Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!

[panzermartin]

I think it is the "Hornet's Nest" iirc.

[Paul AU]

I re-played that 'Nashorn' scenario just a coupla weeks ago - and I concur

with 'Ali-Baba'

[Vergeltungswaffe]

No borg spotting alone will make dedicated TD's a lot more lethal, as they typically were.

[Steiner14]

Steiner14: German traitors?

Biggest betrayal in military history.

[hoolaman]

No borg spotting alone will make dedicated TD's a lot more lethal, as they typically were.

Yep I played that Hornets Nest scenario the other day and popping the tank commanders head over the ridge would draw instant fire from 10 T-34s.

No Borg Spotting would make a huge huge difference for stuff like this.

We can also do cool stuff like dismounting vehicle crews to scout.

[Ryan Crierie]

I'm just curious, Steve. You said this:

After all this time here on the Forum it's hard for me to imagine that you're as clueless as you appear to be about the armor modeling. Others have already illustrated specifics, but the general difference between CMx1 armor modeling and CMx2 is that CMx1 was quite abstract (i.e. dice rolls) while CMx2's is far more direct. So it has all the detail of CMx1 and far more accountability. Which baffles me as to why you think that Normandy will have LESS detail when clearly that would require us ripping out code which is already in the game and substituting it with something less sophisticated than we did 11 years ago.

But on the BFC website for CMBB it says:

Advanced and updated armor penetration algorithms where even the amount and density of the armor *plug* that is pushed into a vehicle from a penetration is now calculated and modeled.

That sounds a lot more detailed than an abstracted dice roll system.

[Thomm]

Let me answer this for Steve:

In CMx1 a "dice roll" determined which area of the tank the shell hit (upper/lower hull, turret, etc.) while in CMx2 the actual ballistic shell path is calculated and the actual intersection with the target polygon model is determined.

Of course, this also involves random numbers (bad aim, dispersion), but on the side of the shooter this time, not the target! So the "dice" are "rolled" a few split-seconds earlier.

All this is speculation on my part, but I would be surprised if this is not what Steve meant to say!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Battlefront.com]

Vergeltungswaffe,

No borg spotting alone will make dedicated TD's a lot more lethal, as they typically were.

A very good observation! Same with ATGs. In CMx1 we are all aware that as soon as you spot an enemy ATG you often can kill it quickly by bringing various weapons to bear with little penalty. Now, because of the God problem (i.e. player is God, he knows everything) there is still Area Fire which can be directed unrealistically against soft vehicles such as lightly armored TDs or ATGs. But Relative Spotting does make it more difficult to achieve, if for no other reason than reducing accuracy.

Ryan Crierie,

That sounds a lot more detailed than an abstracted dice roll system.

Thomm has it right While it is absolutely true that CMx1's armoring modeling is far, far more detailed and scientific than other games to this day (CM:SF excepted), it still basically boiled down to abstracted "dice rolls". The difference between CMx1 and other games is that the values going into the "dice rolls" were very carefully calculated based on scientific formulas, broad ranges of variables, and lots of situational input. The early Steel Panthers, for example, was more-or-less rock/paper/scissors. If you had a gun with a value of 9, and you hit a tank with an armor value of 5, you had x chance of damaging and y chance of killing.

A really good example of the difference is in the modeling of damage. Here's how the two games work:

CMx1

A hit is registered (probability based decision which part of vehicle struck) and it is determined if the round does any damage based on conditional circumstances (relative angles, armor type, armor thickness, etc.). If damage is achieved then it is determined based on the strength of that hit (amount of HE in the shell, kinetic energy, etc) and some other factors (e.g. a vehicle might be tagged as being prone to brewing up, while another one prone to catastrophic armor shattering). This assessment may be quite detailed, but in the end it basically amounted to dice rolls.

CMx2

The shell trajectory, including the angle of the shell at the time of impact, is tracked in detail. Where it hits in the 3D representation is where it hits in the underlying data for that vehicle. Shell looks like it hits the front left corner of the front of the mantlet? That's exactly where the hit is registered. The exact angles of the shell compared to the armor are taken into account, the properties of that specific portion of the vehicle (thickness, resistance level, type of armor, etc.) are used for detailed scientific calculations to determine what sort of damage, if any, is achieved. Damage is assessed based on what could possibly be damaged by that hit. A hit to the engine compartment isn't going to knock out the bow MG, for example. A hit to the right side that doesn't penetrate may in fact knock off the radio antenna, thus disabling the radio, but a hit to the front right track wouldn't, though it would disable and/or damage the right track. For modern warfare it means a hit that clears off a specific block of ERA (explosive armor) is now free to be hit again, but the subsequent shot must hit that same place. Likewise, a hit that strikes the armor next to ERA blocks isn't affected by them. That sort of thing.

To put it another way... CMx1 makes a pretty good, but abstracted, guess as to what should be damaged while CMx2 instead figures things out very precisely.

Now, what's the difference between the two, one might ask, in terms of gameplay? Well, if you don't care about realism then the answer is "not much". If you do care about realism then the difference is rather significant. Perhaps not quite as much of a difference between CMx1 and CMx2 as there is between CMx1 and Panzer General, but still there is a noticeable difference. It also is MUCH easier from our standpoint because we don't have to go around fudging code when game results appear unrealistic. We had to do that a lot on CMx1 (remember the raging debates about Tiger 1 mantlet thicknesses, anybody?), but haven't had to so any of that stuff for CMx2.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Now, what's the difference between the two, one might ask, in terms of gameplay? Well, if you don't care about realism then the answer is "not much".

Won't have the tiny turrets of PzIVs in hulldown positions a huge impact on gameplay compared to CMx1?

[Redwolf]

Won't have the tiny turrets of PzIVs in hulldown positions a huge impact on gameplay compared to CMx1?

That's true. In this case using the true 3D model is a real advantage.

Of course you could have easily fixed it in CMx1 by just setting a per-vehicle parameter "turret size".

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

Won't have the tiny turrets of PzIVs in hulldown positions a huge impact on gameplay compared to CMx1?

Yup, and that's included in my "realism" comment. For gamers who don't care about realism it doesn't matter if the PzIV is any more, or less, difficult to hit when hull down than something huge like a King Tiger. But since a pretty good sized chunk of CM's fanbase DOES care about realism, you are correct... something like this will be noticed and appreciated.

Redwolf,

Of course you could have easily fixed it in CMx1 by just setting a per-vehicle parameter "turret size".

Absolutely. In the case of hull down it would have been relatively easy to account for turret size separately from overall vehicle profile (which is what CMx1 used). The reason why this would work is that the terrain would determine that the only possible it could be a turret, therefore the turret size could be substituted when determining if there was a hit. But it would still be less refined than CMx2's system...

In CMx1 what happens is there is a blanket % reduced chance of taking a hit when Hull Down. It is a binary situation, either you are or aren't. If you are 1% over the threshold towards Hull Down, you get the bonus. If you are 1% shy of being Hull Down, you don't. There isn't an inbetween and the % reduction of taking a hit is identical no matter what the situation is. At least that's how I remember it being

With CMx2 if a shot is fired at a vehicle that is completely exposed, it is quite possible for it to sail right over the deck and miss the turret. Not because a die roll determined that there was a miss, but because the incoming round's path literally missed the tank. So when a tank is Hull Down in CMx2 it can be very hull down, a little hull down, not hull down at all, or any other variation. This means there is a far richer, naturally occurring environment which in turn allows for a wider range of possible outcomes based on specific in-game circumstances. In turn that means realism is increased in a way that would not be the case with a tweaked CMx1 approach.

Again, the increase in fidelity of CMx2 means the game is inherently more realistic from a simulation standpoint than CMx1. It's up to individual players to determine if that is important to them or not. I have no problem with someone saying "but I liked CMx1 is better", but they need to understand that what they are saying is akin to "gamier is better". Which I say again I really don't have a problem with unless the person is also going on and on and on about how critical it is to have high levels of realism in the game for the same exact feature. It's got to be one way or the other when talking about a specific feature.

Steve

[Flanker15]

In CMx2 is the path of a shell that penertrates tracked through the vehicle, damaging things it hits or just up to where it meets the vehicle model and then the effects are done abstracted?

Also can weapon in CMx2 fire multiple types of ammo in one burst? Like the Gau-8, is it firing both AP and HE when it attacks?

[Battlefront.com]

Ooo... good point! The path of the shell is tracked until it is completely stopped. Line up a couple of BTRs next to each other and then punch some Abrams rounds through at a perpendicular angle. Usually the Abrams SABOT will go through the first vehicle and into the second one.

Alternating ammo types is not a problem if that's the way it's done in real life. As far as I can remember that wasn't possible in CMx1 because a "burst", from something like a 20mm AAA gun, was in and of itself an abstraction. A "burst" was simply a single shot with more sound and muzzle effects, with the simulation of the multiple rounds being abstractly simulated from a single hit. Mixing ammo could be done but it would have just been a fudging the average values used.

Steve

[panzermartin]

I think Normandy will illustrate more vividly the complexity of the engine. Now, its one shot one kill/boom and few inbetween. I know there are a LOT of things going on but the overkill capacity of the weapons just dont let them show. With the more frequent use of AP ammo in WW2 and the not so devastating ammunitions, we will experience some lenghty gripping tank duels, with ricochets, gun damages, the ol' death clock etc. I really can't think of a single area of the game that Normandy wont be superior to CMSF. I love the modern setting, with some hardware never seen before in a tactical game but I've already started to count days for D-Day

[Lanzfeld]

Sure would be great if we could see a hole in the tank where the AP round hit in CM Normandy! Since it is tracked to the very spot and all.

[panzermartin]

Hit marks would be awesome. The engine has the potential for this kind of graphical detail, as the disappearing era bricks show. How cool would it be to have non penetrating hits shown on the gun mantlet of a tiger too?

[Lampshade111]

Any chance of seeing detailed damage reports upon a hit? Like in the old Combat Missions? Any chance such updates would make there way to CM:SF?

Also there are disappearing ERA bricks in CM:SF?

[Wengart]

I found out the hard way that shells would penetrate vehicles. I had a squad get wiped out, as they were taking cover on the side of a building, by a T-72 shell going through my BRDM. Oddly enough, the BRDM was fine and promptly drove off.

Little details like that, that you wont notice right away, make me love the CM series.

Also, seeing the wear and tear on the tanks would probably help with the generic feeling that burning vehicles have.

Oh, quick question, will men be able to ride on top of our tanks yet?

[slug88]

Also there are disappearing ERA bricks in CM:SF?

Most definitely.

[stikkypixie]

I think Normandy will illustrate more vividly the complexity of the engine. Now, its one shot one kill/boom and few inbetween. I know there are a LOT of things going on but the overkill capacity of the weapons just dont let them show. With the more frequent use of AP ammo in WW2 and the not so devastating ammunitions, we will experience some lenghty gripping tank duels, with ricochets, gun damages, the ol' death clock etc. I really can't think of a single area of the game that Normandy wont be superior to CMSF. I love the modern setting, with some hardware never seen before in a tactical game but I've already started to count days for D-Day

Actually there is quite a lot of in between, although it is harder to notice. My M1s get hit a lot without being knocked out. Going by the exterior of the tank it always seems as if everything is fine, but the damage tab shows a completely different story .

[Flanker15]

Thanks for the infos!

I thought of another question about the CMx2 engine:

Can each part on a vehicle be given its own armor rating? Fixing that CMx1 problem where vehicles were too strong on a particular facing (The Stug3 I think had it)?

Also adding to the shells tracking through vehicles Q:

Is the shell tracked inside the vehicle aswell?

So it doesn't disapear when it hits and then re-appears on the other side but actually keeps going through the vehicle hitting "component boxes"?

Pretty much like the way ToW models it.

Super bonus question:

What kind of after armor effects can the engine do now that it's unabstracted?

[McIvan]

Biggest betrayal in military history.

Feel free to elaborate; I'd like to hear about it.

[McIvan]

Thanks for the infos!

I thought of another question about the CMx2 engine:

Can each part on a vehicle be given its own armor rating? Fixing that CMx1 problem where vehicles were too strong on a particular facing (The Stug3 I think had it)?

The answer to that, from reading this thread and observing CMSF, is definitely yes.

Also adding to the shells tracking through vehicles Q:

Is the shell tracked inside the vehicle aswell?

So it doesn't disapear when it hits and then re-appears on the other side but actually keeps going through the vehicle hitting "component boxes"?

Pretty much like the way ToW models it.

Again, from reading the thread the answer is yes again.

Super bonus question:

What kind of after armor effects can the engine do now that it's unabstracted?

I'll leave that one for someone else.

I'll add a plea for detailed hit reports.....even if nothing else, it makes it easy to see which of your tanks you should check out. It's easy, when playing realtime, to overlook clicking on whichever vehicle just took a hit to check for any damage when superficially it looks fine (but now has gun damage or no radio). "Front turret penetration. Loader killed, radio destroyed."

[hcrof]

I'm pretty sure that engines give a kind of armour bonus. From my experience, a BMP that is knocked out from the front (with a light weapon like an RPG) will take far fewer casualties than from the side. In my opinion, the engine is either acting as armour or is acting as stand off to the troop compartment.

Having said that, I have learned from hard experience not to keep troops in them at ranges below 500m so it hasn't happened to me for a while!

And troops riding on armoured vehicles would be cool!

[Battlefront.com]

We are definitely going to put back in "detailed hit text", as well as some sort of indication of "hit chance %". Ironically, it's harder to do the latter in CMx2 than it was in CMx1. Because CMx1 was an abstract system it was far easier to give some sort of relevant chance of a hit because that was, in fact, what the system was concerned about... chances. In CMx2 it's not nearly as simplistic as this because it has to do with how the actual shot path intersects the vehicle in question. Basically, to have "hit chance %" Charles has to code up something similar to CMx1. Odd, eh?

Flanker15,

McIvan's answers are spot on. As for your last question about armor effects that CMx2 can do that CMx1 couldn't...

The big one is degrading armor in a particular spot. The engine currently doesn't have the ability to do metallurgical weakness due to repeated hits in the same spot, but with some work it definitely can (we probably won't do that until the Eastern Front where BIG shells are used frequently). But for CM:SF we have something similar where a hit to a spot covered by ERA is no longer protected by the ERA if a shot happens to hit that same spot. The chances aren't that good it will happen, but it's simulated now.

For CM Normandy we can better simulate things like skirt armor and spaced armor. That's because, like ERA, these things are location dependent. In CMx1 we had to make approximations because there were a limited number of simulated surfaces and they were either protected by extra armor or they weren't. Now things can be handled with more subtlety if the need arises.

Going back to another related question, in theory we could have a mantlet with a dozen or two dozen different armor thicknesses, depending on location. I say theoretically because to do that means a lot of extra work on our part and more computing resources to handle the differences. So we are unlikely to mess around with very small differences. For major ones, however, we might very well break a single surface down into sub surfaces to simulate major differences in armor ratings. In any case, this really wasn't possible with CMx1 and it is very possible with CMx2.

Oooo... I forgot another MAJOR advantage of the CMx2 system vs. CMx1... rounded armor! In CMx1 it was all fudged by simply giving a surface a bonus when calculating the angle of the hit, which in turn meant that certain hits were less likely to penetrate than if the armor was flat. CMx2 simulates this far more directly so there isn't much need for fudging and/or more coding. I say "much need" because of what I said above about us currently not bothering with minor variations in armor thickness within a specific part of the vehicle. If a situation comes up where we think this is a problem we'll address it on a specific case by case basis, but until then it's better if we not go way down to that amount of detail.

Steve