Jump to content

Armor ratings and CMBN


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No. The first iterations of CM had this information. Highlight a vehicle, hit enter, up pops stats.

There are some UI mods that add some functionality similar to what you are looking for. I think the relevant mod is Marco Bergman's "Alternative Vehicle and Weapon Silhouettes" available in the Repository (via the Community link on the main page).

The other option is to hunt down some books or online resources.

If I feel adventurous, I'll remake my Excel spreadsheet that had selectable drop down menus (with pictures!) of the units in CM:BO. It was never completed as it only included Vehicles and Infantry (no Guns or Off Board Artillery) but I thought it was pretty awesome for what it displayed.

There are fewer hard numbers in CN:BN and fewer units, so hopefully it isn't a total pain to do. CM:BO had 124 vehicles with up to 134 pieces of information per vehicle and 46 infantry units with up to 84 pieces of information per unit. It was a lot to keep track of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just purchased Combat Mission :Battles for Normandy and I'm very pleased with it so far. I would like to know if there is any type of armor rating like hull thickness, penetration values that you see in some tactical games.

Just to clarify, what you mentioned is simulated with great precision, but it is no longer shown to us in great detail. No longer do we get exact numbers to crunch to match gun to armour.

And a cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody - I forget who - had a very interesting spreadsheet with armour and penetration values for CM:SF units on it. I'm not sure how they obtained the figures, but there wasn't anything on there that I disagreed with.

I'd love to see something similar but so far my tactic for CM:BN is a straightforward "don't trust the front armour of anything other than a big cat, don't trust the side or rear armour of anything, don't trust any armour against shaped charges."

You could set up test scenarios using the editor if there's a particular matchup you wanna investigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hope that with patches there might be something added to the visual armor ratings. I've read that for these type of tactical games the armor ratings for the various parts of say a tank are difficult to program for gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've figured anyone over the age of sixteen would already have a pretty good handle on armor levels on WWII tanks. What's an on-screen graphic representation going to tell you about Panther armor that you don't already know?

16? Really? I'd've said anyone over the age of 30 who's a wargamer; don't think the specifics of military hardware is a large part of the History curriculum for the general mass of teens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems is that there are many, many vehicles to keep track of. It's especially difficult to remember what tank chassis many of the non-tanks were built on.

Given the long development time of CM:BO from beta to release, I had time to purchase multiple books about WWII equipment, but not everyone has a shelf full of books.

Question: What chassis is an M10 TD built on? The M36? I'm guessing it was an M4 chassis but which M4 chassis? Dunno. What about the M18? I'm sure many of you know the answer, but I wouldn't expect everyone to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find I do miss some things (like command lines) but haven't missed the old armor strength graphics.

Same with me. There's more UI changes coming down the road with the next major release (as there was between CMBO and CMBB, for example), but armor rating displays like we had in CMBB/AK are not planned. We've got some other ideas to give people useful information without clogging up the UI with tiny, difficult to read and interpret symbols.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've figured anyone over the age of sixteen would already have a pretty good handle on armor levels on WWII tanks. What's an on-screen graphic representation going to tell you about Panther armor that you don't already know?

I think the problem is that what information the game is using. For example their are three figures floating around for german 7,5cm initial shell velocity: 792m/s 750m/s 770m/s. which one is the game using? is the mantel of the panther 10cm, 11cm, or 12cm at it's thickest point? is the glacis front of the Panther at 8cm, or due to manufacturing tolerances 8.5cm? Knowing this sort of technical silliness does not mean I know which figures the game uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the exact figure is irrelevant as armour quality is variable and the actual point you are going to hit is not within your control. Reading the accounts essentially he who fired first won when it was short range - call it 500yards.

I am sure that once it became longer range then perhaps the Allied tankers became more circumspect if it were a face on kitty.

Off hand I probably know all I need to know about the precise millimetre thickness of tank armour, and even what the armour slope is like but it really means sod all in these engagements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's good to know: so a game that focuses on details down to the exact modeling now of individual placement of troops, tracking of angles of impact armor hardness, velocity and explosive charge of shell is entirely irrelevant. The game should be hard coded to have panthers invulnerable from greater than 500 yds, and then maybe a dice roll to penetrate chance. . . Thank you for bringing me back to the 1990’s. What a waste of time designing war-games with greater fidelity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've figured anyone over the age of sixteen would already have a pretty good handle on armor levels on WWII tanks. What's an on-screen graphic representation going to tell you about Panther armor that you don't already know?

Armour level is one thing, weapon data is a bit harder to come by; and as Bastables says, it'd be nice to know the figures the game is using.

Though in response to the OP (now I've looked :D ), a lot of it is in the manual. Everything you (n)ever wanted to know about the armour differences between a dozen models of Sherman and Panzer IV, yuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would've figured anyone over the age of sixteen would already have a pretty good handle on armor levels on WWII tanks. What's an on-screen graphic representation going to tell you about Panther armor that you don't already know?

That statement makes no sense. I've been tactical wargaming for a long time and I like it when the developers include an info screen about armor and unit rating and so on. I've always liked those games like ASL and ATS.

Also I just like it when I can compare data once and a while just to make sure the true values are in the vehicle or unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot answer for BF so these are my views only.

A.

1. Anyone who has studied penetration data for shells knows that it is a very complicated subject AFAIR the figures vary even when the same guns are being compared as it depends whose firing what capped shell at what type armour. The definitions of penetration differ between countries and could be something like 50% of the shots at a range penetrate then that is chosen as THE penetration figure for that range.

Now of course to help everyone out these figures will be in metres and yards, and they will be at vertical and a couple of slope angles. Which makes you wonder what the figures are for intermediate angles and intermediate ranges. And what effect being angled AND sloped has for penetration chances.

So its an approximation.

2. AFAIR shells are also variable in quality.

3. Tank armour is also variable, particularly for the Germans where Panther armour became very iffy. Also when firing at an enemy tank choosing a precise point to fire at in a battle situation is remarkably fortunate.

So whilst giving millimetre figures may provide some comfort if you look under the hood to see how penetration figures are derived you would not be prepared to bet on an outcome as being a certainty. Fortunately the subject has been discussed exhaustively on the Web so you can check it all out.

This is a very very good explanation:

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/introduction.html#Gun_Accuracy_Data

B. I have been refreshing my memory reading broadly lately and AFAIR it is Operational Research that the tanks who fires first generally wins. I assume this will be covered on the Web somewhere. I believe I read it in Armoured Firepower: The Development of Tank Armour 13939-1945 by Peter Gudgin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we sampled 1000 of our customers I bet there might be 1 that could make some decent sense out of the numbers that go into determining ballistic vs. armor results. And even then it would not be very useful when playing the game for two reasons:

1. Nobody uses this data to make decisions within the game. People make decisions based on their understanding of what the relative capabilities are. That can be arrived at in many ways, but knowing if we use simulate "the mantel of the panther 10cm, 11cm, or 12cm at it's thickest point" isn't one of them.

2. There are so many random and situation specific variables for any one shot and hit, there's absolutely no way someone could predict the end results even if they had all the data down to 1000th of whatever numbers we used.

The game simulates armor thickness of every surface of a vehicle. The angles are as the models are constructed and situated when the shell strikes. Velocity, angle of approach, etc. are all literally simulated. No dice roles and pre-calculated results like were present in CMx1.

To sum up... the reason we don't bother showing the numbers is they aren't useful. Having said that, some other method of conveying relative strengths vs. weaknesses would be nice to have and so we are planning on something in the future.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's good to know: so a game that focuses on details down to the exact modeling now of individual placement of troops, tracking of angles of impact armor hardness, velocity and explosive charge of shell is entirely irrelevant. The game should be hard coded to have panthers invulnerable from greater than 500 yds, and then maybe a dice roll to penetrate chance. . . Thank you for bringing me back to the 1990’s. What a waste of time designing war-games with greater fidelity.

In-game results are what are important, right? Showing or hiding the numbers doesn't change the effects at all. The results come from the equations and how the numbers (whatever they are) are used. CMx2 is more sophisticated than CMx1 by a wide margin in every way, so the results seen in CM:BN (without numbers displayed) are far more realistic than those in CM:BO (with numbers displayed).

I can understand someone wanting to see the numbers, but that isn't the same as needing to see the numbers. The simulated effects work the same either way, and the effects are what are important. Not the display of detached numbers which have very little actual value even to the people who want to see them.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link I gave earlier perhaps the idea that penetration figures are the be all and end all of effectiveness should be considered in the light of this:

Armour Hardness and Quality

Most of the information that follows comes from Robert Livingston and I am grateful to him for answering my many questions about this subject.

Face Hardened Armour

Face hardened (FH) armour was not used by the USA on vehicles after the early models of the M3 light, due to its expense, difficulty in working it, and its relatively poor resistance to German APCBC in comparison to rolled homogeneous armor.

A full explanation of the manufacturing process of FH armour is given in the Weapons Data section.

Cast Armour

On average, the hardness of USA cast armour was less than that of rolled homogenous armour (RHA). The USA accepted the lower ballistic quality of cast armour when manufacturing the M4A1 Sherman, relying on a little extra thickness and the rounded corners to make up for the essential weakness of the armour material. The net effect was that the later versions of M4A1 Sherman were less well protected than the later versions of RHA Shermans. One unit which had both (the 743rd Battalion) kept their cast hull Shermans out of combat, a lesson apparently learned the hard way.

A full explanation of the manufacturing process of cast armour is given in the Weapons Data section.

Armour Quality

It was determined reliably that a large proportion of USA armour, both RHA and cast, produced prior to November 1943 was flawed to such an extent that it resisted about 5% to 50% less than it should have, with a mean resistance around 85% of 1944 and 1945 armour plate.

Armour Specifications

For USA armour specifications see the Vehicle Armour Hardness table.

I now confidently look forward to BF providing details of the armour brittleness of each tank so players can pick and choose which tank to use. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right so the current argument is giving accessible information in game that had existed since CM would serve to confuse players. That for instance panther mantlet thickness is irrelevant inspite of the manual informing us that the ausf d has a thickness of 10cm and the ausf a has 11cm. For desieltaylor in the manual we have discussions that the ausf a no longer having the glacis face hardened. But this would confuse us morons if also made available in game.

Let's look at the tiger in the manual armor listed as 12cm to 2,5cm Ok most data sheets have it as 10 cm max thickness as modeled in the original CMBO, During the continued support of CM arguments and proof were brought forward showing that the max armor thickness in the turret was higher than 10cm, sometime reaching up to 14cm on parts of the mantlet. CM1 then kludged this new information by having the turret to have a randomized thicker turret thickness when struck. This changed the way the tiger survived shots in battles such as last defense and the infamous wittmann Senario. Now understanding that assume that the tiger in game is treated has having a mantelt thickness of up to 12cm unlike most data footing around that posits it at 10cm. This information is available to the player, but instead of a old style featuring of such information in game, it is instead restricted to the manual and if you've been playing the game and the BTS forums since the 90’s..

It's like the old unit cards having panther turrets at slow or slowest in the old unit cards, now such information is in the manaual with the ausf a mid being listed in having the engine governed and lowering the transverse speed of the turret.

That if the manual is correct in stating armored values for various and other data points is reflected in game and therefore are independent variables for how the things act and are modeled in game why the he'll can't I have similar information available in game as having to alt tab to the PDF or have the manual open in my lap.

Or if the next CIV appears they can dispense with the CIVPEDIA as everyone will have a general idea how swordsmen and spearmen work, besides the data is in the manual anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMx2 is no longer a wargame where you can mathematically work out the chance of things working or not. While it would be nice to have some information (CMBO, CMBB were great libraries of WWII tank stats) even if exactly the same information present in CMx1 was included it isn't going help that much because there are too many other variables involved now probably the most important is the angle shell hit at. This didn't matter in CMx1 and also now with stuff moving it changes all the time.

Battlefront would actually have to include a lot more information than was present in CMx1 plus add stuff to the user interface like angles and elevation difference when targetting stuff (or you could whack a protracter on your monitor and work it out for yourself).

One thing the user interface doesn't do well is to give noobies a reasonable understanding of the capabilities of a tank's gun. You need to play alot to sort this out or research it yourself or post a question on this forum (haven't seen many of these).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we sampled 1000 of our customers I bet there might be 1 that could make some decent sense out of the numbers that go into determining ballistic vs. armor results.

Steve

Do you really think amongst 1000 wargamers you would only find 1 maths nerd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMx2 is no longer a wargame where you can mathematically work out the chance of things working or not.

Indeed, because it doesn't tell you what it works with.

My main gripe with the armour system in CMx2 is the lack of feedback. While a lot of it was corrected by the reintroduction of hit messages there's still a lot missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...