Small x-mas Bone

[Battlefront.com]

Amedeo,

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.

No, we are not going to do that. I find it hard to believe that it would be common to see mixed types like that.

Steve

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Amedeo,

Yes, but I don't meant it at the individual tank level. I consider hard to believe that all the 125mm gun armed Syrian tanks, from the old baseline export T-72M to the (upcoming in the expansion) T-80U, will be armed with the same kind of APFSDS round. Although I presume they managed to acquire some decent kind of ammo in the '90s, their stocks are probably still full of 3BM17 (or older!) rounds, so it would be impossible to equip all the tanks with the latest ammo.

Regards,

Amedeo

[MikeyD]

Sweet.

You are showing the world what a world of difference there is between a 'sim' and a 'game'.

[hellfish]

Kind of unrelated, but what will the destroyed models look like for vehicles?

[gautrek]

Just a small question.

When and if you bring out a Brit module is there any chance of adding a c to defence on the piccys show.

As this spelling of defence iritates the f*** out of me.

Sorry to be piccy but for gods sake get your speelings write.

[Holo]

I must admit that I don't see the point of making such a limited UI. I consider myself semi-grog, which means although I memorized a lot of stats throughout the years of playing war-games, I don't know all the specs for all the gear that exists, so I need to consult some sort of help for more info. For previous versions of CM it was easy to just open info window and to find out what I was curious about, but limited UI as this in CM:SF seems to force player to look constantly into manual, and to memorize data instead of having it available all the time (presuming he wants to master the game).

Let's take an example of "not so grog" player of CM:SF.

He plays as Syrian. He has a Kornet-E team and Milan I team. Opposed to him is M1A1HC, with generalized stats for defense against missiles, as well as no distinction between Turret and Hull. Kornet-E is rated at 1200 RHAe, Milan I, if I remember correctly, at 600 RHAe. Turret of M1A1HC is rated at something like 1300-1600 RHAe, Upper Hull Front at 500-1000, Lower Hull Front at 800-1000 (this all might be wrong but let's take it as correct for this exercise). What this implies is that Kornet-E, if it hits Lower Hull Front, will penetrate M1A1HC. Milan I on the other hand will not. Generalized anti-missile defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross.

Now let's look at one Syrian MBT and one UK. First is T-72M1 with, for example, BM-15 or even BM-42 APFSDS 125mm ammo, with penetrations of 380 and 520 RHAe respectively at 2km. M1A1HC stats vs KE are Turret ~900, Upper Hull 560-590, Lower Hull 580-650. Both rounds are unable to penetrate M1A1HC frontally. Some other 125mm round like Ukrainian Vitiaz round rated at 760 RHAe would penetrate it.

The other tank is Challenger 2 from some future module. It fires 120mm with L-27

Charm-3 round rated at 720 RHAe (or something better). It penetrates M1A1HC’s hull but not the turret at 2km.

Generalized anti-large munitions defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross.

In both examples (ATGM and APFSDS) simply offering generalized stats doesn’t seem to inform enough the “not so grog” player of the facts. Although both Kornet-E and Milan I are ATGM’s, and both 125mm and 120mm guns fire large munitions, the outcomes are different. This suggests that generalizing stats, making no distinction between Turret and Hull (with all respect to Hull Down positioning argument), as well as not giving any weapon data can potentially misguide player and force him to memorize weapon abilities from the manual rather than to learn them on the fly by playing the game. Minimizing required info to play the game for a newbie may be a plus, but reducing a chance to master it by denying him in-depth stats from which to learn doesn’t seem to me as a big plus. Let’s hope that WWII version will be at least at the level of previous CM games.

[Battlefront.com]

Amedo,

Yes, but I don't meant it at the individual tank level.

Ah, now I get you! Sure, in the case where we would expect old and new types of ammo being around we'll most likely simulate them. At least I don't know why we wouldn't. We simulated all sorts of different rounds in CMx1 games.

fytinghellfish,

Kind of unrelated, but what will the destroyed models look like for vehicles?

We'll have to see what we have time to add. Certainly over time the destruction detailing will get better. Unfortunately, it is a time sink and therefore it's being pushed off until later in the game. Right now only a basic treatment exists. However, we will likely get partial damage modeling in, such as blown off ERA or slat armor.

Holo,

I must admit that I don't see the point of making such a limited UI.

As I've said, it's for a variety of reasons. Some because it is WAY too complex to show in a useful way, some because it is completely not necessary, some because it will actually degrade the user experience, and some because we simply don't think it is important enough to delay the game's release to do.

I consider myself semi-grog, which means although I memorized a lot of stats throughout the years of playing war-games, I don't know all the specs for all the gear that exists, so I need to consult some sort of help for more info. For previous versions of CM it was easy to just open info window and to find out what I was curious about, but limited UI as this in CM:SF seems to force player to look constantly into manual, and to memorize data instead of having it available all the time (presuming he wants to master the game).

Not true at all. First of all, the list of weapons and vehicles for each side in CM:SF is sooooooooooo much smaller than previous CM games. On top of that the "rules of thumbs" are really simple too. Plus, if we list things like RHA and what not people will think they need to know what it means, how variables affect it, etc. They most definitely do not. Therefore, people don't need to look up this stuff in a book or manual because people don't need the info at all anyway.

So no, you don't need to know much. One read through the manual, or a casual following of what's going on in Iraq now, is about all you need. I'll illustrate this below...

He plays as Syrian. He has a Kornet-E team and Milan I team. Opposed to him is M1A1HC, with generalized stats for defense against missiles, as well as no distinction between Turret and Hull. Kornet-E is rated at 1200 RHAe, Milan I, if I remember correctly, at 600 RHAe. Turret of M1A1HC is rated at something like 1300-1600 RHAe, Upper Hull Front at 500-1000, Lower Hull Front at 800-1000 (this all might be wrong but let's take it as correct for this exercise). What this implies is that Kornet-E, if it hits Lower Hull Front, will penetrate M1A1HC. Milan I on the other hand will not. Generalized anti-missile defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross.

As I said before, as the Abrams commander you don't want to be hit by *any* AT missile of any sort if at all possible. Your chances of surviving, with all weapons, equipment, and personnel functioning 100% range from extremely low to fairly risky. You don't NEED to know if that Milan team you spotted earlier can penetrate your lower hull or not. It can punch through someplace else or at least make your Abrams immobilzed. So why does it matter what the specifics of the threat are? The important thing to know is where the threat is and what you can do about minimizing the chances of finding out what it can do. THAT is what the player should be concerned with and concentrating on, not what the RHA value is for this or that part of the Abrams.

Now let's look at one Syrian MBT and one UK. First is T-72M1 with, for example, BM-15 or even BM-42 APFSDS 125mm ammo, with penetrations of 380 and 520 RHAe respectively at 2km. M1A1HC stats vs KE are Turret ~900, Upper Hull 560-590, Lower Hull 580-650. Both rounds are unable to penetrate M1A1HC frontally. Some other 125mm round like Ukrainian Vitiaz round rated at 760 RHAe would penetrate it.

The other tank is Challenger 2 from some future module. It fires 120mm with L-27

Charm-3 round rated at 720 RHAe (or something better). It penetrates M1A1HC’s hull but not the turret at 2km.

Generalized anti-large munitions defense stat for M1A1HC says only Big Green Cross.

Correct. And since you don't know what that tank has shoved in its breach, you don't need to know what each round individually can do. You have to assume the worst, and the worst is something like a side hull or rear hull hit. Any round of this size will cause serious, if not catastrophic, damage at pretty much any range. So once again, as the Abrams player you do not NEED to know anything more than "try not to get hit by that T-72 lurking around over there because you never know what it is firing and you never know where it will hit, not to mention what sort of damage it will do if it hits". Concentrate on that.

In both examples (ATGM and APFSDS) simply offering generalized stats doesn’t seem to inform enough the “not so grog” player of the facts. Although both Kornet-E and Milan I are ATGM’s, and both 125mm and 120mm guns fire large munitions, the outcomes are different.

Not really. The outcomes are weighted to be more or less favorable depending on the circumstances. A wimpy 125mm round hitting the correct spot on the turret will render the Abram's fire control systems useless, thus rendering the Abrams effectively useless. A lowly RPG round hit to the tracks could immobilize your Abrams in a spot that doesn't allow you to influence the battle in a good way, and in fact might require you to leave behind valuable troops to guard your stuck tank.

This suggests that generalizing stats, making no distinction between Turret and Hull (with all respect to Hull Down positioning argument), as well as not giving any weapon data can potentially misguide player and force him to memorize weapon abilities from the manual rather than to learn them on the fly by playing the game. Minimizing required info to play the game for a newbie may be a plus, but reducing a chance to master it by denying him in-depth stats from which to learn doesn’t seem to me as a big plus.

There is nothing preventing the Grog from looking up some stuff in the manual, books, or on the Web. Since everything is simulated within the game it doesn't matter where you get your info from and therefore we aren't denying anybody anything.

What we intend to do is put certain rules of thumb in the manual. ATGMs are a perfect example. The US forces have basically four armored vehicles at their disposal; Abrams, Bradleys, Strykers, and various trucks. We can easily state something like:

AT-14 - can kill practically anything from any angle.

AT-7 - has a decent chance to damage an Abrams, good chance of taking anything smaller out of action.

Etc.

What is more important for the ATGMs is to know range, chance of hitting, limitations (must maintain visual vs. fire and forget, etc.), and other such things. These can be partially shown within the game, such as CMx1 style "mouse help" when over a target, partially through ingame UI, but a few things will no doubt have to be left in the manual. Again, this is pretty easy to do since there aren't many systems to be concerned with and most of the Soviet based ATGMs have fairly similar and obvious limitations.

I'm a semi-grog and have played the game. I think it is a HUGE plus for both the newbie and the hardcore Grog. But then again, I also purposefully designed the UI this way so I'm kinda biased

The reason why is that this level of info you're looking for amounts to little more than clutter. Again, the same arguments were made to show things like movement points and what not for the first CM game. Funny how people aren't demanding we put that stuff into CM:SF (and follow up wiseass comments by people will be ignored ).

Let’s hope that WWII version will be at least at the level of previous CM games.

Unlikely, though we will no doubt have a lot more information available in some secondary screen of some sort. The reason why is that SOME of the data we find irrelevant (or practically so) in CM:SF is relevant for the more "primative" WWII stuff.

Steve

[ December 26, 2006, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[C'Rogers]

Do people really even look at the numbers that closely in CMx1 now? I know when a map starts I will look through my weapons and get a sense of what has high penetration, low penetration, and those inbetween (and if some guns are better at long range or if I have a limited number of rounds). But that is pretty much it.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

I know I didn't look at that data much at all. Instead I looked at the colored armor bars in the profile (CMBB/AK) in the main UI. that told me what I needed to know even if I didn't know what the specific vehicle was like. If I had a King Tiger I knew that short of a lucky hit, I was pretty much safe in a head to head shoot out with most anything. The more important thing to know was how the vehicle behaves in various forms of terrain, speeds, bogging issues, turret rotation speed, etc. These things were not shown directly in terms of data for the most part.

Here's another way to think about it...

In CM:SF if you have an Abrams under your command you know that your biggest risk will come from getting hit by something. Could be as small as a $25 RPG round, could be a Kornet AT-14 coming out of a dark patch of trees at night. Doesn't matter... I don't want that Abrams hit by anything. However, I do know that *if* I take a hit I have a pretty good chance (in general) of surviving it. I also have a pretty good chance of spotting the enemy and destroying him before he gets in a hit if that enemy is a tank. Well, if I keep moving around and choosing where I stop carefully.

Conversely, if I am the Syrian player and I have a T-72 I know that when the enemy sees me I'm pretty much toast if I stay still. If the enemy has an Abrams I had better figure out a way of getting at it when I have an advantage of some sort. If he has infantry I'd better not stay still because all US infantry have access to Javelins and all Javelins have an excellent chance of scattering my T-72 all over the place no matter what I do after the round has been fired. In short, if I have a T-72 on the battlefield I should expect it to lose it and plan accordingly.

There... you don't need RHA to know this. In fact, RHA doesn't tell you any of what I just described. I can say this with 100% certainty because I haven't a clue what the respective armor ratings and armor penetration values in CM:SF are That's always been Charles' area and always will be I'd rather play the game!

Steve

[PFMM]

I think it depends.

For myself it's mostly visual. Big tank with big gun beats little tank with little gun, and so on. Not the best but it's adequate.

I also rely heavily on the scenario briefing as well for an indication on how I am to behave, with the more I'm told the bolder I become and the less I'm told the more cautious I become.

However, if you're a tournament type player the answer is yes you do examine the numbers. The game engine is broken down and studied to the point of insanity. It's always interesting to see what they turn up as, in my experience, everyone tends to adopt it into their playing style (such as the half squad exploit).

[sonar]

"Some 10 million American men—fully 7 percent of the male population—either cannot distinguish red from green, or see red and green differently from most people. This is the commonest form of color blindness".I wish the games industry would take this into account when implementing colour coded information into a game.I'm not American but i am colour blind and always have to find a way around this when playing games it's so annoying.Lets hear it for doggievision.

[Leeo]

I love the UI! I don't want all that extraneous numerical crap, and I doubt any commander in a battle is doing calculations about penetration factors of various weapons versus various armor systems. I wanna make command decisions, not command calculations. I wanna play! (and most likely as not, get blasted repeatedly)

I always hated playing board games against those that "rules lawyered" or spent 45 minutes of their turn calculating exact odds before conducting attacks. A commander may calculate some gross "odds" based on experience and training, but I doubt they pull out a calculator to figure out exactly what ammunition they need to hit a specific target in a specific location with a specific armor system to achieve the results they want. They more likely memorize it in a "rock vs. paper vs. scissors" type of pardigm. SOMEONE in the rear knows the specifics and designs weapons systems with that knowledge, and helps shape the simple paradigm that the commanders use, but I submit it is not the combat commander who has the time for these sorts of calculations.

I wanna command and play, damnit~!

Looks great, BFC!

[MikeyD]

CMx1 gives hard numbers on all their armor for exact calculations... but everybody seems to stick to 'Extreme FOW' so you can't often tell til game's end whether you were facing Panther Ds or Panther Gs. Has that distant generic Panther got low quality G bow armor or a D turret front shot trap? There's a good chance FOW in CMSF is also going to keep you from knowing which version of T72 is facing you on that distant hillside if you're playing U.S. and which version of Abrams is facing you if you're playing Syrians. So precise calculation of odds might be a bit impossible regardless of hard numbers.

[C'Rogers]

However, if you're a tournament type player the answer is yes you do examine the numbers. The game engine is broken down and studied to the point of insanity.

This seems more like a good reason not to have numbers though. Tournament players would also break down and calculate exact differences of speed between units if listed when having access to this information is unneccesary and probably makes the game less enjoyable (also making the game more unrealistic depnding on how you view your role).

I can understand that some peple enjoy lusing the game as a learning tool but as BFC pointed out that infotmation can be found on the internet (and probably with more detail to).

[Battlefront.com]

PFMM,

Rules of thumbs like this are pretty good. I can't imagine an Abrams tanker would sit there, as an ATGM is coming towards him, and say "hmmm... if only I knew what type of missile that was. If I did I'd know how bad this is going to hurt"

Sonar,

.I wish the games industry would take this into account when implementing colour coded information into a game.

Your wish has already come true Look at the UI again and you will see that even if you are completely colorblind (which I think is less than a fraction of 1% of the population) you can still see what is what. The reason? Shapes are used to distinguish between values. Color is also used too because it makes no sense to ignore something that is useful to the vast and overwhelming majority of gamers (i.e. those who don't have color blindness issues). The combo of shapes and colors gives us the best of both worlds.

Leeo,

Well said! CMx1 was designed to emphasize command decisions and tactics, not command calculations and rule exploitation. CMx2 is simply pushing Grogs more in the right direction

MikeyD,

Good point about FoW. In CMx2 it is in some ways even tougher to figure out what is what thanks to relative spotting. In other ways it will be easier. As the Syrians, for example, if you see a tank you'll know it is an Abrams. The particular model doesn't matter since any one of them can waste anything you have under your command and will pose difficulty in knocking out with other assets. Whether it is an A1HC or a A2SEP... it shouldn't affect your decision making at all. Most Syrians probably don't even know they come in different models anyway

Steve

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Whether it is an A1HC or a A2SEP... it shouldn't affect your decision making at all. Most Syrians probably don't even know they come in different models anyway

Steve

Except this time, they really are all Tigers.

[Littletinsoldier]

The UI looks cool, but I hope you do implement additional info screens - if only for the geeks. The quite detailed physics of CMBO (all those penetration angles etc) was an incredible eye-opener when I first played it, and one of the things that first got me hooked on the game.

I realise it doesn't affect game play, but it is incredibly interesting and a big bonus for some of us...

[nijis]

What Littletinsoldier said. Playing the game is of course the main reason I buy CM, but I also like going through all the documentation, both printed and within the program, to know how the different systems compare. It's the armchair weapons procurement agent in me, I guess. How does a Javelin match up to a Kornet? What if anything makes a Stryker better protected than a BTR-60? It's also interesting to know upon which assumptions the game is based, although that may open the door to endless groggy disputes.

[ December 29, 2006, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: nijis ]

[Battlefront.com]

If we could snap our fingers and have this stuff in the game and somehow not detracting from it, it'd be in. But that isn't the case so it's not going to happen. At least not the way it was in CMx1.

Ironically, the BEST way to do things like compare/contrast the Javelin and Kornet, or the Stryker and BTR-60, is to put that information in plain text in the manual. As I've said already, there are so many factors that make things effective or not that it really isn't possible to line up a few bits of info and have them mean much. It is much easier, and far more useful to the budding arms procurement agent , to stick with plain text sprinkled with a few technical specifications.

For example, think of the slat armor of the Stryker. It is far more useful to say that it has a 50% chance of defeating RPG round type x, 0% cahnce of RPG round type y, and near 100% chance of type z than to list some sort of armor resistance number that, in effect, is meaningless. Same thing about mentioning the Kevlar lining of the inside hull. It has no effect on defeating a penetration, rather it significantly reduces the chance of spalling (flying metal from a penetration). The only way to get that point across is to spell it out in text. So on and so forth.

It's a strange environment for Grogs, I know. Here I am telling you that all this stuff is really important for us to simulate, then on the other hand I'm saying it is largely irrelevant when you play the game. I guess it's kinda like like commercial air travel... yeah, it is REALLY important that everything works right, all you need to do is concentrate on getting from A to B. If you instead get distracted by details then you might wind up like this guy...

Future Darwin Award contender

Steve

[Martin Krejcirik]

Steve, why waiting, maybe you could start posting on the blog (rather then here, so it's easier to find later) and describe various in-game mechanics more in detail? We know very little so far. Basically all I know is that CMx2 should have more advanced armour model (individual panels, versus CMx1 'box'), relative spotting and split morale/suppresion.

[Neutrino 123]

Hello, Battlefront.com. I think your reasons for not including in-game detailed information about weapons are mostly valid (though I personally would be willing to wait a couple more weeks and pay a couple mroe dollars for full inclusion), but I am sure many people are highly interested in this information. Do you think it would be possible to perhaps at least include a txt file with the relevant data? Hopefully this would be easy to generate, and it would surely make many grognards very happy.

[Battlefront.com]

Neutrino 123,

Do you think it would be possible to perhaps at least include a txt file with the relevant data? Hopefully this would be easy to generate, and it would surely make many grognards very happy.

I recently had to sift through all of Charles' vehicle data files for CMBO/BB/AK. These were, uhm, not easy to figure out. I expect that CM:SF's data files are 1000 times worse for us lay people. Charles would have to write a program to spit it out in a useful, readable format. I doubt that will happen any time soon. Still, it isn't a bad idea.

Steve

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I know I didn't look at that data much at all. Instead I looked at the colored armor bars in the profile (CMBB/AK) in the main UI. that told me what I needed to know even if I didn't know what the specific vehicle was like. If I had a King Tiger I knew that short of a lucky hit, I was pretty much safe in a head to head shoot out with most anything.

I beg to differ here.. There's huge difference facing british long 76mm guns in an Pz IVg vs same situation in Pz IVe against soviet field arty gun..

There's often frustating "klonk"-factor especially with Pz-IIIs (long 50mm gun or not) vs T-34s. But StuG-IIIf will eat them for breakfast. And then you come up to some monster like KV-1 ... Where that 88 gun comes in. And so forth. Lots of combinations where one MBT is practically invulnerable to opfor means head-on.

You could say of course that the diversity of the available ammunition and guns and panzer models is huge compared to roundup in modern conflicts. Of course if, say, Russia and China go to war for 5 years without going nuclear, you'd start seeing nifty upgrades to their existing hardware..

In cold war era there was of course times where the soviet tanks were similarly overwhelming. Introduction of ERA comes to mind..

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

This is a myth.

Perhaps in the 1950s you would have a point.

But thereafter at no point was Soviet armour significantly better than anything the Western nations could produce.

Germany fielded the Leopard I in 1965 and it had superiority or parity with every Soviet tank afterwards.

The UK had late model Centurians in the early 60s mounting 105mm guns with superior fire controls.

Then in 1967 got the Chieftain which was vastly superior to the T-62/

It had the thickest armour of anything else in the world and a 120mm gun that was the most powerful fielded.

And the US by the early 60s had late model M48s and the M-60 which was a good all around tank well into the 80s.

Even into the late 80s, the M-60 was expected to hold its own against T-80s and in wargames had alot of sucess.

By the 1980s the situation could no longer even be called fair.

Computerized gun stabilization, 2nd generation thermal optics, early computerized fire controls and superior crew survivability.

Couple this with advances in SABOT rounds and new types of armour beyond steel.

The war would have been bloody and the WP would have had its successes, but in tank vs tank situations the Soviets would have been slaugtered at a 4:1 rate.

[dethvegetable]

Git' back to werk!!!

:mad:

But seriously, looks nice, cant wait!