Thickness and penetration data

[WillLight]

Mikey, no one is talking about massive data tables (at least I didn't get that impression). I have played the old CMx1 games a bit (probably 100 or so hours), CMSF a bit (prob 30 hrs or so) and will prob play CMBN a bit more (but not a hell of a lot more). I know a tiger is well armoured, but there are other types, such as the various PzIVs etc, with their different guns and skirts and it would be nice to have some information about how A would fare at shooting at B from range X with some form of breakdown for front/rear/side. If BFC don't have time for it, then fine, fair enough, I understand all about the pressures of trying to put in as many (working) features as possible within a timeframe and the need to prioritise, but saying it's not needed or desired is plainly wrong.

[Taki]

Nice Statement Thomm. +1 from me!

[Ron]

I think this desire for detailed stats to 'know' whether afv 'x' has a chance to pentrate afv 'y' is a regression to the boardgaming era, competively calculating the mathematical odds, and polar opposite with the spirit of CM, imo.

I'm ambivalent about the graphical colored bars. I thought they were hokey in CMBB/CMAK. However, in CMSF I found them useful in a general way as I had no, or little, knowledge of modern armour and weapon systems and their capabilities. As a modern 'newbie', would I have been better off with more detailed numbers? No, I honestly don't think so.

I am reading about the early Africa battles in '41 and currently Battleaxe. At that time the Matilda was impervious, the British knew it and the Germans knew it, yet many were getting knocked out in this operation. An interesting antedote from a captured Major(?) who asked to see the tank doing it, believing it to be a new MkIII or IV, was indignant upon discovering it was an 88 Flak, thinking it highly unfair. Trial and error.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Reading over the posts (instead of going to bed like I ought) I get Nobody's going to be expecting their 75mm Sherman to get frontal kills againt a Tiger at 1500m.

You'd have to lose a lot of battles before you figure that out on your own. Imagine trying to figure out the difference between a 75mm and 76mm without any solid numbers to go on. CMx1 tables were a perfect way to communicate the capabilities of arms and armor against each other. If a gun goes from orange to yellow, what the hell does it mean in practical terms?

[Erwin]

As someone mentioned, we experienced CM1 players don't need the tables that much, but there should be legitimate concern about new younger players for whom WW2 is akin to Rome vs Carthage.

Unless there is little interest in the "new player market" it's surprising that there is so much resistance to useful aids. It's as if there is an experienced/military faction that wants the game system for itself and doesn't want any implication that CM2 is a game that could attract casual gamers.

[astano]

As someone mentioned, we experienced CM1 players don't need the tables that much, but there should be legitimate concern about new younger players for whom WW2 is akin to Rome vs Carthage.

Unless there is little interest in the "new player market" it's surprising that there is so much resistance to useful aids. It's as if there is an experienced/military faction that wants the game system for itself and doesn't want any implication that CM2 is a game that could attract casual gamers.

Full disclosure: I've never played a CMx1 game, so I don't know besides what I've read here about how penetration data is presented in those games.

I'd argue that while accessibility to new players is a valid concern, there's also a (probably very large) element of self-selection in who plays CM games. Regardless of how much data you put into the game, the more "casual" audience is not going to be interested in games like CM for reasons unrelated to lack of penetration data. Those that are will probably be interested in the game whether it has penetration tables or not.

I'd actually argue further, like some others here, that gamers that usually play more casual games would be turned off by needing to consult data tables to feel like they're getting the most out of the game, or having too much data presented. For them it's probably easier to just remember what beats what, not decipher a table about it.

It's also not too far-fetched for less knowledgeable players to be less hamstrung by a lack of penetration data than I think they're being given credit for. World War II is still a big part of games and movies, and players will still know that Shermans are "t3h suxxorz" against all the uber-German tanks, and that tanks have thinner armor on the sides and rear. Even gamers who've played nothing more sophisticated than Call of Duty know that. What's more, potential customers who are interested in CM:BN are likely to have more interest in the subject in the first place than the average gamer, and are more likely to already have at least some notions about gun and armor capabilities and/or a desire to learn more about them.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this kind of data in CM:BN. I think it would be a significant improvement over what's currently in CMSF. That said, I don't think it's an accessibility-denying cataclysm that will turn off new players. The steep learning curve of at (least semi-)authentic tactics is more likely to do that. If new customer accessibility is a concern, than I would say the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data.

Just my $0.02.

[YankeeDog]

Indeed. I really don't think it's a given that more accessible in-game data = more appealing to new players.

Just take a look at all the fan player "guides" that get published for major mass-market releases in the FPS, MMO etc. markets. I'm no expert on it since I don't generally play games like this, but from what I can see, it appears that developers of these types of games deliberately keep much of the game mechanics & data obscure, so that enthusiastic players can spend hours figuring out the ideal weapons/armor/magic crystals combo. Apparently, a lot of people find this really fun.

I do agree that better manual(s) and tutorial scenarios could help introduce CMx2 to new players. I'm guessing many potential players would find learning via small tutorial battles that SHOW you how you need to get a flank shot in order to take out a Tiger with a Sherman(75) would be much more interesting than reading a bunch of data tables.

But there's no doubt that some people do like to see the crunch... it takes all kinds and I won't hazard a guess as to what percentages are each camp.

[GreenAsJade]

Full disclosure: I've never played a CMx1 game, so I don't know besides what I've read here about how penetration data is presented in those games.

I'd argue that while accessibility to new players is a valid concern, there's also a (probably very large) element of self-selection in who plays CM games. Regardless of how much data you put into the game, the more "casual" audience is not going to be interested in games like CM for reasons unrelated to lack of penetration data. Those that are will probably be interested in the game whether it has penetration tables or not.

I'd actually argue further, like some others here, that gamers that usually play more casual games would be turned off by needing to consult data tables to feel like they're getting the most out of the game, or having too much data presented. For them it's probably easier to just remember what beats what, not decipher a table about it.

It's also not too far-fetched for less knowledgeable players to be less hamstrung by a lack of penetration data than I think they're being given credit for. World War II is still a big part of games and movies, and players will still know that Shermans are "t3h suxxorz" against all the uber-German tanks, and that tanks have thinner armor on the sides and rear. Even gamers who've played nothing more sophisticated than Call of Duty know that. What's more, potential customers who are interested in CM:BN are likely to have more interest in the subject in the first place than the average gamer, and are more likely to already have at least some notions about gun and armor capabilities and/or a desire to learn more about them.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this kind of data in CM:BN. I think it would be a significant improvement over what's currently in CMSF. That said, I don't think it's an accessibility-denying cataclysm that will turn off new players. The steep learning curve of at (least semi-)authentic tactics is more likely to do that. If new customer accessibility is a concern, than I would say the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data.

Just my $0.02.

Your self-disclosed ignorance is showing here.

The way that penetration data was presented in CMx1 was wonderfully usable by the totally ungroggy.

Having the data available in the way that it is results in it being routinely used and feeding into strategy and tactics.

The questions would typically be as simple as "has this tank of mine got a chance of penetrating the front of that bastard over there at this range?". If the answer is "unlikely", then you know you either need to arrange a side shot, or bring in something else.

How will non-grog players handle this dilemma in CMBN?

The only answer I can see is "somehow, they will have to _learn_ what can hurt what in which situation". So this knowledge will become an important aspect of who wins.

I've been playing CMx1 for years and years, and I haven't had to learn this knowledge, but I can do reasonably OK playing the game. What's more, I can tell you that with the huge number of variables, it's a darn hard thing to learn.

So it seems we face a situation where those who are groggy enough to learn this stuff will beat those who aren't. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your outlook...

GaJ

[Erwin]

I agree with GAJ's assessment.

However, if there is a choice I agree with astano that "the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data."

(How is that for being political heh.)

The sad thing is that BFC is providing neither.

The way CM1 was is what made it such a huge groundbreaking success, including the Operations, the easily accessible Data Tables, the easy to use map/scenario editor etc etc. All of that is now thrown out the window. I can't help but speculate that if CMSF was the very first release, rather than CMBO, BFC may not have survived - the same way that the attempt at realism and much increased complexity killed the cardboard game industry in the 80's.

[dan/california]

Boeing's customers for the 787 are not exactly jumping for joy either. But it comes down to the same answer. It will be done when its done, and then we will start on your list of complaints, maybe, you hope, some day, if your nice.

Everything more complicated than cooking dinner takes longer and cost more than it was supposed to. Its nearly as consistent as the second law of thermodynamics.

[ChrisND]

However, if there is a choice I agree with astano that "the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data."

The sad thing is that BFC is providing neither.

What information leads you to saying that?

[Erwin]

Hey ND: I found the info in the CMSF manuals to be very detailed and seemingly important, but in "RL" usage incredibly useless most of the time in terms of helping one play the game.

I call it "infocandy." (Copyright 2011, Erwin Holdings)

It took me a HUGE amount of time and what seems like hundreds of postings and reading forums here for a couple of years(!) to discover the realities of how CMSF has to be played. To play the game well, one needs to understand all the features in CMSF that do NOT work like in RL - like artillery for example, and how to game the system to achieve the desired result.

[ChrisND]

Hey ND: I found the info in the CMSF manuals to be very detailed and seemingly important, but in "RL" usage incredibly useless most of the time in terms of helping one play the game.

Ah, I just misunderstood you. I thought you were speaking about the future instead of the past.

[Erwin]

Oooops... I forgot I am in the Normandy threads.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Grogs aren't the only ones who play CM, casual players won't play it regardless, but beginners have to start somewhere. In CMSF, the granularity was much larger, it's pretty easy to figure out M1's capability compared to Bradley. With with all the variation of equipment in WW2 knowing the exact match ups of different version/ammo combos at a given range becomes crucial. A beginner is unlikely to apreciate the difference between a Sherman75 and 76, or a T34/76 vs 85. He's probably going to think any Sherman sucks and the T34 is the greatest tank ever because the History channel said so.

[aka_tom_w]

I would like to suggest that for those folks here new to the game or who have forgotten the opening words of the CM:BO manual, as a look back to capture the original CMBO feel and intent of the manual, (which has not changed ) I thought I would quote this passage from the CM:BO manual about stats and calculations.

Get used to it because this philosophy has not changed in the past 10 yrs

Quote:

This manual is also different from many other game manuals. Combat Mission is an extremely dynamic game that uses fuzzy logic and real-world physics models where ever possible instead of static combat result, terrain modifier or line of sight calculation tables often found in other wargames. So the manual cannot explain all the game mechanics with absolute precision (short of reprinting the computer code!). Instead, it talks more about the chances and probabilities than the offensive or defensive values, hexes and dice rolls.

So there you have it, the details of the calculations and armor penetration will remain hidden from view and are intended to be discovered by playing the game (and yes trial and error IS a valid method of learning how to play the game.)

The reference to "extremely dynamic" here should be understood to mean each and every instance of a round fired would or will receive its very own, very special, one-off calculation (result) that will account for different variables for many disparate factors, including but not limited to (off the top of my head) available daylight, crew quality, distance to the target, motion or velocity of the target or the shooter, velocity of the round fired, a detailed assessment of the angle of the target (for armor plates), armor thickness of the target plate, and possibly wind speed (that one I am not sure about) and there may be other factors at play like stress of combat, fatigue or suppression of the shooter to be accounted for as well.

Out of that list most grogs and stats geeks want to look only at about 3 or 4 of them

i) target distance

ii) thickness of armor plate

iii) known penetration values of different shooters as a factor of velocity

iv) percentage factor of chance to hit (usually memorized ) at a specified range laid out in a groggy chart somewhere on the internet.

Its just not that simple, the game code will and does factor in a myriad of other variables to determine the individual outcome of every round.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I would like to suggest that for those folks here new to the game or who have forgotten the opening words of the CM:BO manual, as a look back to capture the original CMBO feel and intent of the manual, (which has not changed ) I thought I would quote this passage from the CM:BO manual about stats and calculations.

Get used to it because this philosophy has not changed in the past 10 yrs

So there you have it, the details of the calculations and armor penetration will remain hidden from view and are intended to be discovered by playing the game (and yes trial and error IS a valid method of learning how to play the game.)

You've just shot yourself in the foot using that quote from the manual. You'll note the bit about the chances and probabilities being available to the gamer with the wonderful 'new' game. That was in CMx1 but is not in CMx2. Now, I'm not saying that probabilities for a hit and then the chance of a kill has to be in CM:BN but at least the inclusion of some basic penetration tables combined with basic knowledge of how good various units armour is from the front, side & rear in general terms like colour coded bars is not asking too much is it?

I understand that the CMx2 engine is significantly more complicated than what was in CMx1 so I'm not too fussed about the dropping of chance to hit & chance to kill information being available due to all the variables that now exist when drawing a los to a potential target. However, losing both this information plus some basic backround info on the various AFV's simply leaves the uninitiated pretty much clueless. The excuse that one simply has to learn the system from continual play sounds like a cop out to me compared with what has been available in the past.

Regards

KR

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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.

The stuff highlighted in bold is, yet again, your classic strawman argument in it's purest form. Nobody has asked that something as comprehensive as Jeff Heidmans extensive Excel spreadsheet be incorporated into the new game. That would be ridiculous. All we're suggesting is that something like the basic information that was available in CMx1 by hitting the Enter key be also available in CM:BN. I can't recall anyone from the entire time I've been reading about the Combat Mission series of games (10 years or so?) ever complaining that the basic data available within CMx1 was too technical and over their heads, unless they were not even of teenager age.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

Nobody has asked that something as comprehensive as Jeff Heidmans extensive Excel spreadsheet be incorporated into the new game.

Actually, Heidman's tables are exactly what was in CMx1. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Good point Jon. But it wasn't in the form of some massive Excel spreadsheet, it was broken down into digestible and easily understood bits. Click on this unit... you get the stats on that unit alone. Click on another and you get its stats. Not some overwhelming spreadsheet which would certainly be far too imposing for a new player with its information on every single unit that could possibly be in the game.

As I said, I would have thought this sort of presentation of basic unit data specific to the unit chosen wouldn't be too much to ask, especially as it was available in a game some 10 years older designed by the same people.

Regards

KR

[Battlefront.com]

Good point Jon. But it wasn't in the form of some massive Excel spreadsheet, it was broken down into digestible and easily understood bits.

For some, sure, but not for all. I was just looking at some CMx1 screenshots of stats and thinking "how on Earth did anybody find this stuff useful"? It hurt my eyes to look at them. Then I remembered when I played CMx1 I rarely, if ever, looked at those numbers. They got in the way of gameplay for me. It was enough for me to know that this stuff was in there.

The important thing to me was the results I got from the game. In Steel Panthers I had Panther shots bounce off the backs of T-34s at point blank range. They had stats tables and what not too, but I didn't need to consult them to know that the results were BS.

As I said, I would have thought this sort of presentation of basic unit data specific to the unit chosen wouldn't be too much to ask, especially as it was available in a game some 10 years older designed by the same people.

Spoked wheels and AOOOGAH horns were standard features for Ford vehicles. The same company doesn't have either in its new vehicles. So the argument of "something had this x years ago, and something newer and similar to it does not" means very little.

This is not to say we aren't going to spend a little more time on this issue going forward, because we do have plans to do just that. What I'm saying is the perceived need for it is overblown. It's a "want", not a "need". A "need" is to have the game produce reasonably realistic results consistently and in ways that are predictable within given constraints. The game does that, so the basic "needs" for the game are met.

Steve

[NewBobolix]

I think that a starting point will be changing the horridous interface made of +++++

that we have here, with something easier to quickly read

[gibsonm]

Well as Steve said in Post #107 above:

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

Sorry I think I was off finding his response while you were attaching the pictures, so basically "no change" to what you've seen before in the other two products.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Spoked wheels and AOOOGAH horns were standard features for Ford vehicles. The same company doesn't have either in its new vehicles. So the argument of "something had this x years ago, and something newer and similar to it does not" means very little.

This is not to say we aren't going to spend a little more time on this issue going forward, because we do have plans to do just that. What I'm saying is the perceived need for it is overblown. It's a "want", not a "need". A "need" is to have the game produce reasonably realistic results consistently and in ways that are predictable within given constraints. The game does that, so the basic "needs" for the game are met.

Steve

But note that Ford vehicles do still have wheels and a horn, usually in either a more convenient and/or improved state.

However, it's encouraging to see that the intent is to improve the information available to the player in the future. My question is whether this includes the CM:BN family of games time frame or only the sequels to the CM:BN family.

Regards

KR

[noxnoctum]

Every time I see this thread title it just sounds dirty .