Thickness and penetration data

[NewBobolix]

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.

Moddable ???

[JonS]

Good point Jon.

You have yourself a bit of a contradiction to deal with there

[~Viajero]

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

+1

Barrel length and all. No talk of shot traps yet though.

[gibsonm]

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.

Moddable ???

Did I say that?

Was it in the other two products?

[Gryphonne]

It would be neat to have some more details at some point in time. For me CMx1 was a kind of encyclopedia too. If i hadn't had any books handy and wanted to know something i'd consult CMBB or CMAK (or earlier, CMBO). It was also great fun just placing every vehicle from the game in the scenario editor and looking at their stats, getting a better understanding about them But maybe that's just my autistic point of view

Having said that, I can live without the information for the time being, but it would be neat if the interface was updated a tad Providing more overview.. What I find most annoying is all the submenus that detract from gameplay. You have 3 submenus per vehicle (while infantry has ONE very NEAT overview!) and then 4 submenus for all the commands. Of course you can use hotkeys and the space key and such, but a more streamlined interface would simply be a more elegant solution to the whole thing. Furthermore, it would probably give the CMx2 games better reviews as well (one recurring item of annoyance amongst reviewers is the clunky interface). Right now, the interface just isn't geared towards RT play which is so heavily promoted with the new engine.

[NewBobolix]

Did I say that?

Was it in the other two products?

Sorry Gibson but I discovered CM:SF only a few weeks ago after years of driving simulations so I was just asking you if this "is/was moddable" as I saw that part of the GUI has been modded in a recent post http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94810

Since I'm not interested in modern warfare I just dloaded the 1.30 demo after reading for a week the wonderful Normandy DAR to start understanding the game mechanics and waiting to pre-order

Unfortunately I'm an old school ASLer and tables have been part of my "gaming life" until I switched to caster, camber, toe and PSI

Roberto

Italy

[gibsonm]

Ah sorry, well in any case I can’t tell you due to NDA restrictions.

[aka_tom_w]

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

this is probably worth repeating at this point in case you missed it

[Wrath of Dagon]

The new armor chart is useless since it doesn't tell you against what specific gun the ratings are given. Short 75, long 75, long 50? Looks like I'm going have to use the chart in the CMBB guide I have, I need to know the armor thickness of the JPzIV in the AAR, and I don't have it memorized.

[YankeeDog]

I'm not expecting this to satisfy your desire for an in-game guide, but if you're looking for quick and easy data about WWII AFVs, including information on the armor thickness, angle, etc., allow me to recommend a couple of sites:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/index.html

U.S. Only, but very comprehensive.

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

I don't like the way onwar.com displays the data as much, but they're a quick and easy place to go for basic information on pretty much all WWII AFVs from all nationalities.

Also, there are Excel tables from CMx1 for armor thickness as well as gun penetration. Chris Hare put a lot of work into that stuff back in the day...

Since I was there anyway to make sure the link still worked, a quick answer to your question in re the JpzIV in the AAR: Given that we're talking about Normandy, the JpzIV in the AAR would have to be the earlier JpzIV L/48 (the L/70 didn't go into production until August '44). The frontal armor on this version isn't actually all that thick (50-60mm), but the slope is pretty good -- 45-55 degrees in most areas.

[stikkypixie]

For years I played close combat without using any sorts of penetration table, although they did have a system which gave you roughly your chances of killing something. Penetration tables are not necessary as long as you have a way of estimating your odds of killing stuff. After though, you don't need it.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I think it is one of the charms of the game to be able to discover yourself what can kill what.

Yesterday evening, in Shock Force, I experienced something I never thought I would see, my Syrian BPM killing an Abrams with its missile! Moments like these are priceless.

[stikkypixie]

The one lacking from the CMx2 engine now is a representation of what your gun can kill. I mean you can see what your tank is protected against, but not what it can dish out.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm not expecting this to satisfy your desire for an in-game guide, but if you're looking for quick and easy data about WWII AFVs, including information on the armor thickness, angle, etc., allow me to recommend a couple of sites:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/index.html

U.S. Only, but very comprehensive.

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

Well thanks, hopefully I can Alt-tab out of the game to use that.

Since I was there anyway to make sure the link still worked, a quick answer to your question in re the JpzIV in the AAR: Given that we're talking about Normandy, the JpzIV in the AAR would have to be the earlier JpzIV L/48 (the L/70 didn't go into production until August '44). The frontal armor on this version isn't actually all that thick (50-60mm), but the slope is pretty good -- 45-55 degrees in most areas.

I was just using that as the most recent example, the gun type would be another. Funny that all those hits from the Shermans at close range didn't kill it though if the armor is that thin.

For years I played close combat without using any sorts of penetration table, although they did have a system which gave you roughly your chances of killing something. Penetration tables are not necessary as long as you have a way of estimating your odds of killing stuff. After though, you don't need it.

That's exactly the point, you need to know the rough chances to kill something, or to be killed by them, to make an informed decision, and right now I don't see how the new display gives you that.

[YankeeDog]

I was just using that as the most recent example, the gun type would be another. Funny that all those hits from the Shermans at close range didn't kill it though if the armor is that thin.

Note the slope. There's a HUGE difference between 60mm of armor at normal, and 60mm of armor at 45-55 degrees. In the former case, the armor will be easily penetrated by the M3 75mm AP at any likely combat range. In the latter case, the armor has a good chance of stopping or deflecting the round, even at fairly short ranges.

[stikkypixie]

Well thanks, hopefully I can Alt-tab out of the game to use that.

I was just using that as the most recent example, the gun type would be another. Funny that all those hits from the Shermans at close range didn't kill it though if the armor is that thin.

That's exactly the point, you need to know the rough chances to kill something, or to be killed by them, to make an informed decision, and right now I don't see how the new display gives you that.

In my opinion the old system didn't give you that either. At least the penetration charts do not. At the very least it is very cumbersome. First you would need to click the enemy vehicle, look up its armour thickness, note down the range, estimate the angle and then interpolate from your penetration charts whether you could kill it or not. If you did not take into account all these factors, or accurately enough, it would give you a false sense of certainty. Do this when there is twenty tanks on the map.

The text that would appear when you target another tank with the kill chances on the other hand a waaaaayyyyy more useful.

Don't get me wrong, if they can get penetration tables in, that would be cool. But I think the argument that new players will be at loss without the tables is exaggerated.

CMx2 feels very natural. If you use common sense you'll most of the time make the right decision. For example in CMBB the advance command would give you a cover bonus, and often I would find myself using it when I really shouldn't be because I knew that cover bonus was there. In CMx2 if you see guys running over open ground with no protection and you know it's a bad idea.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It may be cumbersome, but you don't have to do it every time, only until you get the idea of what a given match up is like. Chance to kill was a good feature, agreed, but by the time you use it it may very well be too late, it doesn't help to do tactical planning.

As far as JPzIV, the setup screen in the AAR says it's late, and according to Wikipedia (lol) the late 48's had 80 mm of frontal armor, which is what I'm betting it is.

[stikkypixie]

It may be cumbersome, but you don't have to do it every time, only until you get the idea of what a given match up is like. Chance to kill was a good feature, agreed, but by the time you use it it may very well be too late, it doesn't help to do tactical planning.

As far as JPzIV, the setup screen in the AAR says it's late, and according to Wikipedia (lol) the late 48's had 80 mm of frontal armor, which is what I'm betting it is.

I feel the new system gives you that general feeling of a matchup. Just a matter of taste I guess

[dan/california]

In the looking I have done recently Wikipedia has been truly comprehensive. I mean chapter, verse, and serial numbers. The info is there for minimal looking.

[stikkypixie]

Oh I would also like to mention that with the upgraded damage models, it can still pay-off to shoot a tank without having a chance of killing it, by degrading its optics, tracks, etc...

[YankeeDog]

As far as JPzIV, the setup screen in the AAR says it's late, and according to Wikipedia (lol) the late 48's had 80 mm of frontal armor, which is what I'm betting it is.

If so, this would be a historical inaccuracy; JpzIV L/70s (which had the 80mm frontal armor) didn't start to come out of the factory until August of 1944. Accounting for the time it would take them to make it from the factory to the front lines, I don't see how one could have participated in the Normandy fighting. I suppose it's remotely possible a few L/70s somehow made it into the area just in time for the last fights before the Falaise pocket collapsed in mid-August, but I doubt it.

[JonS]

YD,

your point would be entirely correct, if it was a JgPzIV/70. It was not.

The JgPzIv went to a thicker front hull some time in May 44.

Regards

Jon

[YankeeDog]

YD,

your point would be entirely correct, if it was a JgPzIV L/70.

Regards

Jon

Yes. Which is why in my earlier analysis I assumed it was the JgPzIV L/48. Best I can determine, all of the JgPzIV L/48s had were built with the thinner 50-60mm frontal armor. Maybe my sources are wrong on this, though...

EDIT: You sneaky ninja; adding info to your post via edit... Guess I need better sources.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, like a listing in the game

[Erwin]

Yes, great example of why the stats were so valuable in CM1.

Oh well...