sttp Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 I'm talking about the penetration calculator located here: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ Do the CM2 titles pull their penetration data from the same sources? I've had pretty good luck with this site... but with a few notable and hugely frustrating (as in truly game changing) exceptions. I guess maybe those instances could be chalked up to random chance, the modeling of subpar German armor during various timeframes, things like that.... What are other people's experiences with this website and its predictive capability with respect to Battle for Normandy, et al.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butler69 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 In my own opinion I find that everything penetration related () to be completely accurate. I've played CMx2 since late 2014 and I haven't had any moments where I go "That's complete bull****" except to my own tactical errors lmao. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, sttp said: Do the CM2 titles pull their penetration data from the same sources? I have no idea about that. They use data from multiple sources though, no idea if this is one of them. 10 minutes ago, sttp said: I've had pretty good luck with this site... but with a few notable and hugely frustrating (as in truly game changing) exceptions. I guess maybe those instances could be chalked up to random chance, the modeling of subpar German armor during various timeframes, things like that.... Yes, those are modeled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger73 Posted December 23, 2017 Share Posted December 23, 2017 Note that http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ calculates using a "flat on" or perpendicular 90 degree impact against the armor thickness described. It does not account for angles nor slopes. Still, it shows good stuff. CM2 penetrations depend on many of the factors the site cannot account. I agree with @butler69 that CM is about as realistic as a game can get for this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 I've been playing around with that penetration calculator quote a bit, and I haven't found any points where it differed too much from what happens in game. But if you found any weird results, let's hear. It's often interesting stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttp Posted December 25, 2017 Author Share Posted December 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: I've been playing around with that penetration calculator quote a bit, and I haven't found any points where it differed too much from what happens in game. But if you found any weird results, let's hear. It's often interesting stuff. Unfortunately I don't recall the specific armor matchup, but I do recall that StuG's have been involved a few times. That may be just coincidence or bad luck though. (Note: I am not implying that BFC has any of the armor values wrong. If there actually are any discrepancies, it could very well be that the penetration calculator site is off.) Also, just wondering... do the CM2 titles model the fact that armor is weaker near its joints? This would make an especially big difference with respect to some of those Sherman variants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, sttp said: Unfortunately I don't recall the specific armor matchup, but I do recall that StuG's have been involved a few times. That may be just coincidence or bad luck though. (Note: I am not implying that BFC has any of the armor values wrong. If there actually are any discrepancies, it could very well be that the penetration calculator site is off.) Also, just wondering... do the CM2 titles model the fact that armor is weaker near its joints? This would make an especially big difference with respect to some of those Sherman variants. Don't worry, I don't think you're implying anything. Sometimes people notice odd things happening in the game, and in rare cases they turn out to be bugs that are later corrected. That makes the game better for all of us. I don't know if the game models armour joints, but don't all Shermans have either one big angled block of armour on the front hull, or they have a cast rounded hull? Not sure if that should be vulnerable to those effects...? Edited December 25, 2017 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 I wish BFC could find a way to bring back the - hit chans, penetration chans - popup from CM1. I know this has been discussed before and that there seems to be some kind of a problem with bringing this feature into CM2...but it would be a nice thing to have... Especially for beginners it would be a nice tool to use to get a feeling for the kill capability, survivability of various equipment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 25, 2017 Share Posted December 25, 2017 I recall once asking Charles a question about the quality of the armor on the Hetzer in the game. Not only did he mention the Brinell hardness numbers for the steel used in the specs, he also said the side armor was allotted inferior quality compared to the bow. I was like "Oooooooooh!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, sttp said: Also, just wondering... do the CM2 titles model the fact that armor is weaker near its joints? I don't believe so. As for the website, it's data is almost certainly derived from World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery which is also one of if not the primary source for Combat Mission. But in addition to not factoring rounded armor the website does not consider armor quality. Edited December 26, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 As already covered, the data (i.e. measurements of thickness, angle, etc.) used in CM comes from a wide variety of sources. The equations that handle the data also come from a variety of sources, however the primary source is the same as the online calculator. One of the study's authors was a tester for us while the study was in the process of being finalized for publication. Probably the biggest difference between the online calculator and CM is the treatment of randomness. There are several key parts of both the ballistics and the armor behavior that have a degree of +/- chance of modification from the theoretical values. These chances are "best guesses" to approximate things which are impractical to quantify, but proven to exist in real life. Things like shot traps and off-spec manufacturing are the two big ones I can think of. In other words, we try to account for documented narrow and broad battlefield results which, according to strict specifications, wouldn't happen. I doubt the online calculator goes into that level of detail. Keep in mind that the armor and ballistics stuff in CM2 now started with CM1. We've had nearly 18 years of vetting from players over that time period, with corresponding improvements in response to demonstrable problems with particular circumstances. While I am not saying that CM2, as it is today, is perfect... I'm confident on saying that CM2 is "innocent until proven guilty" And by that I mean it would take a pretty significant and dedicated effort to demonstrate something in need of fixing. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttp Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: As already covered, the data (i.e. measurements of thickness, angle, etc.) used in CM comes from a wide variety of sources. The equations that handle the data also come from a variety of sources, however the primary source is the same as the online calculator. One of the study's authors was a tester for us while the study was in the process of being finalized for publication. Probably the biggest difference between the online calculator and CM is the treatment of randomness. There are several key parts of both the ballistics and the armor behavior that have a degree of +/- chance of modification from the theoretical values. These chances are "best guesses" to approximate things which are impractical to quantify, but proven to exist in real life. Thanks for spelling it out, Steve. That's exactly the kind of thoroughness I was hoping someone could provide, and perfectly explains the unexpected results I've seen a handful of times. Also, it's great to hear that you guys are pulling data from the same sources as are used on that website. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.