Thickness and penetration data

[sfhand]

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?

Ummm... because we're wargamers playing a wargame? I don't know about you, but I haven't gone through any of the training that those guys went through. Everything I've read, not much I admit, points to the fact that the Allies were extremely well prepared for Normandy. I do agree that with time I will know most of the answers to my questions, as a function of experience, but that doesn't mean we should be in an information vacuum.

[Erwin]

"after playng the game for a week..."

OMG. So, you really don't care about marketing to the average gamer, but only to us grognards and military professionals who have that sort of patience?

Don't you know the AVERAGE gamer has the attention span of a flea when it comes to games - hence their preference for wrist-twitch games. But, I now see full extent of the conspiracy to slowly turn CMx into such a game with the first move being to get rid of command delays that only grognards like me could love.

It's the thin edge of the wedge folks... and the end of civilization as we know it...

The end is nigh...

[YankeeDog]

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.

One thing that has changed is that the game now tracks the hit location much more closely than in CMx1. In CMx1, vehicles were actually point entities, and hit location was abstracted into Front/Side/Rear, and Turret/Upper Hull/Lower Hull. Once hit location was determined in this general sense, any variation in the armor vs. projectile matchup was abstracted into a "roll of the dice."

CMx2 tracks the specific hit location on a vehicle much more closely. This has important ramifications for vehicles whose armor thickness and/or slope varies significantly over certain facings. Rather than an abstract, set "weak point hit," percentage chance the are now a whole range of possibilities. This also ties into the new damage modeling, which has much higher fidelity than in CMx1. Rather than just gun kills or immobilzations, you can damage or knock out range of systems.

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...

Cheers,

YD

[roadiemullet]

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.

Exactamundo. Im not a war nerd, in fact before getting into CM I knew nothing about tank stats or anything, but I certainly wouldnt want a simple cmsf type chart that just gives a yes or no. Its the 'maybe' part that makes it so gooood. Also, taking away the hit % is a shame as IMO thats key to most defence set ups - waiting for the tank to come in range of your 75 pak, close enough to get the hit % high but far away enough to remain as concealed as possible...

[Thomm]

Tank gunners in WWII didn't have wargamer data tables at their elbow in the thick of battle so why should you?

Armor thickness is stored by plate in CM:BN, right. So how are you going to find out whether a plate does not have 10 mm, but instead 100 mm thickness due to a typo in the data files?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Erwin]

"in general, armor resistance and gun capabilities of WWII-era systems are well known"

What are you people smoking? I have seen this phenomenon before, and it's about when anyone spends too much time with experts like themselves without getting out of your bunker to see reality thus assuming everyone is like you.

[YankeeDog]

"in general, armor resistance and gun capabilities of WWII-era systems are well known"

What are you people smoking? I have seen this phenomenon before, and it's about when anyone spends too much time with experts like themselves without getting out of your bunker to see reality thus assuming everyone is like you.

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.

[roadiemullet]

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.

You are right in that the info would indeed be very helpful for those who wish to look up gun/pen data, but IMO nobody (well hardly anyone) who is just getting into CM is going to do that. Like I said earlier before I played CM I knew nothing about ww2 stats like that. In fact I barely knew the different types of tanks, but all that information being readily available at the touch of a button was something that pulled me into the whole series. Replace that with having to look elsewhere to understand basic concepts of the game and you have a major turn off.

They didnt have it in cmsf nor did they need it, as the weapons really are pretty much black and white in what they can kill. Someone wrote earlier that armour angles and things dont really matter in this day and age as opposed to what armour is made out of or the 'type' of armour it is, which is true, but in ww2 these things do matter and taking that easy info away is a bit of a game killer... IMO of course

EDIT: yay with this post ive gone from 'junior member' to 'member' - does this make me a grog yet?

[gibsonm]

"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.

Well I can also go off personal experience.

I have about 15 friends / acquaintances who play CM:SF and before that the CMx1 family.

After some initial “trial and error” (working out what could kill what) most were happy to play either product knowing that usually X would prevail over Y.

One individual though would always arrive with a large A4 ring binder (which contained one of the spreadsheets detailing protection figures and penetration data) and would consult it religiously before any engagement.

As a result almost no one wanted to play him as turns in his games were 10 - 15 times longer than against anyone else as in his case he’d pre-empt the engine and check everything first whereas the others were happy for the computer to do it for them.

Now I’m not the “public voice” of BTS/BFC but I doubt very much that they will include a copy of “Jane’s Second World War AFV’s” with every purchase as that sort of document will be needed for those who want to know every permutation of “what can kill what”.

[c3k]

There's got to be a good balance here. The simple CMSF matrix was something I rarely consulted. It was more useful, to me, for the specific case of trying to see light armor side aspect was protected against 12.7mm or not. Otherwise, it didn't do much for me.

The CMBO-style was more gamer-friendly. Matching gun penetration to armor was easier to determine. The red through green armor was intuitive, especially if my gun was "yellow". Throw the usual caveats about offset angle, relative slope, behind armor effects, etc.

I know some games are meant to be a quick 5 to 10 hour entertainment. I spool up on them rapidly: shortcuts, strategies, hotkeys, etc. That knowledge is gained only due to playtime. It is rapidly lost.

I have several games that I REALLY enjoyed when I first got them. I dedicated the time to learn the skills I needed to play them, but that was when I first had them. For example, with a few days of free time at Christmas. Then, months later, when I tried to play again, I found that I'd have to dedicate a day or two regain that knowledge. If I only had a few hours of free time, that game would get put back.

Thanks,

Ken

[eniced73]

I am by far a computer programmer but how hard can it really be to import that data into the game. I cannot believe that something they incorporated years ago in the CMx1 games cannot be incorporated in the new CMx2 games easily. Having that information at hand while playing the CMx1 games is very helpful for me and it sounds like a lot of others. The old CMx1 games, Panzer Command, Theatre of War, and others all had penetration tables. I can understand CMSF not having them due to the unknown armor values and lethality of rounds but not CMBN. Just include them.

[gibsonm]

I am by far a computer programmer ...

Nor am I and I suspect if it was as easy as you seem to think, they would have.

[eniced73]

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.

One thing that has changed is that the game now tracks the hit location much more closely than in CMx1. In CMx1, vehicles were actually point entities, and hit location was abstracted into Front/Side/Rear, and Turret/Upper Hull/Lower Hull. Once hit location was determined in this general sense, any variation in the armor vs. projectile matchup was abstracted into a "roll of the dice."

CMx2 tracks the specific hit location on a vehicle much more closely. This has important ramifications for vehicles whose armor thickness and/or slope varies significantly over certain facings. Rather than an abstract, set "weak point hit," percentage chance the are now a whole range of possibilities. This also ties into the new damage modeling, which has much higher fidelity than in CMx1. Rather than just gun kills or immobilzations, you can damage or knock out range of systems.

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...

Cheers,

YD

Reading the AAR from Jon and then reading this post brings up a curiosity to know exactly how many details go into tracking detailed location hits. YD posts above that CMx2 is tracked more than CMx1 but does anyone have specific details on how? Just curious as reading Jon's AAR below he states he is in a 'pretty good hull down' postion (maybe the tracks were partially exposed??) but then states his units tracks were badly damaged???? I know it is still in the works and could be a bug but just thought I would throw it out there for comment.

(larger image)

Look at the exquisite detail on this Sherman. See those buckle down straps on the turret rear? They aren’t just painted on. Just look at it!

Note, also, what a good position that is for the Jg.Pz.IV. It's skylined, yes, but otherwise it's a pretty good hull down position. High ground: it's good for you.

With observation lost there’s no way to tell if another kill has been scored, but with two solid hits at about 400m you’d have to think so. In the debit column, the crew are all still in one piece but The Hunter’s tracks are badly damaged and its speed has been reduced to a crawl. The radio and optics are also damaged, as is the nahver-thingy. It can still fight, but situational awareness is down, and manoeuvring is going to be painfully slow. Because of this The Hunter sat out the next 10 minutes of the fighting while the crew pulled themselves back together on the reverse slope of Hill 154.

[eniced73]

Nor am I and I suspect if it was as easy as you seem to think, they would have.

They did it 10 or so years ago with the CMx1 series. If it was that difficult they would have left it out back then.

Would it not be like a link? Click on a Sherm and it takes you to 'Sherm' in a data table that lists all the info we all want. Anybody with programming experience?

[roadiemullet]

Nor am I and I suspect if it was as easy as you seem to think, they would have.

Im not a programmer either, but putting the information in could hardly be a massive effort. It doesn't have to be 1:1 info either, i'd bet most people would be happy with the very same tables from CMx1 being plonked in as a referral guide when the user presses 'enter'. Its only textual info. Gimme the source code BF, ill dig out my old A Level computing textbooks and copy them across myself!

Perhaps it is more to do with bringing the series in a new direction rather than a coding issue. As none of us actually know what the end product is going to look like the point is moot as it may have been superseded by a superior interface.

[Erik Springelkamp]

> Click on a Sherm

That would select the unit. Now what?

[BlackMoria]

Reading the AAR from Jon and then reading this post brings up a curiosity to know exactly how many details go into tracking detailed location hits. YD posts above that CMx2 is tracked more than CMx1 but does anyone have specific details on how? Just curious as reading Jon's AAR below he states he is in a 'pretty good hull down' postion (maybe the tracks were partially exposed??) but then states his units tracks were badly damaged???? I know it is still in the works and could be a bug but just thought I would throw it out there for comment.

As I understand from a previous thread about this on the CMSF forums, each round is 'tracked' from muzzle until the round terminates (by hitting something). Each vehicle is a collection of zones the round can interact with so the calculation for trajectory determines which 'zone' gets hit. Calculation for penetration are done and subsystems within the zone are checked for damage or destruction. This determines if the vehicle is destroyed or damaged and how personnel within and beside the vehicle fair in regards to damage applied to personnel.

Yes, in CMx2, a 'brew-up' can kill or injury personnel beside or nearby the vehicle.

I have experience the rare 'double kill' in CMSF where a tank round did a complete penetration of a vehicle (a BMP if I recall) from the side and still had enough kinetic energy to penetrate the BMP halted beside it, knocking both vehicles out of the fight.

CMx2 vehicles 'degrade' when hit, even if not sufficiently penetrated. Optics, radios and other systems can be effected in a system that goes from a bright green cross (everything ok) to a bright red X (destroyed) with a number of steps in between.

Since the track system includes the suspension and the suspension married the tracks to the hull, I think a hull hit may affect the tracks, even if the tracks themselves seem to be in cover. Also, the height of the Jagpanther above the Sherman means the 'hull down' most likely is not as hull down as Elvis thought.

I don't know about the CMx1 games as I have never played them but in a CMx2 game, you most likely will not have a Tiger sitting at long range taking round after round of 'seemly inconsequential' tank fire and shaking it off. After a while, the Tiger's systems will degrade to the point the crew is going to want pull the vehicle back out of harm's way.

There are others who most likely will weight in about this as I don't claim expert knowledge about the CMx2 system.

[YankeeDog]

I think the the inherent issue is that CMx2 does not use "penetration tables" to determine projectile vs. armor performance.

In CMx1, "under the hood" armored vehicles were basically point entities attached to a set of numerical values on a matrix -- Armor was abstracted to a limited number of hit areas -- Front Turret, Front Upper Hull, Front Lower Hull, etc. Then certain qualifiers were incorporated into this to abstractly represent other armor attributes (Face Hardened plate, rounded Turret, etc.) So the numbers for a "penetration table" were really already part of the game data, and it probably wasn't very difficult to write a routine that could take the actual game data, simplify it, and spit it out as a table that players could relatively easily comprehend.

Not so in CMx2, where armor vs. gun is more directly related to the actual hit location on the AFV. There is no longer a matrix of numbers with values like "Upper Hull Front Armor = xx, Lower Hull Armor = yy" etc. in the game. The Armor is actually a 3D model with thickness and resistance modeled onto a geometric shape.

So now, in order to create a "penetration table" or something like that, an actual human would have to go through and subjectively evaluate the armor protection of each vehicle individually, assigning each a color value or something like that, and then do the same for guns.

Definitely NOT an impossible task. And since the real world source data is probably 99% the same, they could certainly use the CMx1 penetration table values & colors to give themselves a head start. However, some things would have to change, and this means more work hours for BFC's team. Take, for example, this issues with how CMx1 modeled a "rounded" turret in CMx1. A lot of players felt that CMx1's abstract hit location modeling undermodeled the armor protection of such turrets (such as what's on the Tiger 1). Now, with more exact modeling, the projectile's chances of penetrating a rounded surface are directly related the exact location of the hit, and the armor slope & thickness at that point. So this has to be factored in when you present an "Armor Protection" value for the Tiger 1's frontal turret, whether you decide to ultimately present the data to the player as a color, a number, a type of flightless waterfowl, or whatever other system you prefer.

And take a look at the composition StugIII frontal armor; it's composed of a hodgepodge of plates at various angles and thicknesses. CMx1 abstracted all this this into a couple of numerical values, which worked fairly well but may have over or undermodeled the StugIII's frontal protection in some situations. Now, the model is much more complex and this will hopefully result in better realism. But I'm not sure CMx1's values for a StugIIIg "upper hull front" and "lower hull front" are necessarily an accurate representation of what's going on here anymore.

Anyway, to summarize, I don't want to give the impression that I think "armor rating" and "gun penetration" displays aren't possible in the game; it's obviously possible to add these features, given a little work. But I think it's naive to assume that such a feature could just be "dropped in" with a minimum of effort. It's clear to me that adding such a feature would force either (a) the delay or elimination of other game features or ( further delay in the release of the game.

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.

Regards,

YD

[eniced73]

Press 'enter'.

Thats what I was getting at. Just include the old data. Makes the game that much more fun for us non-grognard's that dont know exactly what chances vehicle A has of taking out vehicle B. Hell, look at the SPWAW game it has a whole encyclopedia dedicated to unit information. No brainer to include.

[YankeeDog]

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."

Basically, you can't please everyone.

[BlackMoria]

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.

[eniced73]

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?

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. I really do not think that you will have the same ratio of people wanting this as the people who are going to complain that the armor charts don't actually follow penetrations of a "3D model with thickness and resistance modeled onto a geometric shape". Hell, put a disclaimer that these are round about figures. I think people are smart enough to know it is just a 'game'.

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.

[eniced73]

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.

Irrelevant?? Did they not base these tables from some type of real life data??

[Erwin]

BlackMoria...

Re your: 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."

Respectfully...

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

[ChrisND]

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. I really do not think that you will have the same ratio of people wanting this as the people who are going to complain that the armor charts don't actually follow penetrations of a "3D model with thickness and resistance modeled onto a geometric shape".

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.