Armor ratings and CMBN

[Peregrine]

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.

I am guessing you mean pre-firing info (ie to hit chances) rather than feedback?

Battlefront have said they will be giving more information about broad capabilities but frankly having to hit chance information everywhere will sterilise the game. I loved CMBB/CMAK (played CMBO for 2 months prior to CMBB and never want back after CMBB - CMBO infantry model was too broken and felt like any sort of suppress and move would always work) but at the end of my CMBB PBEM days (2008 maybe) it was still fun but it felt as much a maths competition as a game. I like not having % as it feels more real.

PS I also feel that not having the "firepower" ratings of a squad is a much bigger loss. Much more difficult to understand the amount of firepower at differing ranges a squad has.

[LemoN]

I am guessing you mean pre-firing info (ie to hit chances) rather than feedback?

That's one part of it.

It would be nice if there would be some indication of the chance to hit a target, since the gunner will have a pretty good idea what is and what isn't a good shot to take, especially with the more accurate LOF and LOS systems in CMx2. Thing is that I've found it pretty much impossible to determine what's a good shot and what isn't.

It doesn't have to be a % chance, but maybe just a colour code?

I.e. Greed, orange and red.

The other part is things like a rough penetration spreadsheet and, more importantly, an armour table. Really, I simply want a similar thing as in CMx1 games with things like special feats, equipment, etc.

I can't put my finger onto as exactly why having information like this makes it so much more satisfying, but it's the case. For instance ToW2 has a far simpler and inaccurate penetration system than CM:BN, but the single fact that ToW2 has lasting hit and penetration markers telling you at which angle what projectile penetrated what armour thickness made it really engaging.

I think one analogy would be being watching a F1 race in the TV without sound and later on sitting in the stadium of a race with regular (fast) cars.

While I know that F1 has far more powerful cars and extremely sophisticated technology I'll take the regular cars every single time, since I can smell the burning rubber and the exhaust fumes and I can hear the roar of the engines.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm siding with LemoN on this.

Going over the penetration numbers of one tank and checking it against the armour protection of the intended target made me more of a participant then merely ordering the tank and hoping for the best. That whole thing made me engage more with what I am doing. You could have some clever system calculating yes/no/maybe and I still wouldn't like it as much as going over the CMx1 data. Even if it wasn't wholly accurate, I'd get a ballpark sense of what to expect. If I shoot at 90mm target with a 92mm penetrating gun I at least knew that I have to wait for a perfect shot.

The new method tells me next to nothing. CMx1 gave me an adequate ballpark to work with. With CMx2 I cannot tell what sport is being played!

And it was a great way to learn stuff, seeing the numbers right there gave you a better sense of whom could do what. I wouldn't have liked CMBB at all if it didn't give me such an education of how the armour of both sides stacked up throughout the war. Now, the magic shooting-through-armour-faeries do their work in secret, and I will never learn all the cool things I used to.

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Don't personalize this. What I'm saying is that highly detailed, but extremely selective, data does not make the game more playable if included or less playable if excluded. Trying to make an argument that it does make a difference is barking up the wrong tree.

Instead, just say what you're saying. You want some numbers to have extra-game arguments, thoughts, or whatever where those numbers are central. This is not relevant to the game itself, but we do understand that for some people this was a source of entertainment which CMx1 provided.

Note that we never gave the sort of detail that would allow you to argue about if the Panther A's galcis was face hardened. That was not a piece of data that was included in CMx1.

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.

This is the only example I can think of in any of the three CMx1 games. And it is why it ranks right up there in Forumlore with Bren Tripods. It's not a very compelling case to make for having the numbers shown.

In fact, this highlights a big difference between CMx1 and CMx2. In CMx1 we had one rating for "Mantlet", one for "Glacis", one for "Upper Hull Side", etc. In CMx2 we rate all surfaces according to what they were in real life. Therefore, the reinforced chin of the Tiger's mantlet is simulated directly because there's a specific surface for this part of the mantlet. Unlike CMx1 where there wasn't.

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.

Now we're finally getting to a reasonable argument for having data displayed in the game But this isn't about trying to detail every last mm of armor thickness a vehicle might have, rather it's focusing on things which are relevant to the game. It is a good thing to have it in the game, for sure. But the game can live without it and can't live without other things. Which is why it isn't in CM:BN now.

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.

If we had the resources that go into Civ then you'd have a unit database available to you in game already. But we don't have those sorts of resources and therefore have to make choices.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Battlefront have said they will be giving more information about broad capabilities but frankly having to hit chance information everywhere will sterilise the game.

Not to worry... there is no such thing as a "hit %" in the game any more as there was in CMx1. So there is nothing we can display even if we wanted to.

PS I also feel that not having the "firepower" ratings of a squad is a much bigger loss. Much more difficult to understand the amount of firepower at differing ranges a squad has.

I think this is pretty easy to figure out. Look at the headcount and the weapons mix. It gives you a pretty good idea what that unit is capable of. After only a few battles I think the average player will have a pretty good sense of this.

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

Oh, there's PLENTY of math nerds. What I said is that a very small number would actually be able to do something useful with the CMx1 numbers. They would have to own a copy of Robert Livingston's book, for example, and even then they would only get theoretical results because the variables the book doesn't cover are critical within the game (Experience, terrain conditions, etc.).

It doesn't have to be a % chance, but maybe just a colour code?

I.e. Greed, orange and red.

It is possible that a very rough indicator may be introduced at some point.

The other part is things like a rough penetration spreadsheet and, more importantly, an armour table. Really, I simply want a similar thing as in CMx1 games with things like special feats, equipment, etc.

This is planned, but it's a big development effort and it's been (quite rightly) pushed back behind things like bridges, water, on-map mortars, placeable defenses, deformable bocage, etc.

You could have some clever system calculating yes/no/maybe and I still wouldn't like it as much as going over the CMx1 data. Even if it wasn't wholly accurate, I'd get a ballpark sense of what to expect.

That is what we've always planned for CMx2. It's the sort of thing that's worth doing because, unlike straight numbers, it is actively useful within the game. The CMx1 number table was perhaps better than nothing, but it wasn't very practical.

Now, the magic shooting-through-armour-faeries do their work in secret, and I will never learn all the cool things I used to.

You still have direct observation and common sense to use, right? I mean, do you really need to have a chart to tell you what the likely result would be between a Tiger 1E and a Stuart? I certainly hope not For other things you will develop an understanding through use. You can even make test ranges for matchups you're specifically curious about. Perhaps not always the best way to learn, but I really think you will somehow manage to learn something even without the CMx1 chart feature.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

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.

The M-10 was built on the M-4 chassis, as was the later M-36, which basically joined the hull of the M-10 to a new turret with a 90mm gun based on the 90mm AA gun. The M-18 used an entirely new hull using a new torsion bar suspension that had some elements in common with the M-24 light tank that arrived later in 1944.

This torsion bar hull/suspension saw a lot of postwar applications like the M-41 Duster dual AA gun, SP artillery and even a precursor to the 1950's M-59 armored personnel carrier, which IIRC was called an M-44. A heavier torsion bar suspension system was of course used on the M-24 Medium and the variants that flowed from it.

Google has a lot of worthwhile links to these topics too. You don't need to buy a lot of books, much of this is now on the internet, you just need to look for it.

[Battlefront.com]

It is scary to think of how many hundreds of hours of research we put into CMBO would be unnecessary now thanks to the speed of using things like Google and Wikipedia. The level of detail, and accuracy I should add, of Wikipedia is better than most books I collected over the years. Not as good as some, obviously, but I could easily get rid of 3/4 of my books and I wouldn't miss them at all.

Steve

[Renaud]

Don't forget torsion bar suspension made it all the way to the Abrams!

[Bastables]

If we had the resources that go into Civ then you'd have a unit database available to you in game already. But we don't have those sorts of resources and therefore have to make choices.

Steve

Cool thank's for explaining why unit cards/databases are not in.

And the greater fidelity makes PIV Sherman match ups much more tense and gripping like cmak but with better spotting. Computer shermans out flanked my PIV J and the hand cranked turrets combined with individual non Borg spotting resulted in 3 dead PIV's of mine. Great success.

[DavidFields]

I agree it is a want, not a need.

But for certain people the numbers were fun....just to see. And to see them evolve during the war.

In my opinion, this game engine, and Battlefront, is really going to be pushed hard when we get to the East Front. People will be wanting huge maps, with near battalion force sides (or bigger!) (which is one reason I was worried about the increased splitness of the squads--a lot of computing power being used for sub-squad issues). At 1000 meters, it will be nice to have a better idea what chance my T-34 has against a Stug.

And when the module comes out where green infantry is attacking, with ampoulets, backed by T-26s, with someone lugging up a Maxim, it will become clearer that the beginning of WW2 was almost 1/2 way in time between Faluja and Bull Run.

By that time there will be...dozens and dozens of different AFVs. My guess is that the UI will adapt and be more (for those who desire it) detailed.

[GerryCMBB]

While people might understand the relative strengths of a Panther versus a Sherman, there are many more obscure vehicles (for me at least) to learn about. Just playing Cats chasing Dogs and you have Pumas against M8s and half-tracks. Seems the Puma with the 50mm can kill an M8 pretty easily but the 37mm of the M8 needs many penetrations to hurt a Puma. There is quite a variety of vehicles on both sides in this scenario.

Some kind of relative strength chart would be nice.

(I have been away for a while so I might have missed something.)

Thanks,

Gerry

[Oddball_E8]

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?

not everybody's a grog... i remember that when i started playing CM:BO i thought i was rather well-versed in WWII, but i was proven wrong...

and the fact that the armor and penetration info was right there in the game helped me alot.

but now its gone and replaced by (IMHO) woefully inadequate symbols that give a fuzzy general idea of what a tank can fight effectively against...

i cant help but feel that BFC (who i still love) have dumbed down the game some since the old days.

not in the way of making the game "arcadey" or anything like that, but more like assuming people know armor values or just dont care about stuff like that.

that and the fact that the AI seems dumber (but thats probarbly just because of the more detailed enviroment) and the fact that the game seems more geared towards realtime play than WeGo (old hunt order anyone?)

[slysniper]

that and the fact that the AI seems dumber (but thats probarbly just because of the more detailed enviroment) and the fact that the game seems more geared towards realtime play than WeGo (old hunt order anyone?)

The AI might be dumber in QB's which I do not generally play, but I would disagree with that if you are playing a scenario where someone that knows how to program the AI to play has done the job. I have found that AI to play as a much more challenging opponant than back in the CMX1 days. Actually cmX1 was a real joke once you played it a few times and understood its weaknesses..

Not all games, but some that I have played in the new campaigns can be really a good test and there is actions at times that you would think you were actually playing someone with intelligence on the other side. So I feel it has improved Yes, will it still do stypid things yes. I have rolled up on a platoon of tanks with their ass end towards me and the AI does not seen to care much about it.

[Juju]

My take? I don't miss all that info at all.

I don't think the average WW2 tanker had any of this information either, and if he had (and understood it) it wouldn't help them in the least. His platoon would be given a couple of Ronsons of varying degrees of effectiveness and be told "there's some Tigers or Panthers. Deal with them."

And that's what they'd do. hopefully to the best of their ability and with the hardware they were given. Period.

[MikeyD]

I wonder which tank are people are having such difficulty grasping the capabilities that they require pages of charts and graphs. Sherman, Tiger, Panther, PzIV, Stuart. It's not like you're fighting against the T72M1V TURMS-T firing the AT-11 barrel-launched anti-tank missile. And in that case the combination of exotic armor types & exotic weaponry makes traditional charts & graphs meaningless anyway.

[Marco Bergman]

Some kind of relative strength chart would be nice.

(I have been away for a while so I might have missed something.)

Slope effect charts thread

There are charts on vehicle armour and penetration here that may be what you're looking for.

[Oddball_E8]

The AI might be dumber in QB's which I do not generally play, but I would disagree with that if you are playing a scenario where someone that knows how to program the AI to play has done the job. I have found that AI to play as a much more challenging opponant than back in the CMX1 days. Actually cmX1 was a real joke once you played it a few times and understood its weaknesses..

Not all games, but some that I have played in the new campaigns can be really a good test and there is actions at times that you would think you were actually playing someone with intelligence on the other side. So I feel it has improved Yes, will it still do stypid things yes. I have rolled up on a platoon of tanks with their ass end towards me and the AI does not seen to care much about it.

Im talking about the TacAI, not the larger-scale AI (but i agree that that is kinda underwhelming when playing quickbattles, witch i rarely do)

I wonder which tank are people are having such difficulty grasping the capabilities that they require pages of charts and graphs. Sherman, Tiger, Panther, PzIV, Stuart. It's not like you're fighting against the T72M1V TURMS-T firing the AT-11 barrel-launched anti-tank missile. And in that case the combination of exotic armor types & exotic weaponry makes traditional charts & graphs meaningless anyway.

Again, not everyone that starts playing CM:BN has played this kind of game before and excluding them simply because they dont "already know" about tanks' strengths and weaknesses is bad business.

To you and me its very common knowledge that the panther had a shot trap and that you really should keep its front to the enemy. But to average joe out there that has no previous knowledge other than "the tiger tank was the baddest tank out there evah" its not that apparant what strenghts and weaknesses a Panther tank has. Nor does it mean that he knows the differences between the different models of tanks, witch may very well confuse him utterly.

[GerryCMBB]

First I would like to say I appreciate the efforts and time given by anyone that has playtested the game. However, your statement Mikey doesn't include any of the vehicles I listed in my post. Your list is more the traditional set of vehicles. Again when seeing Pumas facing M8s and HTs I would no idea of their relative capabilities.

Add your list to my list and it is a fair few vehicles. Then add in those from modules, Bulge game, EF, etc. and it could be overwhelming.

People that have played the CMx1 series are also way ahead of those of us just starting in this system.

Another issue may be that some people like charts; some just prefer to figure it out by playing. I like charts.

Take care,

Gerry

I wonder which tank are people are having such difficulty grasping the capabilities that they require pages of charts and graphs. Sherman, Tiger, Panther, PzIV, Stuart. It's not like you're fighting against the T72M1V TURMS-T firing the AT-11 barrel-launched anti-tank missile. And in that case the combination of exotic armor types & exotic weaponry makes traditional charts & graphs meaningless anyway.

[GerryCMBB]

Thanks Marco. Those charts look amazing.

I will give them a shot.

Gerry

Slope effect charts thread

There are charts on vehicle armour and penetration here that may be what you're looking for.

[Narses]

Yet another emotional topic. I'm a player going straight from CMx1 to CM:BN.

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

I miss those added pieces of armor info in the original CM games and I miss seeing after the battle the scores of individual tanks.

If Battlefront needed to eliminate this it is OK and really not that important.

Armor thickness isn't the end all of the equation anyway. You also need to know about ammunition, APCBC versus APCR or APDS, etc. Then there is quality of armor with German armor starting to feel the effects of loss of certain alloys. So really its keep the enemy away from your flanks and rear, use hull down if possible and for the Germans and maybe the 17pdr range is your friend - sometimes hard to find in Normandy.

Probably for 85% of us playing we've already processed and have most of this info in our heads. For example knowing that the 80mm on the PzIV doesn't include the the mantlet and turret front. Gosh, I hate that.

Also the CMBN game includes a book that has not only general armor thicknesses but also mentions quality of armor - something many books ignore. Or get a copy of Chamberlain & Doyle's softcover 2 vol Encyclopedia of WW2 Tanks.

[Blackcat]

"I miss seeing after the battle the scores of individual tanks"

Why do you miss this? It is a feature that is in the game. You can even see cummulative scores for a unit in a campaign.

Confused from Sussex

[sburke]

Question on this. How do the stats show? For example if I hit a tank causing the crew to bail I believe I don't actually get credited with a tank kill. The tank would simply show up for the enemy as abandoned and capable of being re-crewed. I was looking through stats after a recent battle and though I had rendered almost all of the enemy tanks useless, I actually got credit for very few kills. If I just went through the casualties caused by my armor without actually knowing how the battle went I would have thought my armor had played very little role.

[hoolaman]

I suspect one benefit to not showing the exact data used, from BFC's perspective, is that nobody can tell them it's wrong

I doubt that was the motivation but I can understand a player's desire to know what figures are used in the game from that point of view.

Firstly, everyone could check if the research is correct. Secondly, everyone could check if the data attached to all the models is actually working as it should. Eg I recall someone "bitching" about penetrations into part of the Tiger hull armour had actually discovered that it was rated as thinner than it should be in the game.

While I am sure BFC's research is some of the best, it is not impossible that a typo or an incorrect tag somewhere might not occasionally be skewing the results in subtle but important ways.

When a certain armour rating means the difference between a kill or a bounced round the subtleties can become very important.

[Narses]

"I miss seeing after the battle the scores of individual tanks"

Why do you miss this? It is a feature that is in the game. You can even see cummulative scores for a unit in a campaign.

Confused from Sussex

In QB there seem to be only cumulative scores, " 2 tanks destroyed."

[Vanir Ausf B]

I doubt that was the motivation but I can understand a player's desire to know what figures are used in the game from that point of view.

Firstly, everyone could check if the research is correct. Secondly, everyone could check if the data attached to all the models is actually working as it should. Eg I recall someone "bitching" about penetrations into part of the Tiger hull armour had actually discovered that it was rated as thinner than it should be in the game.

While I am sure BFC's research is some of the best, it is not impossible that a typo or an incorrect tag somewhere might not occasionally be skewing the results in subtle but important ways.

When a certain armour rating means the difference between a kill or a bounced round the subtleties can become very important.

Very true. A mistake in the thickness of one of the Tiger's front plates is being fixed in the 1.01 patch. It took hours of testing to establish something was wrong. If we could see the raw stats it would have been apparent at a glace (and I suspect would never have made it past the beta stage).