Calling all anti-grogs

[Dillweed]

Ok, now I tried to wrtie a rathe long post about simulating combat. Its pretty akward, so I'm gonna try and write something shorter. What is more important in a sim: simulating combat to the most "realistic" way possible or accuratly camturing the "feel" of combat in a given time/place.

I would rather see #2 as combat is way too complex and dependant on way too many intangible things (leadership, morale) to accuratly simulate.

I would consider this to manke me an "anti-grog" as I am willing to overlook a mistke in the exact preformance of a Sherman's turrent armor against an 88mm shell as long as the sim gets across why driving in a straight line twords a Tiger is a bad idea.

I am intested in other's opionions on this issue.

[Redcon-5]

Good point. I would not know if a 88mm was behaving correctly or not.

I got an idea for increasing the, Shall we say feeling, of the game. BFG could sell CM:SF in a kevlar for you and include a small can of desiel fuel and some spent brass casing just to get the smells right.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm sceptical that you can get the proper "feel" without at least getting close to having the details right. This is based not only on playing computer wargames for 10 years, but playing boardgames for another 25 years.

The reason is that if you don't get the details right, then you get the feel only in a certain set of game situations. As soon as a player starts to try something innovative, it all goes out of whack. I've seen exactly that happen in close to a hundred different games.

On the other hand, a game is a model and like any model it is a simplified version of the thing it is meant to model. That means a selection process has to occur in choosing what to put in and what to leave out. This is where a lot of the art of game design comes in. Knowing what level of detail is useful and necessary for the kind of game you mean to make is essential. It is obviously absurd for a strategic game covering the entire war in Europe to require the player to track the water level in each soldier's canteen. It would probably also be absurd to track the ammunition expenditure of each artillery battalion. But it wouldn't necessarily be absurd to track the ammunition expenditure and resupply of each field army.

So as far as a game on CM's level, is it necessary to check every turn whether each soldier has got a hangnail? Again, absurd. But keeping a count of disabling casualties in each squad is clearly reasonable and necessary, because failure to do so would distort gameplay.

As for your example of a Sherman's turret armor vs. an 88mm shot, I'd consider that mighty important where each tank and gun are modeled as they are in CM. But if the smallest units in a hypothetical game were platoons, there is considerably more leeway in abstracting the matchup between the Sherman and the 88.

Michael

[Drusus]

Ofcourse the example you gave (88mm vs sherman) is something that if modeled correctly doesn't take a bit out of the gameplay. Having a simulator be as historical as possible is good. Having as much detail as possible is mixed case. Having detailed armor modeling is good. As long as the details stay "inside the model" everything is good. But once the player needs to worry about too many things (like modelling wounded too much to the detail, having the player call in ambulance etc.) the gameplay gets worse. In this way, modelling the game 1-to-1 is good. Making the player command every man is bad.

[Renaud]

Michael,

I posted this in the ATGM thread, but it's more on-topic for this thread:

I wonder how BF will determine what weapon can penetrate what armor...much simpler in WWII where you have ample historical research, yet we still argued about the minutea for days on end. Modern weapons are often top secret, like the details of chobham armor, kinetic penetrators, advanced defense systems and systems to defeat those systems. It's bewilderingly complex and mostly unknown.

I for one won't expect some pie-in-the-sky realism. If its plausible, i'm good. Judgement calls will be a big part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Judgement calls will be a big part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

That's why I have always been gunshy of fictional games like NATO/WARPAC that never happened, so that we have no way to judge whether their predicted outcomes hold water or not.

Michael

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Judgement calls will be a big part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

That's why I have always been gunshy of fictional games like NATO/WARPAC that never happened, so that we have no way to judge whether their predicted outcomes hold water or not.

</font>

[Mace]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm sceptical that you can get the proper "feel" without at least getting close to having the details right. This is based not only on playing computer wargames for 10 years, but playing boardgames for another 25 years.

I'll agree with Michael here.

The only way to correctly simulate tactical combat is to be exact and precise with the modelling as much as possible, no matter the number of variables required to simulate combat.

Fortunately, the CPU can take all the drudge out of the calculations reguired for that level of accuracy, and that's why Computer PC wargaming is probably at the forefront of wargaming in general.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mace:

I'll agree with Michael here.

Good choice! You are to be congratulated on your very astute discernment.

Michael

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I'm sceptical that you can get the proper "feel" without at least getting close to having the details right. This is based not only on playing computer wargames for 10 years, but playing boardgames for another 25 years.

I do agree with you, it is an important part of getting the feel right. But I think things that can be exactly modeled (88 vs sherman) are really only a very small part of combat. So much more is just simply how people behave in a stressful situation, which really has to be abstracted.

While I think bitching about mistakes in things that can be simulated directly (armor thickness, for example) is good (helps keep the developer honest)I think people need to admit that we are talking simulations here a fairly large amount of what determines a battle's outcome quite simply is going to have to be something that the developer estimates.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Renaud:

I do anticipate there will be tons of grog controversy about whether my 25mm APFSDS-T bushmaster ammo can penetrate your T55 at the turret ring and so on, ad infinitum. I'm not looking forward to it. I think the detailed modeling discussions we had on the CMx1 boards will not be as applicable to CMSF as they were for games which sought to recreate historical events, or at least model their technical aspects. But more importantly, how many people in the world can really say which modern offensive weapons system can defeat which modern defensive system. In most cases it's obscure knowledge, at worst completely unknown.

Can't speak for you but I'm just as happy talking about the effectiveness of a Bushmaster 25mm rounds vs a T55 as I am talking about the effectiveness of a Pak37 round on a BT7, and I think others here would be as well.

Besides a large proportion of the weapons systems that will appear in CMSF have been already proven in combat (GW1, OIF), so most of our discussion will be about how well CMSF replicates their 'real life' behaviour.

btw IIRC a 1st AD Bradley penetrated the frontal armour of a T55 with M919 25mm rounds during GW1.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Renaud:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Judgement calls will be a big part of the modelling here, much more so than even in armor/penetration modeling for a WWII era game.

That's why I have always been gunshy of fictional games like NATO/WARPAC that never happened, so that we have no way to judge whether their predicted outcomes hold water or not.

</font>

[Peter Cairns]

I am fully with dillweed on this one ( and have called my therapist in dispair).

One of the things that threw me at first about CMBB was the poor performance of the T-34 which i expected to be far better, and if you look at the specs, for armour speed gun and the like, it at first seems to be poorly modelled.

However much of this difference is actually down to crew quality and in that respect it highlights that getting the technical specs right is only a part of the game.

In the early discussions on Soviet anti ATGM systems like Drozh (?) there was a wealth of technical detail , but no one mentioned that by far the most effective defence system the soviets have yet developed is the F**Kin 14.5mm HMG on the turret,

Once those steel cored buggers start ripping in to your position the technical specs of your ATGM go out the window and it's all about balls.

Like Dill I think it is in that area, making allowances for human behaviour, ( ie ******* Yourself) that starts to matter more than the exact representation of this specific model of a particular missile against a certain version of an upgrade to the armour on a particular model of a tank type.

If they get it right it will be a classic, if they get they get distracted by the technology the will miss the target and get a manufacturers promo.

Peter.

P.S. Sorry about the language, i've had friends round and I've had a few....

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Mace:

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

I do anticipate there will be tons of grog controversy about whether my 25mm APFSDS-T bushmaster ammo can penetrate your T55 at the turret ring and so on, ad infinitum. I'm not looking forward to it.

Can't speak for you but I'm just as happy talking about the effectiveness of a Bushmaster 25mm rounds vs a T55 as I am talking about the effectiveness of a Pak37 round on a BT7, and I think others here would be as well.

Besides a large proportion of the weapons systems that will appear in CMSF have been already proven in combat (GW1, OIF), so most of our discussion will be about how well CMSF replicates their 'real life' behaviour.</font>

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Mace:

btw IIRC a 1st AD Bradley penetrated the frontal armour of a T55 with M919 25mm rounds during GW1.

Yep, that's where i pulled that example from. They fired at rapid rate and could tell when they got penetrations by seeing which tracers disappeared...at the turret ring as it turned out.

What happens when an AT-14 strikes the front turret of an M1A2 SEP? You'll be able to argue back and forth forever on that and many other matchups.

[Moon]

Actually the amount of hard fact-based information available for modern weapons system widely surpasses what is out there for WW2. Of course this won't stop the arguing in any way. Grognards are grognards...

Martin

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Moon:

Actually the amount of hard fact-based information available for modern weapons system widely surpasses what is out there for WW2. Of course this won't stop the arguing in any way. Grognards are grognards...

Martin

But surely you guys must run into classified areas too. Like the exact armor capabilities of the Abrams for example. Or the exact peneteration ability of the AT-14.

So how do you guys model that? When you dont have the armor stats for the Abrams, or the penetration ability of the AT-14. How do you model that AT-14 hitting the Abrams?

This is a genuine question btw, no critizism.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

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

Actually the amount of hard fact-based information available for modern weapons system widely surpasses what is out there for WW2. Of course this won't stop the arguing in any way. Grognards are grognards...

Martin

But surely you guys must run into classified areas too. Like the exact armor capabilities of the Abrams for example. Or the exact peneteration ability of the AT-14.

So how do you guys model that? When you dont have the armor stats for the Abrams, or the penetration ability of the AT-14. How do you model that AT-14 hitting the Abrams?

This is a genuine question btw, no critizism. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Like Dill I think it is in that area, making allowances for human behaviour, ( ie ******* Yourself) that starts to matter more than the exact representation of this specific model of a particular missile against a certain version of an upgrade to the armour on a particular model of a tank type.

Not disputing your main point, which is the primacy of human factors. The problem is, that's virtually impossible to quantify accurately, therefore the game designer has to rely on abstractions of the "by guess and by gosh" varieties. Some guesses may be better than others. Particularly where what is being gamed is a war that actually happened and you have the performance of the historic troops that you can compare your model to.

In any event, it's possible to play CM without knowing all the technical stuff and to even play it well. Just like you can enjoy watching a baseball game without knowing the lifetime statistics of each player. But for some players (and many of them seem to wind up on this board ) much of the fun derived from the game is in getting into the details.

Michael

[Sirocco]

I'd rather the most accurate data was collated, with the results standing on their own merits. However, of course, the more you move from the performance of metal under stress, to people under stress, the greater the difficulties you have.