Fighting Armor

[PhilM]

YankeeDog,

since CM is a simulation modelled after the real world models, there is no need to access any ingame data.

Just a routine that calls a window and reads text from a txt-file. In this file anything can be written. From "Fans don't need any improvements" to the real world armor data of the selected unit.

Zebulon,

I don't know how long you have been playing CM, and I don't know how many platoons you are cramping into an action square, but in the thirteen years playing CM I never had the problem of too many movement paths, but the problem that a unit must be clicked to see the paths appears in every order phase several times. The system with paths shown without a unit selected in CMx1 IMO was way more user friendly and it takes years to see any improvements in this regard, while game content is produced faster than anyone is capable to play.

If you say that you don't know what the unit info data can be good for, then you probably do not care about the nuances of tank combat. This data is essential to know the safety distance or to get an impression at which distance a certain angle could be penetrated.

And besides this, i always found it interesting in CMx1 to study and compare the data, especially with rare or new units.

With today's computers it would be so easy to even load pics or video, or a history with production numbers. This would not only be very teaching, but it would add to the atmosphere, too.

Gladly Marco Bergman did what he could to get the data into the unit pics, otherwise with the factory pics, it is very arcade style and does not reflect the simulation aspect.

Exactly the reason why, for me, if anything like this were ever implemented, it would need to be a toggleable option that I can switch off. (And, on the basis that its development would cause other improvements to be later and / or not appear, my vote would be for it to wait in a longish queue!)

I care about the nuances of tank combat! I want it to matter to the game outcome if my Sherman hunting that Mk IV is an M4A3; an M4A3(W); or an M4A3(W) 76mm. (I'll take the 76mm ...)

But what I don't want is a tooltip that says I have 73.2% probability of penetrating the Mk IV for a given shot at xxx metres distance; but if I set a waypoint move 20 metres closer and change the angle by 35 degrees to the right and target (which part of the opponent tank?) from there then the probability goes up to 81.6% - or whatever.

Leaving aside all the questions set out in previous posts about how the result could be calculated accurately because of all the variables involved, even if it could be done I don't want to see it. Cmx2 does a great job of helping me suspend my disbelief that I'm playing a computer game; this would smack me hard in the face with the game.

I too find it interesting to study and compare unit data: but is this something to do during the game? Am I being boring to suggest reading the manual between (before!) games? Study of the manual already gives "an impression" of the likely outcomes, and suggests that, for example, it is better if you have the choice to match up a Firefly rather than a standard 75mm Sherman against a Mk V . Beyond that, and trying to adopt good tactics and positioning, I don't think I want to know.

[Michael Emrys]

I play CM because it brings me as close as a computer game currently can to the experience of leading a company of troops into combat. Granted, that's still not very close as I am sitting in a comfortable chair in a warm room after eating a tasty and satisfying meal and nobody is shooting at me. But that's about as close as I want to get anyway. I mention this because in the real war tankers did not have a computer in the tank telling them how likely their attempt to shoot was going to be successful. They had rules of thumb based on what they had been taught in training, what they had picked up in conversation with their comrades, and their own experience, but when it came to the moment of truth they took the shot and waited to see the outcome. If range estimation was difficult—which it often was—they might even have to take a couple of shots before they got a burst on target. And once they got a hit, the first one might not penetrate completely or might not have any obvious effect. So they'd keep pounding away at it until it either brewed or the crew was seen to bail.

What I am coming to is that for me, the game already presents me with a convincing representation of that whole process. I approached it with some rules of thumb regarding what are and are not good tactics for each matchup of tank vs. tank, and as I have gained experience of playing the game those rules of thumb have become more refined. But still in the end each shot is a roll of the die. As it should be.

Now, for those who miss the tooltip and its information, I am not opposed to your having it. Frankly, I couldn't care one way or another. What I might be opposed to is devoting an inordinate amount of development time to getting such a feature to work instead of getting some other feature to work, such as the ability to shoot at attacking aircraft, or developing a "follow me" command for a column of vehicles. I think there is quite a list of such features that deserve greater priority.

Since we are offering opinions in this thread, that is mine.

Michael

[LukeFF]

Fifty years of playing wargames.

In other words, you're full of it.

[Stele]

I actually miss that data being displayed. It was somewhat educational, and I appreciated the work the team did to make that information available. I'm fine without it as I play CMx2, but it was interesting "fluff" while playing the game.

[altipueri]

In other words, you're full of it.

Absolutely brimming over with it dear boy. With a smattering of condescention to boot.

Or should that be condensation?

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"

[jack6251]

I think there should be an option in-game to have these stats or not, a turn on/off command for those who just want to game and those who want a more real experience.