Engagement Ranges and AP Penetration value worries...

[Bil Hardenberger]

Hortlund, whose side are you on?

The maps are 4km by 4km, enough room to include the hills in the background.

[Hortlund]

Hehe, I think we're all on the same side here

Im trying to get a mental picture of how big a 4 square km map is going to be, and how long a maximum range shot would be.. How long is the diagonal of a 2x2 km square?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

"The two phoniest things about football are astroturf and the wave."-John Madden

And so it is that, occasionally, we might want to take a gander at the less satisfactory aspects of computer wargaming. With that in mind, I'd submit that, generally speaking, they are as follows:

1) Hexes

2) Turns

And, for tactical/battlefield games, yet another:

3) Micro-plotting moves/orders for EVERY unit at one's disposal

I identify these items because they are so patently unrealistic, items that we had to endure with boardgames, wretched devices which were subsequently ported-over to computer sims.

Although I still play boardgames competitively, I genuinely hated the tactical genre, beginning with Panzerblitz, right on through Sqaulid Leader and ASL. The turn/movement/combat systems that "sorta" work with strategy games become laughable at the tactical level, at least to anyone thoughtful enough to consider what's going on as you microplot the behavior of all those units in turns ranging from 6 minutes to 30 seconds. That's one hell of a command and control system. Makes the Borg concept look a lot more plausible, doesn't it?

Now, a developer is trying to take a step toward delivering us from what I've described above, and a lot of people here are challenging the attempt as being UNREALISTIC Well, for God's sake would you please, just for once, take a look at what you assume to be REALISTIC and acknowledge its shortcomings. If you're not willing to accept a change of paradigm, computer wargaming simply cannot evolve.

ToW will likely not be PERFECT in any of the regards that I briefly touched on above, but it sounds as though they are at least trying to address some of the shortcomings of the CM series. I humbly submit that they ought to be given an opportunity to do so.

PoE

[Romulus]

Originally posted by Hortlund:

How long is the diagonal of a 2x2 km square?

2*2^0.5=2,8284 km

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The two phoniest things about football are astroturf and the wave."-John Madden

And so it is that, occasionally, we might want to take a gander at the less satisfactory aspects of computer wargaming. With that in mind, I'd submit that, generally speaking, they are as follows:

1) Hexes

2) Turns

And, for tactical/battlefield games, yet another:

3) Micro-plotting moves/orders for EVERY unit at one's disposal

I identify these items because they are so patently unrealistic, items that we had to endure with boardgames, wretched devices which were subsequently ported-over to computer sims.

Although I still play boardgames competitively, I genuinely hated the tactical genre, beginning with Panzerblitz, right on through Sqaulid Leader and ASL. The turn/movement/combat systems that "sorta" work with strategy games become laughable at the tactical level, at least to anyone thoughtful enough to consider what's going on as you microplot the behavior of all those units in turns ranging from 6 minutes to 30 seconds. That's one hell of a command and control system. Makes the Borg concept look a lot more plausible, doesn't it?

Now, a developer is trying to take a step toward delivering us from what I've described above, and a lot of people here are challenging the attempt as being UNREALISTIC Well, for God's sake would you please, just for once, take a look at what you assume to be REALISTIC and acknowledge its shortcomings. If you're not willing to accept a change of paradigm, computer wargaming simply cannot evolve.

ToW will likely not be PERFECT in any of the regards that I briefly touched on above, but it sounds as though they are at least trying to address some of the shortcomings of the CM series. I humbly submit that they ought to be given an opportunity to do so.

PoE </font>

[Moon]

Yes, Bil, but those hills in the background are not part of the playable area for this particular scenario. And while the whole playable area stretches for about 2 km from edge to edge, by really subtle use of forests and hills you will be hard pressed to find LOS of 500 meters and up.

In the game, it's really not a big deal because you do have the feeling of space (much more so than in any other RTS game I've ever seen) and the maps really feel open enough to allow for great tactical battles without feeling cramped at all. But when you check ranges you'll realize that most combat takes place around 500 meters.

That is not to say that there are no exceptions. There are some where you'll go above the 500 meters that I have seen already.

Martin

[Bil Hardenberger]

Good post? Sounds like he's runing for office

Seriously, attacking me because I would like to have the numbers be somewhat based on reality is uncalled for. Preaching like this does nothing but rub people the wrong way especially as he has no clue as to my background.

Snip...

If you're not willing to accept a change of paradigm, computer wargaming simply cannot evolve.

WTF? Who said anything about that, or hex gaming and turns in a tactical setting? We are only interested in accurate data behind our games.

Bil

[Moon]

Bil, I am guessing that he was not responding directly to you? I thought that it was a very good post, too.

Martin

[Prince of Eckmühl]

@Bill,

My comments weren't directed at you.

In reading through the posts since the forum opened, just yesterday,, I was sort of appalled at the pirahna-like edge to many of the comments.

The character of the messages ran the gamut from simple demands, all the way to threats and ultimatums, "it's my way, or the highway...If it doesn't have turns, I won't buy it." That's not an actual quote, btw, but I believe that it captures the spirit of many of the comments registered here since yesterday.

And folks repeatedly asserted their conviction that to deviate from established norms would likely undermine ToWs REALISM. This is far, far from certitude, won't you agree?

It's ironic that I managed to step on your message above. Yours was apparently posted while I was composing my own. For that matter, my comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. I didn't cite a direct quote because I didn't want to ruffle any feathers.

My sincerest apologies if I offended your sense of propriety with my comments as that simply was not my intention.

PoE

[WineCape]

That's the problem, isn't it?

Combat Mission has spoiled me for rather accurate ballistics data (at least to the best of BFC's research ability) and given their involvement with ToW, we expect roughly the same.

As long as BFC gives attention to this to get it right to their satisfaction, or the promise to do just that, I'll be happy, given BFC's superb reputation, the reason the creators went with BFC in the first place. That's enough for me.

[Darren J Pierson]

I for one haven't yet figured out yet if ToW is suppoesed to be a fun game with realism (CCish - and yes, we can all debate the realism of the CC series) or a realistic game that is fun (More CMish). I would be happy with the former as I'm content to let CM be CM.

Knee jerk reactions to changes in paradigms are not usually healthy, but change by itself does not mean that things will be improved either. But, all one will see is debate until a demo is out so we might as well buckle in and enjoy the ride.

[Bil Hardenberger]

PoE, thanks.. perhaps I took it personal because it was posted in this thread, and I was the main poster.. it just seemed out of place otherwise.

But Winecape is right.. we have come to expect certain quality from BFC and I'm certain they'll be looking at the game with a fine tooth comb before putting their stamp of approval on it.

Bil

[Darren J Pierson]

Anyone publishing a tactical WWII game through BFC needs to sit down and read the old CM archives. From Bren tripods to Tiger mantles to corpses to national traits to hardened steel to track overpressure to facial features to what names are acceptable for leaders, etc. This can be a supportive group and a brutal group and a downright silly group at times, but always demanding - with all the positives and negatives that entails.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

From the screen shots I have seen it is clear that the weapons data has been compressed, OK at 100m but then the penetration one would expect at 2,000m is the figure for 500m with ToW.

Equally clearly this will have to change now that Battlefront is in on the act. A 2,000m by 2,000m map is fine, even with most clear lines of site being 500m, but weapons data must be correct.

However, I am relaxed about all this . Battlefront have made clear that one of their jobs is to help to make ToW a little more realistic and I am sure most of points we mention are already on their list.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[RMC]

Somehow I don't think the existing data is going to change. Skewing the data for shorter ranges probably serves two purposes here. One is to make the maps feel bigger in terms of manuever space and the other is the limited POV of the player in the RT 3d environment.

Off the cuff, this doesn't bother me terribly much since the relationships between the combatants will still be the same. If in reality tank A can defeat tank B at 1000M but tank B can only defeat tank A at 500M, changing those values to 500M and 250M still means tank A can defeat tank B at twice the range as the reverse.

Perhaps after the release someone could mod the files to get back to realistic numbers for those who find this design decision unacceptable.

[Darren J Pierson]

If the data is manipulated for the smaller battlefield, is this also true for infantry? How will the affect infantry vs armor (and the reverse) engagements?

[sebastian]

If all weapon ranges are scaled down proportionally, the realism is not affected much. It is allmost the same like scaling up the units visually, like CM does.

Well, not really because the speed of the units would also have to be scaled down proportionally to the ranges, to have aquivalent contracted space. But I can live with that.

[Battlefront.com]

Darren,

I for one haven't yet figured out yet if ToW is suppoesed to be a fun game with realism (CCish - and yes, we can all debate the realism of the CC series) or a realistic game that is fun (More CMish). I would be happy with the former as I'm content to let CM be CM.

This is a good point. I would put ToW more towards CC in terms of ease of play, atmosphere, and realism. WAY, WAY ahead of CC in terms of the AI and map size These last two issues are why many people on this Forum, myself included, grew frustrated with the series. It had so many positive things going for it, but when your tanks had to be individually handled so that they didn't spin around backwards in the middle of bridge, instead of crossing it, that really took the fun out of the game. And when the entire map was only 500m and you started the battle with a bunch of Fireflies facing off against a Tiger, all in the open, that too wasn't much fun (OK, the first time was fun ). ToW has neither of these two big problems.

So in some ways ToW is closer to CC, some ways it is closer to CMx1, some ways it is different than both. But when combined, it is unique and rightly stands on its own two feet quite well. Meaning, *after* you play ToW you will soon stop wanting to compare it to other games and just compare it to itself. Obviously you can't do that yet since you don't have the game, but all good things to those who wait

Steve

[thewood]

Steve,

That is probably the best you have done explaining where ToW fits. I think the main issue some people had was all the excitement generated by the hints. Most regulars on this forum had off and on seen the hype over the last three years in what became ToW and I for one was little worried when it turned out that is what the hints were about.

I personally thought that there is no way BFC would get involved in what appeared from the outside to be a mess of over-hyped realism. The final announcement was actually a little shocking. I then rationalized that there is no way BFC would not drive some pretty good realism into the game. Then I started seeing things like unusable buildings, shortened ranges, etc. and immediately thought the worst.

Someone else said it best when they said CM spoiled us. Every WW2 tactical game released is now compared to CM, fairly or unfairly. CM is one of the few games that struck the balance between realism, abstraction, and innovation. Most regular CMer's probably have an expectation that the next WW2 tactical game from BFC will be an evolution to take CM to the next level. ToW comes into the BFC ecosystem in that light, once again, fairly or unfairly.

But using the CC frame of reference does make it a little clearer to me than the CM frame of reference. But I must say, from a perspective that most likely covers a large part of BFC's core audience, I come to BFC for CM-like games and to me all the other games are just peripherals to help BFC stay in business to move CM forward.

One thing I would like to point out is that you may think the CM comparison is not justified, but in the old ToW forums (called WWII RTS then I think), they themselves compared WWII RTS to CM and talked about how much more realistic WWII RTS would be. That is where my personal perspective came from.

I'm still not sure I will purchase ToW because I never felt satisfied by any of the CC games, but I at least understand a little better what niche BFC is trying to fill. Also, my computer is a year old and looks like it may not be able touch this game. But who knows, peer pressure can be a strange thing.

[Battlefront.com]

thewood,

Fair enough We are, afterall, a victim of our own success in a way. There are worse things to be in life than that!

We can not help how the game was, or wasn't, marketed before we got involved. There was some stuff said about T-72 before we got a hold of it that we certainly didn't repeat. All we can do is pretend nothing has ever been said and tell you guys what we think of it instead.

I will say that we've watched the development of ToW since it was first announced (using a different name). We've seen it change over time and when 1C approached us we really weren't sure what it was we would see. We knew we would be impressed with the graphics, but we had no idea if we would be impressed as much with the gameplay and realism. Well... we were blown away in all three respects. That should count for something with you lot.

Now, as I've said several times now... is ToW the game I would have made if I had that amount of time and resources at my disposal? No. But that's fine with me because I'm already making a game just the way I want to It is so very nice to be able to see something that is original. It's been a long time since that's happened. In fact, as tactical wargames go it has been just about 7 years since the last well executed, innovative, tactical 3D wargame came out

Steve

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Darren,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I for one haven't yet figured out yet if ToW is suppoesed to be a fun game with realism (CCish - and yes, we can all debate the realism of the CC series) or a realistic game that is fun (More CMish). I would be happy with the former as I'm content to let CM be CM.

This is a good point. I would put ToW more towards CC in terms of ease of play, atmosphere, and realism. WAY, WAY ahead of CC in terms of the AI and map size These last two issues are why many people on this Forum, myself included, grew frustrated with the series. It had so many positive things going for it, but when your tanks had to be individually handled so that they didn't spin around backwards in the middle of bridge, instead of crossing it, that really took the fun out of the game. And when the entire map was only 500m and you started the battle with a bunch of Fireflies facing off against a Tiger, all in the open, that too wasn't much fun (OK, the first time was fun ). ToW has neither of these two big problems.

So in some ways ToW is closer to CC, some ways it is closer to CMx1, some ways it is different than both. But when combined, it is unique and rightly stands on its own two feet quite well. Meaning, *after* you play ToW you will soon stop wanting to compare it to other games and just compare it to itself. Obviously you can't do that yet since you don't have the game, but all good things to those who wait

Steve </font>

[John Kettler]

Steve, Moon,

Here's hoping the Russian 45mm ATG will finally get its due and at least be able to achieve what it could in real life. Since you're here, may I also plead for the inclusion of fixes to that and other major issues in CMBB and in the algorithms used to

compute same in CMC. Believe this would be more groggy and less frustrating to those playing Russians. As for gunnery ranges, I'm hoping that the engine will support enough to be able to fight

on the steppes with some of the big guns. Is smokeless/flashless powder being modeled for spotting? Hope so, since it was tactically important!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Redwolf]

Mumble.

I think we get into a problem of discussion style here, not of game features.

For the purpose of this game I am mostly fine with a penetration model that is not acumulative-damage based and does at least have some resemblence of armor penetration table, even if those tables are compressed in range.

However, there is no question that the ranges are indeed compressed:

[ July 30, 2006, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

Anyone publishing a tactical WWII game through BFC needs to sit down and read the old CM archives. From Bren tripods to Tiger mantles to corpses to national traits to hardened steel to track overpressure to facial features to what names are acceptable for leaders, etc. This can be a supportive group and a brutal group and a downright silly group at times, but always demanding - with all the positives and negatives that entails.

...and sometimes it is just a bunch of hysterical pussies!!!

I prefer to wait for the demo.

[Darren J Pierson]

One thing I've always admired about BFC is that they try at least to keep the discourse elevated including the language.