Other wargames vs CMBO

[wamphyri]

Hey,

This is more of a topic for the GROGS out there. Basically, I was wondering if tanks are modeled the same way in the higher-end(CMBO,panzer elite(I think), steel panthers), as far as it's stength/weaknesses, armor, armor penetration, etc..

I downloaded the Panzer elite demo and after playin that it got me thinkin about all this. I was in a m4a3 and had to shoot at tanks many more times to achieve a kill than the same tank does in CMBO against the same tank. And this wasn't counting misses.

Anyone have some insight about this?? Is CMBO the most accurate?

Wamphyri

[Chad Harrison]

I have not played Panzer Elite, but I have played other *Big* name WWII games; such as Close Combat.

To sum it up very quickly, the most accurate armour penetration system/algorithm that you are going to find out there is right here. IMHO, this is the best sim you will find for WWII, period. When CMBB comes out soon, it will then be even more accurate than CMBO.

Close Combat, for instance, comes close. They get the right ideas and use rule of thumbs guesstimations more than complex algorithms. They toyed with it until it felt right (much like how Squad Leader was developed). Steel Panthers was along the same lines. A quick, easy, and effecient (for the lower standards) system of armour penetration tables.

Someone will come along with better terms than I have, but it boils down to the fact that BTS is making the best games out there when it comes to realism (and every thing else).

Chad Harrison

[Thomm]

Panzer Elite is supposed to be more accurate geometry-wise because it models both individual armor plates and the path of the shell after penetration.

I do not know about the actual penetration algorithm itself, but the penetration "environment" is more detailed than in CM.

Regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

The Panzer Elite Damage Model is described at:

http://www.wingssimulations.com/damage/damage.html

Regards,

Thomm

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Panzer Elite is supposed to be more accurate geometry-wise because it models both individual armor plates and the path of the shell after penetration.

I do not know about the actual penetration algorithm itself, but the penetration "environment" is more detailed than in CM.

Regards,

Thomm

It has some serious flaws IMHO. IIRC the model is set at a fixed armor angle of 30 degrees. This makes the Panthers front hull like butter for shermans of all calibres. It also makes the Tiger tougher than it should be. I dont think it accounts for side angle either. But too complex an algorithim would be unusable in that style of game due to calculation time.

[Redwolf]

I don't know of any other computer wargame with a halfways reasonable armor model with ww2 angles.

There is one important thing to note, though, and that is that a wargame simulating modern combat doesn't need an angle model badly. HEAT round, both in WW2 and in modern times, treat the angle just as increased thickness along the sinus of the angle. However, modern AP rounds are built to turn into the armor, they do not ricochet like a WW2 AP round from a Panther's front. In effect, modern SABOT rounds seem to follow basically the same armor angle rules as HEAT.

Now, there is an additional thing CMBO gets right, and that is in addition to the angles of the armor plates it correctly processes the angles of position, both vertically and horizontally. Place a Hetzer exactly 45 degress to a thin variant Chruchill and watch the kill chance to see what I mean.

TacOps ignores angles, and in my opinion that is correct for the armor plates, it is by far not as big a disadvantages as it would in a WW2 game. But it also ignores the angles of vehicle positions, a side shot is a side shot at the weak armor, even though the actual angle may increase the effectivly of the side armor. Modern tanks are also more heavily angled vertically, which would makes being shot at from high ground even worse than in WW2.

[Bruno Weiss]

What other wargames? You mean there are other wargames?

[ August 22, 2002, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Weiss ]

[-Havermeyer-]

Uhhh... Yes, Mr. Bruno. There is CMBB.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

... Now, there is an additional thing CMBO gets right, and that is in addition to the angles of the armor plates it correctly processes the angles of position, both vertically and horizontally. Place a Hetzer exactly 45 degress to a thin variant Chruchill and watch the kill chance to see what I mean.

The horizontal angle is right, AFAIK, but I'm not sure about the vertical. At least one thing is false in CM, a high firing position (or the target is on a hillside, for example) does not increase the chance for a top penetration. Indeed seems a shot trap the only chance for a top penetratito.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

... Now, there is an additional thing CMBO gets right, and that is in addition to the angles of the armor plates it correctly processes the angles of position, both vertically and horizontally. Place a Hetzer exactly 45 degress to a thin variant Chruchill and watch the kill chance to see what I mean.

The horizontal angle is right, AFAIK, but I'm not sure about the vertical. At least one thing is false in CM, a high firing position (or the target is on a hillside, for example) does not increase the chance for a top penetration.</font>

[Ace Pilot]

I find it interesting that this discussion equates the most accuracy with the equations that incorporate the most variables. While I applaud the level of detail that CMBO takes into account, and encourage even more efforts in that direction, I have to wonder if the system that tracks the most variables is always going to produce the best results (which I’m defining as comparable to historical results). A good comparison is weather forecasting. I can take into account temperature, winds, humidity and a host of other variables to come up with a weather forecast. But, because there are so many additional factors affecting weather, a forecast simply based on historical trends (i.e., it rained 25% of the time last year, so I’ll predict rain every fourth day) could wind up being more accurate.

In a like manner, I’m wondering if a simpler armor penetration model, but one with the outcome based on historical results, might produce results more in line with every ones expectations.

Again, I’m not advocating this for CMBB. Just throwing this concept out to see what others think of it.

Ace

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

In a like manner, Im wondering if a simpler armor penetration model, but one with the outcome based on historical results, might produce results more in line with every ones expectations.

Well, it basically centers around the angles.

Take my example of the Churchill (thin variant) moving exactly 46 degress to any 75mm L/43-48 gun (Hetzer etc.). It is not vulnerable. Any simpler model would say "side shot" and assume the thinnest possible armor.

These are opposite results and the complex model is historically correct, although it is historically true that a 75mm L/48 shots penetrates the side of a Churchill. But not at 46 degrees.

The whole thing becomes a ess if you consider rounds that are more of less affected by angle, i.e. Tungsteen. How do you model WW2 Tungsteen rounds if you don't have a complete angle model?

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

... Now, there is an additional thing CMBO gets right, and that is in addition to the angles of the armor plates it correctly processes the angles of position, both vertically and horizontally. Place a Hetzer exactly 45 degress to a thin variant Chruchill and watch the kill chance to see what I mean.

The horizontal angle is right, AFAIK, but I'm not sure about the vertical. At least one thing is false in CM, a high firing position (or the target is on a hillside, for example) does not increase the chance for a top penetration.</font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The whole thing becomes a mess if you consider rounds that are more of less affected by angle, i.e. Tungsteen. How do you model WW2 Tungsteen rounds if you don't have a complete angle model?[/QB]

The problem you bring up illustrates the problem with trying to model every variable. You are absolutely right that, in order to model tungsten rounds, you need to model angle. But, by the same token, to get results similar to historical, you also need to model relative hull versus turret size for each type of armor (something I believe other threads say is modeled generically the same for all armor) to accurately reflect where a shot lands. Additionally, we know that gunners were trained to aim for certain spots, which is another variable that, while not modeled, had to affect the historical results. For instance, let’s assume that, according to the model, tank A has a 20% chance to penetrate and knock out tank B, and a 15% chance to immobilize tank B (I’m making these numbers up, so forgive me if they have no basis in reality). However, historically, tank crews in this situation knew that the odds of a knockout were low, so instead, purposefully aimed for the tracks. The result – historically, when tank A engaged tank B, a knockout resulted 5% of the time, but immobilization resulted 50% of the time.

Of course, gathering the data necessary to determine that tank B was immobilized 50% of the time is every bit as hard, if not harder, than trying to model as many of the variables as possible. But I do believe that thinking of these 2 different approaches helps to understand why the model may not always produce the “historically expected” result.

Ace

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Indeed seems a shot trap the only chance for a top penetratito.

What?[/qb]</font>

[Bruno Weiss]

Havermeyer wrote:

Uhhh... Yes, Mr. Bruno. There is CMBB.

I know that. But I thought I heard someone say somefink about some Panzerthis or Steelthat. COMBAT MISSION - There is no substitute!

[PeterWhite]

While it is an excellent question as to whether a simpler model would work better, I am not sure what to do with that hypothesis without a proposed alternative.

Angle is something real tankers were quite aware of. When practical, turreted tanks would often face their opposition at a slight angle rather than straight on. That increases the effective slope on the front armor. It exposes the side armor but at such a glancing angle that penetration was a virtual impossibility.

[MikeyD]

A major advantage of CM over other computer wargames? CM runs on a mac!

[Silvio Manuel]

Scipio: Oh, and of course an artillery shell is the other possibility.

redwolf: Indirect fire only hits top, direct fire never hits the top.

I once lost an M4-105 to a side turret penetration when my own 105mm hit it when a night-out-of-LOS round went fatally astray.

[ August 22, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[The Vyrdolak]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Havermeyer wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uhhh... Yes, Mr. Bruno. There is CMBB.

I know that. But I thought I heard someone say somefink about some Panzerthis or Steelthat. COMBAT MISSION - There is no substitute! </font>

[Redwolf]

The TotP games do not have any angle computation, if they even have different plates per side.

[ September 01, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[KNac]

It has some bugs sometimes, but the most accurate system in in WWIIOL. Each ammo type is modelled, each tank is modelled to individual parts (including things like motor etc). The only thing it lacks is armor fatigue, IMO.

The collision models is very good, as well as all the physics. Haven´t played Panzer Elite, but it probably will be very good too.

Don´t compare tactical wargames with (good) tanks sims, it´s not a good thing. The only game comparable is CM (because it´s too a 3d enviorenment), but I don´think that CM tracks each part of a tank.

[ARRPEEGEE]

Panzer elite!

LOL-does the re-sell version still have the .000 time until shot impact? Gawd that was funny...Every tank was armed with a lazer cannon

Steel Beasts is a very, very good armor sim, but...it's modern (which is just fine by me, but you know how it goes) SB's the best tank sim, ever..until Steel Beasts 2.

But, that's tank sims...As far as wargames (esp. WWII wargames) go, the CM series is really the best you'll find.

[ September 01, 2002, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: mch ]