Question about hitting model for tanks in CMBB

[Ari Maenpaa]

One thing which has every now and then been criticized in CMBO is the universal hit model for all the different tank models. Ie. when a shot hits tank frontally, for instance, it has exactly the same percentual possibility to hit on turret regardless of the tank’s type.

So, if I have understood correctly, in CMBO there are differences in the silhouette ratings, but once a shot "passes" the silhouette "mask" and scores, the hit chart for any turreted tank is identical, right? Correspondingly all the turretless sp guns share a model of their own, I presume.

This little feature has been brought out numerous times in the "grog discussions" concerning Panzer IV’s highly vulnerable front turret in CMBO. In reality Pz IV’s thin frontal turret was very flat in proportion to the hull when compared to other tank types and thus hard to hit, but in the game it’s as easy to hit as all other turrets.

So I would like to know if any changes has been made to CMBB in this respect. In addition it would be nice to hear if the current "hit box" modelling has been evolved in any way. Improved modelling for large rounded armor surfaces comes to mind (Needed for the KT's turret for instance). Yes, I have seen the numerous additions to the penetration effects, but these are something else.

I understand very well that it’s a massive task to create individual hit charts for 150 - 200 different tank types, but on the other hand CMBB has been in the works for quite a long time and BTS has grown bigger since the birth of CMBO.

In the waiting of CMBB,

Ari

[phancucchin@aol.com]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

I understand very well that it’s a massive task to create individual hit charts for 150 - 200 different tank types, but on the other hand CMBB has been in the works for quite a long time and BTS has grown bigger since the birth of CMBO.

In the waiting of CMBB,

Ari

I was not sure if that erally is teh case but am searching and it seems to be the truth of it. The tank profiles, in the efffect, have the distorted shapes to them.

Perhaps the survey of what the eastern front tank typically might have as the general profile might be investigated so as to remove the "bighead" panzer IV syndromes. Most russian tank possess the rather smallish turret fronts i think. Therefore reduce this distribution as way to be fair to all tanks in teh general area of the eastern frontal warfare.

Hope I make sensefullness.

[illo]

Well have a look at Königstiger front turret....then compare it to KV-2s front turret.

Which one is easier to hit.

There was some reason to desings which had sloping also horizontally and not only vertically. I takes away quite bit of realism ignoring it.

How many times you have shot KT in cmbo from dead 12 scoring side turret hit and ricochet? And still its about 2/3 of what is visible from front. This 65% of KT "front turret" is technically sloped at 70degrees. Its not minor issue.

[Redwolf]

I don't think that is needed for all tanks.

It only affects tanks with a drastically thinner turret than hull, like the late Pz IV. Just do a special armor value like the "+" on the Tiger or the "C" on Panther and friends, like "S" which means the turret is hard to hit, at least the part which is so thin.

[John Kettler]

Ari,

Excellent thoughts. Also, it seems bizarre to me that BFC would put such prodigious research effort into improving terminal ballistics and the like while semiignoring the vital issue of shot distribution on the target. I'm hoping for substantial improvements in this area.

CMBB will have a host of tanks with widely varying turret size fractions. For an extreme example, consider the Panzer I and the KV-2. The former has a turret which is so small as to be nearly nonexistent, while the latter has one making a substantial fraction of total presented area, not to mention being easy to hit by virtue of its towering height, thus nullifying many range estimation errors. Thus, the relative value of being hulldown should be much greater for the Panzer I, whose exposed turret should be practically unhittable except at very close range, being both narrow and extremely low. I suspect that at longer ranges round to round dispersion may well exceed the turret's dimensions. A T-34 would be pretty challenging, too, certainly easier than a dug-in Panther. The dug-in T-34/85 would seem to fall somewhere between a stock T-34 and a Panther.

Likewise, some tanks are narrow frontally but big flank targets, like the Tiger II, while others, such as the Lend-Lease Valentine, Matilda II and Sherman, have virtually the same target area from the side as from the front.

I have no idea how the CMBB code treats such issues as angle off, but rules for miniatures have been dealing with such matters for decades, and a guy named Brian Stokes went so far as to develop computerized hit distribution charts for a range of encounter aspects, creating tank sihouettes modified by viewing angle, upon which were superimposed numbers reflecting the likelihood of hitting specific areas of the tank.

Fundamentally, I believe the whole issue of engaging hulldown tanks comes down to how well BFC models desired aimpoint vs. actual aimpoint and then the various gunnery issues affecting accuracy after the aimpoint is chosen. I shall be especially interested to see whether specific aimpoints are supported, such as the turret ring shot favored by crews with stubby 75s or the cupola shot favored by Russian ATR crews against Tiger tanks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[phancucchin@aol.com]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

CMBB will have a host of tanks with widely varying turret size fractions. For an extreme example, consider the Panzer I and the KV-2

My point iss that the game should examine the majority players (yes i know KV2 is interesting but it is a very rare vehicle). The T34, Panzer III, Panzer IV should not be penalized. Perhaps this can eb the sliding scale depending on the period in representation? Since T34/76 has weakness of armor in the turret, it too would see the bighead syndrome? Does any tank get the reverse effects? That is, better armor on the turret front leads to high survival?

Interestingly, it is as you say something that has been overlooked?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Steve said at one point that this would not change until the rewrite, unfortunately.

EDIT: I do like Redwolf's suggestion.

[ August 04, 2002, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Thanks for all the replies. Some quick comments:

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Steve said at one point that this would not change until the rewrite, unfortunately.

Sad news. But some minor improvements to the current model can’t be an unreasonable thing to expect, I hope.

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't think that is needed for all tanks.

It only affects tanks with a drastically thinner turret than hull, like the late Pz IV. Just do a special armor value like the "+" on the Tiger or the "C" on Panther and friends, like "S" which means the turret is hard to hit, at least the part which is so thin.

Yep, quite possibly the problem could be solved by a lot fewer and more generalized hit chart models, I just wanted to bring out the "worst" option.

Your tweak suggestion sounds good as we already know by the examples that it should be possible to implement it. Something has already been done along this line, I could imagine

Originally posted by John Kettler:

it seems bizarre to me that BFC would put such prodigious research effort into improving terminal ballistics and the like while semiignoring the vital issue of shot distribution on the target.

I agree. It would be similar to the ‘turret speed - hull rotation’ contradiction, originally brought out by Redwolf, where the former is very carefully simulated, but the latter so broadly generalized that it almost nullifies the effort put in the former one.

Anyway, soon we shall see what has been done and what hasn’t.

Regards,

Ari

[phancucchin@aol.com]

can someone tell if this is true for tank with rotating turret type?:

Hits can be on:

lower hull

upper hull

track

gun

turret

anyone know the numbers for percentage respective to distributions? is mantlet a hit type?

is there differents for assault guns? spat types?

looking at the tank 4 view pictures at the website www.onwar.com, the russian tank types T34/76, T34/85 and IS2 all have very small turret fronts. A generic distribution for russian tank types could be very acceptable. Perhaps the distributions can be for nationality and year. The most commonest tanks for side/year being the rule. The german 1942-43 using the Panzer III and PanzerIV and Tiger lets say.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by phancucchin@aol.com:

can someone tell if this is true for tank with rotating turret type?:

Hits can be on:

lower hull

upper hull

track

gun

turret

The only one we know the exact number for is lower hull, which is 12% (Steve confirmed this). Upper hull is somewhere around 50%, turret around 30%, (rough numbers here). Gun hit is about 1%, track hit takes up the rest probably around 7%.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot:

is there differents for assault guns? spat types?

It would have to be different for turretless vehicles, but I never tested for them so I don't have any numbers.

Mantlet is not a hit type. It is included in turret hits.

[ August 04, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[aka_tom_w]

Great thread!

Good point

I agree that this aspect of the "to-hit" percentages on the frontal aspect of tanks in CMBB should be looked at perhaps .

Great thoughts.

-tom w

[ August 04, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[phancucchin@aol.com]

The only one we know the exact number for is lower hull, which is 12% (Steve confirmed this). Upper hull is somewhere around 50%, turret around 30%, (rough numbers here). Gun hit is about 1%, track hit takes up the rest probably around 7%.

the lower hull would seem too high. I would expect higher numbers for the hits on the tracks

/wheels than lower hull.

[karch]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Also, it seems bizarre to me that BFC would put such prodigious research effort into improving terminal ballistics and the like while semiignoring the vital issue of shot distribution on the target.

That's quite a statement. Now how do you know that it was ignored. What if the game engine just did not allow those type of calculations to be made. If it's not in there because it couldn't be, then was it ignored?

I'm sure they have a far better grasp of the fundamentals of armored combat than most of us, but getting a program to include EVERYTHING is a very long and expensive process.

If it was left out of the game because it would have taken 3-9 months more coding does that mean it was ignored?

Sure there are things I wish were in the game, but it eventually needs to be finished to sell and make them some money. You can't keep developing it forever, you'll never make any money on it. Look at all the howling on this board about getting CMBB out the door. Do you want them to delay the game by another 9 months to recode the models to include additional hull and turret angles? I don't think so.

I understand your wishes, but it bothers me to see them put in an disrespectful manner.

[John Kettler]

karch,

Since BFC itself made a big deal about major improvements to gunnery modeling, improved modeling

of terminal effects, etc., in CMBB, some of which I witnessed personally at the sneak preview I attended, I was rather surprised to learn that we apparently (note use of conditional) are stuck with the old "where it hit" approach and said so. I made it clear that I didn't know the working of the code either, or did you miss that?

If there is some fundamental limit in the code, as Ari's update indicates, then I guess those of us wanting maximum fidelity in the gunnery simulation will have to wait for CM II, but I fail to see how highlighting a significant gunnery modeling issue is "disrespectful." After all, BFC opened the topic in the first place. And please, let's not trail red herrings about delaying CMBB. BFC will do the best it can within its schedule, budget and available personnel, and I have no doubt people are going to practically wet themselves when they see the game. My reviews were explicit on this point.

Finally, karch, I'm posting concerns shared not just by me but by other informed individuals here. I'm trying to aid the overall CMBB development process by providing detailed feedback to ACTOR, our sneak preview host, and rexford. Nor am I shooting from the hip, having spent over 11 years as a military analyst at Hughes Aircraft Company's Missile Systems Group and Rockwell's North American AeroSpace Operations. I've worked multiple target attack studies (antiship, runway busting, antitank) which directly considered delivery accuracy variations and target induced aimpoint shift as they related to kill probability. A shift of a few feet can make a huge difference in lethality.

Your points about development time and freezing the design are well taken, but some of us find it strange that the game faithfully models the minutiae of the ricochet shot into the driver's compartment when firing at early Panthers but in no way realistically addresses the often gross differences in turret size fractions and the presented areas of various AFV components. These are not trivial matters and have real impact on CM battles, as shown by reports of Panzer IV players

preferring to fight fully exposed because of the disproportionate number of turret hits when fighting hulldown. Why? Because the code treats the turret as being much bigger than it really was, thus forcing players into militarily insane "solutions."

Regards,

John Kettler

[aka_tom_w]

"If there is some fundamental limit in the code, as Ari's update indicates, then I guess those of us

wanting maximum fidelity in the gunnery simulation will have to wait for CM II, but I fail to see how

highlighting a significant gunnery modeling issue is "disrespectful." After all, BFC opened the topic in

the first place. And please, let's not trail red herrings about delaying CMBB. BFC will do the best it can

within its schedule, budget and available personnel, and I have no doubt people are going to

practically wet themselves when they see the game. My reviews were explicit on this point.

Finally, karch, I'm posting concerns shared not just by me but by other informed individuals here. I'm

trying to aid the overall CMBB development process by providing detailed feedback to ACTOR, our

sneak preview host, and rexford. Nor am I shooting from the hip, having spent over 11 years as a

military analyst at Hughes Aircraft Company's Missile Systems Group and Rockwell's North American

AeroSpace Operations. I've worked multiple target attack studies (antiship, runway busting, antitank)

which directly considered delivery accuracy variations and target induced aimpoint shift as they related

to kill probability. A shift of a few feet can make a huge difference in lethality.

Your points about development time and freezing the design are well taken, but some of us find it

strange that the game faithfully models the minutiae of the ricochet shot into the driver's

compartment when firing at early Panthers but in no way realistically addresses the often gross

differences in turret size fractions and the presented areas of various AFV components. These are not

trivial matters and have real impact on CM battles, as shown by reports of Panzer IV players

preferring to fight fully exposed because of the disproportionate number of turret hits when fighting

hulldown. Why? Because the code treats the turret as being much bigger than it really was, thus

forcing players into militarily insane "solutions.""

I agree COMPLETELY with John on this issue, and while he indicates he is NOT shooting from the hip while commenting on this issue, my complete lack of ANY military experience would mean that my comments here "could be" taken as shooting from the hip So....

I will settle for:

"I agree COMPLETELY with John on this issue"

Thanks

-tom w

[phancucchin@aol.com]

My sister reviewed this english so I hope it is better.

Since the Mantlet is not a target type, is the panzer IV represented by 50mm turret armor? Is the Panther represented by Turret 110mm@79° or

Mantlet 100mm@round?

In the case of the Panther, the rounded Mantlet covers approximately 80-85% of the front of turret area. In the case of the PanzerIV it is less, maybe 40-45%.

Isn't the Panther modeled as having the weak point? Could the Panzer IV be modeled as having the strong point then? The strong point being the Mantlet covering the front of the turret?

The hit distribution being vehicle specified is a solution that will need too much work I assume. Some solution that at least negotiates better modeling for the major tank vehicles like the T34, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger I and maybe assault gun types could make it into the game?

Phan

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Your points about development time and freezing the design are well taken, but some of us find it strange that the game faithfully models the minutiae of the ricochet shot into the driver's compartment when firing at early Panthers but in no way realistically addresses the often gross differences in turret size fractions and the presented areas of various AFV components. These are not trivial matters and have real impact on CM battles, as shown by reports of Panzer IV players

preferring to fight fully exposed because of the disproportionate number of turret hits when fighting hulldown. Why? Because the code treats the turret as being much bigger than it really was, thus forcing players into militarily insane "solutions."

Not to argue with you, John (so far as I can tell you have the right of it), but just to indulge in a bit of speculation: I am frequently reminded that CM, like most wargames designed for the hobbyist, is a work of art. As such, it also represents the idiosyncratic interests of the two guys (now five) that put it together. That means that within the time available to them, they may have lavished great attention on the things they were aware of and cared about and neglected others. At any rate, I am sure that in their position that's what I would have done, if for no better reason than that I am not omniscient and cannot see the whole vast picture of that event called World War II.

Hopefully, with time and the informed input of people like yourself, the weak spots in the game will get filled out. But for my part, I am neither amazed nor dismayed that it has not reached that exalted status as yet.

Michael

[karch]

I don't disagreee with any of the requests that will make the game better. I just think there are many people that are show absolutely no tact when requesting more features.

I think many of the requests come across more like demands from people expecting perfection and it bothers me. BFC obviously has thicker skin than myself, which is good.

Again, it's not the requests that are made, but the manner in which BFC is scorned for not making the game as perfect as you and others want it to be that bugs me.

[TSword]

Uhhh, i cannot believe what i heard in this thread !

One single additional variable enters the equation !

Take your normal distribution for a standard Tank, and then fill in a look up table with the deviations for each Major plate (and if memory is scarce take the front plates only 4 in our case with turreted tanks). Now once you were gone through the decision which section is "hit" -> Lower-, Upper-, Turret- Front call a probability to hit function which has your actual deviation value, if it's bigger than the default -> Same as in CMBO, else linear growing prob of miss (0.5 size turret has 0.5 chance to be hit then a 1.0 size turret).

Where is the problem ???

Greets

Daniel

[Ari Maenpaa]

Although most "manner criticism" seem to go JK’s way, I guess I’m at least as "guilty". After all John just replied to my post, though naturally I can only speak for myself.

My questions/comments earlier in the thread may seem impolite though it’s not intentional. Sorry for any inconvenience.

To put some perspective in the matter I’m the first to admit that the things I have wished for are only trivial details when compared to the new innovations like the deathclock or the more realistic penetration effects. Not to even mention the new covered arcs commands for tanks or optics and etc...

Anyway the shot distribution model might have more impact on CMBB than it had on CMBO. That’s because of the much bigger and radical variety of armour in CMBB. The other guys have risen some potential problem cases.

For some of us there is ALWAYS one more little detail which "needs" tweaking. Fix this and soon there’s another

Ari

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by phancucchin@aol.com:

Since the Mantlet is not a target type, is the panzer IV represented by 50mm turret armor? Is the Panther represented by Turret 110mm@79° or

Mantlet 100mm@round?

Pz IVJ frontal turret armor = 50mm * armor quality 95% = 47,5mm

Panther frontal turret armor = 110mm * armor quality 85% = 93,5mm@round

In the case of the Panther, the rounded Mantlet covers approximately 80-85% of the front of turret area. In the case of the PanzerIV it is less, maybe 40-45%.

Mantlets have been abstracted into the front turret armor values, I believe.

Isn't the Panther modeled as having the weak point?

All tanks have weak points. Every shot has 1% possibility to hit at one.

Ari

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

Pz IVJ frontal turret armor = 50mm * armor quality 95% = 47,5mm

Panther frontal turret armor = 110mm * armor quality 85% = 93,5mm@round

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

A little information from BFC about this problem would be verrry nice.

They did for about every misconception in your post.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by redwolf:

They did for about every misconception in your post.[/QB]

Glad that you know it.

Could you be more specifically?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Schoerner: