Thickness and penetration data

[Migo441]

My two cents is that I prefer the less comprehensive data display of CMx2. That is not to say that the CMx2 display cannot be improved, but generally I think the fuzzier approach is better than the clinical spreadsheet approach.

"Klaus! I just checked the chart! Reverse the Pz.IV 53 meters and rotate counterclockwise 34 degrees!"

Yes, this is my own strawman because I did not see anyone being this explicit about the data, but I hope you take my meaning.

[AslakH]

I never used the charts. I think it's quite intuitive for most.

They were fun to look at afterwards, when checking out the kills.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, finally wading into this one after sitting on the sidelines for now.

First of all, our testers are fierce advocates for the average customer. But I'll tell you what... if we had a tester that was unreasonable, single minded, demanding, and generally incapable of seeing anothers' point of view... we'd be looking for a new tester. Which means, our testers bring up things, debate us if we don't agree, and then they let it go if we give a definite answer. Customers don't have to do this, of course, but that's not a type of person that would make a good tester.

People must remember that there are few features in CMx1 that a clear and overwhelming majority of people consider "must haves". Just because one or more people found said feature to be the best thing they have ever seen DOESN'T mean that is the norm. This forum always offers a distorted perspective on this as well, since the most hardcore players (grogs and non-grogs as there is a difference) post. We've probably never seen more than a tiny fraction of our customer base posting here at any one time. Lobbying here, therefore, is taken as an opinion and not as a mandate.

The answer about armor penetration stats has already been given many times already. And yet the answer still is the same as before:

We are not putting in detailed armor stats into CM:BN because we can't just scoop out the data in CMx1 and have it magically displayed in CM:BN. It requires effort on our part and we feel that our effort is better spent on other things at this point. Will we have armor penetration stuff, in game, at some point? Yes, along with some other nice things that CMx1 never had. But not now.

In CM:BN now is pretty much everything that is in CMx1 in terms of information except outgoing weapons penetration data. Armor ratings are given in abstracted form already, which is about all that is really useful to most people most of the time anyway. What a vehicle is armed with is already detailed, as well as it's ability to function. Basic stats like speed and weight are also noted. If a vehicle can accept passengers, a count is shown for that as well.

Steve

[Gryphonne]

OK, finally wading into this one after sitting on the sidelines for now.

First of all, our testers are fierce advocates for the average customer. But I'll tell you what... if we had a tester that was unreasonable, single minded, demanding, and generally incapable of seeing anothers' point of view... we'd be looking for a new tester. Which means, our testers bring up things, debate us if we don't agree, and then they let it go if we give a definite answer. Customers don't have to do this, of course, but that's not a type of person that would make a good tester.

People must remember that there are few features in CMx1 that a clear and overwhelming majority of people consider "must haves". Just because one or more people found said feature to be the best thing they have ever seen DOESN'T mean that is the norm. This forum always offers a distorted perspective on this as well, since the most hardcore players (grogs and non-grogs as there is a difference) post. We've probably never seen more than a tiny fraction of our customer base posting here at any one time. Lobbying here, therefore, is taken as an opinion and not as a mandate.

The answer about armor penetration stats has already been given many times already. And yet the answer still is the same as before:

We are not putting in detailed armor stats into CM:BN because we can't just scoop out the data in CMx1 and have it magically displayed in CM:BN. It requires effort on our part and we feel that our effort is better spent on other things at this point. Will we have armor penetration stuff, in game, at some point? Yes, along with some other nice things that CMx1 never had. But not now.

In CM:BN now is pretty much everything that is in CMx1 in terms of information except outgoing weapons penetration data. Armor ratings are given in abstracted form already, which is about all that is really useful to most people most of the time anyway. What a vehicle is armed with is already detailed, as well as it's ability to function. Basic stats like speed and weight are also noted. If a vehicle can accept passengers, a count is shown for that as well.

Steve

Steve,

How are armor ratings displayed if i may ask? Are the armor ratings like the color coded bars that we've seen in CMBB and CMAK? Is it closer to CMSF? Or is it something entirely new?

Gryph

[gibsonm]

Well at this stage if I were a betting man I'd go for what has already been said, namely based on CM:SF but an evolution of it.

So closer to CM:SF.

[Majorpain]

It would be nice to have a quick reference to the power of each tanks individual gun, it is bad enough for a WW2 enthusiast like myself to remember all the details!

It will definately make a change to NATO tanks > all Syrian tanks

[Battlefront.com]

Same as CM:SF/CM:A in terms of functionality and location in the UI. The ATGM line is replaced with rocket fired HEAT weapons (Bazookas, Panzerschrecks, and Panzerfausts).

Steve

[gibsonm]

It will definately make a change to NATO tanks > all Syrian tanks

Ah well try some Canadian Leo 1’s against Syrian T-90s for a change of pace to dispel that idea.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

In CM:BN now is pretty much everything that is in CMx1 in terms of information except outgoing weapons penetration data. Armor ratings are given in abstracted form already, which is about all that is really useful to most people most of the time anyway. What a vehicle is armed with is already detailed, as well as it's ability to function. Basic stats like speed and weight are also noted. If a vehicle can accept passengers, a count is shown for that as well.

Steve

Well this is a real shame in my opinion. How will any non grognard player know whether his AFV armed with a 75mmL38 has a decent chance against the front of a JgPzIV. Once he loses his 75mm Sherman does he then asssume that any gun of similar calibre has no chance against the JgPz thereby ruling out the 76mmL52 (it's only a 1mm larger shell after all), the 17pdr (76mm), the so called 77mm on the Comet? Without doing research on the net that player would have no idea and I don't think it's reasonable to expect new players to the genre to first do extensive background research just to be able to play a game well!

An opportunity lost as I see it.

Regards

KR

[Steiner14]

Ofcourse it is one of the most important numbers a gunner had to know: the penetration capabilitites of his gun with a certain ammunition against certain thicknesses at certain angles and against certain targets as a whole over distance.

That means the player needs at least the penetration values of the ammunition-types over distance and angle of the unit's gun.

The more unbalanced an engagement with a relatively weak caliber against heavy armoured units is, the more important that info becomes.

Since it can't be expected from a CMx2 player to know all guns, all penetration numbers for all calibers and ammunition for all units, IMO it would be very important to implement some kind of info-tool.

In fact this would not be a gamey information, it would compensate for the lack of knowledge of the player compared to the real life crew of the weapon.

And another great aspect of the detailed unit data of CMx1 was, that it educated players. You learnt a lot about every equipment and ammo, just by playing a game. And i also wouldn't underestimate the long-term motivation, that was caused by it.

[akd]

Ofcourse it is one of the most important numbers a gunner had to know: the penetration capabilitites of his gun with a certain ammunition against certain thicknesses at certain angles and against certain targets as a whole over distance.

That means the player needs at least the penetration values of the ammunition-types over distance and angle of the unit's gun.

The more unbalanced an engagement with a relatively weak caliber against heavy armoured units is, the more important that info becomes.

Since it can't be expected from a CMx2 player to know all guns, all penetration numbers for all calibers and ammunition for all units, IMO it would be very important to implement some kind of info-tool.

In fact this would not be a gamey information, it would compensate for the lack of knowledge of the player compared to the real life crew of the weapon.

And another great aspect of the detailed unit data of CMx1 was, that it educated players. You learnt a lot about every equipment and ammo, just by playing a game. And i also wouldn't underestimate the long-term motivation, that was caused by it.

"Sarge, we've got a 63 percent chance to penetrate. Can we open fire?"

"No private. Wait for 64, then let that dirty hun have it."

I think we are greatly exaggerating the level of information your average gunner in WWII had to work with. The player will probably learn the same way real gunners did: some helpful input from a manual followed by trial and error.

[Steiner14]

Hm, that's a strange logic because the probability stats are not shown and to compensate for them, detailed penetration data of the gun is necessary to see the penetration distance of a given target.

Without penetration info, how do you setup ATGs?

"Tiger 200m @ 2 o clock!

Hm, let's look: ah, a green dot. Small, but green! Our barrel lenght? Who cares! The reference distance for the green dot? Who cares! Damn, we have a green dot, that's all we need to know!"

[Battlefront.com]

Well this is a real shame in my opinion. How will any non grognard player know whether his AFV armed with a 75mmL38 has a decent chance against the front of a JgPzIV.

Try playing the game and finding out?

Without doing research on the net that player would have no idea and I don't think it's reasonable to expect new players to the genre to first do extensive background research just to be able to play a game well!

Most players like to play games and master them through direct play. But I agree, it would be nice to have some more information than what the game will provide. But it isn't mandatory.

An opportunity lost as I see it.

Sheesh... I don't remember you being such a "glass half empty" kinda guy, but wow... you certainly are making that impression now. Tell you what... why not save yourself a lot of misery and angst before the game is out and don't read anything more. Wait until the demo is out, play the demo, and then decide for yourself if these things you're so upset about are really all that important. And if they are, then start in with the glass half empty stuff.

In fact this would not be a gamey information, it would compensate for the lack of knowledge of the player compared to the real life crew of the weapon.

Real life crews often didn't know much about the capabilities of their weapons or the weaknesses of the vehicles they were going up against. Or, in fact, what tanks they were engaging when fighting. One of the first tanks killed by a Pershing was a King Tiger. The gunner wrote a memoir about his time at the front. He didn't even know what a King Tiger was when he shot and killed it.

And another great aspect of the detailed unit data of CMx1 was, that it educated players. You learnt a lot about every equipment and ammo, just by playing a game. And i also wouldn't underestimate the long-term motivation, that was caused by it.

If the game isn't capable of holding people's attention without penetration information, I can promise you that having Jenz himself write an ingame section per vehicle would not cause the game to be played a day longer.

This isn't to say that ammo penetration charts aren't useful or even desirable for some people. I think they are, which is why we will get them into the game at some point. It's just that we feel it's not worth holding the game up for another 6 months to put in various "must haves" that aren't really central to the game.

Steve

[Kanonier Reichmann]

---SNIP---

Most players like to play games and master them through direct play. But I agree, it would be nice to have some more information than what the game will provide. But it isn't mandatory.

---SNIP---

This isn't to say that ammo penetration charts aren't useful or even desirable for some people. I think they are, which is why we will get them into the game at some point. It's just that we feel it's not worth holding the game up for another 6 months to put in various "must haves" that aren't really central to the game.

Steve

Just to prove I'm not completely a galss half empty sort of guy as you put it, this is very encouraging news. Do you mean within the lifetime of CM:BN, i.e. a new feature to be released with a subsequent module or only likely to appear with a whole new 'family' release of a new game?

As I see it, I guess it's not so critical to have this information for the reasonably restrictive environment of just the Americans fighting exclusively Wehrmacht forces in and around Normandy over a defined time frame. The number of likely matchups is confined enough to allow a good guess at what will be succesful when attempting to engage enemy armour. However, once you include the British, Poles, Canadians, Free French?, 21st Pz Division units in the mix with all their eclectic array of AFV's then it becomes a real problem in my opinion.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that's what you meant.

Regards

KR

[Other Means]

I'd just want a magic 8 ball answer.

"Can I kill it?" "Maybe". "Good enough."

"Can I kill it?" "No" "Fire anyway".

IOW - details stats no, chance to kill yes please.

Another thing to remember is, even if you don't kill it, if you kill its optics/tracks/MG etc then you improve the life expectancy of the next guy.

[Calibration]

I'm looking forward to the more detailed modelling of attrition on AFV capabilities. I can already see how it may begin to affect your defensive AT tactics. I don't suppose you can modify what you shoot at, i.e, specifically target running gear and so forth which was a known Allied tactic?

[Steiner14]

This isn't to say that ammo penetration charts aren't useful or even desirable for some people. I think they are, which is why we will get them into the game at some point. It's just that we feel it's not worth holding the game up for another 6 months to put in various "must haves" that aren't really central to the game.

That's very good news.

I think CM:BN will offer so many things to learn and explore, that time will fly anyway, until that will be implemented.

Until that happens Jeff Heidman's old XLS-files will do the trick as a workaround.

ps: The XLS-files were necessary in CMx1, too, when units had to be purchased (which is the usual case for ladder players). So that thought could be worth considering, when it comes to the implementation: if the data should be accessible only from within the battlefield, or from outside, too.

Wouldn't it be cool to offer an extra button in the list to present the game models in all their glory in a dedicated showroom-window, where they are turning and can be watched from all angles? Maybe even with the option of a skin-free, armor thickness color coded view?

[NewBobolix]

That's very good news.

I think CM:BN will offer so many things to learn and explore, that time will fly anyway, until that will be implemented.

Until that happens Jeff Heidman's old XLS-files will do the trick as a workaround.

Are Jeff Heidman's files still available somewhere ???

thank you

Roberto

[aka_tom_w]

Are Jeff Heidman's files still available somewhere ???

thank you

Roberto

that's a good question, does any one have a link?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

that's a good question, does any one have a link?

these?

http://mysite.verizon.net/pchardwarelinks/cm/

[aka_tom_w]

these?

http://mysite.verizon.net/pchardwarelinks/cm/

thats great! Many thanks

[YankeeDog]

Thanks

but the files are really old and need an old copy excel to open I think

You shouldn't need an older copy of Excel -- Newer versions of Excel can open legacy formats. I don't have the absolute newest version of Excel (still running XL'03 at my office), but these spreadsheets are in the older XL 4.0 format and I can open them just fine. You could probably also find a converter online somewhere as well without too much trouble.

One oddity of these spreadsheets for me is that they download with the text color set to white, so the spreadsheet appears blank when I open them. But "Select All" and then setting text color to "Automatic" fixes the problem.

[MikeyD]

Her'es something fun. A 1-1 scale (if you have the same monitor resolution as me) comparison between armor. Thickness and slope are represented to-scale.

[MikeyD]

Reading over the posts (instead of going to bed like I ought) I get the odd feeling that those who most want data tables are the very people who'd need it least! They're the ones who have played CMBO for ten years and have already got a clear picture of what a 75mm Pak40 AT gun and and M10s 3 inch cannon are capable of. The one who might actually find data tables useful, for instance a newbie 16 year old who doesn't know a APCR round from a smoke round, is likely to find spead sheets of ballistics data as incomprehensible as Chinese script. So you've got one group who wants data tables simply to have data tables, and another group where the 'technical stuff' is too over their heads to be of any great utility.

Eh, like I said many pages ago, play the game for a week and data tables become superfluous anyway. Nobody's going to be expecting their 75mm Sherman to get frontal kills againt a Tiger at 1500m.

[Thomm]

My professional experience with computer simulations taught me that input data that cannot be visualized tends to be wrong.

Best regards,

Thomm