Small x-mas Bone

[Battlefront.com]

People asked to see what the various Vehicle Reports look like. Well, here they are for a M1A1HC (top) and T-72M1 (bottom).

This composite shows the main views on the left and the first Report (Ammo). The next two Reports are shown next; Defenses and Damage.

Most of this stuff is pretty obvious. The stuff that isn't is easily learned. The Defenses report shows the rough ability to defend against Missiles, Large Munitions, Medium Munitions, and Small Munitions. The first column of symbols is against the front of the vehicle, next is for the sides, then rear, and finally top.

The large red X is the worst, which means the threat is pretty much will penetrate. The small yellow dot means high threat, green + is decent chance of defense, and the big green cross is very good defensive capability.

Below those symbols is space to display "Special Defenses". In this case both vehicles have Smoke Dischargers, nothing else. Things like ERA (reactive armor), laser deflectors, slat armor, etc. are displayed here.

Questions?

Steve

[flamingknives]

w00t!

On a more relevent note, can there be more than 9 damage locations?

The blue dots, I presume, are crew members, so I guess that these are tracked, for the purposes of crew casualties. Do the positions of the dots relate to specific crew positions, or are they generic?

If an infantry squad is onboard an APC, do they show up as dots or are these strictly vehicle crew only? If the latter, are the various crew-changing shenanigans of mech inf abstracted (i.e. platoon leader is in the commander's seat in lead Bradley, but switches with a Sergeant so that he can dismount. It was in one of the mech inf FMs, so may not be current)

[ December 23, 2006, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Michael Dorosh]

What is the blue crew symbol for? "manned" as opposed to "abandoned"?

Number of crewmen functioning (ie unwounded)?

EDIT - oh wait, you said that is a smokescreen generator icon. My bad.

Looked like some funky "crew" icon or somefink.

I guess the blue dots represent crewmen/stations operable?

[Hagleboz]

Thanks for all the bones, I was hoping for a Christmas present!!! The screens for all the vehicles look great! Here on the vehicle report I'm assuming the green crosses under the damage screen indicate all systems are operable. I'm also assuming each system can be damaged individually, but can the systems such be partially damaged but not completely disabled? Could for instance the engine show a yellow cross meaning damaged instead of just a red x meaning the tank is no longer able to move?

[Battlefront.com]

The little blue dots represent crew members. The specific crew are shown to the left, like this example:

This shows Tank Commander, Gunner, and Driver.

If the vehicle has the ability to transport troops they are shown to the right of the crew dots. Empty positions are shown in a different color. This way you can tell what the capacity is as well as what the current occupation is.

Yes, the Damage Report can show an infinite number of systems. However, by default only the nine most important/relevant ones show up.

The Damage Report icons are the same as in the Defenses Report. So yup, the big green crosses mean A-OK. Systems are usually working or not, but some things like wheels and engines can be damaged.

Steve

[hellfish]

Looks good. Simple and easy to understand. One thing, though - the T-72 has a 7.62mm coax, not 7.92mm

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... I'll let Charles know he has a typo

Steve

[Sirocco]

How about a green cross for safe, yellow for low threat, orange for medium, and red for high threat?

[stikkypixie]

Is there a way to know how effective for example the main gun is?

[Battlefront.com]

We don't want info to be portrayed by color alone and we're using a fairly standard Green, Yellow, Red approach to the colors we do use.

No, there is no way to determine how effective a particular weapon is because that would require specific knowledge of what you are trying to hit and specifically where. Instead, you look at something like a T-72's main gun and then you look at a target like an Abrams. Look at the threat level to the Abrams from a Large Munition and you'll get an answer that is pretty effective from a game sense. You can see that the T-72 won't do much against the front of an Abrams, but it has a pretty darned good chance against the sides and an excellent chance against the rear. One really doesn't need to know more than that.

Steve

[stoat]

Darn fine looking Sryker renders, too.

[rudel.dietrich]

I am assuming under the hood that the armour and weapons model is a hell of alot more complicated than simple colour coded symbols, correct?

[M1A1TC]

How is the main gun ammo loadout managed? Can a player change that prior to missions? For example, 35 Heat, 5 Sabot

I think it looks great, simple and elegant

[Imperial Grunt]

Excellent!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Aesthetically pleasing! The black silhouette on green is reminiscent of the Panzer Leader board game I loved as a kid. But could I suggest different color backgrounds for each side, like red or desert tan for the Syrians?

[Kineas]

Thanks for the bone, it looks pretty.

[Amedeo]

Will it be possible to model different kinds of APFSDS, HEAT etc. ammo for the same gun?

Will the game take in due consideration the fact that only part of the T-72 series tanks ammo loadout is loaded in the carousel?

Regards,

Amedeo

[Cpl Steiner]

Seeing these images of the M1A1 and T72 squaring up to each other for a fight reminds me of the battles of "73 Easting" and "Medina Ridge" in the 1991 Gulf War. I think something like one of these engagements will be an ideal scenario for CM:SF.

Of course, the US side annihilated the Iraqi side in these 1991 engagements, suffering hardly any losses of its own. However, one should not assume that these battles are typical. Many factors contributed to the Iraqi's defeat, not just technology. I've just read an interesting article which talks about this here.

If the Iraqis had attained Western standards of organizational performance, however, this analysis suggests that the results would have been radically different, even given the Coalition's advanced technology and high troop skills. Without errors to exploit, modern technology cannot provide anything like the lethality seen in 1991.

This in turn suggests a broader hypothesis: that in general, late-twentieth century technology may be magnifying the effects of skill differentials on the battlefield. If so, then a given skill imbalance may be much more important today than in the past, but combat outcomes for comparably skilled opponents may be little changed by new weaponry. The main effect of new technology may thus be to act as a wedge, gradually driving apart the real military power of states that can field skilled military organizations and those that cannot, but without changing fundamentally the outcomes of wars between equally skilled armies.

[Cpl Steiner]

One small extra point. The T-72 crew below the TC seem to be packing M9 Berettas. Do the Syrians buy M9s or is this something that will be changed?

Oh, and something else I've just thought of. Why no distinction between "Turret" and "Hull" armour effectiveness?

Very nice UI though. Can't wait to see it in action!

[ December 24, 2006, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[c3k]

57.2 tons for the M1A1HC? What, is that without the engine, track, and gun?

Sure, the bone is nice, but we can't let it go without picking a nit.

Thanks,

Ken

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Oh, and something else I've just thought of. Why no distinction between "Turret" and "Hull" armour effectiveness?

Good point. It would be useful to know the advantage of going hull-down.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the comments guys! Some quick answers...

Yes, the modeling under the hood is as detailed, and in some ways MORE detailed, than in CMx1 games. Have no fear of that.

The design does have slightly different colored backgrounds for the Syrian stuff vs. the US stuff, but apparently that hasn't been implemented yet.

Yup, that does look like the US M9 pistol and not the Makarov as it is supposed to be. Looks like Charles missed some artwork or linked to the wrong picture.

Not sure what is up with the Abram's weight. Should be about 60 tons. I know Charles only took a preliminary pass over the data so I'm going to guess this was a typo of some sort.

Whatever ammo types are available for a vehicle are shown here. Check out the T-72's loadout and you'll see three types of main gun rounds.

Ammo loads are shown for the vehicle as a whole. Internally there are penalties associated with transfer of rounds from less accessible areas to the "ready rack". From a practical standpoint it isn't likely to matter much. Tanks these days don't tend to have much shorter engagements. They fire a few rounds and either destroy their target or get destroyed themselves. The sort of WWII trading 10 shots with another tank at 2500 meters is unlikely on today's battlefield, therefore whatever is in the ready rack is pretty much all that vehicle is likely to shoot.

The player can not choose his ammo load since that would be unrealistic. However the scenario designer can designate what rounds and how many of each are carried into battle.

Some other comments are being answered in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001163;p=2

Steve

[hellfish]

Are all rounds for the M256 120mm gun in service going to be modelled - i.e. MPAT, cannister?

[Battlefront.com]

We are planning on simulating all the relevant munitions of all weapons, Abrams included.

Steve

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Whatever ammo types are available for a vehicle are shown here. Check out the T-72's loadout and you'll see three types of main gun rounds.

Perhaps I was not clear in wording my question, i meant different models of the same ammo type: e.g. M829A2 and M829A3, that are both 120mm APFSDS.

Ammo loads are shown for the vehicle as a whole. Internally there are penalties associated with transfer of rounds from less accessible areas to the "ready rack".

Excellent.

Kind regards,

Amedeo

[ December 25, 2006, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Amedeo ]