Engagement Ranges and AP Penetration value worries...

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

[QB] Sorry for sounding negative, but I really can't see how they will get out of this self-created mess with the too small maps.

I think there's some confusion about exactly what "mess" they might be in.

If they fiddle with the values ("compress" ranges) then the mess is unrealistic play.

If they present scenarios with Stugs etc. trying to fight in close combat then the mess is unrealistic scenarios... assuming they don't present the scenarios as times when the enemy succeeded in getting in close. I assume it did happen. It happened in CM...

Either way you turn it, this will be very strange modeling of tank warfare. It may still be fun, but it doesn't sound like it will be detailed realism.

One way it's strange modeling of what the tanks actually were like, the other way is a strange modeling of the way they were used.

One is much stranger than the other, though. Messing with the values governing how tanks performed means you'll always have unrealistic play/results.

The other means you can only realistically play games in which the long-ranged German gear was forced to fight up close. And away from concentrations of buildings, quite possibly.

That keeps the game from being a general simulator/game like CMx1, where whole theaters were covered. But then TOW is explicitly more limited, with 50 some maps and a specific campaign.

So no steppe tank duels or hedge-row sniping. No urban combat. As long as the devs. acknowledge the game's current limitations the range issue shouldn't be a show stopper.

[ July 31, 2006, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

The other means you can only realistically play games in which the long-ranged German gear was forced to fight up close.

For me this equals taking a piece of gear that was designed to do X and only use it to do Y. It's not going to be a realistic representation of the gear or what it was designed for.

By compressing values, at least every tank could have some of it's historical strenghts and weaknesses back - but then other things like speed, rate of shots etc. also need to be adapted I guess.

[Tarquelne]

]For me this equals taking a piece of gear that was designed to do X and only use it to do Y. It's not going to be a realistic representation of the gear or what it was designed for.

Yep. But, realistically, didn't it sometimes get used for things it wasn't designed for? Esp. toward the end?

By compressing values, at least every tank could have some of it's historical strenghts and weaknesses back - but then other things like speed, rate of shots etc. also need to be adapted I guess.

If they compensate for everything... then they've simply shifted the scale and everything is hunky dory.

Any incomplete compensation will put some realism back in - what you mention above being the biggy - but would remove some, too.

In principle I'd be fine with either way, or with the sharp limit in possible scenarios. The game's not going to be a perfect simulator no matter what.

Since the game is in development hopefully the devs. will be able to look at the concerns raised here and still have time to make any adjustments they feel are warranted, or at least future proof the game to make adding some features later easier.

If we're really lucky the screenshots are misleading and there isn't any mess at all.

[YankeeDog]

I the "small maps" problem is getting overstated a bit.

What they've said is that "most" enagements take place at 500m or less. Not all. And they've already made it clear that the game does model ranges over 500m, if terrain and visibility conditions allow.

Remember back in the days before CMBB? 2km x 2km was about the average size for CMBO maps. So from the sounds of things, Map size in ToW & CMBO are about equal.

I haven't played CMBO for a while, but as I remember it, even on CMBO's 2km x 2km maps, there were usually at least a few long lanes of fire, where a Hetzer or PaK43 could reach out and KO shermans at ranges of 1km or more. Control of these long lanes of fire often ended being a major part of many games I played.

If ToW is basically the same way, I don't see the problem. Will the game be at its best modeling wide-open desert or steppes combats? Probably not, and I doubt they'll include any such maps in the game. CMBO wasn't very good at this kind of combat, either, which is probably why BFC upped map size for CMBB.

But plenty of action in WWII took place in closer terrain. And anyone who thinks the German Armor Range and Accuracy advantage simply evaporates once you get out of the Steppes or Desert, and start playing in the tight lanes of Normandy or whatever, needs to go back and play a CMBO scenario, where all you have is Vanilla Shermans, and your opponent has a Tiger I camped out on a hill, back at his map edge. Is it possibel to take out the Tiger? Sure. Is it easy? No.

Do the long range German guns have a greater advantage in the open steppes and deserts of CMBB and CMAK? Sure. And maybe someday, if the first release is successful, a future update of ToW will increase map size to better allow this kind of engagement. In the meantime, I'm really not worried about keeping myself entertained fighting closer-terrain battles on the 50 or so maps that are going to be coming with the initial release.

But I will probably be disappointed if the developers decide to somehow "adjust" Armor penetration values, on the misguided idea that they need to compensate for the shorter combat ranges. This opens up a whole can of worms. You can't just adjust one stat like this, without throwing everything else out of whack; it totally changes the Infantry vs. Armor, and Gun vs. Armor balance, among other things.

If the developers just want to create a fun RTS game that happens to have WWII eye candy, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, and they can adjust whatever stats they want.

But if they are claiming a "realistic" depiction of WWII combat (which seems to be the case), then I think realistic range/penetration values are important. Otherwise, you're creating a misimpression of history.

But I also think it's important to give the developers and BFC the benefit of the doubt. Both have a strong history of creating games that are both highly playable, and reasonably true to history. I expect the same of this release.

Cheers,

YD

[ July 31, 2006, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Bil Hardenberger]

But I will probably be disappointed if the developers decide to somehow "adjust" Armor penetration values, on the misguided idea that they need to compensate for the shorter combat ranges. This opens up a whole can of worms. You can't just adjust one stat like this, without throwing everything else out of whack; it totally changes the Infantry vs. Armor, and Gun vs. Armor balance, among other things.

If the developers just want to create a fun RTS game that happens to have WWII eye candy, fine. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, and they can adjust whatever stats they want.

But if they are claiming a "realistic" depiction of WWII combat (which seems to be the case), then I think realistic range/penetration values are important. Otherwise, you're creating a misimpression of history.

You put my concerns into words much better than I did.. well done.

But I also think it's important to give the developers and BFC the benefit of the doubt. Both have a strong history of creating games that are both highly playable, and reasonably true to history. I expect the same of this release.

I agree, and Moon said something of this sort a few pages back, so now we just need to wait and see if that is indeed the case, or if he was simply paying lip service to our concerns in this thread.

Bil

[tools4fools]

I hope they go for the historical no-squeeze data.

And later on in an addon we get buildings that can be entred by soldiers and more open country maps...

It's a first release and there will be addons!

Hope they get it right!

****

[thewood]

I watched this same debate unfold one or two years ago on the WWII RTS forum and it was actually discussed here on one or two threads at that time. Was UbiSoft the publisher then?

[Hpt. Lisse]

No kidding... though it certainly seemed like MegaKill was taking our comments to heart back then...

[Megakill]

Originally posted by Hpt. Lisse:

No kidding... though it certainly seemed like MegaKill was taking our comments to heart back then...

Guys and we changed a lot based on those discussions. Originally the game area was supposed to be 1 square kilometer, now it is 4.

We had to remake all the maps (hence probably +1 year development time). We are listening.

Or course we can't incorporate everything. Currenlty we have space only for small changes - waiting for input from BF guys and their beta-testers on that. They already outlined a few easy to fix things that would make the game better.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Megakill:

Or course we can't incorporate everything. Currenlty we have space only for small changes - waiting for input from BF guys and their beta-testers on that. They already outlined a few easy to fix things that would make the game better.

Hmmm... somehow this reply doesn't give me a lot of warm fuzzies over whether increased (realistic) ranges and accurate armor penetration values will make the cut.

Too bad, that decision will most likely kill this game for any real wargamer.

Bil

[Moon]

Actually the devs are testing the game right now with increased (realistic) ranges!

Martin

[Bil Hardenberger]

Now THAT is the news I was waiting for.

Thanks Martin et al

[Tarquelne]

Yea! Send more furs and vodka!

I'm curious about what seems different with the new test ranges, and how different.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Moon:

Actually the devs are testing the game right now with increased (realistic) ranges!

Martin

Good to hear that. Very good.

[Sigrun]

Wow, what a conundrum! :confused:

I'm kind of torn on this one. As a grog I want full 100% realism...I want my Tiger knocking out stuff at 2000m (where it can't be hit in return ).

But then the map sizes hardly allow the Tiger's range superiority to come into play.

Follows that the T34/85s will almost immediately be in the sub-500m range, conducive to killing the Tigers right off the bat. "Unfair!"

So what does one get by halving the effective ranges of all cannons? A T34/85 will need to be at no more than 250m to get a glacis kill on a Tiger1?

I know one thing...once you deviate from strict reality you're opening a can of worms and inviting disaster from all sorts of unexpected knock-on effects. Tiger1's were knocking out T34/85s in the sides from ranges of 1400m, way before the T34s were within range to return effective fire. If you halve those values you allow armor to get a lot closer to infantry before it can be interdicted (as an example of one knock-on effect of tampering with reality).

My instinct is to leave reality alone, and let the Germans deal with the loss of their long-range advantage, at least until the 4km x 4km becomes fully playable on the average PC. As we all know (don't we?) the Russians got in close at Kursk and negated the long-range superiority of the 75mm and 88mm German cannons (and optics).

Nerfing the cannons is a bad idea, so at least make it an interface option within the game, please? Let the players choose how they want the hardware to perform.

[ComradeP]

Sigrun: the Russians also used the bad weather at the Kursk engagements to their advantage, as the weather limited German LOS and thus effective range (is dynamic weather a factor in the game btw?).

Ranges are difficult to modify as the fact that a T34/85 needs to be close to score a penetration on a Tiger doesn't mean it can't penetrate a Stug's or Panzer III M's armour from the same distance. Ranges are thus very delicate to modify.

An example:

Let's say the Tiger has an effective range of "the entire map length/width (if its 2x2)" that would lead to problems with later Soviet tanks like the IS series and the ISU SPATs, as they would need roughly the same ranges (a Tiger doesn't have a realistic chance of frontally penetrating Russian heavy tank armour from 2000m).

If tanks are "scaled down" in range from 500 to...250 or the like that would lead to unrealistic (or even "funny") engagements were the Germans will almost certainly lose against the amounts of armour the Russians have at their disposal.

Delicate problems call for a delicate solution, and increasing the range to their real life values might be the best option.

Conclusion: it should suck to be a Russian tanker trying to fight a hull down Tiger from across an open field.

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

Sigrun: the Russians also used the bad weather at the Kursk engagements to their advantage, as the weather limited German LOS and thus effective range (is dynamic weather a factor in the game btw?).

Ranges are difficult to modify as the fact that a T34/85 needs to be close to score a penetration on a Tiger doesn't mean it can't penetrate a Stug's or Panzer III M's armour from the same distance. Ranges are thus very delicate to modify.

An example:

Let's say the Tiger has an effective range of "the entire map length/width (if its 2x2)" that would lead to problems with later Soviet tanks like the IS series and the ISU SPATs, as they would need roughly the same ranges (a Tiger doesn't have a realistic chance of frontally penetrating Russian heavy tank armour from 2000m).

If tanks are "scaled down" in range from 500 to...250 or the like that would lead to unrealistic (or even "funny") engagements were the Germans will almost certainly lose against the amounts of armour the Russians have at their disposal.

Delicate problems call for a delicate solution, and increasing the range to their real life values might be the best option.

Conclusion: it should suck to be a Russian tanker trying to fight a hull down Tiger from across an open field.

I fully agree. Leave reality alone and let the players deal with the tactical situations, just as their real-life counterparts had to.

You have a Tiger, you try and put it where it's long-range superiority has a chance to shine.

You're a Russian, with a handful of T34/85s, you use the terrain to try and get in close to the Tiger and take it on close-up.

Nerf the cannons and you lose those realistic tactical joys. Really it comes down to nothing more than swapping one bunch of parameters for another, so why not just stick with the realistic ones?

[Gpig]

Hey Bill. Check out this recent reply from Megakill in the "Are there maps and Keyholes from distance" thread ...

Originally posted by Megakill

"You can engage at 500+ meters no problem.

All guns now have realistic ranges (several kilomiters for tanks, etc). We have tested this and it works ok.

You will be able to test this in a demo (coming soon)."

/Mr. Burns/

Excellent

/Mr. Burns off/

[Sigrun]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Hey Bill. Check out this recent reply from Megakill in the "Are there maps and Keyholes from distance" thread ...

Originally posted by Megakill

"You can engage at 500+ meters no problem.

All guns now have realistic ranges (several kilomiters for tanks, etc). We have tested this and it works ok.

You will be able to test this in a demo (coming soon)."

/Mr. Burns/

Excellent

/Mr. Burns off/

Excellent news.

[SlapHappy]

I'd have to assume that there are many games that have "scaled" engagement and penetration ranges to work within smallish maps. Unfortunately, you also get into things like having to scale movement speeds and other things as well to make it even remotely accurate (which it still isn't).