Thickness and penetration data

[eniced73]

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.

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

Did not know this was intended as a compliment?

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.

Second issue? Not being comprehensive enough. I am talking about the table that is in CMx1. Not any kind of graphical interface like in CMx2. Anyhow, again they could put a disclaimer like they did in CMAK about the information being only intended as a 'rough' idea of what the game should simulate. At least we (the ones who need the charts) would be able to have a clue about chances to penetrate.

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

As long as we are talking about the same thing I am happy you guys have tried to pull for this. Thanks.

[gibsonm]

Second issue?

Groan ...

Maybe this will make it clearer to you”

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 two issues:

First issue: “be hard to compile (due to the restricted nature of some / most data) “

Second issue: “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.

Is that better???????????????????????

[gibsonm]

Anyhow, again they could put a disclaimer like they did in CMAK about the information being only intended as a 'rough' idea of what the game should simulate.

Yes and then they’d get swamped (as they did with CMx1) with complaints about how poor this information was.

Even in this thread some people want the detail to say “it might work” so I’ll risk trying it.

Others want a simple “Sherman vs Tiger II forget it” type table.

At least we (the ones who need the charts) would be able to have a clue about chances to penetrate.

And as I said above the choices boil down to some massive 100 page plus (A4) database that matches every nature vs every angle or every vehicle (I know because I know a guy who wouldn’t play CMx1 without his binder beside him) or a “simple” more general approach.

Either way will result in a % of the market commenting that its not good enough.

[roadiemullet]

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”.

Um, again, he didnt ask you to point it out in every post, and, sorry to nitpick, but I think it is kind of egotistical to have your rank in your signature. I mean, this is a computer games website forum, not a military one. Besides, how does an active duty (to use US terminology of course;)) Officer at the rank of Major find the time to be games testing? Havent you got Army stuff to do?

[ZPB II]

There's only so far you can push a desk until the rubbers give away.

[Erwin]

I think that the real question is who is the primary market for this game? If it's gognards and mil pros then yes, we at least know enuff to play effectively.

But, the evidence is that there really are not nearly enuff of us to make for a viable game developer biz (unless BFC wins a govt contract, and, for various reasons I can go into elsewhere, that is virtually impossible, akin to winning the lottery, and you can't base you life or biz around the possibility you can win the lottery).

If one wants to reach a wider market and attract new blood into this tiny niche wargame market so that BFC can afford to go on forever making these great games for us, one must make the game accessible to at least the average gamer who probably knows little about WW2 or the difference between a PzIV and a Tiger. This is a comparatively very complex game and newbies will need to have the learning curve made as easy as possible.

[gibsonm]

Besides, how does an active duty (to use US terminology of course;)) Officer at the rank of Major find the time to be games testing? Havent you got Army stuff to do?

Well as its Sunday afternoon here now, I have heaps of time (having done the “chores“ my wife set for me yesterday morning).

“active duty” doesn’t mean “deployed on active service on operations”, it means you aren’t retired but employed doing the job.

[gibsonm]

Um, again, he didnt ask you to point it out in every post ...

Agreed, but if he overlooked it how do I know he (and others) will read it if I type it just once.

I mean its sat there for a while now (what over 4 years).

So for people who do read those things its silly to repeat it over and over again just in case someone doesn’t read it.

But that just gets us back to “you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

[gibsonm]

If one wants to reach a wider market and attract new blood into this tiny niche wargame market so that BFC can afford to go on forever making these great games for us, one must make the game accessible to at least the average gamer who probably knows little about WW2 or the difference between a PzIV and a Tiger. This is a comparatively very complex game and newbies will need to have the learning curve made as easy as possible.

Sure but then you get back to the sort of “trade offs” I mentioned above in post #72.

If you put in a “simple” table (say like CM:SF but “better”) a fair slice of the market will complain its too simplistic / not detailed enough.

If you put in every possible permutation then the “average gamer” (used as per above, not suggesting anything pejorative by it) will probably complain that its “unreadable“.

[moneymaxx]

And as I said above the choices boil down to some massive 100 page plus (A4) database that matches every nature vs every angle or every vehicle (I know because I know a guy who wouldn’t play CMx1 without his binder beside him) or a “simple” more general approach.

The database could be much shorter, since it does not have to match every gun to every vehicle. You have the gun data on one side and the armour data on the other.

For those who are interested in how that looked like in Cmx1, I add a link to a page where you can find the Combat Mission Database by Chris Hare http://mysite.verizon.net/pchardwarelinks/cm/.

Given the limited programming resources, I hesitate to say that something like this should be programmed into the game, but as a reference list it could be added to the manual.

[gibsonm]

The database could be much shorter, since it does not have to match every gun to every vehicle. You have the gun data on one side and the armour data on the other.

That maybe your requirement but as I said directly above this, some will want every nature listed against every target facet.

So something eventually like this:

Every German calibre from 37mm to 128mm

Within that every nature they can fire so say:

75mm L70 HE

75mm L70 AP

75mm L70 ....

And for 75mm you have what X calibre lengths (short, L48, L70, ...) and of course the penetration capabilities for each nature at each calibre length is different.

So that gives you what 9 - 12 rows just for “75mm”

Then you need penetration data so say:

Lower Glacis plate

Upper Glacis plate

Turret Front

Turret Mantle

Beneath

Lower hull side

Lower hull side with skirt

Upper hull side

Lower rear hull

Upper rear hull

Turret side

Turret rear

So thats 12 options per US AFV.

Then there‘s the angle at which the round hits whichever part listed above. Lets say we settle on 3 angles.

Then there’s the range (and resulting velocity). Lets say we determine 5 discrete range bands.

So that’s what 3 x 12 x 4 x 5 (roughly) data points for the question German 75mm L70 Vs US vehicle “X”.

Even if we trim that to say 12 x 4 x 5 (since we can’t tell the vehicle what type of shell to shoot) that’s some 240 data points.

Perhaps an extreme example but this is what “some” will want while yourself and no doubt others (a second group of “some“) will want the simple option.

The quandary for BFC is to come up with something that both groups of “some” are happy with.

[moneymaxx]

That maybe your requirement but as I said directly above this, some will want every nature listed against every target facet.

Actually it's the requirement of most (all?) posters in this thread in favour of such data. "Some" seems to be an extrapolation of yours because you once met a control freak .

[eniced73]

I would like to clarify with pics on what I am talking about including in the game.

Normal Dude's post #56 I am almost certain will arrive in the game. Why would they deviate from the prior CMx2 games? They will not. Easy accessable information that keeps things simple. I like it and think it should be kept.

But what I have been lobbying for all along is this:

If I am wrong here I accept that I am an ******* that should have kept his mouth and opinion to himself. But is this not real world data that does not pertain to any kind of game statistics or computations? If it is then read on. If this information was created or based off of the game mechanics and have nothing to do with real life then stop and I will stand corrected as I was stating my opinion on something that was totally different than what I thought. Someone please clarify this for me.

This information was included in the game 10+ years ago. It simply states penetration values at varying distances and mm of armor protection in your generalized areas. I understand that the game has evolved leaps and bounds since these tables but there is no need to include information for every angle of every spot that the engine can simulate being hit. You guys keep arguing that you will still have people out there bitching about this one way or another. That is a no brainer about almost everything in the game. Look at CMSF and all the threads on this is BS and that is BS. There is no way around it. It will happen regardless.

The facts are that the majority want to see something in there and the information was already put together and programmed into CM 10 years ago. Show me evidence that the masses back then were pissed off that you put that into the game. I doubt that you can. So what makes you think they will feel that way now? 75% of your consumers will probably be former CMx1 players and why would they not be happy with something from the past games being incorporated in this one. Take what worked in the past and throw some updated graphics in there add what requests are feasible from the old CMx1 players (as they would know best) and **** can the rest.

[gibsonm]

So what makes you think they will feel that way now?

Well as the long winded explanations don’t appear to be working I’ll go back to the simple approach:

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

[gibsonm]

Actually it's the requirement of most (all?) posters in this thread in favour of such data. "Some" seems to be an extrapolation of yours because you once met a control freak .

No its based on all the grief we went through what 4 years ago when people wanted mega detailed hit / protection / penetration information then and complained that what they were given was too superficial.

[eniced73]

No its based on all the grief we went through what 4 years ago when people wanted mega detailed hit / protection / penetration information then and complained that what they were given was too superficial.

What does that tell you? You are supposed to be like a politician. You are supposed to represent all of us and our views as the "gamer" not the programmer. You refer to the "grief" that you went through when something was or was not put in the game. You guys should be listening to us and taking this back to BF to get it into the game. Not making excuses as to why "they" feel the majority of people here do not want it in the game. Which is wrong seeing the amount of people favoring it here. If you can show me that the majority would rather do without it please do so.

Since your first post you have been comparing this to CMSF. Stop that. You are comparing apples to oranges. The armor and penetrations of the two eras vehicles and guns have nothing in common. WW2 being simple as the data is at hand and Present day where we know jack **** about most of the information.

BF should have told you your job is to not only test what they already have in the game but to find out what your fellow "gamers" are throwing around out here in the forums. You seem a little too tied up in defending **** that happened last game - CMSF. Take the little bit of information that you learned here and ask them to re evaluate the possibility of putting this in the game. I would appreciate that. Thanks.

[eniced73]

Alright. I am done with this. You can go ahead and get in the last word.

[ChrisND]

What does that tell you? You are supposed to be like a politician. You are supposed to represent all of us and our views as the "gamer" not the programmer. You refer to the "grief" that you went through when something was or was not put in the game. You guys should be listening to us and taking this back to BF to get it into the game. Not making excuses as to why "they" feel the majority of people here do not want it in the game. Which is wrong seeing the amount of people favoring it here. If you can show me that the majority would rather do without it please do so.

Since your first post you have been comparing this to CMSF. Stop that. You are comparing apples to oranges. The armor and penetrations of the two eras vehicles and guns have nothing in common. WW2 being simple as the data is at hand and Present day where we know jack **** about most of the information.

BF should have told you your job is to not only test what they already have in the game but to find out what your fellow "gamers" are throwing around out here in the forums. You seem a little too tied up in defending **** that happened last game - CMSF. Take the little bit of information that you learned here and ask them to re evaluate the possibility of putting this in the game. I would appreciate that. Thanks.

Please stop telling him what he's supposed to be doing, especially this idea that he's supposed to be your messenger boy advocating for your pet wishes. It's presumptuous and arrogant. Battlefront can read these forums just fine and do not need us to parrot its contents back to them.

You also seem to think that you speak for the player base, based off of what the majority of people in this thread say. I'm not going to comment on what the player base wants, but the logic used to arrive at your conclusion is flawed. The very fact that people bother to post in this thread turns them into a biased sample, and gives no indication to the general player base at all.

[Erwin]

All some of us are saying is that CM1 accomplished an almost perfect match of in-game intuitive info and useful manuals that helped get everyone into the game and playing quickly.

CM2 is much harder and less intuitive. I am a very experienced gamer and have been a Prime Contractor developer for DoD, and have to keep referring to the (not particularly helpful) manuals re what ammo goes with what gun and it's hard to compare an ATGM or tank vs tank issue, and lots of other things that make it hard to play the game well without masses of posts here at BFC forums. (Maybe they get lonely and that's what they want?)

But, does anyone think about or care for the average gamer or newbie trying CM2 for the first time? They need more info and in-game help.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

That maybe your requirement but as I said directly above this, some will want every nature listed against every target facet.

So something eventually like this:

Every German calibre from 37mm to 128mm

Within that every nature they can fire so say:

75mm L70 HE

75mm L70 AP

75mm L70 ....

And for 75mm you have what X calibre lengths (short, L48, L70, ...) and of course the penetration capabilities for each nature at each calibre length is different.

So that gives you what 9 - 12 rows just for “75mm”

Then you need penetration data so say:

Lower Glacis plate

Upper Glacis plate

Turret Front

Turret Mantle

Beneath

Lower hull side

Lower hull side with skirt

Upper hull side

Lower rear hull

Upper rear hull

Turret side

Turret rear

So thats 12 options per US AFV.

Then there‘s the angle at which the round hits whichever part listed above. Lets say we settle on 3 angles.

Then there’s the range (and resulting velocity). Lets say we determine 5 discrete range bands.

So that’s what 3 x 12 x 4 x 5 (roughly) data points for the question German 75mm L70 Vs US vehicle “X”.

Even if we trim that to say 12 x 4 x 5 (since we can’t tell the vehicle what type of shell to shoot) that’s some 240 data points.

Perhaps an extreme example but this is what “some” will want while yourself and no doubt others (a second group of “some“) will want the simple option.

The quandary for BFC is to come up with something that both groups of “some” are happy with.

And yet a colleague of yours said earlier in this thread that it won't take long to learn what guns can take on what enemy AFV's through simple trial and error. A clearly fallacious argument based on the permutations & complexity described above.

And as I said above the choices boil down to some massive 100 page plus (A4) database that matches every nature vs every angle or every vehicle (I know because I know a guy who wouldn’t play CMx1 without his binder beside him) or a “simple” more general approach.

This is a classic strawman argument as nobody has argued for such comprehensiveness pertaining to an in-game 'ready reckoner' on what a weapon can achieve at certain ranges at certain angles, only you have argued for this via your self made argument over this one guy who apparently wants every bit of data laid out berfore him.

I just find it incredible that beta testers are arguing oer the relevance of including some basic statistical information on weapons and AFV's within the game similar to what was available some 10 years ago in a much simpler program on the same subject. Show me an example of a succesful software developer who has released a new generation game on the same subject matter as the previous generation yet not even included the same basic features as previously existed in the obsolete version? These same basic features that were much loved and constantly used by the players of the older generation game.

I'm not talking about 3 man representation of squads etc. which clearly has improved with 1:1 representation but BASIC, much loved and utilised features, just so I can nip that argument in the bud about other improvements in the new game. Of course there have been other improvements, why else would you release a new generation but don't, for gods sake, throw out the guts of why the older game was loved by the community.

To sum up, all we're asking for is some sort of in game access to basic data that provides a reasonable person with some reasonable approximation of what gun could have a chance to penetrate the front glacis of a Panther at certain ranges for example. A 75L38, a 76mm, a 90mm, anything? We're not looking for absolute certainty, just some bleedin' idea, that's all. The old CMBB & CMAK games provided that kind of basic information so why can't the latest whizz bang game provide it as well?

Regards

KR

[gibsonm]

Well its all basically discussing how many Angels fit on the head of a pin, since:

1. We have already asked about this internally. It was raised by us “nasty, fanboy, BFC apologist” (pick whichever adjective you prefer) Beta Testers long ago (for both CM:SF and again more recently CM:BN).

2. The decision was made (not by Beta Testers, but by the people who own the company) not to on the grounds of the difficulty of creating a “one size fits all” solution that would appeal to everyone.

3. The most likely end state is something very similar to what is currently in CM:SF but perhaps tweaked a little - but not to the point of being anything like what is in CMx1.

4. The end result is, to quote something that people don’t seem to be reading:

“Steve has said its not going to be in.”

So you can raise all sorts of reasons / arguments, but the decision has already been made.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

So you can raise all sorts of reasons / arguments, but the decision has already been made.

I believe my post would be what some people would refer to as lobbying. If enough people make it clear that they really want this sort of information included in the game then I would imagine that Battlefront would be crazy to ignore such a groundswell. If it's not in with the first iteration of CM:BN then perhaps they will be convinced to include it with the 1st module? One can only hope, hence the reason for the posts.

I don't believe Steve has said that they're never, ever going to include improvements to the game (that don't impact on realism), no matter how much potential purchasers of the game want it. It's called customer service and satisfaction.

Regards

KR

[dan/california]

I am on the outside looking in, but this cake is in the oven and three quarters risen. The chances of adding ingredients are looking rather thin. All of us,and I certainly have my pet causes too, are arguing for things in either the next module or the next family. If they weren't down to crossing and dotting things this forum wouldn't be open.

[Calibration]

The penetration tables in CMx1 do not just inform the tactical choices of the player. For me they give much added value to the game because of their educational aspect. Whether BF wish to have them or not in some incarnation of the CM:BN series is their commercial decision of course but you can add me to the lobby wishing for them to be included in some form.

[stikkypixie]

To me although the penetration tables are cool to have, they were not that useful. Sometimes a bit misleading even, because it was not always easy to judge what applies when (to me at least). I gladly trade the CMx1 penetration table for the more complex penetration model of CMx2.