Something missing... but still in love.

[xian]

In many ways the CM1 series of games was the spark that ignited my interest in WWII wargaming and WWII history in general. What made the game special for me was the wonderful detail about the capabilities of units that the player received. The percentage hit chance when targeting, the penetration tables, and the real world information about armour thickness/slope/hardness/shot traps etc. really helped me to understand the intricacies of the WWII battlefield.

CM2 is undoubtably a worthy successor. It really succeeds in bringing the visual detail of the WWII alive in the mind of the player. The battles are incredibly immersive and I certainly feel for my little Puppe Truppen. Of course, I am aware that there are still a few things that needs improving or tweaking such as the AI and some additional GUI commands, but I am sure that future updates will have no problem ironing these out.

My major concern is that the designers seem to have decided to considerably reduce the amount of information a player receives about his units' capabilities and status:

A few examples:

1. Percentage hit chance and likelihood of penetration when targeting armour (I have absolutely no idea if I am attempting a pointless shot)

2. Penetration tables (were a great rough guide - they don't NEED to be 100% correct)

3. Armour thicknesses (Bergman's mod helps a bit)

4. Overhead unit status info (I need to check each unit individually to see how it is doing)

5. Unit's current location on GUI (ie. light woods/building etc. I need to zoom right in to see where they are).

Like CM1, I assume that there are some serious calculations going on in the background based on 'real world' data. CM1 seemed to have the balance right - that extra layer of detail helped players to make informed tactical decisions and provided new players something to get their teeth into. It's just a shame that a bit more of this information isn't given to the player in CM2. It was a clear demonstration of the authenticity of the data 'under the hood'. I mean, why not show off a bit!

I realise that the detailed visuals in CM2 provide far more feedback than its predecessor ever did, but somehow I still always feel like something is missing.

I also think that players new to WWII wargaming might not have the information and unit feedback they need to really understand what is going on in any depth.

Don't get me wrong - I love the game. It really is a fantastic piece of work that BF should be very proud of. It's just that, with a few changes, it could be exceptional.

[Vanir Ausf B]

6. Tooltip doesn't tell you if the terrain being moused over is impassable for the selected unit.

I agree. Great game, but could be much better about giving the player critical information.

[Sergei]

1. Percentage hit chance and likelihood of penetration when targeting armour (I have absolutely no idea if I am attempting a pointless shot)

2. Penetration tables (were a great rough guide - they don't NEED to be 100% correct)

These are pretty much impossible because unlike CMx1 there is nothing in the game to draw these from. The game is not based on hit chances or penetration tables.

6. Tooltip doesn't tell you if the terrain being moused over is impassable for the selected unit.

It does if it's a terrain feature that covers the whole tile - so eg. a marsh tile, foot bridge, building or deep ford will show 'no go' when a tank is selected but is green when infantry is selected. It doesn't work with linear obstacles, like bocage and walls.

[Michael Emrys]

I also think that players new to WWII wargaming might not have the information and unit feedback they need to really understand what is going on in any depth.

I understand what you are saying and I think you have a point. But aside from what Sergei says about some of it not even being possible within the present "under the hood mechanics", most of that kind of information is available from other sources if one really cares. That is to say, the game can be played and played well without knowing all that detail. I does lose something of its pedagogical worth in the process however, which I think is what you are saying? But it also brings us closer to the real world experience of soldiers in combat who didn't have all that information at their fingertips either. They did things based on the best guesses they could make derived from their experience. If it worked, fine. If it didn't, maybe they died or were wounded or captured. Similarly, if a player is attentive, he'll start to work out at least a rough idea of what works and what doesn't on an intuitive level. Again, this puts the player closer to a real world experience. The game could have evolved more in the direction you advocate—and it wouldn't have necessarily been wrong for it to do so—but BFC chose a different path and it seems to be a successful and pretty popular one. I doubt that they will abandon it any time soon.

Michael

[xian]

These are pretty much impossible because unlike CMx1 there is nothing in the game to draw these from. The game is not based on hit chances or penetration tables.

Sure, I understand this. But surely a rough 'to hit chance' could be extrapolated simply from the distance, the type of round, the velocity etc. Then converted into something for the player (example):

Chance to Hit: GOOD

Chance of Penetration: AVERAGE

Is this not possible?

[xian]

I understand what you are saying and I think you have a point. But aside from what Sergei says about some of it not even being possible within the present "under the hood mechanics", most of that kind of information is available from other sources if one really cares. That is to say, the game can be played and played well without knowing all that detail. I does lose something of its pedagogical worth in the process however, which I think is what you are saying? But it also brings us closer to the real world experience of soldiers in combat who didn't have all that information at their fingertips either. They did things based on the best guesses they could make derived from their experience. If it worked, fine. If it didn't, maybe they died or were wounded or captured. Similarly, if a player is attentive, he'll start to work out at least a rough idea of what works and what doesn't on an intuitive level. Again, this puts the player closer to a real world experience. The game could have evolved more in the direction you advocate—and it wouldn't have necessarily been wrong for it to do so—but BFC chose a different path and it seems to be a successful and pretty popular one. I doubt that they will abandon it any time soon.

Michael

I understand the point you are making. I guess I need to remember that we are talking about two different games and not a Combat Mission MARK 2. It is so hard to avoid making comparisons though, and I do feel that many of the design decisions are based upon the fact that there is now a RT mode. Players wouldn't have as much time to check all this unit info in RT. That said, a few things like 'overhead unit status' would help both modes of play immensely - especially RT.

Actually, I'm still not clear on whether CM2 uses 'real-world' data for calculations like CM1 did?

[WineCape]

Some thoughtful, considered points. Steve/Charles are the ones having some idea or road map how they intend, and where they intend to improve the UI giving programming capabilities & possibilities for the next big release, as well as user input from forumites.

It may be too early for Steve to commit a response in the particulars and mechanics, but he's usually not short of various and numerous ideas, in case some get shot down by Charles due to some unforeseen issue.

Complexity of the game mechanics and presenting it in a simplistic, seemingly effortless manner to the user; the biggest headache for all developers.

I have the guess that the CMx2 franchise will get, over time with each iteration/evolution, more polished wrt to more varied user info/commands at a player's disposal, while also trying to make it more accessible for the complete new player.

[YankeeDog]

Sure, I understand this. But surely a rough 'to hit chance' could be extrapolated simply from the distance, the type of round, the velocity etc. Then converted into something for the player (example):

Chance to Hit: GOOD

Chance of Penetration: AVERAGE

Is this not possible?

Of course this is possible. Unfortunately, though, it's not at all that simple and I think would take a substantial amount of coding & debug time. Off of the top of my head, some of the significant factors that would have to be taken into account to calculate a "rough to hit" chance:

- Distance

- Velocity

- Inherent accuracy of gun (i.e, typical dispersion from aim point)

- Ammunition type being used

- Crew training level

- How well gun crew can see target (is target partially obscured by fog, leaves, darkness?)

- Aspect of target to gun

- Direction of travel and speed of target.

- Whether the target has any cover (any intervening terrain or other feature that could block or deflect shot)

Penetration might be a little easier, given the fact that here you could at least assume the shot hits, and knowing the approximate range gives you the KE of the shot at impact. Still, given the extremely detailed way CMBN models armor, this calculation is not going to be trivial either.

Fundamentally, Charles can spend several weeks coding up a "to & penetration chance routine", and then the Betas can spend a week or two testing and debugging this. Or, they can put the same energy into putting another feature into the game, like flame weapons and fire modeling, or gun & mortar pits, or star shells, etc. Personally, I'd prefer one of the latter.

[PLM2]

I definitely agree with all the original poster's points. Players who are not familiar with the series would be totally lost... especially when it comes to armor. Those hit/kill chances and penetration values were a godsend, regardless of any gaminess. I could see them be unavailable for the more hardcore modes of play... but basic training? Please gimme gimme!

[MikeyD]

I've said it before, it seems those who want armor stats most are the ones who need them least. What could I possibly tell a WWII fanatic about Panther armor that he doesn't already know forward and backward? Panther bow will be the same slope and same thickness next week as it was last week. I prefer the game free of shovelware clutter.

[Mord]

Since this is the umpteenth time in a couple weeks this discussion has come up why don't some of the guys in the community band together and make a reference guide?

I am by no means a guy that knows the armor values of anything back front and forward however, I don't miss the hit chance stuff. I found a way around that back with CMSF just by judging the ranges and the like from the UI info. And I kinda like the mystery of not knowing. But it's a good opportunity for some of our talent to put something together for the newbies or people that want this sorta feedback.

Mord.

[dbd1963]

I would call myself a casual gamer and I have to say, this game scores a perfect 10 for me. If there's more information that I don't have, I'm sure I couldn't use it right now. Maybe when I get to know the game and the time period better I'll want more info, and by then I bet mods will give it to me.

I have played many strategy war games, including the original CM:BO -- this is by far the pinnacle. (CM:BO was great for it's day too, but I didn't play any of the CM games after it.) I feel totally involved in this game like no other. I'm hooked.

Maybe as time goes on I'll learn to be more disappointed with how the game works, but as a relative newbie, I'm overwhelmed by how good this game is. Highest kudos to the developer.

[Speedy]

Fundamentally, Charles can spend several weeks coding up a "to & penetration chance routine", and then the Betas can spend a week or two testing and debugging this. Or, they can put the same energy into putting another feature into the game, like flame weapons and fire modeling, or gun & mortar pits, or star shells, etc. Personally, I'd prefer one of the latter.

I'll take the flamers and star shells please.

[Vark]

Would it be possible to display the information as a contemporay would know, not based on actual gaming terms? A 57mm AT crew would know that shooting at a Panther head on is suicidal but a near-dead cert from the side, some players though do not know this. The manual is in a pseudo WWII format, why can't the information about the weapons capabilities be. Players could then find out, by clicking on a window, what, for example, AT gun X is supposed to be able to do to tank Y at Z range, whether it performs as advertised is for the computer to know and the player to find out, the hard way! Gradually as players gain in experience they get a better idea about the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment and their opponents.

[Mord]

Marco has a yet another helpful addition...

Maybe there is enough interest to make this worthwhile:

To me it looks too cluttered, but that's what I thought about the range+calibre info too...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96086&page=3

Mord.

[Chek]

I haven't missed the data tables and % hit chance from CMx1 consequently I can only conclude that they're unnecassary.In fact I'd forgotten all about them untill i read this post.

A basic rule of thumb

Panther kills well everything

Panzer IV kills Sherman

Sherman Kills Panzer IV

Tiger kills everything

Nothing Kills Tiger and Panther at least front on,side on you have a good to reasonable chance.

Have a go and see what happens,just like they did way back then.

I'm pretty sure that's the feel they're going for,it definitely works for me.

It's not that complicated.

[Battlefront.com]

Would it be possible to display the information as a contemporay would know, not based on actual gaming terms? A 57mm AT crew would know that shooting at a Panther head on is suicidal but a near-dead cert from the side, some players though do not know this.

This sort of thing takes development time to put together, but it is the direction we're headed in the future. We do agree it would be beneficial to add some more generic, but unobtrusive, information about x vs. y outcomes. However, even that isn't so obvious a path.

For example, the Pak40 has very little chance of knocking out a Sherman M4A3 if it is mostly facing the Pak40, but turned away a little bit. Not much, just a little bit. If the Sherman turns a little either way, then the Pak40's chances of penetrating goes way up. BUT... so little energy is left over that any penetrations that do happen aren't likely to knock the tank out (though that very well might happen). Etc.

Steve

[lookeylou]

I would think anyone that paid for this game brought if because of its simulation quality. And therefore, knows better than attacking a tank from the front. This niche is not the command and conquer niche.

[gunnergoz]

I would think anyone that paid for this game brought if because of its simulation quality. And therefore, knows better than attacking a tank from the front. This niche is not the command and conquer niche.

Unfortunately, that "command and conquer niche" is where many gamers cut their teeth and old habits and impressions die hard. That is partly why we see so many posts complaining about things that, upon reflection, seem pretty straightforward or obvious if you study history enough and play these games seriously for a while. I try to be patient because we all have to learn somehow and I'd rather they come here to learn rather than go somewhere else where they will be led down the wrong path.

I do admit it is hard to be patient when it is clear that for many, the "search" function means "start a new thread."

[Vark]

This sort of thing takes development time to put together, but it is the direction we're headed in the future. We do agree it would be beneficial to add some more generic, but unobtrusive, information about x vs. y outcomes. However, even that isn't so obvious a path.

For example, the Pak40 has very little chance of knocking out a Sherman M4A3 if it is mostly facing the Pak40, but turned away a little bit. Not much, just a little bit. If the Sherman turns a little either way, then the Pak40's chances of penetrating goes way up. BUT... so little energy is left over that any penetrations that do happen aren't likely to knock the tank out (though that very well might happen). Etc.

Steve

Exactly, players would begin to learn about the weapon systems and face similar problems as the soldiers operating them. Never knowing for sure what the result might be, but gradually getting a feel for what the probable outcome, in an engagement, will be. As they say, in war, the only thing guaranteed is uncertainty.

I read about one of Hoffman's 75 PAKs opening up on a Cromwell at 100m, the round should have opened it up like a can opener, as it hit the side of the turret, but it struck the edge and bounced! Seconds later the second round did as advertised, but this element of doubt in any outcome should be integral in simulating combat, in my opinion.

[Wodin]

Funny enough I miss none of those helping hands...I find the game way more realsitic with out it telling me the to hit percentage etc...the soldiers in WW2 never had that info so why should we....this particular game can actaully use the word realistic in it's description without the need to feel ashamed of using it.

I play on elite and love the feeling of realism the game gives...maybe everyone should go with it and enjoy the unkown rather than having it all worked out by mathamatics...

[LJFHutch]

I've said it before, it seems those who want armor stats most are the ones who need them least. What could I possibly tell a WWII fanatic about Panther armor that he doesn't already know forward and backward? Panther bow will be the same slope and same thickness next week as it was last week. I prefer the game free of shovelware clutter.

Yeah I agree, I've never liked cluttered info all over the screen and I certainly don't want the game to do the thinking for me. Maybe it's just me but I'd much rather go and check out the stats for the real vehicles.

[Placebo]

I have to agree that i found the stats really useful in CM1 but now i don't think it is a relevant.

CMN seemed a lot less predicatable , I would never have sent mortars against a tank in CM1 however now, optics, radio and track damage make it viable. It is a lot less black and white now and better for it.

[MengJiao]

I haven't missed the data tables and % hit chance from CMx1 consequently I can only conclude that they're unnecassary.In fact I'd forgotten all about them untill i read this post.

A basic rule of thumb

Panther kills well everything

Panzer IV kills Sherman

Sherman Kills Panzer IV

Tiger kills everything

Nothing Kills Tiger and Panther at least front on,side on you have a good to reasonable chance.

Have a go and see what happens,just like they did way back then.

I'm pretty sure that's the feel they're going for,it definitely works for me.

It's not that complicated.

I agree, but since I rarely know what anyone is shooting at, I'm perfectly happy with any shot from 1 kilometer that immobilizes a Panther.

Also, even a Panther has to spot you to hit you and if the first Panther fires smoke and blocks the LOS for the Panthers behind him while the shells aimed at him hit the other Panthers behind him who cannot see who is shooting at what either, then that's okay too.

I think in many cases the game is working on situations more complex than the player can anticipate from simple Gaussian probabilities anyway.

[MengJiao]

I have to agree that i found the stats really useful in CM1 but now i don't think it is a relevant.

CMN seemed a lot less predicatable , I would never have sent mortars against a tank in CM1 however now, optics, radio and track damage make it viable. It is a lot less black and white now and better for it.

It's true. I think the game has come so uncannily close to reality in some respects that the world of frequentist statistics is not all that relevent.