Dissapointed by CMBN

[Amizaur]

Is the Sherman ability to kill Tigers and Panthers frontally from 400m looked at also ? What ammo were they using ? I was under impression that 75mm Sherman could only effectively penetrate Tiger's SIDE armor from under 100m. And a 76mm Sherman using normal ammo (not HVAP) would be in most cases effective against Tiger frontal armor on very short range like 100m because of projectile shatter. Is the shot shatter modelled in the game ?

In my tests 75mm Shermans have a chanse to kill a Tiger frontally from up to 400m. 76mm Shermans are of course more effective. Have to observe yet, what type of ammo they use while obtaining those penetrations.

Other issue that makes me worried, is the ability of a Sherman to survive 2 (or sometimes even three) full high-energy penetrations from Tiger's or Panther's gun (100-400m) and still return fire like nothing happened !! What about spalling, all those shrapnel and metal flying inside the turret filled with 3 human bodies, ammo and equipment ? What about APHE bursters almosty certailny going off inside the crew compartment ? They do take casualities (sometimes) but are not even "shocked" like it happened in CMx1 - loader or commander just has been killed by 88mm shell, and gunner returns fire like nothing happed.

Even if the game calculates, that there are no casualities and little damage after such e penetration (front turret of mantlet penetration with little damage??) then still shouldn't the crew be a little shocked or thrilled for a moment ? And, I believe that in most cases there should be casualities, damage, blood and shock, and usually an idea to evacuate from the vehicle before next round arrives... Instances when a Sherman survives three penetrations in a row (one front hull, and two front turret) from a Tiger's 88mm APHEs, and without a second of dfelay returns fire after each one - only fourth penetration of front hull killed it, should be observed in the game once in 1000 cases, not daily !!

Sometimes a partial penetration of a Tiger's or Panther's armor makes it "destroyed" at once, without any crew casualities. They just evacuate broken vehicle. It's ok.. but not sure how often this should happen. Sometimes German crews can even survive some full penetrations (usually low-energy or maybe HVAP penetrations) with or without casualities and continue fighting, ok for a motivated crew.

On the other hand, Shermans are OFTEN able to survive multiple full high-energy penetrations of APHE and and even with casualities still return fire or withdraw to fight another day. Not sure this is ok.

Something seems to be not-well-balanced with projectile damage to tak itself, the crew's health and morale. In one test I duelled Tigers with Panthers. Panthers usually won (as Tiger's gun is usually not able to penetrate Panther's front sloped hull - a veteran or crack gunner should know this and aim for turret). But it took usually SEVERAL penetrations (sometimes more than 5) from a Panther to knock-out a Tiger. Most penetrations didn't even cause any casualities !! Same for Tiger - when it managed to penetrate Panther's front turret or lower hull, it usually had no effect at all on the Panther. Seem like the German 75mm and 88mm AP projectiles are not too effective after penetration, have very weak "behind the armor" effect.

It takes usually several German 88mm or 75mm penetrations to take out a Tiger or Panther. And those were full, high-energy penetrations as Panther have absolutely no problem penetrationg cleanly Tiger's 100mm from few hundred meters.

Surely the German tanks survided MORE penetrations from 75L70 and 88L56 than Shermans.

I mean that a Tiger or Panter seem to be more resistant to damage than a Sherman. And it's ok as they are physically bigger tanks with more room inside and better armoured (less projectile energy after penetration).

Seems that it's not the Sherman "too strong" or too resistant. Rather it is the German ammo that is way too ineffective in causing damage and especially casualities.

US 75mm and 76mm ammo seem more effective (fired from much less powerfull US guns) because usually it takes only 1-2 penetrations to take out a German tank. Of course sometimes it takes more, but sometimes only one partial-penetration is enough.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In my tests 75mm Shermans have a chanse to kill a Tiger frontally from up to 400m. 76mm Shermans are of course more effective. Have to observe yet, what type of ammo they use while obtaining those penetrations.

There is a problem with one part of the Tiger's front hull armor right now. It's not as thick as it should be. It's being fixed in the 1.01 patch.

[AstroCat]

I'm not disappointed with CMBN, but I have a few gripes (that have probably already been voiced by many players)

CMX2 Engine

I'm not asking for CMBN to be Company of Heroes, but I just feel like the game engine isn't optimized for performance. CMX2 is not a very smooth gaming experience.

I was hoping for more development with the engine for this release, especially compared to other games out there. Better physics and effects. Maybe better development for terrain and trees/shrubs..speedtree?? The CMX2 engine feels stiff.

Story Line for Campaigns

My second gripe hasn't changed since CMSF: There's really not much depth or story line that goes with each campaign or mission, scenario.

I'm not asking for Company of Heroes cut scenes in between each mission, but how about some animated mission briefings? In CMSF it was much worse, because we were going off of a fictional war; I never really understand the operational or strategic portion of the campaign.

With CMBN we already have a script: Reality! Why not do what Close Combat did, and toss in some historical video footage between missions to spice things up.

Bottom Line: Campaigns still have no feeling to them

Force Pool

Close Combat gave players a force pool. A group of Soldiers that they could call their own. It gave players ownership and a sense of command. It also allowed players to develop their Soldiers through combat and experience. By the end of a campaign you could have a group of killer Soldiers, with lots of experience from battle.

I was really hoping that CMBN would have some of that. Instead, I go through the campaigns and receive random reinforcements. I'm not sure if this is equipment that was with me from last mission? Did they gain any experience. Their leadership still shows +1 or -1..no change. Kind of a let down.

I'm right there with you on the campaigns and the engine as well... man I wish they would had some more polish and depth to the campaigns... I believe I know the reasons they haven't but for me it sure would make the campaigns so much more interesting and engaging. As for the engine, a more sophisticated/modern lighting engine would have made a huge difference.

Still really liking the game but game engines have come a lot further from where CMBN is at...

[Guest]

Forgive me, please - I don't want to get into campaign issues. They're not really my purview so you wouldn't be getting anything other than my opinion on it anyway. I can say that any improvements like you are talking about would be big and costly in terms of development time. Every time you guys say "that would be cool!" I can guarantee you one of us has had a similar thought - whether it can be done in a reasonable amount of time is something entirely different.

CMX2 Engine

I'm not asking for CMBN to be Company of Heroes, but I just feel like the game engine isn't optimized for performance. CMX2 is not a very smooth gaming experience.

CMx2 is definitely optimized, but it's a very open-ended engine. Very few games handle what Combat Mission does - a potentially infinite number of units on a 16 square kilometer map - ALL of which can be in view at once! It's really limited only by the processing power of the machine in question. Technically it's not something that's easily tackled. That Charles has solved it as well as he has, and on his own, is actually pretty amazing.

I was hoping for more development with the engine for this release, especially compared to other games out there. Better physics and effects. Maybe better development for terrain and trees/shrubs..speedtree?? The CMX2 engine feels stiff.

All of these things take development time. Speedtree needs a lot of dev time to integrate, and it wouldn't have helped us all that much. I know a few big game developers who integrated Speedtree and then realized it wasn't going to work for them. Not coincidentally these guys were making games with similar engine goals to CM. Very good when you need to put a few dozen trees on screen. Not so awesome when it's five thousand trees plus units.

I did the water and rain effects and as simple as they were, they weren't easy, mostly because they had to look decent but also be as cheap as humanly possible. Therein lies the rub. The real trick is that CM has to be able to handle that very large number of units on a very large map, and THEN add effects and fun physics in. Units + map are the key to the game, and thus the priority. This doesn't leave a ton of guaranteed processing power for effects. So... effects that look halfway decent are a very difficult balancing act.

[Johnny Canuck]

I for one, will continue to enjoy the game as it evolves.

Funny enough, I almost only play PBEM.

[LemuelG]

CMx2 is definitely optimized, but it's a very open-ended engine. Very few games handle what Combat Mission does - a potentially infinite number of units on a 16 square kilometer map - ALL of which can be in view at once! It's really limited only by the processing power of the machine in question.

I was wondering about this, but didn't want to start a thread over it - colour me impressed.

Anyway, you can find this kind of guff all over any video-game forum you care to visit; generally it's essence can be distilled to someone throwing a disgraceful tantrum because their (often delusional) personal expectations weren't satisfied, no surprise that most folk roll their eyes and say: "WTF would you know anyway? You've got the social grace of a spoiled two-year-old"

Of course, the way tanks firing while moving is pretty close to broken, OP - you were not the first to notice. You act like we're about to come to our senses - "hey, he's right! OMG SO BROKEN!!"; yeah, you're a month or so late on that one - welcome, please calm down.

[Guest]

I was wondering about this, but didn't want to start a thread over it - colour me impressed.

Yep. People complain about the engine in comparison to others, but I doubt very much there's anything like it. The closest analogue would be Supreme Commander, and the terrain and unit scale (which includes AI and LOS calculations) in CM are so much finer that SC's largest battle probably needed a (sensibly large) fraction of the processing power of the largest CM maps. And SC was built by great heaping teams of very smart people working for a few years, not one incredibly smart fellow working for roughly the same amount of time.

Anyway, you can find this kind of guff all over any video-game forum you care to visit; generally it's essence can be distilled to someone throwing a disgraceful tantrum because their (often delusional) personal expectations weren't satisfied, no surprise that most folk roll their eyes and say: "WTF would you know anyway? You've got the social grace of a spoiled two-year-old"

Well, yeah. And I generally try to defend other games when things like this come up. Without access to the code you never know what the developers were shooting for.

It's like I was saying above - there's really no comparison between CM and anything else. CM *looks* like a lot of other games (some would argue that it's more or less attractive than said games, of course), but it surely ain't. I boggle at what Charles has accomplished, and that's saying something.

Of course, the way tanks firing while moving is pretty close to broken, OP - you were not the first to notice. You act like we're about to come to our senses - "hey, he's right! OMG SO BROKEN!!"; yeah, you're a month or so late on that one - welcome, please calm down.

Yeah. We definitely look into things like this. The beta testers read the forums, we read the forums, and when things come up we check them out. Of course if people want to do testing, or offer up test scenarios, or generally be constructive, then that's helpful.

[womble]

Story Line for Campaigns

My second gripe hasn't changed since CMSF: There's really not much depth or story line that goes with each campaign or mission, scenario.

Bottom Line: Campaigns still have no feeling to them

All this is down to the scenario designer(s). So far I'm not very impressed with the quality control of this element of the campaigns released with the game, but then I've only played C&F. Flavour and feeling come with the briefings and victory conditions and such.

Force Pool

Close Combat gave players a force pool. A group of Soldiers that they could call their own. It gave players ownership and a sense of command. It also allowed players to develop their Soldiers through combat and experience. By the end of a campaign you could have a group of killer Soldiers, with lots of experience from battle.

I was really hoping that CMBN would have some of that. Instead, I go through the campaigns and receive random reinforcements. I'm not sure if this is equipment that was with me from last mission? Did they gain any experience. Their leadership still shows +1 or -1..no change. Kind of a let down.

In some ways your 'core units' are your 'own'. I can understand the reasoning behind the scenario designer not telling you which units are core (to stop gamey bastidges flinging the non-core units into the fray with no thought for preservation), but I think sometimes it would feel better if you knew who's story is being told. And it does suck that all that seems to happen to your units is attrition and replacement. No one learns anything. The survivors of I and K Coy from my Courage and Fortitude run through should be pretty hard-bitten by now, I reckon.

[dieseltaylor]

Firing on the move is difficult not impossible, the WoT that you mention, again damaging your cred, I can consistently engage and hit enemy tanks that are moving while I am at full speed. WW2 tanks preferred to halt, they didn't have to. An accomplished gunner could well have hit another tank from on the move, the Sherman particularly so as it did have a gyrostabiliser and an accurate and fast turret.

Wow . Just lets get this straight. Firing on the move may be difficult but possible. I understand that hitting tanks size targets whilst on the move in late WW2 should be extremely rare, particularly if it is not virtually point blank range.

However if you have any evidence other than the two known cases please bring them centre stage. I thought this particular idae had been nailed in its own thread.

[Gen Von Television]

I've started training campaign, reached mission, where i have two shermans under my command as reinforcements to learn game mechanics. There are "crew less" PzIVs, one tiger and panther as a target practice. I ordered one of my shermans to go "fast" to the little hill and shoot them, second one started moving "quick" to those tanks after delay of 30sec. What i realised was that the accuracy of standing sherman (reached hill before second one) was the same as this one moving on "quick" - both of those tanks hit enemy's tanks by first hits..

What!?

I played this same tutorial a few days ago, and I had to reach a flanking shot at less than 100 m to knock out the Panther and for the Tiger I had to shoot it right in the back at about 50 m to finish it.

Then you say: the luck of the beginners!

Really: many missed shoots while they were moving; very impervious Panther to knock it out with the 75 mm, and almost an impossible objective to knock out the Tiger.

Are you sure you were playing this at least in Veteran Mode? It seems you got the Arcade version of the game! Hey I want that version too...

[Apocalypse 31]

I can understand the reasoning behind the scenario designer not telling you which units are core (to stop gamey bastidges flinging the non-core units into the fray with no thought for preservation)

Eh. I don't buy it.

Look at it this way; At least players would have that option if we had a force pool.

[Cymru]

"but you don't love people for their potential but for what they are."

I hope you don't plan to go into teaching as your career

[womble]

Eh. I don't buy it.

Look at it this way; At least players would have that option if we had a force pool.

Didn't say I agree with it. I'm very conservative with my forces most of the time, and it wouldn't matter to me whether they were one-time or present ongoing; there's no such thing as cannon fodder. It's up to the campaign designer whether they inform you as to what your core units are. If you don't like that they don't trust you, you can avoid their scenarios and look for scenarios that try and engage you with the units participating. It's not the fault of the engine.

[Apocalypse 31]

It's not the fault of the engine.

Maybe...but it is certainly not something that can be done with the current engine.

Have you ever played Close Combat? The UI and engine support a FORCE POOL system.

[womble]

Maybe...but it is certainly not something that can be done with the current engine.

Have you ever played Close Combat? The UI and engine support a FORCE POOL system.

No, I've not played it. Are you saying you get to select your units from a pool for each scenario? Because if not, I really don't get what you want.

[Magpie_Oz]

Wow . Just lets get this straight. Firing on the move may be difficult but possible. I understand that hitting tanks size targets whilst on the move in late WW2 should be extremely rare, particularly if it is not virtually point blank range.

However if you have any evidence other than the two known cases please bring them centre stage. I thought this particular idae had been nailed in its own thread.

Not under fire on a flat surface with non moving unoccupied targets, which is the situation described, I would think it fairly easy to hit the target.

400m is point blank range for a Sherman without checking I think it goes out as far as 600m. Tank engagements rarely happen at this range, hence the lack of examples I should think.

[YankeeDog]

Not under fire on a flat surface with non moving unoccupied targets, which is the situation described, I would think it fairly easy to hit the target.

400m is point blank range for a Sherman without checking I think it goes out as far as 600m. Tank engagements rarely happen at this range, hence the lack of examples I should think.

In Normandy specifically, due primarily to terrain factors, average engagement distance for tank vs. tank fights was quite short. I forget exactly, but IIRC it was somewhere in the 700-800m range. I've never seen detailed information as to the distribution of engagements at certain ranges, but given that we all can probably cite a fair number incidents where of long range (1km+) duels did happen in Normandy, there must have also been a substantial number of engagements at sub-600m range for this average to hold up.

As for the whole accuracy on the move issue, I would refer folks to this thread, wherein Steve makes some comments as to why things are they way are right now, what tweaks may be under consideration for CMBN patches, and what changes to the engine may be coming down the road (major changes probably not coming in modules to CMBN, but rather in future games like the Battle of the Bulge game):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98346&page=6

The Cliffs Notes version: There is some abstraction of tank accuracy on the move because the game does not effectively model "firing halt" behavior right now, especially for the computer player which isn't sophisticated enough to pull off micromanagement stunts like short waypoint pauses. Nevertheless, the issue is being looked at and accuracy may be adjusted in future patch(es). Longer term, Steve would like to fix the core problem and do some larger adjustments to the way AFVs are handled in the game to more explicitly model "firing halt" behavior.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program of trolling, troll-baiting, bread and circuses, or whatever else entertains the plebians.

[dieseltaylor]

plebiscite= referendum

plebians, plebs = f, pertaining to, or belonging to the ancient Roman plebs. 3. common, commonplace, or vulgar: a plebeian joke. –noun. 4. a member of the common people. ...

[YankeeDog]

plebiscite= referendum

plebians, plebs = f, pertaining to, or belonging to the ancient Roman plebs. 3. common, commonplace, or vulgar: a plebeian joke. –noun. 4. a member of the common people. ...

fixed; thx.

[Apocalypse 31]

No, I've not played it. Are you saying you get to select your units from a pool for each scenario? Because if not, I really don't get what you want.

Yes. A player will normally get a Battalion sized force for a campaign. Each mission is a company-sized engagement so players can select through a Battalion worth of equipment to field during each mission.

[Oddball_E8]

Whilst all of these are valid concerns, shouting and screaming about it isnt going to help.

first off, you would have known this before you bought the game if you A: tried the demo or B: looked at the forum threads.

also, i think alot of these issues are directly carried over from CM:SF where they werent issues really...

The tanks in CM:SF were modern tanks and they are extremely accurate even on the move, but they most likely forgot to modify tank behaviour when changing the game setting to WWII

The paper buildings are most likely a bug of some sort (like most infantry staning in a window to shoot out, and therefore getting just a window worth of protection, ie none at all)

the trees are clearly a bug.

infantry shooting at unbuttoned tanks is something that needs to be fixed. Most likely the infantry doesnt destinguish between a tank with exposed crew and other infantry so they happily plink away at that exposed crewmember thinking only of him as an infantryman that is half exposed.

[Narses]

Tanks do seem too accurate getting too many first rd hits around 1000 meters although my panzers are stationary. And I've never tried the highest 2 skill levels either.

At least certain units like anti-tank hunter and bazooka/schreck guys are too prone to fire their sidearms often after firing their AT rd. If they hit their tank target they then start firing sidearms at the crew it seems. Instead they should go prone and hide again as in most of my QB games another enemy unit will get them.

I'm not sure about MG fire on tanks. I tend to think it has advantages to keep the tank buttoned, confused by looking for it or an enemy anti-tk gun or tank.

[patboy]

The tanks in CM:SF were modern tanks and they are extremely accurate even on the move, but they most likely forgot to modify tank behaviour when changing the game setting to WWII

.

Oddball, I agree with you, all you said! But I remember when BFC turned to modern warfare before to comeback to WWII (BFC quote) " who can more can less", which implies it will be easier to make a game of World War II after one of modern warfare. I don't doubt BFC must fix or do somefink quickly! I love the game but I would like to play more simulation than a RPS, thanks BFC for your effort!

Cheers

Pat

ps: BFC if you read the forum there are not so much scenarios in the game and I preferred the CMX1 Operation , hope you can fix that for a GREAT game!

[womble]

Yes. A player will normally get a Battalion sized force for a campaign. Each mission is a company-sized engagement so players can select through a Battalion worth of equipment to field during each mission.

I thought that's the sort of thing you'd mean. One thing I'd like to see in the future is the option for a scenario designer to give a points value for the player, rather than a fixed OOB.

However, this doesn't fit the idiom of CM, as I think its designers see it. Their emphasis is on "doing the best with what you've got" which is arguably what the context of any given fight was, 99% of the time in WW2. The opportunities for a Captain to pick whether he took the Sherman platoon or an extra battery of 105s into an engagement were vanishingly rare. I think if you were to have such a thing, for it to fit into the idiom, you'd have to game out the reasons the 'unpicked' units weren't available for the scenario. After all, if you've got a battalion sitting around doing nothing it might at least be reserves for your 'active' company.

[Amizaur]

Tanks do seem too accurate getting too many first rd hits around 1000 meters although my panzers are stationary.

Why do you think it's "too accurate" to hit 1000m targets with first round ? The natural spread of most tank guns is not that big on such distance. The main source of inaccuracy and errors on 1000m range are errors in range estimation, the precision of aiming, and possibly misalligned sights (or sights that are not well maintained and not properly adjusted). If a tank has a competent, calm gunner that aims precisely, takes his time, if they also have a well maintained and adjusted sight, and if they estimated the range correctly, then there is no reason they shouldn't hit the target with the first round with very high probability. No matter is it's a Panther of 75mm Sherman, the guns are quite accurate if the range is known.

If their range estimation is wrong, then they are quite likely to miss (chances depends on the gun, 75L70 or 88L71 are still less likely to miss than 75L40), but they should hit the target with second round and each round after that.