Thickness and penetration data

[YankeeDog]

YD,

Any idea on how the two games differ on the amount of "areas" that can be hit? I know you said CMx1 was limited to the number of areas but how about CMx2?

No idea other than "lots." Obviously, the game can't have infinite fidelity, but my understanding is that the game now tracks exact armor composition and hit location very closely, in contrast to CMx1, where a round could hit in one of three locations per facing, and only two per facing for turretless AFVs.

I follow your point on people whining about incorporating things into the game that 'you' will not use. How about this? Lobby with us to get it included in the game and then just dont use it. Fair enough.

Thanks, but I think I'll spend my time lobbying for the features *I* want included. Of course, I'm sure you will do same, then BFC read what we post here, and go do what *they* really want to do, which may or may not coincide with with either you or I want.

All I ask is that, in an effort to make your opinion seem to carry more weight or be more valid. You do not make unsupported claims about what "gamers" or "potential new players" or whatever other demographic you claim to have special insight or knowledge into wants -- I'm NOT directing the preceding comment at you specifically. But some people in this thread seem to feel that they have an awful lot of knowledge about others want... I think it's really better if we all just leave the marketing research to BFC and whatever tea-leaf readers they've hired to help them in this area.

No matter what they put into the game everyone is not going to be happy. From following many gaming forums what all these game developers should do is put a big disclaimer on the front page saying game information and results my vary from real life.

Well, we can definitely both agree on this. Unfortunately, many people don't pay much attention to disclaimers.

Cheers,

YD

[roadiemullet]

Gents, why are we arguing over a feature for a game that doesn't actually exist in its final state? Lets just wait and see what BF has come up with - we can take an educated guess and say that its going to be more detailed than the simple display cmsf gave us - the weapons aren't as 'definite' and so showing the entire side of a tank with one icon for armour representation is very unlikely. Lets just wait and see what they have come up with then as soon as we know we can get back to moaning. In the meantime, crack CM on and lets chill.

Or pick someone and resolve you differences with a pbem.

[eniced73]

All I ask is that, in an effort to make your opinion seem to carry more weight or be more valid. You do not make unsupported claims about what "gamers" or "potential new players" or whatever other demographic you claim to have special insight or knowledge into wants -- I'm NOT directing the preceding comment at you specifically. But some people in this thread seem to feel that they have an awful lot of knowledge about others want... I think it's really better if we all just leave the marketing research to BFC and whatever tea-leaf readers they've hired to help them in this area.

YD

Point taken. Thanks.

Not arguing but discussing.

[gibsonm]

Respectfully...

Plz play some CM1 and then you can dissent but with some knowledge of what the rest of us are talking about.

Well that sort of goes both ways you know.

There’s a few people here whose posts reflect that they haven’t touched CM:SF (even the “free” downloadable demo) and yet are saying how bad it is or how the data is currently represented.

If people at least looked at CM:SF they’d get an idea of where things are at now and from that have a better idea as to where they maybe going.

At least then I wouldn’t need to dig up screenshots of how it looks “now”.

[vincere]

Personally, this was a step backwards. Been reading about WW2 on and off since a teenager and still have no idea how every AFV compares- but I guess my pixel troopers would have an idea. Basically if it was reintroduced I'd use it. Used it in CM1 loads.

That said. If I recall rightly, some time ago Steve said that the reason <Enter> into detailed penetrations stats are not in were for two reasons.

I think that the system is so much more complex now so similar data would have less meaning?

The other was a philisophical decision. They aim for games to be played realistically and perceived people checking indepth tables all the time as moving away from that.

[ChrisND]

I personally think that is the ideal system in that it gives you a general idea of what to expect without turning the game into a spreadsheet battle. Where I think it failed is the visuals; it just isn't easy to understand or look at (imo).

[vincere]

I personally think that is the ideal system in that it gives you a general idea of what to expect without turning the game into a spreadsheet battle. Where I think it failed is the visuals; it just isn't easy to understand or look at (imo).

You may have something in that. I know that I rarely used it more that a few times. Unless that has something to do with things being a little more straight forward in CMSF.

[sfhand]

The big problems with that graphic is that it is only available in basic training mode (say hello to borg spotting) and that the other tabs in the pane are operational (gives you information about damage and ammo). Apparently it is no easy task separating the information from each tab.

[dan/california]

People over think this, a lot. A player need to develop some basic understanding of the relative quality of the other sides armor. In CMBN for the German side this ranges roughly from the oldest short 75mm PZIV to the latest Tiger tank available. You need to know at what point on that continuum that going head to head becomes suicide for an equal number of Shermans. You don't need to know a whole lot more than that tactically really. Either you can attempt this head on, or have to flank them to have a chance.

[Martin Krejcirik]

The detailed penetration tables in CMBB were essential for me to learn the relative capabilities of many various guns and armor and its dependence on slope and distance. It would be a painful and boring "try and test" experience if only a simple CMSF interface was available. It can by very hard and confusing for newbies. I will certainly have to run CMBB and CMAK frequently just to see the data.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

People over think this, a lot. A player need to develop some basic understanding of the relative quality of the other sides armor. In CMBN for the German side this ranges roughly from the oldest short 75mm PZIV to the latest Tiger tank available. You need to know at what point on that continuum that going head to head becomes suicide for an equal number of Shermans. You don't need to know a whole lot more than that tactically really. Either you can attempt this head on, or have to flank them to have a chance.

But the stats are their most useful when the chance is a bit iffy. Say 75mm versus a Tiger. You may or may not get through, it'll be a close thing either way. And the advanced stats are a nice way of weighing those odds. Do I need to get a little closer, or can I chance it from where I am? That is the stuff where the detailed numbers did the most good.

[dan/california]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html

The three links above should cover a lot of the ground you need for CMBN. I am sure an a minimal amount of googling would produce the rest.

[skelley]

Maybe I just remember too much from CMX1 but I know what gun/tank can kill what tank within reason. I would prefer not to see that I have a 25% hit chance with a good chance to kill info when targeting. I think though that with the non lethal damage that can be caused now will be an awesome feature with the WWII setting. Imagine having only vanilla Shermans against a Hetzer or JdgPzIV. In CMX1 Hetzers and JgdPzIVs were brutal but if you can do damage to optics....damage to tracks causing their rotation to slow way down they become combat ineffective real fast. Really can bring their weaknesses out (no turret).

[eniced73]

OK. GAJ started this thread to address the issue on whether or not the tables would be included seeing a beta tester was questioning his knowledge on armor penetration in a particular game situation. I read the AAR and he states he has no confidence that his armor can penetrate. Wether or not he has knowledge with or without a table at hand does not concern me. I am just stating the topic of this post.

Now I just wanted to clarify some things since I was "called out" for posting unsupportive statements. Eventhough if you look through this topic or the thousands of others on this site 99% of them are opinions and are not supported by hard facts. I was assuming mostly everyone here had enough common sense to understand that. Mine was part of that 99% being an opinion. Thus I did not think I needed hard facts.

First looking back through this post I am seeing that at least 75% of the members (some with more than a thousand posts and some with less than 100) are in support of adding the data into the game. Fact. Thus I am pretty confident that my opinion would be supported by the majority if you took all members into account.

There are a select few that are claiming they do not need or do not care if the data is put in the game as they are already experts and have the knowledge memorized about what these values are. This was stated so I am not taking shots at people here. But in the same breathe are stating that they would serve us well, or be pretty useful if they were incorporated.

Looking at some of the comments below I cannot understand the arguement that the data should not be included because you already know it or that it would take away from other developements of the game. First the tables are already complete (unless new data on this was researched within the past years that would actually make a difference) and only need to be programmed into the game. I dont care what anyone says it cannot be that hard. It was done 10 years ago. Second if it is going to be left out so we can have the correct height of wheat fields in the corresponding season of the year or to make sure dust trails over a field are a little longer than on a dirt road, holy ****, someone deserves a promotion on that decision.

So, my request for addition of the tables is backed by the majority of members posting in this topic (and i would bet my left nut the majority of all members). Does the majority of your peers speaking in the same way carry enough weight?

The following is taken from the CMAK manual and states clearly a couple of times that the numbers are given to have a "ROUGH IDEA" only. So those that claim bull**** about gun x penetrating armor y at z distance do not have a case to bitch. Like I said before if you do not agree with the numbers or do not 'NEED' the numbers, do not "USE" the numbers. So lobby with the MAJORITY to get them into the game instead of making some of the useless comments below that could possibly convince them to leave it out.

This all may be a moot point since BF already probably made a decision on it being in or out. I would guess the later seeing they probably want to stick with the current game interface. Not a good decision and definitely not supported by the majority but what do we all know.

Armor Penetration

The penetration table states how many millimeters of armor the

shell can penetrate at four ranges (100m, 500m, 1000m, and

2000m), for three different armor slopes (0°, 30° and 60°) and the

various anti-armor ammunition types that the gun can fire. These

values, however, can vary a lot in the heat of battle, and are

supposed to give a rough idea only. Also, although only four ranges

are shown, the game engine uses much more precise algorithms

(down to a fraction of a meter). The table is color coded to

correspond to the colors shown for the various armor parts in the

unit interface. For each ammo type, also additional information is

listed, like the muzzle velocity and type of ammo (explained later in

this chapter). For multi-gun vehicles, a listing like “a7” or “h7”

indicates to which of the guns it applies; if e.g. a multi-gun tank has

a 37mm and a 75mm gun, “a7” would indicate that the penetration

information applies to the 75mm gun.

Guns

The details screen for guns is a mix of the entries available for

infantry units and tanks. Most entries are the same as for infantry

units. Additional to that, the MAIN WEAPON is shown, including

caliber (e.g. 57mm), muzzle velocity (e.g. 823 m/sec) and a blast

value. The latter indicates roughly how lethal the weapon is within a

certain range from the impact point.

For guns, the optics (explained in detail further below) are listed

here as well, if they are classified as better than STANDARD.

Below that is an armor penetration table, which is intended to

give a rough idea of the potential of the gun. It’s a rough idea onlybecause a lot of factors influence the actual chance of armor

penetration in the heat of battle.

The penetration table states how many millimeters of armor the

shell can penetrate at four ranges (100m, 500m, 1000m, and

2000m), for three different armor slopes and

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.

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.

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?

I'm sure that BFC has tweaked the data here and there where some new information has come to light, but in general, armor resistance and gun capabilities of WWII-era systems are well known, so if you want to use those old CMx1 Excel sheets as a guide, I imagine they'll serve you pretty well.

Personally, I have little need for detailed armor-gun stats in-game. Before I started playing CMx1 about ten years ago, I was mostly an aviation guy, so I did use the in-game stats some initially as I was learning the game. But a paper manual or just some Googling would have done me nearly as well and I really didn't use the stats much at all after the first dozen games or so. Actually, some of the fun of the game for me was learning by experience how effective weapons were on the battlefield.

But some people like their numbers, I guess...

Nice tone. Your mom forget to pack a cookie in your lunch today or something? For the record, I was answering earlier inquiries about whether using the old CMx1 Excel gun/penetration tables as a guide for CMx2 would be helpful at all for those who want such detailed statistics.

Since what is known about WWII-era gun vs. armor matchups hasn't really changed that much in the last ten years, my assumption is that, yes, the CMx1 tables will probably still be useful.

Again, my personal opinion is that I didn't really need the penetration tables in CMx1; I didn't use them much even when I first started playing CMBO and had very little knowledge of WWII AT guns and armor. So I certainly can do without them in CMx2. I do understand that others feel differently. But I also think a lot of people here are making some pretty grand, unsupported generalizations about what "gamers" or "new players" might think of this feature (or lack thereof), when they're actually talking about what THEY want to see in the game. I don't find this to be a very convincing argument.

Well, I don't really care if they just drop in the CMx1 tables. I won't use them, but if some people want them, fine. But for every person who would be happy with "just including the old data," I suspect you'd get another whining how the "old data" was now "inaccurate" given the new modeling, and how the inclusion of such "inaccurate, misleading information" in the game was "sloppy" and a "game breaker."

I haven't played any of the CMx1 games so don't know what these armor penatration tables look like but the CMx2 damage system is so sophisticated that I suspect the CMx1 tables are largely irrelevant and unhelpful as a reference tool.

You are asking him to potentially give up a feature he does want in the game. These features are not incorporated in a time vacuum. If for example, Battlefront decided right now that it HAD to have these tables in the game, the time spent on that is now not being spent on something else. Something that possibly a larger percentage of people will want.

All I ask is that, in an effort to make your opinion seem to carry more weight or be more valid. You do not make unsupported claims about what "gamers" or "potential new players" or whatever other demographic you claim to have special insight or knowledge into wants -- I'm NOT directing the preceding comment at you specifically. But some people in this thread seem to feel that they have an awful lot of knowledge about others want...

That said. If I recall rightly, some time ago Steve said that the reason <Enter> into detailed penetrations stats are not in were for two reasons.

I think that the system is so much more complex now so similar data would have less meaning?

The other was a philisophical decision. They aim for games to be played realistically and perceived people checking indepth tables all the time as moving away from that.

Maybe I just remember too much from CMX1 but I know what gun/tank can kill what tank within reason. I would prefer not to see that I have a 25% hit chance with a good chance to kill info when targeting. I think though that with the non lethal damage that can be caused now will be an awesome feature with the WWII setting.

[gibsonm]

Not quite sure what the purpose of including my quote was (the first one).

However just to be clear I’m quite happy that such detailed tables aren’t included (regardless of the ease / difficulty in doing so).

[eniced73]

Purpose being I got jumped for posting an opinion as you did with unsupportive claims. Another being would it not be easier to hit the 'enter' key in game on an unit to see the information rather than search the web for it?

[ChrisND]

Purpose being I got jumped

Nobody has jumped on you, we're having a discussion. Put away the persecuted martyr hat, it isn't needed.

[gibsonm]

Well sorry but AFV data is in the public domain.

Did you want pages of URLs (or lists of books like the ones on the shelf behind me) to support that or something?

And as a Beta Tester who has signed paperwork the second part is as far as I can go (plus its not my place to type hundreds of words justifying BTS/BFCs decision).

Is this better, as it says the same thing:

“I’m pretty sure they are sticking with this simplified approach as they believe most customers just want a X beats Y type table.“

Or would you prefer a more “aggressive approach“ (that saves me typing) like:

“Steve has said its not going to be in, so get over it”?

[roadiemullet]

This is not about whether info on AFVs is on the net or not, nobody is questioning that. Its the removal of this info being so easily accessible in game which is the point. If you dont know squat about a panther tank and your sherms have been bouncing shells off its hull front, you might not realise that you can counter this with a flank. If I was then told I could hit the enter key and find this out or instead quit and do some research online, I know what I would choose. This, of course, is just one small example of a bigger picture. Obviously I do not speak for all 'non-military enlightened' people who play CM, but If this kind of stuff has been left out of BN then I think it would be a real shame, and I do not think eniced73 and I are some weird tiny minority.

[ChrisND]

I think there should something simplified and easily displayed in-game. Not a bunch of numbers and angles, but simply rough grades of protection vs. penetration. So at a glance I can tell whether it is feasible to take out that Panther with this weapon from the front, or whether I have to go to the side.

This is already in CMSF to some extent, but it could use a lot of improvement, especially in intuitiveness.

[eniced73]

Come on guys. The two of you are veterens here and 'Beta' testers. So I am assuming you are held in high regards over the rest of us. No need for bashing statements that provoke a similar response. Will not go that route.

Your wrong. I was called out about supporting my opinion. There were several other opinions stated before mine that stated the same issue. Do I care that I was asked to support myself? No. But I mostly just read the forums and avoid posting as I get tired of seeing a topic get turned into this sort of thing that I am now drawn into. The topic was addressed by me and someone made a statement that I should post evidence supporting my opinion to make it valid. Why? It has nothing to do with the topic. Like you said-- we are having a discussion about including the tables in the new game. Am I wrong? You can easily see it is the same people calling others out about supporting their opinions. Leave it as it is--an opinion. Come on. It gets old.

No. I do not want links or pages to support that. You missed the point. As I am pretty confident others do not want to search the internet for information on data penetrations or armor values it would be easier and more convienent for all of us to include it since it wass already done.

Well I did not know you were a 'Beta Tester' as I did not see it in your 'title'. But, Yes. If you would have stated that in the next post after GAJ first one you could have ended this in two posts. Yet it went this far????

Seeing your last statement hopefully this answers everyones question on this topic and it is finished.

By the way a off topic question for you since we are off topic anyhow. No bashing or sarcasm intended here. Was this issue supported by any of the 'Beta' testers? Seeing it is not being put in the game and the majority on this post support it. Just wondering if this was a issue they said is 'going to be the way it is going to be' or if you guys actually had some kind of say so.

[gibsonm]

I think there should something simplified and easily displayed in-game. Not a bunch of numbers and angles, but simply rough grades of protection vs. penetration.

Sure and if you recall the same/ similar conversation was had in CM:SF, where arguably its more needed as most “non military” people haven’t a clue (nor should they be expected to) about an AT-3 vs an AT-4 (let alone a AT4 ), etc.

Again IIRC the final decision was to include the simplified graphical “matrix” (which admittedly is only good for defensive measures - i.e. the person “in” that vehicle not the person shooting “at” that vehicle) because a simple bunch of tables would firstly be hard to compile (due to the restricted nature of some / most data) and that it would open the door to a slippery slope where some would demand that it wasn’t comprehensive enough (the every popular “you can’t keep everyone happy issue”).

So now with the Second World War the first issue is pretty much resolved. There is a swag of data about how effective W round at X range is against Y facet of Z vehicle.

However the second issue remains.

Now the possible light at the end of the tunnel is that the user interface is still being worked on and maybe there will be something changed / amended / included.

But that isn’t rolled out yet and we don’t know what it will look like (even if it was I couldn’t tell you).

Once it is finalised it will still need to be worked on, tested, etc. So I wouldn’t pin your hopes on seeing screenshots of this tomorrow.

[gibsonm]

Well I did not know you were a 'Beta Tester' as I did not see it in your 'title'. But, Yes. If you would have stated that in the next post after GAJ first one you could have ended this in two posts.

Well sorry but I think it would be a bit egotistical of me to include in every post “Hey just in case you didn’t read it, I’m a Beta Tester” just like I don’t say “Hey just in case you didn’t read my signature block the name is Mark and I’m an active duty (to use US terminology) Australian Armoured Corps Major”.

By the way a off topic question for you since we are off topic anyhow. No bashing or sarcasm intended here. Was this issue supported by any of the 'Beta' testers? Seeing it is not being put in the game and the majority on this post support it. Just wondering if this was a issue they said is 'going to be the way it is going to be' or if you guys actually had some kind of say so.

Refer the post above this one.

[ChrisND]

Come on guys. The two of you are veterens here and 'Beta' testers. So I am assuming you are held in high regards over the rest of us. No need for bashing statements that provoke a similar response. Will not go that route.

I'm confused because I haven't seen any bashing here. If you could point to a post where you have been abused, please quote it. I've seen differences of opinion, but nothing more.

By the way a off topic question for you since we are off topic anyhow. No bashing or sarcasm intended here. Was this issue supported by any of the 'Beta' testers? Seeing it is not being put in the game and the majority on this post support it. Just wondering if this was a issue they said is 'going to be the way it is going to be' or if you guys actually had some kind of say so.

We had a very long discussion with Battlefront on how to improve the interface for vehicle and weapons data.

[dan/california]

Let me preface this comment by saying that I am not a beta tester and have no inside information.

However it is my assumption that by the time that you are on the beta test team your war gaming experience, and perhaps actual military training as well makes a LOT of this stuff second nature. Too the point that it is hard too look at it from the perspective someone who really doesn't know that a PZ-III can be almost ignored but a Panther will wreck your whole day.

CM has a learning curve, what it is doing is to complicated to be otherwise. The dev team has to decide how much effort to put into smoothing that curve out vs a feature that your will still appreciate after years and hundreds of hours of game play. Every line of code on one issue is a line not written on any of several hundred others. Trust me, I have twenty seven little hobby horses that no amount of riding have moved to the top of the to-do list either.