Unit info window

[Holo]

Have this been done yet? Any screenshot, M1A2 stats perhaps?

[Battlefront.com]

The unit UI has been in and working for months now. However, each vehicle is put in all at once, never in pieces. Meaning, until we do the M1A2 model there are no stats to show because the game has no knowledge of the M1A2 existing.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Can we see a vehicle that is in the game?

Will each weapon have a info panal?

i.e. if a squad is carrying a RPG-7v can I bring up a info panel on that and anything else the squad is carrying?

[Battlefront.com]

I'll try doing up something in a few days to show you what info is shown. I'll use a M1A1.

As for what info is shown, no... we don't show specifics for a weapon of any sort. There is a picture of a M249 or an RPG, for example. That's it. The manual will have various bits of information to help people that are not familiar with what these things are. Unlike other CM games, however, the number of weapons is relatively small and largely familiar to wargamers.

Steve

[Holo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As for what info is shown, no... we don't show specifics for a weapon of any sort.

Does this mean that we can't see penetration values for tank guns as in CMx1?

Unlike other CM games, however, the number of weapons is relatively small and largely familiar to wargamers.

What about future CMx2 WW2 game? I supose engine is capable of displaying at least same amount of info as CMx1?

[Battlefront.com]

Holo,

Does this mean that we can't see penetration values for tank guns as in CMx1?

Correct. For something like this there are no real easy answers anyway. In WWII it was pretty much slope and thickness with composition (rolled, face hardened, etc) thrown in as a lesser value. In modern times it is far from that simple. Radically different armor types exist, such as reactive and Chobham. Not only does their thickness mean very little (or nothing at all, like with reactive armor, but it also means dramatically different results are possible depending on what is hiting what. On top of that, stuff like reactive armor comes in many different flavors and is rarely present over the entire vehicle. Just critical parts of it.

In short, there is no way we can show you some hard numbers that are even remotely meaningful. What we can do, and I'll show an example of soon, is show roughly how much at risk a vehicle is to anti-tank missiles, large munitions, medium munitions, and small munitions.

What about future CMx2 WW2 game? I supose engine is capable of displaying at least same amount of info as CMx1?

In theory we can show anything we want even in CM:SF. The problem is making it practical so that it is actually useful to the player. The interface for one setting is therefore somewhat customized for the weapons/units of that time period. We can reshape it any way we want to better fit whatever subject matter we move on to cover next.

Steve

[Holo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In WWII it was pretty much slope and thickness with composition (rolled, face hardened, etc) thrown in as a lesser value. In modern times it is far from that simple. Radically different armor types exist, such as reactive and Chobham.

Still, you must've been guided by some RHAe values for MBT's (like on CollinsJ Tank Protection Level site), as well as for gun ammo, so why not show them to user (for example M1A2 turret from the same site 940-960 vs KE, 1320-1620 vs HEAT)

[Battlefront.com]

Holo,

Still, you must've been guided by some RHAe values for MBT'

Sure, but it still isn't that simple. A Stryker's slat armor adds nothing to the resistance of the vehicles actual armor, but it can stop certain types of RPG rounds dead, partially defeat other SOMETIMES, and do absolutely nothing for others. Tandem warheads also are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

so why not show them to user

Because without the other factors spelled out these values are pretty much useless. In fact, even as the developer of this game I don't care about these numbers. Not even a little bit. When in the game these things are useless bits of information so I'd rather concentrate on things that matter to me as the player. And those things are rather simple...

If I have a M1A1 I don't want to run into any type of ATGM, nor do I want to risk getting hit by an RPG round. Getting a track blown off is always a possibility. Against enemy tanks, I don't want to risk a hit from anything either. Even a T-55 can mess up my Abrams pretty badly depending on where it hits. A T-72 has a decent chance of knocking it out.

In short... a M1A1 is vulnerable to a wide range of things on the battlefield. Worrying about one in particular vs. another is a sure way to lose a tank! That means I am going to play to the US' strengths and not sit still in the open and try to exchange shots with whatever is shooting at me.

There is a HUGE difference between CM:SF and CMx1 in this regards. In CMx1 if you had certain vehicles in certain conditions vs certain enemies you knew you could pretty safely do anything you wanted with the vehicle and not seriously risk losing it. Shots would bounce off and you'd nail the pesky thing that was plinking at you. Not so in CM:SF. That 17 year old with an RPG round as old as he is can cause some serious damage no matter what you got. An AT-14 is even worse. And if a T-62 or T-72 manages to score a hit, it has a good chance of doing more than rattling some eardrums.

Therefore, the best tactic is to avoid being hit. And from the other side the best tactic is to wait as long as you can to get off the best shot, then hope for the best. If you have an Abrams you don't have to hope much Pretty much anything you shoot at you'll hit, pretty much anything you hit won't move again. So why does it matter what the little numbers say? It's just a distraction, and a distraction that is not even all that relevant because of all the other factors I've mentioned.

Steve

[Kineas]

Still, I have some questions about it:

1. will every rule be listed in the manual at least, so I have a chance to infer what will happen on the battlefield if I fire this thing at that target?

2. In the program code you will have a clean representation of all these rules and conditions you mentioned. What I would like to see is a bit of indication of them in the UI. (Provided they aren't all kept in secret for gameplay purposes) If tables do not work any more, maybe you could just list them in a similar way than in CMBB already:

Stryker

- has slat armour

- vulnerable to RPG-29

- has smoke discharger

- armour resistance xxxx KE, yyyy HEAT

that's all. You got the idea. But it seems to me that it wasn't planned that way...too bad, I like the little numbers and statistics

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Kineas:

What I would like to see is a bit of indication of them in the UI. (Provided they aren't all kept in secret for gameplay purposes) If tables do not work any more, maybe you could just list them in a similar way than in CMBB already:

Stryker

- has slat armour

- vulnerable to RPG-29

- has smoke discharger

- armour resistance xxxx KE, yyyy HEAT

that's all. You got the idea. But it seems to me that it wasn't planned that way...too bad, I like the little numbers and statistics

Kineas,

Although I wasn't involved in the underlying game mechanics that are being discussed here, I did work on their visual representation, and while waiting for Steve to brew a specific example of it, I can say that the kind of information you listed in your question is actually represented on the UI.

Instead of listing discreet values, a visual representation of defensive capabilities (both passive and active) was chosen, mainly because it is more effective in terms of gameplay, considering the vast amount of datas the old CMx1 way would require.

Sure, it will not tell the player the exact amount of armor thickness a T-62 has on the rear lower hull, but it will tell you how this tank will usually fare against most battlefield threats.

As for how these values are determined, this is most definitely a question for Steve.

I hope it answers part of your question.

JV

[ December 19, 2006, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Kineas]

Tarkus,

thanks a lot, definitely.

[Battlefront.com]

As Tarkus said (quite well) there is information in the game to show you what types of defenses a vehicle has. This might include slats, reactive armor, a laser deflector, etc. This is done iconically, not in text.

Also, keep in mind that the 3D models themselves contain a lot of information themselves. You can see smoke launchers, slat armor, reactive armor, etc. quite easily. You can also see exactly where it is and where it isn't. In fact, you can even see which smoke launcher still has a smoke grenade in it and which one has already fired

Steve

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...In fact, you can even see which smoke launcher still has a smoke grenade in it and which one has already fired

Steve

That's a nice touch.

Does that sort of thing carry-over, or is represented for other systems, say belt fed MGs for instance?

[Battlefront.com]

Nope, because things like belts change incrementally. That's very tough to do. Making a smoke mortar shell go from visible to invisible is a piece of cake.

Steve

[offtaskagain]

While your on the subject, are you planning giving the M1114 the option of smoke launchers?

[Aacooper]

I think part of Battlefront's shyness about showing armor thickness and so forth is because a lot of it is classified, and they're forced to rely on best estimates. I think they said as much in a thread a long time ago.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

I think part of Battlefront's shyness about showing armor thickness and so forth is because a lot of it is classified, and they're forced to rely on best estimates. I think they said as much in a thread a long time ago.

But they have to come up with an approximation in the game engine, you have to supply numbers somewhere. Actually this is the interesting data for the players, not the real life values.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, we're not shy about showing the numbers we'll be using. It's purely a UI issue.

Steve

[Drusus]

Just out of interest, is the T-72's bad accuracy because of quality of the crew or is it about quality of the vehicle. And I don't want an answer like "in some situations A, in others B". I want a number, preferably in RHA.

[Battlefront.com]

The T-72, firing at a stationary target in clear daylight, from a full stop, within normal combat ranges (2500m and less, there abouts) is inherently quite accurate. The problem with the T-72 (especially the older models like the Syrians have) is that the more variables you add the worse its chances of hitting are. Things like movement, dust, daylight, bad maintanience (especially boresighting), etc. have very large and bad impacts. The further the target is, the worse the chance of a hit is. Crew experience makes or breaks the chance in many situations, but in general can't overcome the basic problems.

Steve

[Holo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yeah, we're not shy about showing the numbers we'll be using. It's purely a UI issue.

Steve

I still think that having aditional numbers to deal with is better than solely comparing if penetration ability of my ATGM missile is a bit more "blue" than the "blue" of oposing tank's upper hull front protection level. Maybe in the game like CM:SF that is not a big issue considering number of items do deal with, but I can't imagine WWII game relying only on color coding scheme.

[Battlefront.com]

That's just what I've been saying. For CM:SF this is information clutter and overload. It's almost useless. From a practical standpoint it is useless. We don't know how we'll handle things in CM:WW2, but it's also likely to be simplified. We felt the way the info was displayed in CMx1 wasn't as good as we wanted it to be anyway. We've got some ideas that will get the player the info he needs, very specifically, without having to look at secondary screens full of data.

Steve

[Kineas]

I already pointed this out in another topic. If something is quantitative it should have a corresponding number on the UI too. It's easier to compare numbers (or refer to them in AARs). The color of the font can carry another piece of info, like it was in CMx1. But the decision probably has been made about it.

Btw, if we are at the subject, I saw on the beta screenshots ammo quantities like this '.50 cal mg >1k'. This is a space sparing form, it's even nice. But doesn't provide all the information it could. E.g. if the ammo count changed to 1460 from 1480 I know my tank fired during the turn. It's just an example. Bars, colors and charts can't substitue numbers, there's a tradeoff involved.

[Martin Krejcirik]

I agree with Kineas, I don't like icons and colored bars. They are probably necessary on the main panel, but I'd like to see as many numbers as possible in the secondary info window.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... I keep saying the same thing over and over again and apparently either some of you don't get it or you aren't reading what I'm writing. CMx1 style numbers are practically useless in CM:SF because of the complexity of weapon threats. It is pointless for us to even try to represent this stuff numerically. It is also not necessary.

Kineas,

E.g. if the ammo count changed to 1460 from 1480 I know my tank fired during the turn. It's just an example. Bars, colors and charts can't substitue numbers, there's a tradeoff involved.

So, you mean to tell me you memorize what your unit's ammo counts are at the beginning of a turn and then compare them to the ending results? For some reason I don't think you do

Bars, colors and charts can't substitue numbers, there's a tradeoff involved.

This is very true. One major tradeoff is that numbers take up a ton of space, even more if a symbol or fuzzy term represents several factors (like the Defenses Report). Numbers are used when we feel they are very important, fuzzy terms and symbols when we feel they are not. Also keep in mind that when playing the game in RealTime you'll be thankful we didn't pile on numbers on.

Martin,

I agree with Kineas, I don't like icons and colored bars. They are probably necessary on the main panel, but I'd like to see as many numbers as possible in the secondary info window.

There is no secondary info window. What you see is what you get within the game. The manual will have more detailed information when necessary. Also, Mouse Help will clarify some of the stuff so you don't have to look it up in the manual.

Steve