the T-34-76/85 armour to overmatching projectiles due to its high BHN, shatter gap, on 76mm HVAP, The Tiger E's actual mantlet thickness etc I would hope all that carried to the current CMN.

Regards, John Waters

[ZPB II]

Concerning the Tiger E 80mm side plate, thats exactly what happend vs 76.2mm BR-350 rounds, they failed vs the Tiger E side hull armour. The StuG front hull 80mm was also very resistant. Anyway the penetration in CM was probly the most accurate modeled in any wargame. Alota lovre went into it from Charles, Lorrin etc, same with the armour resistance model etc Ie, BHN, face hardened vs homogenous, degrade quality in late war German armour, the vulnerability of the T-34-76/85 armour to overmatching projectiles due to its high BHN, shatter gap, on 76mm HVAP, The Tiger E's actual mantlet thickness etc I would hope all that carried to the current CMN.

Regards, John Waters

I read my post again and I could have written it better. Basically, I accept the penetration model as being great. What I had a problem with was that I think CMx1 did not model enough hits on the weaker plates or weak points in general. Stug IIIGs took a lot of punishment from the front and Tiger Is took a lot of punishment from the sides.

There should have been more weak point penetrations and subsystem damage. If I remember right, in CMx1 if a shot didn't penetrate it was unlikely to cause anything at all. Gun hits and immobilizations were rare. If T-34s run into a Tiger perpendicularly, I would guess that Tiger would have been immobilized rather quickly.

I was the one gloriously (ab)using StugIIIGs and Tigers since very little could touch them in, uh, I think it was spring-to-autumn 1943. Sure, kind of par for the course but I still think they weren't vulnerable enough.

[Michael Emrys]

From memory mortars would not do anything to a tank in CM1...

Not quite precisely true. In BO one time a mortar round dropped through the open TC's hatch. Bye-bye tank and crew.

More generally, ISTR a nearby medium or heavy mortar round could immobilize a tank. Not sure what one on the rear deck might do...

Michael

[PzKpfw 1]

Speaking of APCR how is it handled in CMN? their was alota controversey over when it was available to US tanks. In reality US tankers never had 76mm T-4 rounds in any quanity even after Isigny Ie, 1,000 76mm T-4 rounds were airlifted in July 1944, for the tests @ Isigny, what was left was issued to nearby units. Another 1,000 3'', 76mm HVAP rounds were airlifted in again, in August 1944 after that all HVAP was shipped via sea transport, with about 10 weeks in between each HVAP shipment.

Mid January 1945 was the first time 3" 76mm HVAP shipments recieved exceeded 2000 rounds per week in theatre, this is when US tankers actualy had access to the 2 or 3 rounds of 76mm HVAP per tank you see mentioned in current books on the subject. Till then th TD arm monopolised the limited HVAP stocks in the ETO. Ie, 1,000 rounds were recieved in September 1944.

Regards, John Waters