Thickness and penetration data

[GreenAsJade]

In one of the AARs, the comment was made "I couldn't tell whether my tank would be able to penetrate his in this situation", and the subsequent question

"Is the shell penetration and armour thickness data available to the player?"

GaJ

[Gryphonne]

In one of the AARs, the comment was made "I couldn't tell whether my tank would be able to penetrate his in this situation", and the subsequent question

"Is the shell penetration and armour thickness data available to the player?"

GaJ

I remember being a sad panda when they mentioned that they would not include this in CMBN. So to answer your question:

"I don't think so"

[GreenAsJade]

Yes, that is sad.

You can of course argue that a commander in the war doesn't know all this stuff with mathematical precision, so why should we have that data.

However, the commander would have a better idea than the average non-grog playing the game Also "will it penetrate from this angle" is possibly not so much of an issue in modern warfare, but it is utterly critical in many armoured battles in the WWII situation... the tank v tank tactics depend on knowing if you need to take a side shot or not at the very least ... so in the context of WWII, it's a "wonderful playing aid, can we please have it"

GaJ

[Martin Krejcirik]

This is so sad. I just fired up CMAK and I love all these missing features (sound contacts, vague ID, penetration data, active AI where units are not just sitting and waiting to be killed, profound morale effects, fires). I'm not saying CMBN isn't going to be good, but these features are a must.

[sfhand]

I wonder how far off the old xls tables could be... I'll probably use them as a guide until I learn for myself.

[Sakai007]

I worry for new players, since us old hands will probably know all of this already. I have engaged enough Shermans, Stuarts, Panthers, Tigers, Mk IVs, and numerous other armored vehicles that I know what gun will work against what part of the enemy tank, and if his gun can kill me. That, and my recent shedding of my need to dual at long range with enemy tanks and use real tactics (thanks gib) that I know that all of the penetration stuff is useless if your aren't using your tanks the right way. In CMAK I killed two Panthers and a Mk IV with an M8 Greyhounds 37mm gun, certainly not in a straight fight, but because I used terrain and the darkness to get my little A/C behind em and the high rate of fire did the rest. I can't wait for moments like that in CMBN!!!

[Erwin]

Good points. I too can see newbies struggling with all the opaqueness. And the manuals are simply ineffective re teaching you what you need to do to play the game "effectively."

[gunnersman]

I cant find anywhere that says there will not be any penetration or thickness data.

All I could find is this --> http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94381&highlight=thickness

8 posts down from the top Steve says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mord

1.) How will armor be modeled in CMBN? Will we have one thickness value for each side; Front, Back, Left, Right, Top, Bottom? Or will these areas be broken down, Front Left, Front Right, Front Middle or something similar?

I take that to mean there will not be a data penetration table like there was in CMBO. In CMBO you could hit "enter" for a selected unit and a data table would show you the penetration values for the main gun of your tank/AT gun.

However in CMBN I suspect there will be a armor value graphic like in CMSF...AND an armor penetration value like CMSF. The two are on different tabs but they correspond with each other, in effect. The armor penetration graphic does not say X gun will penetrate X millimeters at X distance. It is more simplified and is more of a rule of thumb.

Then again the muzzle velocities of WW2 cannons are nowhere near as fast as those of CMSF. Not to mention the technology is leaps and bounds ahead. So I would imagine there would need to be some sort of indication of what penetration will occur at a given distance against a certain thickness of RH steel, or what have you.

[Captain Pies]

Good points. I too can see newbies struggling with all the opaqueness. And the manuals are simply ineffective re teaching you what you need to do to play the game "effectively."

For me when I discovered CMBO that was part of the attraction, it's just as likely to attract people who will stay with the series as turn the twitch crowd away.

[GreenAsJade]

Note that saying "CMBN penetration data will be available just like CMSF" doesn't help those of us who don't play CMSF...

GaJ

[~Viajero]

Arghh! Not even a tiny winny side table set for each vehicle armor and gun somewhere online or Excel to be consulted or something? I remember we had that in Excel for CMx1. Someone took the time to compile it!

[Wiggum]

Im sure there will be some stuff inside the manual...

[gibsonm]

Note that saying "CMBN penetration data will be available just like CMSF" doesn't help those of us who don't play CMSF...

GaJ

What you had in CM:SF was a graphic for each vehicle that was a matrix.

Location / facing on one side, threat weapon on the other

So you had lines for say:

ATGM Vs front, side, rear, etc.

Tank main round Vs front, side, rear, etc.

Chain gun Vs front, side, rear, etc.

These were colour coded - Thick Green was very good, Green was good, Yellow so so and Red bad

Went and grabbed a screenshot (hopefully clearer):

Part of the reason for this is that a lot of modern armour protection values are either classified (or at worst case estimates).

Now of course Second World War values are pretty much in the public domain (if you know where to look) but I’m pretty sure they are sticking with this simplified approach as most customers just want a X beats Y type table.

Something that lists the effective value of 80mm of X type armour at an angle of 30 degrees or the penetration values for a 75mm L70 round at 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m , ... is probably not what they are going to try and either document (or fit into the game itself).

[gunnersman]

Thanks Gibsonm. You beat me to it.

I have not had time to find the post, but there is a pre-CMBN website discussion (years ago, I think even before CMSF was finished) where Steve mentioned that he didn't like the whole CMx1 GUI and thought it was too clumsy (my words). What Gibsonm posted is a result of that thinking (I believe). I imagine the CMBN GUI will be built with CMSF philosophy in mind. More simpliciy.

You guys gotta a least try the CMSF demo. It's free! ;-)

[~Viajero]

You guys gotta a least try the CMSF demo. It's free! ;-)

You darned right it is! Downloading!

[sfhand]

What you had in CM:SF was a graphic for each vehicle that was a matrix.

Location / facing on one side, threat weapon on the other

So you had lines for say:

ATGM Vs front, side, rear, etc.

Tank main round Vs front, side, rear, etc.

Chain gun Vs front, side, rear, etc.

These were colour coded - Thick Green was very good, Green was good, Yellow so so and Red bad

Went and grabbed a screenshot (hopefully clearer):

Part of the reason for this is that a lot of modern armour protection values are either classified (or at worst case estimates).

Now of course Second World War values are pretty much in the public domain (if you know where to look) but I’m pretty sure they are sticking with this simplified approach as most customers just want a X beats Y type table.

Something that lists the effective value of 80mm of X type armour at an angle of 30 degrees or the penetration values for a 75mm L70 round at 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m , ... is probably not what they are going to try and either document (or fit into the game itself).

That information - graphic - is not available for enemy units... at least not in iron mode. It would be welcome if it were, at least by me. [edit: not in veteran mode either]

[YankeeDog]

But isn't this one of the things that differentiates Iron Mode? -- IRL, a commander in the field wouldn't have access to such detailed info on enemy armor, so you don't get access to it in Iron Mode. You have to rely on what is in your noggin.

If you want more game info & aids, then I think you're supposed to to dial down the difficulty mode a bit.

[sfhand]

It is only available in basic training mode.

I don't find it a stretch that experienced soldiers in the field, trained on weapons platforms and briefed about the enemy, would have a general idea about the effectiveness of their weapons as well as the general characteristics of the enemy's weapons - which is what this simple graphic represents. But that is just me.

On a side note, I play iron mode because of the spotting rules so more information about the capablilities of the units I face would be welcome.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And once again people are very interested in the mechanics and disregard the user experience.* It was fun matching armour to gun in CMx1. The excitement of seeing that you juuussst might make it through that Tigers armour.

And that's why I play this game, not the mechanics but the experience, the excitement. That fun is lessened with the nebulous info of CMSF.

*Sorry, I may have banged this drum before

[sawomi]

There is a inbuild 'Waffenprüfanstalt' (Weapons testing laboratory) called editor.

[Erwin]

"they are sticking with this simplified approach as most customers just want a X beats Y type table,,,"

This statement really puzzles me as certainly all the chat on this board seems to be by military folks or hardcore gamers who absolutely would like that sort of detailed info.

I agree with Elmar's take on what made CMx1 more fun.

[Lanzfeld]

I guess an open laptop next to your game computer with the editor from CMAK running will give us access to the data we will want during our CM:BN fights. Like someone said before, the data hasnt changed, has it?

[Erwin]

Ok, so now we have to buy another laptop to play the game effectively? LOL I see a fabulous merchandising tie-in opportunity in with Dell here.

(Also, are you sure that all the "to hit" and "to kill" calculations that were used by the AI in CMx1 still the same in CM:BN?)

[MikeyD]

Data tables would be pretty much superflouous after playng the game for a week. A little playtime and you know the 3 inch gun won't pierce a Panther hull front at 300m but will hole it easily from the side at 600+. You'll know an 88 Pak will take out any tank at all angles and all ranges. You'll know a PzIV's 50mm turret front is vulnerable to 37mm gun hits. Tank gunners in WWII didn't have wargamer data tables at their elbow in the thick of battle so why should you?

[gunnersman]

I did like the way CMBB/CMAK handled it with color coding. Colors represent armor thickness. The representation would go both ways for bullet penetration as well. It was a simple reference.

In CMSF, weapons capability of the different nations were pretty much the same. Higher muzzle velocities negate the need for armor angle. Armor angle is a moot point (for the most part). The only real difference between the nations on the battlefield is armor thickness and technology (Chobam Vs ERA).

In WW2 there are many different guns with many different bore sizes and a few guns (like the Panther's) having a much higher muzzle velocities. The muzzle velocities in WW2 are generally lower than modern Anti-Tank guns. So armor angle has more of a consideration. But that is still something that can be simplified by the color coding system.