Fighting Armor

[kostka7]

As I remember CMx1 (a great game that will no longer run on my computer), if you were going to fire at a tank, you could see a readout of its armor (thicknesses and slope) on all four sides plus the top. You could also see the penetrating power of the weapon you were about to fire. I don't see this information in CMBN. Am I missing something?

[A Canadian Cat]

Am I missing something?

Nope it is not there.

There are plenty of people who want to see it back. I am sure they will chime in. But I am first so I get to start by saying - you don't need it. Not really.

And the guys on the battle field they don't know all those details either. You will get a feel for which guns are likely to succeed in what situations. Also keep in mind that even fire that is not lethal to the target still has value. Distract the tank while it gets flanked by infantry. Disable the tracks on that SP gun and now it is stuck looking at only part of the battle field.

Also sometimes you can force an enemy vehicle to withdraw even though you cannot destroy it:

Yes, the aspect ration of that video is messed up. What can I say it was one of the first ones I ever posted - I have improved... at least a little.

[Holman]

While all the armor/slope/ammo/penetration/etc. data exists under the hood (in fact much more data than CMx1 ever modeled), it is not presented in-game in the CMx2 interface. I have no problem with this; soldiers didn't fight the real war with slide rules. The thumbnail sense we get from the armor chart at the bottom of the screen is a good starting point, and the rest of your knowledge will come from experience.

For those interested in the precise details, they are available in any number of reference books. The game engine is realistic enough in this respect that we can take the historical data to be a reliable guide to the game's models.

[kostka7]

<< soldiers didn't fight the real war with slide rules. >>

No, but I imagine that a gun crew learned in training what vehicles it had a good chance of knocking out and which ones it didn't. Evidently, unlike those crews, I have to learn through the school of hard knocks (if I can remember how all of those different guns perform against all of those different AFVs).

[db_zero]

You can have the occasional David vs. Goliath moments from time to time. I'm in a h2h game and in desperation I sent a M8 Greyhound with it 37mm pea shooter in a head on shootout with a Sturmschutz armed with a long 75mm. The first shots bounced harmlessly off the front hide, but one penetrated the top armor. No idea what it did to the tank or crew, but the Sturm then fired its 75mm and missed. A couple turn later fired more shots at it hoping to disable it, hit the wheels and more bouncers off the hide, but for some rwason it tried to retreat and exposed its side. One 37mm pea penetrated and and thethe crew bailed.

[Fuser]

I am sure they will chime in.

You are right. Here, the first to raise the hand. I miss it ( as I miss the Enter hotkey which allowed to have a kind of mini encyclopedia ingame..), even if not necessary, it would be great if included and modelled so that it could be switched on and off as it happens with the landmark names, etc....

[db_zero]

I'd prefer it remain left out .... for the most part. Perhaps in training missions it could be useful to learn, but in actual games especially h2h I would find it too gamey.

[George MC]

I'm for leaving it out. Stops me clicking to see what chance of a hit and KOing the enemy I have. Now I play more to terrain and the general characteristics of the vehicle. Good tactics rather than gamey rule knowing

[Holman]

<< soldiers didn't fight the real war with slide rules. >>

No, but I imagine that a gun crew learned in training what vehicles it had a good chance of knocking out and which ones it didn't. Evidently, unlike those crews, I have to learn through the school of hard knocks (if I can remember how all of those different guns perform against all of those different AFVs).

Oh, I know. But it really doesn't take long to develop a sense of a weapon's effectiveness, and at least our hard knocks aren't the real thing.

[Erwin]

I don't miss the data that much but only cos I had ten years of playing CM1 (and still play CM1) to learn/memorize it.

As someone pointed out, in RL one would be trained to know a lot of this stuff. However, this is an entertainment GAME.

So in this game it would be an invaluable assist for the average player without an encyclopedic knowledge of WW2 equipment be able to understand what is going on and play better.

I don't understand the arguments against having any game aids such as the info pop up screen as in CM1. No one is forcing anyone to use game aids if they don't need it.

[Holman]

Maybe they should provide the data, but have it be overly optimistic as in real life, and even worse for Green troops.

[Other Means]

Depends. If you want to make the game accessible, put as many play aids as you can in.

If you want to keep selling to the same people, err on the side of realism and let 'em learn.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

Why not make the info available as a hotkey on the basic training or veteran skill levels and unavailable at the higher skill levels. It could follow the same rules about the amount of intel you know about enemy forces when you select them. This way it would be available for those who want it and the others can happily play without it having a "gamey" effect on their battles.

[Childress]

Nah, they should restrict the relevant data to the manual. Keystroke pop ups tend to kludge up the screen. Everyone in the world with even a glancing knowledge of WW2 knows that the gun of a Firefly is more devastating then that of a vanilla Sherman. Or that a Hellcat has flimsy armor. Right?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The CMx1 games also have a tooltip feature that gives you a rough idea of the likelihood of killing a targeted enemy vehicle given the targeting gun. That feature will be implemented in CMx2 in a more detailed form. Eventually.

[Other Means]

Nah, they should restrict the relevant data to the manual. Keystroke pop ups tend to kludge up the screen. Everyone in the world with even a glancing knowledge of WW2 knows that the gun of a Firefly is more devastating then that of a vanilla Sherman. Or that a Hellcat has flimsy armor. Right?

Exactly. Why should players have a glancing interest in WWII? Or rather, why restrict your audience to people who will already know how to play the game?

Imagine starting the game in front of a kid, and trying to get them involved? "Well done, you've spend 2 hours to set up an ambush on a German AFV column - I'll tell you what that is later - now, don't shoot at this lead one as it's an early version Panther and will have less armour defec - oh, you've...oh never mind. Yes, they do all look the same, don't they? Well, we'll have a better chance some time in the next year, potentially."

Why play to an audience you've got and not try and get a new one? I could lose a few pounds, move a bit more and drink less. God help BFC if they're relying on me to pay their pension.

[Childress]

Imagine starting the game in front of a kid, and trying to get them involved?

You're thinking of Call of Duty. And its progeny. The average age of posters on this forum is purportedly 40+. We're very up on this stuff. Look at John Kettler for example.

[db_zero]

My instinct tells me Combat Mission is a game you seek out, not the other way around.

I know plenty of avid console gamers who love to shoot it up and play military themed games, but would balk at something this complex.

They could tell you all sorts of stats and facts on guns, but ask them to go out and fire a real one and you get varying responses and even the ones who do 50%+ will not take the time and effort learn how to do it right-but you can be sure they take plenty of "selfies" with them holding a real gun and send it off to all their electronic friends to show how bad ass and cool they are...

I really shouldn't generalize too much though. There are some younger players who enjoy Combat Mission, just like I know some old fogies who have been in tech for decades and can run circles around anyone when it comes to electronic gadgets.

You have to be careful when designing something with the goal of appealing to new players as you can alienate your base.

Just look at how CA and SEGA are getting skewered regarding Total War Rome 2. Its not just the half baked product that has angered people, but the fact many feel they dumbed it down to appeal to new players has many up in arms.

I'm currently reading "An Army At Dawn" -in real book format, not electronic...it took the Americans quite some time and a lot of blood to learn the bloody business of war. Combat Mission is the same way.

[Holman]

I would be happy to see the detailed vehicle data available for those who want it, but I would definitely *not* want an intrusive displayed calculation getting between me and the game experience. (e.g. "You have a 45% chance of scoring a penetration at this range and angle.")

[Childress]

You have to be careful when designing something with the goal of appealing to new players as you can alienate your base.

I'm already alienated. At the mere suggestion. A hot key? A Pop up? Immersion killers... Put away the joysticks and bury your noses in a WW2 related book, noobs!

[Oddball_E8]

Nope it is not there.

There are plenty of people who want to see it back. I am sure they will chime in. But I am first so I get to start by saying - you don't need it. Not really.

And the guys on the battle field they don't know all those details either. You will get a feel for which guns are likely to succeed in what situations. Also keep in mind that even fire that is not lethal to the target still has value. Distract the tank while it gets flanked by infantry. Disable the tracks on that SP gun and now it is stuck looking at only part of the battle field.

Also sometimes you can force an enemy vehicle to withdraw even though you cannot destroy it:

Yes, the aspect ration of that video is messed up. What can I say it was one of the first ones I ever posted - I have improved... at least a little.

Yeah, I have actually "knocked out" several shermans and M10's in a scenario against my friend where all I had to defend myself with were 20mm cannons at very long ranges.

But enough of those little pops and the optics and other vital equipment were destroyed forcing the crews to abandon.

Pretty effective at taking out tank commanders too

[Other Means]

You're thinking of Call of Duty. And its progeny. The average age of posters on this forum is purportedly 40+. We're very up on this stuff. Look at John Kettler for example.

Exactly my point. We're 40+, know our armour thicknesses and what to use against them.

But try it with a new player and they don't see the complexity. And it's the complexity of the physics that underpins the accuracy, and it's the accuracy of the simulation that gives the interest in the game.

As far as new players are concerned, under the hood it may as we'll be health bars.

[Lt Bull]

As I remember CMx1 (a great game that will no longer run on my computer), if you were going to fire at a tank, you could see a readout of its armor (thicknesses and slope) on all four sides plus the top. You could also see the penetrating power of the weapon you were about to fire. I don't see this information in CMBN. Am I missing something?

There is a mod out there that enables the CMx1 style vehicle data to work just like it does in CMx1. Can't remember what it's called.

[Amizaur]

An argument "real soldiers didn't have that" could be used against almost any thing in game. Like god-like view of the battlefield, exact knowledge what other units do, map borders, instant identification of unit type when spotted, ect, ect, ect. The "realistic" game simulating a force commander would be a single first person view from ground level, a map, and lot's of voice communicates of what is happening, with extreme misinformation and Fog of War.

Anything other can be voted against with "real soldiers didn't have that" argument.

So it's realy not a good argument.

I agree with Erwin - any any game aids such as the info pop up screen are a good thing, period. The player can use them or not use, if he didn't like it.

I know player that play the CMx2 game from ground level view only. Not using god-like view, he has very limited idea what is position of his troops in relation to enemy troops, he can see only terrain features that are visible for his troops, he has much harder time planning any maneuvers.

But he doesn't vote for removing god-view from the game. He just doesn't use it...

[AstroCat]

I've been playing CM for a long time and I would very much welcome any UI improvements that improve accessibility and ease of use such as more standard mouse overs. I would also absolutely support more user feedback during the actual game and too be honest the UI of CM is really well behind were I personally feel it should be. At the very least CM should include an in-game, yes in-game, equipment encyclopedia. You can put your detailed stats in that section for more deep research and use more abstract bars or mini graphs in game as to not be overly intrusive.

This should hopefully be about how do we make CM even more fun, improve the series and keep it alive, all while improving the user experience for the largest amount of the fans, while trying to bring in new ones.

And yeah exactly not what CA did with Rome 2, gaahh what a mess that is. I'm also a huge fan of the Total War series and I was so disappointed with Rome 2's release. At least they are trying to salvage it, we'll have to see if they are successful or not.

Oh and for the record I don't have all WW2 gear memorized even though I've been a moderate ww2 history buff and long time CM player. Sure I have a "feel" for it and have a working knowledge of WW2 gear but I have no interest in memorizing every single stat of all the vehicles and gear and I honestly don't think that should be the barrier for entry into the CM series.