Engagement Ranges and AP Penetration value worries...

[Bil Hardenberger]

Okay, I'm over relaxing now... looking further, and paying attention to the screenshots I am seeing some odd results... like these, in the first the range for the ZIS-2 AT gun is set at 503M.. where it should have a range of over 900M. I am seeing similar ranges for most other AT and IG weapons as well, for example (second screenshot) the 76.2mm gun on the T-34 has a range set at 473 Meters!

I also question the accuracy of the AP values...

This range issue and AP penetration issue could be a game killer for me, and I'm sure for others as well. This information is not hard to come by.. hell, Battlefront has one of the best collections of weapons ranges and penetration values there is.

Bil

ZIS-2 Range

T-34 Range

[PseudoSimonds]

Maybe those ranges are the ranges to their current target? That'd be my guess.

[RSColonel_131st]

You don't know for sure if the range given is in meters...but this is one of my concerns as well.

If most engagements are, due to map layout, happening at around 500 meters or less, then with real-world penetration data that would mean pretty much everthing could penetrate everthing.

It would pretty much take different tank designs and their strenghts/weaknesses out of the equatation - a Tiger for example isn't worth much more than a PzIV G if he has to fight T-34 at 500m or less.

So it seems that, if your screenshots are indeed "meters range" showing, the gun ranges and also penetration values have been scaled down to fit the map size. How this would play out for someone used to CMBB with real-world engagement ranges and penetration values remains to be seen.

[thewood]

I do know that the last iteration of ToW before this was set to make all gun ranges half of real world to better fit the sub maps. Sounded a lot like CC to me. That, at that time, was a killer for me.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

If most engagements are, due to map layout, happening at around 500 meters or less, then with real-world penetration data that would mean pretty much everthing could penetrate everthing.

This is not true at all.

A properly modeled T-34/76 will penetrate neither a Tiger's side nor a StuG's front above about 200 meters. A 37mm early war German AT gun against a same-era T-34 isn't much different either.

But overall it seems pretty clear that this game is meant for ~500m engagements and that it does not have a ballistics system like CM, so in the majority of cases all exploiting of armor thinkness will be out (both realistic and unrealitsic ones).

[Moon]

I might be wrong but I think the range shows "effective" range which as you know is different from max range. In game terms this would represent the range where the AI would engage targets on its own (unless told to hold fire etc.)

Martin

[RSColonel_131st]

T-34/76 is an extreme example, so is the 37mm PAK.

But the outcome of a T-34/85 vs. Tiger engagement, for example, can vary a lot depending on range. StuG 3 with a 75mm long against T-34/85 also varys with range.

If you read some of the latest posts, this game actually does boost a ballistics system comparable to CM, including the tracking of pentrating shots inside a vehicle and what sub-systems or crew they damage.

I simple don't want to end up with a gameplay style that ends up euqalizing most of the tanks against each other.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Moon:

I might be wrong but I think the range shows "effective" range which as you know is different from max range. In game terms this would represent the range where the AI would engage targets on its own (unless told to hold fire etc.) Martin

Thanks Martin.. just out of curiosity.. what is the "game's" effective range for a Panther? A Tiger? A Pak 75? All around 500M I would guess... doesn't that worry you?

Does this mean that the AI will not engage outside of that range?

What about the Armor penetrations values, any word on the accuracy of those?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

If you read some of the latest posts, this game actually does boost a ballistics system comparable to CM, including the tracking of pentrating shots inside a vehicle and what sub-systems or crew they damage.

That's not what I read. What I read is a table-driven penetration mechanism not considering ranges above 500m. I didn't see confirmation that there is hidden recomputation for shots bejond 500m. And I didn't see any angle consideration either, much less angle consideration by type of fired ammo.

I simple don't want to end up with a gameplay style that ends up euqalizing most of the tanks against each other.

Exactly what I want.

I don't expect an armor penetration system as sophisticated as CM, but I expect one where thick armor and/or angled surfaces provide something resembling the same challenges as they would in CM in the < 500m range.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Redwolf, right here under Game Features:

Real Time Combat Simulation – Realistic shell ballistics, armor penetration calculations and damage effects ...

False advertising perhaps?

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/features.html

[thewood]

That was exactly my issue with ToW from its first announcement. The hype was around being as realistic for ground combat as IL-2 was for air combat. I took issue with that immediately. I haven't really paid attention to it in a year.

It was a little bitter/sweet when I heard the rumors of it being picked by Battlefront. I am concerned about some of the decisions made for ToW to make it easier to develop and sell. But I am heartened that BFC won't let something out that doesn't meet some pretty strict standards of matching hype to reality.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

I don't expect an armor penetration system as sophisticated as CM...

Neither do I.. but I expect the numbers to at least be accurate, regardless of range.

[Steiner14]

Guys be patient and don't judge to early. ToW is not CM.

While for CM realism has highest priority, here it's obviously the mixture of gameplay, realism and fun in realtime. What we can expect therefore is a certain amount of realism like Redwolf said. If the game is fun, offers some realtime thrill without a clickfest and good action, that should be very fine, shouldn't it?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

Redwolf, right here under Game Features:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Real Time Combat Simulation – Realistic shell ballistics, armor penetration calculations and damage effects ...

False advertising perhaps?

http://www.battlefront.com/products/tow/features.html </font>

[thewood]

Yeah, but if you choose a publisher like BFC, you know the bar is going to be pretty high when you say "realism. They will not be compared to Call of Duty, but to CM.

[hoolaman]

That may be so, but the game seems to be all but finished. Despite BFC's best intentions, the developer is not going to want their publisher screwing around with the game, and BFC won't want to delay their (hopefully successful) cash pig.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

That may be so, but the game seems to be all but finished. Despite BFC's best intentions, the developer is not going to want their publisher screwing around with the game, and BFC won't want to delay their (hopefully successful) cash pig.

I dunno, this is a bit of a showstoper for me. If armor penetrations don't act like they should, what's the point.

I think (hope) that thinks were dumbed down by order of ther games last publisher and that now they will be realistic. If so, it's must buy.

If not; forget it.

[Moon]

Hoolaman, wow, you talk like you know what you're talking about.

You are completely wrong of course. We're not just another publisher, and 1C was able to pick and choose pretty much at will who will be their publisher of this title. ToW has been voted by several magazines as one of the most expected games for 2006.

They chose us because they, just like us, are committed to quality gaming. That people can still doubt this after games like IL-2 and our CM games necer ceases to amaze me.

One of the main goals of this cooperation is to use our know-how from the CM games to make sure that ToW isn't just another RTS. It's base design already is geared towards a much more realistic simulation of ground combat than any other RTS out there, and with our involvement we're sure that we can help complete this design.

Keep in mind - even though nearly everybody on this board here of course knows exactly how to do a realistic ground warfare sim, there IS a reason why you don't see many of them out there. It's not as easy as it seems to balance game design, realism and fun gameplay. Unlike most people on this board we HAVE completed such a game, and that know-how counts for more than you might imagine.

Having said that - of course we will not set out and suddenly change the game all over. Not only is this impossible due to code restrictions etc., but we also have the utmost respect for what the 1C did. They have a very very talented team, and we are honored to be able to give some advice. Even without out, this game right out of the box as it is now, is a mindblowing combination of fun and realism.

Alright, phew, sorry for the rant there

To come back on topic - we're only now beginning to look into various areas of the game. When I said that we have announced this as early as we could, then I meant it. Work is only beginning now and ballistics, accuracy and armor penetration calculations are certainly important aspects that we will be looking into.

Still, this game has a different focus than CM, so you cannot compare the two directly. If you want long-range armor duels, CM will likely remain the game to choose. TOW is designed for Close-Combat style missions, and while it features engagements at higher ranges than any other RTS I've seen already, clearly the focus is on fighting within "infantry" range, i.e. 500 meters. The maps are designed for it and the game with its individual soldiers is designed for it.

Funny enough, even if the game allowed armor engagements at 2000 meters and more, you would not be able to tell from playing it, because you can hardly find LOS at those ranges on those incredibly detailed maps.

Just like the discussion about entering buildings which is kind of moot because the game is not really focussed on urban combat, this dicussion is a bit besides the point because TOW is not focussed on long-range armor battles. It's a bit like saying that CM doesn't do a good job simulating beach invasions

Martin

[Earl Grey]

You have a point, Moon - as always. What bothers me, though is the part about ToW's focus being on CC style missions. Tanks IMHO aren't suited to close combat situations at engagement ranges below 500m. It's deadly in CM and would be deadly elswhere.

So for me that translates into something like tank rushing because of engagement ranges there'd be not much difference if you have a PzIII or a Panther...

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Moon:

Work is only beginning now and ballistics, accuracy and armor penetration calculations are certainly important aspects that we will be looking into.

Well I hope so... please don't let that little 3 letter word that I keep hearing over and over again like a mantra in this forum "fun" be the guide for this game. I agree there has to be a mix of fun and realism.. however at what expense?

You are marketing this to wargamers, are we your actual target, or is it the 14 year old typical RTS player? I suppose that's where the money is...

Funny enough, even if the game allowed armor engagements at 2000 meters and more, you would not be able to tell from playing it, because you can hardly find LOS at those ranges on those incredibly detailed maps.

Just like the discussion about entering buildings which is kind of moot because the game is not really focussed on urban combat, this dicussion is a bit besides the point because TOW is not focussed on long-range armor battles.

Sigh... I keep hearing that "combat happens most often at under 500 meters..." that might be true in a built up area, of course an area that the game doesn't really support, or close in terrain, but I look at those beautiful screen shots (and they are beautiful) and I see a lot of wide open space. I have no doubt that the longer ranges are there.

I am not saying lets make it another CM... but at least make the underlying stats correct, even if the majority of LOS is short on the maps.

I really don't see how you can say this discussion is beside the point... this discussion is at the heart of what this game is supposed to be... "Realistic shell ballistics, armor penetration calculations..".. that is from your game features page.

You cannot tout realism on one hand and then cry "foul, it has to be fun" on the other...

I can accept some abstraction.. and personally the building issue doesn't bother me too much, because I'm sure it will be added later, I understand that, lets get the game out...

...but if the underlying data is skewed, then the game will be forever broken and flawed IMO.

Bil

[Moon]

Yup, Bil, we're with you, which is why we will put efforts there to make sure that the data is realistic. 1C has made this exact commitment as well in their past games, and by partnering with us in this game.

Martin

[Hortlund]

Just wanted to add my opinion and say that for me, it is very important that the game has the correct ballistics, penetration figures and generally that the physics behind everything is as realistic and good as in CM.

I absolutely hate the dumbed-down games where anything can penetrate anything, just as long as you hit it enough times or whatever.

Edit: Thanks Moon, that answer is good enough for me.

[RSColonel_131st]

For me, it's important that using different tanks requires different tactics.

So, if the engagement ranges are mostly sub-500 meters, and the penetration values are not somehow adapated, tank combat in here will be a bit too straight I think.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Moon:

Yup, Bil, we're with you, which is why we will put efforts there to make sure that the data is realistic. 1C has made this exact commitment as well in their past games, and by partnering with us in this game.

Martin

I guess I'll just have to trust you guys... you haven't let me down in the past, so I doubt you will this time either.

Just for grins I ran through a couple of your screen shots and found this one... I can see a looong way to the hills in the background.

[Hortlund]

I doubt that hill in the background is in the playable area of the map though. What was it? 8 km rendered map, and 4 square km playable?

[ July 29, 2006, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Hortlund ]