Thickness and penetration data

[YankeeDog]

Eh. It's all esoteria, really. It's interesting to me because I'm a grog, but only marginally useful in-game. Fact of the matter is, whether it's 60mm or 80mm plate, taking on a JgPzIV frontally with a Sherman(75) is a bad idea unless you have 3:1 or better odds. I don't need to know the exact thickness or angle to figure that out.

Heck, I can tell just by looking at the shape of the thing...

[Barkhorn1x]

Heck, I can tell just by looking at the shape of the thing...

I agree - that thing is built for ambush and has a heavy mantlet, a nasty frontal slope and thick protection. Certainly it is not as versatile as the Sherman with its power traverse turret but in its element... [shudder]

[Wrath of Dagon]

Eh. It's all esoteria, really. It's interesting to me because I'm a grog, but only marginally useful in-game. Fact of the matter is, whether it's 60mm or 80mm plate, taking on a JgPzIV frontally with a Sherman(75) is a bad idea unless you have 3:1 or better odds. I don't need to know the exact thickness or angle to figure that out.

Heck, I can tell just by looking at the shape of the thing...

I disagree entirely.

[futon river crossing]

I have not played CMBO for years, nor CMBB/AK - I can't remember the strengths/weaknesses of which tank, what gun, which barrel length, was it a late model etc etc. I'm not a grog - I just enjoy these games - but I can tell you the "chance to hit/kill" was useful - as were the stats tables with penetration and armor thickness - I referred to these all the time. I don't want to have to search Wikipedia every time I pick a tank for a QB, or when I decide to break cover and fire on a tank with my AT gun - how's that supposed to work when you're playing real time?!!!

I played a recent game in CMSF (I got my ass handed to me) - the scenario was described as balanced - I had 3 T72's (I forget which model) and some troops - my opo had 3 Challengers and troops - as I was under the impression that the scenario was a fair matchup, I assumed that the T72's could take on the Challengers - not a chance, I landed numerous shots on my opponent - to no effect, and the Challengers swatted my tanks like flies - nothing in the game helped me out - Indeed - I'm still none the wiser, was it a fluke result, and I was merely very very unlucky? Or was there no chance of me ever killing those Challengers? I still don't know. A simple %hit/kill graphic would clear this up. As it is, presumably I'll have to replay this many times to find out. Maybe I should intuitively know this stuff - but I'm not a grog I suspect that many buying CMBN aren't grogs either.

The thing I find odd is that there is time to put in details like matching ammo pouches with the weapons carried by infantry (a cool feature to be sure, but hardly essential as far as gameplay is concerned) and multiple helmet types and the like, stuff that doesn't really advance gameplay, but really useful features that improve gameplay are left out.

[GreenAsJade]

Eh. It's all esoteria, really. It's interesting to me because I'm a grog, but only marginally useful in-game. Fact of the matter is, whether it's 60mm or 80mm plate, taking on a JgPzIV frontally with a Sherman(75) is a bad idea unless you have 3:1 or better odds. I don't need to know the exact thickness or angle to figure that out.

Yes. You are a grog - you know these things.

This is exactly my point - without this sort of information available, the player's detailed knowledge of all the armoury (ie groginess) becomes a much more telling factor in who will win.

As as been said, this is far more significant in WWII where there is a wide range of performance and capability.

Reading this thread, I have gathered that some kind of information _is_ available, in a basic pictorial form, but less than was with CMx1. So only time will tell how much of a factor this is. We can be sure it will be more significant in CMBN than CMSF. IMHO.

GaJ

[Erik Springelkamp]

I played a recent game in CMSF (I got my ass handed to me) - the scenario was described as balanced - I had 3 T72's (I forget which model) and some troops - my opo had 3 Challengers and troops - as I was under the impression that the scenario was a fair matchup, I assumed that the T72's could take on the Challengers

The manual states clearly, that nothing the Syrians have can take on the coalition head to head.

Isn't it much nicer to learn that important fact with beautiful explosions, than to beat an opponent using intense study of tables?

[Petrus58]

Isn't it much nicer to learn that important fact with beautiful explosions, than to beat an opponent using intense study of tables?

Agree entirely. Plus what's wrong or difficult about learning from experience?

[GreenAsJade]

Have you guys tried WWII stuff? The sheer amount of variation makes learning it all a very daunting task. In other words, to get good will require a vast amount of experience.

This might not be "wrong" but it certainly is difficult.

In CMx1, the players don't need an encylopedic knowlegde of the weaponary in order to construct good tactics, somewhat leveling the playing field for grogs vs non-grogs.

It seems that in CMBN those with the knowledge will have the advantage, though (as I said) it remains to be seen how effective or not the tables that we've seen pictures of will be.

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

The manual states clearly, that nothing the Syrians have can take on the coalition head to head.

Isn't it much nicer to learn that important fact with beautiful explosions, than to beat an opponent using intense study of tables?

By the way, this is a ridiculous characterisation of the penetration data and it's usage in CMx1.

The whole beauty of it was that it was presented exactly where needed in a useful way, so that it is a mere glance when needed to find out the relevant information immediately, not intense study.

Someone is suggesting "go google it if you need to know". This is the exact opposite of "readily available where you need it".

GaJ

[aka_tom_w]

The "Creator" (ST-TOS fan speaking here) has pretty much covered all the bases here....

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

[Erwin]

"...what's wrong or difficult about learning from experience?"

Absolutely nothing...

So long as you have anal-retentive obsessive compulsive tendencies and are a total grog. (And I include myself in that description btw.)

The question is how do you market outside of the few hundred nutters who are like that, in order to make some money?

All the kids I know do not have that sort of focus and dedication to wargames. After a few minutes of "I don't understand anything in this game" they will move on.

The great thing about CM1 is that it sucked you in... it made learning easy (comparatively to CMSF). There seems almost a vanity or arrogance about some of us "knowing" all this stuff and "screw everyone else if they don't like it."

I don't see how we're going to have competitive competitions if newcomers have to spend ten years like many of us have spent learning the CM systems.

It doesn't matter to me at all since I know how to play. I am genuinely concerned for newbies.

[GreenAsJade]

One thing that may be making CMx1 players fear this will be worse than it may actually be is the sheer wealth of units in CMx1. Right now I have a game on one hand where I have Grants and Valentines vs PIIs and in another I have Stus vs T34s. It takes a very special person to be able to hold the experience of all these types in their head, and hundreds of games to accumulate that experience.

OTOH, CMBN appears really quite limited in the range of units we'll have to figure, so maybe it's all manageable...

But Erwin: screw the newbies It matters to me. I'd be lost, in CMx1, without those tables, even after all these years!

GaJ

[Erwin]

Hehe... We should make "Screw the Newbies" the motto at the top of BoB.

And yes, it is a wonderful feature of CMBN that there are hardly any units lol.

[Battlefront.com]

There are basically two different camps. There's the camp that feels they can figure out the game through experience, then there is the type that has to figure it out before they experience it. I am not saying one is better than the other, rather that each other can't believe it's possible to play by the other person's way of doing things.

I'm one of those "seat of my pants" type players. I know WAY more about this subject matter than most of our customers. But I bet you anything I know less about armor values, penetration, and other things than certain segments of our customer base. The reason why is I don't care about the nitty gritty and it doesn't affect my games. Rules of thumb work just fine.

If someone thinks they HAVE to have detailed armor penetrations to play CM (of any version) then I suggest they are obsessing about things they don't need to. The player doesn't need to know the details, the game system does. Whether a player might still want to know this information or not is a personal preference, but it is not necessary.

Steve

[Paper Tiger]

And yes, it is a wonderful feature of CMBN that there are hardly any units lol.

I know you were joking mate. However, I must say that there are way more than enough formations to keep me creatively challenged for a long, long time to come. And before I feel that I've done everything that I want to with the vanilla title units, we'll have the Commonwealth units for the Allies, SS and Fallschirmers (okay, so I can't spell it) to add to the mix. And how much to you want to bet that there'll be some new US formation in the Commonwealth module. (Not that I'll care because I want to play with the Commonwealth units and the SS.)

[MikeyD]

I'm wondering, does anyone have a copy of the original U.S. Army 75mm Sherman tanker armor penetration tables? You know, the printed tables he rode into combat with and consulted before firing?

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't know that for a fact, but logically it would be part of his training/intelligence briefing. Edit: But hell, why waste the effort on testing and intelligence, they probably just told him "you'll figure it out through experience".

[GreenAsJade]

Edit: But hell, why waste the effort on testing and intelligence, they probably just told him "you'll figure it out through experience".

--------

[akd]

I don't know that for a fact, but logically it would be part of his training/intelligence briefing. Edit: But hell, why waste the effort on testing and intelligence, they probably just told him "you'll figure it out through experience".

That is probably much closer to reality than your average gunner coming out of training with a detailed knowledge of the penetration capabilities of their main gun at all ranges and a working knowledge of the vulnerability of all enemy armored vehicles at all aspects and angles. It is certainly very much reality in specific cases like US tankers facing Panthers in June of '44.

[Pvt. Ryan]

All M8 Greyhound gunners were told to take out King Tigers from the rear.

[Andrew H.]

I don't know that for a fact, but logically it would be part of his training/intelligence briefing. Edit: But hell, why waste the effort on testing and intelligence, they probably just told him "you'll figure it out through experience".

Actually, they probably told him "The Sherman tank is as good as any tank in the German army."

[GreenAsJade]

Who really cares what the gunners were told, or knew, anyhow?

It's not especially relevant to the question of "what information would be best made available to the player to make this the best game?" (Whatever "best" means to each person!)

The "player" in the game is not taking the role of the gunner, he is taking the role of "strategist" or "tactician", a role which in real life doesn't even reside in one person.

GaJ

[Erwin]

Thanks PT. And I hope you are busy creating a whole bunch of your crack scenarios/camps. I think I am still playing thru at least 3 at the same time.

I don't know how people played all the CMSF scenarios and campaigns so quickly. I figure it could easily take me a year or more before I run out of CMSF scenarios and have time for CM:BN.

[Erwin]

And yes, I don't want to be in the position of a naive recruit who "has to learn by experience." That experience is an entirely different role-playing game and there are games that have been like that.

I assumed that we are supposed to be akin to an elite officer, who takes command and who can help our pixeltruppen "be all that they can be."

To do that, I need to have all that info in my head from "experience." But, of course I don't have that RL experience.

That is what the stats tables simulate imo. The stats tables represent/simulate OUR RL EXPERIENCE.

[aka_tom_w]

Actually, they probably told him "The Sherman tank is as good as any tank in the German army."

I am pretty sure that is a direct quote from general Patton.

"We have the best tanks and the best soldiers in Europe"

Or something like that