Hitpointsystem on Subsystems

[siffo998]

i would second that. a word from bfc could clear up a lot of things especially in regard of that optics damage.

for example to what is optics damage really reffering ? why is optics damage nearly always happening even when front or side hull are hit (non penetrating). will it be changed in the future to a more comprehensible system like optics damage only happens when the exact location in the turret (gun mount) is hit ? this would lead to a much much rarer damaging of this subsystem. also no cummulative damage then but a more catastrophic result for the optics when the exact spot is finally hit !

I`ve even opened a thread in the past were i wanted to know to what optics damage is reffering and what is the exact consequence of damaging this subsystem ingame. but the thread didnt have much attention so it wasnt ever answered. maybe this will change now !

[Georgie]

My opinion. It appears that BF has made an effort to balance the play between the US and the Germans. If the the kill factor had been the same as it was in CMBO then the US would not stand a chance in the battles with a Panther or a Tiger included. This would have resulted in a very boring game of "the Germans always win". My opinion again. This has made for a much more enjoyable and "up in the air":) game

[Michael Emrys]

It appears that BF has made an effort to balance the play between the US and the Germans.

If they did so, I would expect that they did so unconsciously as Steve has sworn up and down on several occasions that they do not "design for effect".

Michael

[Georgie]

If they did so, I would expect that they did so unconsciously as Steve has sworn up and down on several occasions that they do not "design for effect".

Michael

I hope that you are "correct" Michael. But for what ever reason it was done it does make the game much more enjoyable to me. Maybe the kill ratio in CMBO was found to be too slanted in favor of the Germans?

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe the kill ratio in CMBO was found to be too slanted in favor of the Germans?

Now that's entirely possible. I am open to the thought that 14 years ago not even BFC was entirely immune to "German rapture".

Michael

[siffo998]

My opinion. It appears that BF has made an effort to balance the play between the US and the Germans. If the the kill factor had been the same as it was in CMBO then the US would not stand a chance in the battles with a Panther or a Tiger included. This would have resulted in a very boring game of "the Germans always win". My opinion again. This has made for a much more enjoyable and "up in the air":) game

I dont think that this is the case. At least i really hope that its not the case. after all this product tries to be a battlefield simulation with, quote:

"Extensive vehicle damage modeling individually for each sub-system including the most realistic ballistics, armor, and post-armor effects available to date"

and you have to keep in mind that it was bfc which released cmsf. Where m1a2 sep abrams tanks fought against old t55 or t72 which didnt have a chance in face to face engagements.

after all its the same in cmbn you simply have to use different strategies and it will be no problem to lead the allies to victory. also the us infantry 1944 is much superior to the german infantry and its modelled in a correct way i think. (garand against k98, 12 men against 9 men squads, light 60mm mortars in a platoon against no mortar in a platoon)

so why on earth should have bfc traded in realistic 1944 ww2 tank combat for gameplay balancing purposes.

i still believe (or at least hope ) that its only the subsystem damage that needs some tweaking after bringing the cm2 engine from cmsf modern combat to cmbn.

[Georgie]

I dont think that this is the case. At least i really hope that its not the case. after all this product tries to be a battlefield simulation with, quote:

"Extensive vehicle damage modeling individually for each sub-system including the most realistic ballistics, armor, and post-armor effects available to date"

and you have to keep in mind that it was bfc which released cmsf. Where m1a2 sep abrams tanks fought against old t55 or t72 which didnt have a chance in face to face engagements.

after all its the same in cmbn you simply have to use different strategies and it will be no problem to lead the allies to victory. also the us infantry 1944 is much superior to the german infantry and its modelled in a correct way i think. (garand against k98, 12 men against 9 men squads, light 60mm mortars in a platoon against no mortar in a platoon)

so why on earth should have bfc traded in realistic 1944 ww2 tank combat for gameplay balancing purposes.

i still believe (or at least hope ) that its only the subsystem damage that needs some tweaking after bringing the cm2 engine from cmsf modern combat to cmbn.

I should have clarified my statement better. I was stating the effectiveness of the Sherman vs the Tiger as it was portrayed in CMBO. In CMBO you could line up 5 Shermans at 200m against one Tiger and the Tiger would proceed to destroy all 5 Shermans without any damage to it self. Thats assuming all frontal shots. Even then CMBO was a great and still is a great game. You just had to learn to work your way around that if you played the US. Now you don't have to be so "stratigic". If there are 5 Shermans against one Tiger the Shermans are going to do some damage even in a frontal exchange. I don't know which scenario is the most accurate. All I know is that the CMBN presentation is the most fun for me to play as the US.

[Erwin]

"the us infantry 1944 is much superior to the german infantry..." the Ostfront and "stomach brigades" maybe. But, many of the Germans had East Front and Africa experience and would have been much better.

For understandable commercial reasons most thought that CMSF was biased towards the US and only started to feel right when the Brit module arrived. I feel the same way about CMBN. I have a hard time believing that Panthers etc would bog so easily as depicted in the game. And after countless hours of watching History/Hitler Channel etc all the Allied tankers interviewed expressed real dread of Panthers and Tigers. The Germans interviewed seemed to enjoy ripping the "weakly armored" Allied tanks to shreds. I suppose that this could all be post-war propaganda, but to what end? Doesn't mean the game is not entertaining of course...

[Taki]

My toughts go the same way with Erwin sad to say.

After some long time on the Forums now this sometimes seems to be the only logic answer.

I just dont believe that they didnt design for effect if not the Game Engine is insufficient or they have fallen to their own Post War Propaganda.

i got not Problem with Tigers getting Takeout by some Lucky Shot or Masses of Shots hitting a Tiger and 1 will take out the Optics then. But as it is implemented in the Game right now its almost always going this way that

1. If Sherman Takes First Shot Tiger will Panic on a Front Armour Hit (Even Experieinced Crew)

2. If Tiger dont fall back blinded by that Devastating Shot he gots hit several Times making him

3. Blind and Optics taken out of Order and Radio gets Damage then

On the other Hand it feels at least a bit balanced. The Pointcosts for a Tiger arent that high like in Cmx1 so its wrong but not all that wrong.

[siffo998]

"the us infantry 1944 is much superior to the german infantry..." the Ostfront and "stomach brigades" maybe. But, many of the Germans had East Front and Africa experience and would have been much better.

If one german squad ingame has superior experience over the enemy (us) squad than this might be true but i`ve done some testing (10 test runs) with regular experienced squads. one german grenadier squad (9 men) and one us late rifle squad (12 men) facing each other...grassy open ground...100m distance. in 8 out of 10 cases the german squad was completely wiped out within a minute. in one case the german squad got routed with some survivors within a minute. and only in one other case the german squad managed to route the allied squad within a minute. its simply because the us squad has much more firepower with their semi automatic weapons. while the only real firepower in german squads comes from the mg. so i think everything is "fair" because the us side has a advantage in infantry combat (at least from 1944 onwards) and the german side in tank combat (which will decrease towards 1945). at least when bfc can clear up why optics damage happens so fast and in a cummulative way (by hitting parts where no optic is located) and then eventually fix this.

also just for clarification my statement about cmsf was made to show that bfc already created games where they havent sacrificed realism for gameplay. after all this t55 shouldnt stand a chance in reality against m1a2 seps and they portrayed it in a correct way i think. so i hope that they havent sacrificed any realism for gameplay in cmbn either !

[Erwin]

But, it wasn't (and even today it is not) all about firepower, but tactics, training, experience, terrain etc. If it were all about firepower, the US (and the Soviets for that matter) would have rolled over Afghanistan etc in a weekend.

[sburke]

i got not Problem with Tigers getting Takeout by some Lucky Shot or Masses of Shots hitting a Tiger and 1 will take out the Optics then. But as it is implemented in the Game right now its almost always going this way that

1. If Sherman Takes First Shot Tiger will Panic on a Front Armour Hit (Even Experieinced Crew)

Only one question- how many times have you run that and is it a consistent result? Neither I nor my opponents have had any Tigers yet so I am asking out of sheer lack of experience here. To make a blanket statement that this is ALWAYS going to happen means I assume this has been run repetitively. If that is not the case I would question how we draw the conclusion it is really broken and not just an extreme example. I have heard (and actually experienced) somewhat the opposite in crews responding extremely aggressively when hit even at close range.

There has been a lot of supposition in this thread, but I don't see anyone actually trying a test run for data. Barring BFC jumping in with some clarification so far all that has been cited is a couple anecdotal examples. This isn't to criticise anyone, but just to note we are kind of getting ourselves worked up for something we don't actually know is even an issue or if it is, what exactly is the issue. My experience so far with Panthers, JPz IVs, StuGs, M10s and Shermans is not indicative of anything being broken or stretching the boundaries of what is plausible. I have only managed to kill one Panther with a flank shot and both my JPz were taken out from the side as well. Even my StuGs have fared well.

Then again the focus of most of my PBEMs are the grunts.

[sburke]

But, it wasn't (and even today it is not) all about firepower, but tactics, training, experience, terrain etc. If it were all about firepower, the US (and the Soviets for that matter) would have rolled over Afghanistan etc in a weekend.

+1 on that. Ya may have great toys, but if you can't use em well, they are just so much cannon fodder and scrap metal. I know, my opponents have never failed an opportunity to show me the error of my ways.

[siffo998]

of course its not all about firepower...with that test i just wanted to show that somebody who complains that the germans have better tanks should think about that the us side has better infantry (under equal variables). If you outmanouver or ambush your enemy it is of course always possible to win. Also for the us side against the "mighty" german tanks.

[siffo998]

Only one question- how many times have you run that and is it a consistent result? Neither I nor my opponents have had any Tigers yet so I am asking out of sheer lack of experience here. To make a blanket statement that this is ALWAYS going to happen means I assume this has been run repetitively. If that is not the case I would question how we draw the conclusion it is really broken and not just an extreme example. I have heard (and actually experienced) somewhat the opposite in crews responding extremely aggressively when hit even at close range.

There has been a lot of supposition in this thread, but I don't see anyone actually trying a test run for data. Barring BFC jumping in with some clarification so far all that has been cited is a couple anecdotal examples. This isn't to criticise anyone, but just to note we are kind of getting ourselves worked up for something we don't actually know is even an issue or if it is, what exactly is the issue. My experience so far with Panthers, JPz IVs, StuGs, M10s and Shermans is not indicative of anything being broken or stretching the boundaries of what is plausible. I have only managed to kill one Panther with a flank shot and both my JPz were taken out from the side as well. Even my StuGs have fared well.

Then again the focus of most of my PBEMs are the grunts.

actually i`ve posted my test results from a test that i have run before... with 20 test runs... sherman against tiger... and in 10-16 shots (no more no less) the optics were ruined (no penetration). I`ve experienced and tested it also with the panther. and the problem is they decrease even from non penetrating (riocheting !) hits against the front and side hull where no optics should be located.

then again i`ve posted a statement from von lauchert out of a operational report in this thread that clearly indicates that optics damage happened by hits against the weapon mount (where the aiming sights hole is located) and not like it is representated now ingame where nearly every hit by a high caliber shell adds up to the optics damage in a cumulative way.

i suggest that damage to the aiming sights should be much much rarer but if one shell actually hits the right location than it should much more result in a catastrophic damage than this cumulative damage we have now.

this is a short summary of all my posts i have made in this thread and the idea i have how it could be handled in the future.

And again this whole thread is not about killing tanks and how you can achieve that but about the fact that optics damage leads to a complete uselessness of the tanks (whats the use of a tanks if he cannot spot, shoot and aim) and how it is portrayed right now seems a bit to sensible and not very realistic. I think handling optics damage like stated in my idea would make tank combats more realistic (for all tanks, not only for the german big cats)

If somebody finds a source that clearly shows that non penetrating and riocheting hits against the hull of a tank in ww2 ever caused damage to the aiming sights (optics) i will stop bugging. But in all the time i`ve ever red books about tank warfare i`ve never heard or red of that non penetrating/riocheting hits to the hull caused optics damage.

Please dont get me wrong i totally like this game and its just a attempt to improve it !

[sburke]

actually i`ve posted my test results from a test that i have run before... with 20 test runs... sherman against tiger... and in 10-16 shots (no more no less) the optics were ruined (no penetration). I`ve experienced and tested it also with the panther. and the problem is they decrease even from non penetrating (riocheting !) hits against the front and side hull where no optics should be located.

then again i`ve posted a statement from von lauchert out of a operational report in this thread that clearly indicates that optics damage happened by hits against the weapon mount (where the aiming sights hole is located) and not like it is representated now ingame where nearly every hit by a high caliber shell adds up to the optics damage in a cumulative way.

i suggest that damage to the aiming sights should be much much rarer but if one shell actually hits the right location than it should much more result in a catastrophic damage than this cumulative damage we have now.

this is a short summary of all my posts i have made in this thread and the idea i have how it could be handled in the future.

And again this whole thread is not about killing tanks and how you can achieve that but about the fact that optics damage leads to a complete uselessness of the tanks (whats the use of a tanks if he cannot spot, shoot and aim) and how it is portrayed right now seems a bit to sensible and not very realistic. I think handling optics damage like that would make tank combats more realistic (for all tank, not only for the german big cats)

Thanks Siffo998.

A side question out of curiosity. When you get those damage results, is the tank effectively blind? I have seen optics damage on my armor, but I have never had a situation where the tank was effectively blinded. As to the rest of what you noted would be curious to see what the powers that be or the brain in a jar has to say. ;-P

[womble]

1. If Sherman Takes First Shot Tiger will Panic on a Front Armour Hit (Even Experieinced Crew)

Does this only apply to Tigers? Because I've not seen any of this behaviour with the Panthers I've encountered (either facing or driving). It would certainly make the "Barkmann's Corner" scenario somewhat more difficult if the Panther was going to panic at the first hit and be blind by the fourth or fifth.

[siffo998]

Thanks Siffo998.

A side question out of curiosity. When you get those damage results, is the tank effectively blind? I have seen optics damage on my armor, but I have never had a situation where the tank was effectively blinded. As to the rest of what you noted would be curious to see what the powers that be or the brain in a jar has to say. ;-P

the main problem i think is that nobody effectively knows to what the optics damage ingame is reffering ! periscope ? vision blocks ? aiming sights ? some explanation from bfc would be really nice !

from my own testing and game experience i can say that when the optics are damaged the accuracy is affected (more misses especially at long range). and what is much more serious... spotting is nearly impossible when you get full optics damage especially at longer ranges. ingame this means that when you have a tank standing at 1000m distance and he gets 10-16 non penetrating/riocheting hits (my test was at this range) he is nearly blind and not able to spot the enemys at this distance so he will just stand there and do nothing ! he is nearly useless.

again i do not say that optics damage should be taken out ! i simply think it would be much more realistic if optics damage only happens when the actual part of the tank is exactly hit by a ap shell or he shrapnell

[siffo998]

Does this only apply to Tigers? Because I've not seen any of this behaviour with the Panthers I've encountered (either facing or driving). It would certainly make the "Barkmann's Corner" scenario somewhat more difficult if the Panther was going to panic at the first hit and be blind by the fourth or fifth.

I`ve encountered similar things like taki during my testing with tanks. but i`ve seen it only when tigers are hit not with panthers. i`ve done no extensive testing but a tiger who gets hit on the turret (non penetrating) by a 75mm sherman at 1000m distance and instantly retreats because the optics damage increased by one step seems a bit wierd. i`ve seen this multiple times. also i`ve noticed that the surpression meter of the tiger goes from zero to maximum only by that non penetrating hit. but again i cannot say for sure if taki is on a right path because i`ve done not enough testing in that way. maybe taki or someone else should setup a test scenario and run it around 20 times to see if its reproduceable.

[sburke]

off topic of the optics damage, but to go back to the crew reaction. In reading the green book history on the battle for Schmidt, the following account was reported in the battle at kommerscheidt. The Panther here is from the 116th PzD, not one of the green crews from the Panzer brigades.

The tankmen pulled their Shermans up on a slight rise and fired at the enemy tanks, Fleig claiming two of the attackers knocked out and his companions a third. Noticing that the infantry was retreating from the left flank of the town, Fleig moved in that direction into a sparse orchard just in time to see a Mark V Panther coming into position. At a range of 200 to 300 yards, Fleig fired, hitting the German tank twice; but he was using high explosive ammunition, and the Panther's tough hide was not damaged. The lieutenant discovered then that he had no armor-piercing ammunition available, all of it being outside in the sponson rack. When the German crewmen, evidently frightened by the high explosive hits, jumped out of their tank, Fleig ceased firing and turned his turret to get at his rack and the armor-piercing ammunition. The Germans seized the opportunity to re-enter their tank and open fire, but their first round was a miss. Working feverishly, Lieutenant Fleig and his crew obtained the armor-piercing ammunition and returned the fire. Their first round cut the barrel of the German gun. Three more rounds in quick succession tore into the left side of the Panther's hull, setting the tank afire and killing all its crew. Fleig returned to the fight on the town's right flank.

[winkelried]

The Panther here is from the 116th PzD, not one of the green crews from the Panzer brigades.

I am not so sure about the "un-greenness" of the 116th PzD. The division was formed only on 28. March 1944 (D-Day minus 70 days) using the remains of the 16th PzGrenD - which was badly mauled on the Eastern front and of the 179. Reserve-PzD. The PzRgt was formed as PzRgt 116 on 1. May 44 with a I. batallion (Panther) from the remains of PzAbt 116

[siffo998]

off topic of the optics damage, but to go back to the crew reaction. In reading the green book history on the battle for Schmidt, the following account was reported in the battle at kommerscheidt. The Panther here is from the 116th PzD, not one of the green crews from the Panzer brigades.

The tankmen pulled their Shermans up on a slight rise and fired at the enemy tanks, Fleig claiming two of the attackers knocked out and his companions a third. Noticing that the infantry was retreating from the left flank of the town, Fleig moved in that direction into a sparse orchard just in time to see a Mark V Panther coming into position. At a range of 200 to 300 yards, Fleig fired, hitting the German tank twice; but he was using high explosive ammunition, and the Panther's tough hide was not damaged. The lieutenant discovered then that he had no armor-piercing ammunition available, all of it being outside in the sponson rack. When the German crewmen, evidently frightened by the high explosive hits, jumped out of their tank, Fleig ceased firing and turned his turret to get at his rack and the armor-piercing ammunition. The Germans seized the opportunity to re-enter their tank and open fire, but their first round was a miss. Working feverishly, Lieutenant Fleig and his crew obtained the armor-piercing ammunition and returned the fire. Their first round cut the barrel of the German gun. Three more rounds in quick succession tore into the left side of the Panther's hull, setting the tank afire and killing all its crew. Fleig returned to the fight on the town's right flank.

nice example of how effective this he rounds were ! even though its a close range example. i can recall similar accounts in jentz book where in more than one case sherman crewmen reported that they used a combination of he and ap to fight the german panthers. those he explosions really must have been a frightening experience for a tank crew.

[siffo998]

I have an update regarding tank optics damage. i`Ve put up a panther a mid behind a slope (hull down) at 2000m distance against 2 m10 on a clear grassy lane. the panther received around 10 shots then his optics went to red X (dead). after that i pulled him back behind the slope and tested the spotting once with the commander popping out and once with the commander buttoned. in buttoned mode the panther did not spot anything but was shelled constantly after he was spotted (approx 30 seconds after reappearing). when in unbuttoned mode one of the m10 was spotted instantly after getting back to hull down. the panther fired 3 times at all...all misses (must not relate to the optics damage because of the range) but the strange thing was that between the shots at least 2 times the commander lost the m10 out of sight (not happened when the optics were not completely damaged) and respotted it after 5 sec. the whole thing proceeded until the panther was spotted and shelled. the commander buttoned and the panther lost track of his enemys.

[sburke]

I am not so sure about the "un-greenness" of the 116th PzD. The division was formed only on 28. March 1944 (D-Day minus 70 days) using the remains of the 16th PzGrenD - which was badly mauled on the Eastern front and of the 179. Reserve-PzD. The PzRgt was formed as PzRgt 116 on 1. May 44 with a I. batallion (Panther) from the remains of PzAbt 116

Everything is relative, but their performance in Normandy and later in the Ardennes was sound. The Panther battalion was 1st/24th a regiment reconstituted in 1943. What I was trying to make clear was they weren't as green as the Pz Bdes Hitler threw at the Western front. Those used in the Lorraine were pretty much destroyed in that campaign due in no small part to poor commitment and insufficient training.

The specific example is in November 1944. The unit had been in combat since the summer and certainly would not be considered green. They were at least average if not an above average performer in the Wehrmacht.

nice example of how effective this he rounds were ! even though its a close range example. i can recall similar accounts in jentz book where in more than one case sherman crewmen reported that they used a combination of he and ap to fight the german panthers. those he explosions really must have been a frightening experience for a tank crew.

The example at the start of this thread was actually on the short end of this engagement range at 200 meters.

[winkelried]

i`ve seen this multiple times. ... or someone else should setup a test scenario and run it around 20 times to see if its reproduceable.

I did something: 5 lanes with 5 Tiger I (mid) Rgeular/Normal/+2 against 5 M4A3(75)W Sherman Veteran/Normal/+2 with the following result after 2 minutes of firing:

Lower Front Hull: 4 hits (2xNone, 1xRa+Op, 1xOp) 1xCautious

Superstructure Front Hull: 20 hits (13xNone, 2xRa+Op, 1xTr, 2xOp, 2xRa) 4xCautious

Weapon Mount: 4 hits (2xNone, 1xRa+Op, 1xOp) 1xCautious

Weapon: 2 hits (2xTr) 1xCautious

Front Turret: 5 hits (2xNone, 1xRa+Op, 2xOp), 1xCautious

Left Front Turret: 1 hit (1xOp)

Armor Skirt: 1 hit (1xNone)

to read:

#of hits

(2xNone, 1xRa+Op) = 2 hits with no effect, 1 hit with damage to Radio + Optics

1xCautious = 1 hit decreased mood to Cautious

still a low number for a test sample. Interesting IMHO the track damage with Weapon hits. Optics seem to be distributed all over the vehicle. Mood seems ok to me. No Tiger went beserk - all remained in position to take more hits.

after 3 minutes: 4/5 100% optics damage 1/5 100% radio damage. 1/5 OK 4/5 Cautious. Still standing.

after 4 minutes: 5/5 100% optics damage 4/5 100% radio damage. 2/5 OK 3/5 Cautious. Still standing.

after 5 minutes: 5/5 100% optics damage 5/5 100% radio damage. 2/5 OK 3/5 Cautious. Still standing.

after 6 minutes: 5/5 100% optics damage 5/5 100% radio damage. 2/5 OK 3/5 Cautious. Still standing.

No more damage accumulated ...

one comment: put cover arcs on the Tigers and they never started to shoot despite being shot at like crazy ...