Realism of ASL or CC

[Guest grunto]

Hi,

How accurate are the tables in ASL considered to be? I know Close Combat has some realism problems. A couple from CC3 which bother me are the overly thick armor of the SU152 and the slow speed of the BTs, as well as the way that they seem to treat BT, T26, and T60 types as all the same. Now the BT may have been a "ronson" but it sure was fast. Close Combat doesn't seem to reflect this. Also, the limitation of 15 units really "limits" the game.

What about ASL... are the armor and gun ratings fairly accurate in the view of those here? I'm working on a prototype of a computer wargame based upon a combination of ASL, Panzerblitz, and standard Squad Leader stats. It will be platoon-level with 5-minute turns and 200-metre "hexes." Does anyone here have any other research materials to recommend along these lines?

BTW, did anyone here ever drop ASL in favor of standard SL? It seems standard SL, while less realistic, simply plays alot better, allowing for larger battles because of the simpler rules. Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble. I'll be sure to buy a copy of CM when it comes out. Question: Is there an underlying engine with just a rudimentary interface which is already done? In other words, are we just waiting mainly for the "movie" parts while the internals are already done?

[L.Tankersley]

I pretty much started with ASL, other than a few SL games played early in my wargaming career. I don't know that I'd say SL (including all the expansions, errata and so on) has significantly simpler rules than ASL. It's true that most published ASL scenarios are quite a bit smaller than the old SL scenarios, but that doesn't mean ASL can't support the larger scenarios -- I'm part of a playtest group that's working on updates of original SL scenarios to ASL, and they play just fine. (Jim Stahler is playtesting these scenarios for the second time now .)

As far as accuracy of ASL tables, first I'll assume you're asking about armor and gun penetration rather than the IFT. ASL is full of abstractions. I seem to recall the armor values are based on thickness of armor (it's in the footnotes somewhere), probably with a seat-of-the-pants adjustment to account for things like slope. The gun basic TK numbers are probably similar. What you're proposing is an abstraction of abstractions from several games, which certainly isn't going to get any MORE accurate (other than by blind chance). That said, I think the ASL numbers are decent for the game's scope - since you're using 2 dice to determine all chances anyway, the resolution of probabilities doesn't need to be that high. Unlikely events are probably more likely in ASL than in reality, and "sure things" in real life probably fail more often in the game for this reason.

If you're really concerned with accuracy, you should start digging for primary sources (as BTS has done) rather than using data that has already been processed and massaged by others for specific purposes. That's a lot of work, of course.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Thomm]

At least in terms of data, Close Combat IV seems to be quite accurate. This is expressed by the fact that Modmakers do not see a need to touch the hardware data files of CC4. They merely change battlegroup and team composition, the cammo schemes and add new vehicles.

There are, however, a lot of simplifications in the game system per se, as you will hear (especially on this board) frequently! But, within the limitations of the engine, the data of part 4 seems to be quite accurate.

Note: Accuracy does not necessarily mean Realism!

Regards, Thomm

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you're really concerned with accuracy, you should start digging for primary sources (as BTS has done) rather than using data that has already been processed and massaged by others for specific purposes. That's a lot of work, of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said Leland. CM is based on a lot of research of military and acedemic studies of WWII. Stuff like armor penetrations in CM are based on very complex and realistic mathematical equations. This makes CM, in this sense, more of a sim than a wargame. The difference between the two is that the former tends to use science and the latter game conventions. ASL, like all wargames we know of, is not a sim by any stretch of the definition I just gave. It also contains many overt mistakes and bad assumptions. Do a SEARCH on "ASL" and you will turn up loads of posts about this.

As for Grunto's last question... I'm not sure I quite understand it. If you mean "is the underlying game complete and we are just waiting to finish the rest" that is pretty much correct. One needs the other for the game to work as a whole. We concentrated on the engine and the interface first, graphics second. We are now trying to finish up the graphics as well as stuff like the manual.

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> At least in terms of data, Close Combat IV

> seems to be quite accurate. This is

> expressed by the fact that Modmakers do

> not see a need to touch the hardware data

> files of CC4.

Sheeese....Chalk one up for the Nazis at Atomic.

The reason you have not seen any 'mods' for CCIV yet is because Atomic ENCODED the data files starting with CCIV. As a matter of fact the reason it was done was just this, to fool their 'valued' customers into thinking the data was good.

But they will be cracked soon, if they are not already (I have not been keeping up with it) as soon as someone with the knowledge in encryption has the time to crack the code.

Rest assured the data is not much better than CCIII and I warrant much worse than CCIII with "REALRED".

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 03-24-2000).]

[dalem]

Grunto-

I'm a huge fan of ASL, but I agree with Leland and Steve about sourcing it. The numbers and values used in ASL, indeed, in any game, are going to reflect the needs of that particular game system, first and foremost. They would rarely translate cleanly from one system to another.

Best to decide what your system needs to portray, grab all the original sources you can (adding all the available numbers for a value and then dividing by the number of sources, of course), then decide on applicable 'fudge factors', etc.

Enjoy!

-dale

[Guest R Cunningham]

Scott,

CC IV data was not encrypted. It was compressed to binary for better transmission over the net for h2h play. The mod makers have already developed tools to unzip the files, edit them and rezip. But there hasn't been any great call for data edits. Most of the modding being done centers around the conversion of maps from CCIII format and from CCIII to CCIV, the editing of the battlegroups, the graphics (German camo and "cartoonish" US tanks). The mods are there but there is no crusade like there was with CCIII. There are still mods for CCIII in the works. One is a complete pacific campaign and the other will be the Winter War with the Finns against the Russians.

Grunto,

ASL was limited by the necessity for the players to run the "engine." It had to be understandable for the player so it got simplified (though a lot of people would never use simple to describe ASL). CM doesn't have that limitation, but even it has abstractions. Like the others say you'll do better getting the raw data and deciding for yourself how to work it into your game design.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> CC IV data was not encrypted.

Not what I read by Atomic prior to release. But I wouldn't know, never bought the game and prob. never will.

But I have played it and I have seen the same lame treatment of infantry that was present in CC3.

> It was compressed to binary...The mod

> makers have already developed tools to

> unzip the files...

IOW it was compressed in a manner that it required special 'tools' to uncompress...tools that Atomic never released? Small difference, IMO.

Also, FWIW I know of NONE of the original REALRED crew that want anything to do with a realism patch for CCIV (for various reasons). So, this may have something to do with no realism patch in the works.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[PanzerLeader]

Hmm...5mn turns? Platoon level?

The Campaign series from Talonsoft with (I think) its fairly accurate tables may help you...

It's exactly the same scale at least...And is enjoyed by many people!

[Guest R Cunningham]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IOW it was compressed in a manner that it required special 'tools' to uncompress...tools that Atomic never released? Small difference, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

heh? Now it is a developer's responsibility to help people mod the game? Gimme a break. They made the change to try to cure connectivity problems people were experiencing. The data is straight as far as I can tell. Atomic recruited a lot of the data guys from the boards and used them in preparing the 4.02 patch. No one is complaining about bad data. The most complaints are directed at the AI (esp. vehicle pathing) and the Battlegroup system. The realism patch under construction (GrogsBoB) changes the vehicle graphics and sound cues but not the actual game data. I think your criticism is misplaced.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> Now it is a developer's responsibility to help people mod the game? Gimme a break.

Excuse me? You give me a break. Where did I say or even imply this? You read too much into this.

> They made the change to try to cure connectivity problems people were experiencing.

Do you really believe this? Considering the attitude of Atomic, and the literally countless statements they have made about how accurate their data was in the past and how everyone else was wrong...and the fact that they stated (albet long before release) that one of the reasons the data was going to be encrypted was to prevent mods, you still believe their (evidently) latest PR line that this is to "cure connectivity problems"? Sure...you looking for a bridge to buy?

> The data is straight as far as I can tell.

I hope so. Hell in CC3 there where columns that had null values (nothing) where Atomic stated this was not allowed! Wonder it did no crash! I am not talking about a mm here or there on armor or penetration, I am talking about plain old bad data QA. Now if you want to talk about incorrect data...I could write a book.

But, if the data is 'straight' now in CC4 why is that infantry are still spotted and mowed down by ANY mg/tank when they are prone, hiding in cover? Still worked that way when I played it (briefly).

> Atomic recruited a lot of the data guys from the boards and used them in preparing the 4.02 patch.

Hmmm, funny that is 180 turn-around from their stance on REALRED and I don't know of ANY of the main people on the RR project that worked on it.

> No one is complaining about bad data.

Sure, I believe that. And 99% of the people on the 'boards' never complained about the data in CC3 either, or the rocket tanks, or infantry dying in droves...

> I think your criticism is misplaced.

I don't.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, both of you guys are correct (I think). Keith very LOUDLY stated that CCIV's data would be "encrypted" for the explicit purpose of preventing MODs. Those were his words, not mine. If the reality of the game is different from Keith's statements, then that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

One reason people aren't clamoring for changes in CCIV, I think, is because many people who bought CCIII did not buy CCIV. Yes, I am sure the hardcore did, but sales figures I've heard from reliable sources stated that CCIV sales were far below fairly modest expectations.

And don't forget that we encrypt our data too This is to prevent PBEM file hacking cheats, compress data for multiplayer, as well as to retain "gatekeeper" status in terms of data integrity. Remember that most of CM's data is displayed and is in real world numbers and therefore not open to opinion.

We have found that many people base their thoughts concerning game data not based on science but instead based on personal opinions. We don't want all the scientific effort we put into CM to be compromised. We've saw the chaos with CCIII Mods and don't want it repeated with CM.

If someone can PROVE why something should be changed, it will be with the next patch. In our opinion that is the way it should be. Accountability and integrity are things most developers duck, but we welcome.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-24-2000).]

[Guest R Cunningham]

Scott,

Well, then I don't know where you are coming from. You call the Atomic guys Nazis and claim the data was encrypted to stop mods. I point out that the data is not encrypted but compressed and modders have developed tools to deal with that. Any your answer is "it was compressed in a manner that it required special 'tools' to uncompress...tools that Atomic never released? Small difference, IMO." Does that not imply that Atomic was trying to prevent mods and that in order to show that they weren't they should have released a file tool to allow the data to be changed as easily as when they were just text files?

Atomic consists of several people. KZ gets a bad rap, but not all the guys who work or worked there are like him. The designer of CC IV, who was the guy who got the would-be modders involved in the prep and testing of the second patch has left for greener pastures. He made changes based on player input alot like BTS has done.

Several of the realred folks were recruited for the patch testing. If you go to the clubssi board or ryan's CCIV board you will see complaints and you will see people modding the game, it just isn't on the scale it was with CCIII and this lower level of activity has nothing to do with the file format.

[Fionn]

Well, the designer for CC IV was a MUCH better and more conscientious person than KZ. I had dealings with the CCIV designer on a few occasions both before the game came out and after and while I mightn't have agreed with all his decisions and conclusions he was honest and nice.

Where's he gone anyways? I hadn;t heard about that but had lost touch after CCIV's release.

[Guest PeterNZ]

Yeha

Keith's Z (head of Atomic) is a dork.

I mailed Atomic, and the only good thing was i got a reply straight from Keith. I asked (just after cc2 was announced), if there would be a map-maker for CC2. He said no, because it was too much work for the team to do and it didn't really make any profit for them.

so i said fair enough, and asked if the option would be there to add maps in, just leave the code open enough for extra maps and stuff. He said no, because they were probably going to do an addon anyway (! haha) and that making those maps was "too hard" because each had to be hand done and rendered.

Made me go "grrr" in the end, when I've seen a few very nice CC2 maps made by fans, (which was my point to him, it doesn't matter how hard, someone will do it), and when you come to install them you have to piss around so much. Thank goodness I don't feel CC series and Atomic are the only place i can find a wargame i like.

Actually, just after cc3 came out i sent a "told you so" email to Atomic re: player made maps haha :> couldn't resist.

PeterNZ

[Guest R Cunningham]

Fionn,

No one knows for sure where eric is going, but most people are guessing that he's hooking up with the guys who left Talonsoft for Breakaway Games. He went to Maryland on a recon mission this past weekend. He has given his notice but apparently he's still working on research for CC V. Don't have any idea when his last day with Atomic will be.

[Fionn]

Yeah I got the feeling he was a bit unhappy at how KZ was interfering with his work.

When he gave me an interview for CCIV and Keith found out about it Keith demanded to read all the questions I sent in and OK all answers etc etc due to Keith's "special relationship and love" for me no doubt LOL .

That kind of stupid meddling costs you as KZ is about to find out when Eric leaves. I wish him the best. I wouldn't like to hang around in Atomic anyways. Sounds like it has only been going downhill recently.

[Lee]

Wouldn't it be neat if Steve and Charles went over all the tables and

such in ASL and made them as accurate as possible (given the

limits of the system)? It would be the ultimate edition of ASL.

[Fionn]

Well ASL is constrained by the fact that armour etc values are all abstracted into a single number. CM uses variables for thickness, slope, quality etc.

ASL simply can't be as accurate as an engine which uses the right real-world data EVER !

[Lee]

I realize that, that's why I said given the limits of the system.

But at least they could make it as accurate as it could be.

[Thomm]

Dear Scott! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But, if the data is 'straight' now in CC4 why is that infantry are still spotted and mowed down by ANY mg/tank when they are prone, hiding in cover? Still worked that way when I played it (briefly).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am convinced that your infantry was spotted by other infantry (which you may not even have seen).

Yesterday I sneaked up a Bazooka team to a group of no less than four German tanks. The team got off all it's four missiles, killed a Panzer IV and sneaked away UNDETECTED. This was possible, because there was no enemy infantry around.

Now, the opposite situation: you spot a enemy team with your leading infantry element and happen to have a tank with a clear line-of-sight to that enemy team. What will you do? Exactly! And this is what the AI does, nothing more, nothing less. I do not mind to play by the same rules as the AI, which is: kill the infantry and the tanks will be easy prey.

It is a pity that you have such bad feelings about Atomic and CC IV. I think it is really a fun game with a lot of improvements! And do not judge it by the demo! That one is really bad! Game's much better!

Regards, Thomm

[gaffertape]

Thomm

I don't think that anybody is bashing Atomic or CCIV for personal reasons. There's a great deal wrong with the game. CCIV has seen a wealth of posts on THIS board, and the one you just posted is one of the very few positive reviews. I do give you credit for your patience with the game. Mine was uninstalled after two days of utter frustration.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> Dear Scott!

> I am convinced that your infantry was

> spotted by other infantry (which you may

> not even have seen).

Good! I am glad that you are convinced...to bad that this was not the case.

I have played the Close Combat series for way to long to not understand the way sighting works and from what I saw in my brief play of CCIV they have made no or VERY modest changes to the same LOS model that was used in CC3...and the LOS model used in CC3 was (to put it bluntly) screwed.

I truely am glad you like CCIV, but I don't and I reserve the right to point out its flaws occasionally.

------------------

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 03-26-2000).]

[Guest R Cunningham]

Scott,

No one is saying you don't have the right to point out flaws in any of the CC games. There are flaws a plenty but the new LOS model in CC IV isn't really one of them. It wasn't just modestly changed from CC III. It was radically altered. In CC III infantry were superfluous not only because they were killed so easily, but also because tanks didn't need their help. In CC IV, tanks without infantry are blind. Your tank won't spot an enemy infantry team unless it is within 40 meters or so. Infantry are now important to protect the tanks from infantry ambushes.

This is what Thomm was trying to show. Like him I've been able to take out tanks by sneaking infantry up for a flank shot. This works when I've cleared out the enemy infantry from the area, but often my sneaking bazooka team will get wiped out because there was a Platoon Leader team hidden near the tanks that spotted my guys.

[Pirate]

Wow, Eric Young is going to Break Away Games!

I wonder what Charlie Kibler thinks of that.

He left Avalon Hill because he would not work with Eric.

CC4 is not encrypted. The files were opened within 24 hours after the demo release. It was moded the next day. Both Ron and Mick are looking at mods and the game very hard. Are they not part of the Real Red crew?

KZ is a dork, but he means well.

Eric is just another shmo looking for work.