Combat Mission: Normandy, continued

[Elvis]

Are you kidding? He said he thought the tendancy of early Shermans to burn more than their contemporaries is bunk.

-dale

I'm not kidding. Right or wrong in his entire post what he summed up the post saying was pretty much what jwb3 said. Thus the "gist". I agree with both of them that a Sherman shouldn't brew up just because it is hit. It should brew up because of where and how it is hit and not some random die roll with a modifier. As MR points out:

Wargames at best are abstractions, At worst they are bad abstractions.

Good Hunting.

MR

Which is certainly not a point I would agrue against but as computers become more powerful the demand, by many, for results to be generated from a more accurate simulation will become greater. A "cardboard counter with die rolls that are modfied" type result will not be as widely accepted as the techology increases.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm not kidding. Right or wrong in his entire post what he summed up the post saying was pretty much what jwb3 said. Thus the "gist". I agree with both of them that a Sherman shouldn't brew up just because it is hit. It should brew up because of where and how it is hit and not some random die roll with a modifier. As MR points out:

Elmar was arguing that the Sherman's tendency to burn was overstated and shouldn't burn more often than other tanks (i.e. German ones), but he never offered a reason why.

He said:

I wonder if the "burns easily" trait returns. I always felt it was bogus.

Then he said:

I'm of the strong belief that there wasn't all that much in the design of the Sherman that made it catch fire any easier then other tanks. IMO it's a case of fairly weak armour meeting up with the potent guns of the Germans. Even the 75L48 is a pretty bad ass gun.
Germans typically had better armour going up against weak Allied guns. So no wonder that they enjoyed a better reputation. But the moment German tanks got shot at with decent guns, they went *woosh* too.

Someone did, however, offer this up at BFC:

View attachment 31680

Elmar was talking out of his ass, basically. Shermans statistically caught fire more than other tank types once hit.

 

[Elvis]

Elmar was arguing that the Sherman's tendency to burn was overstated and shouldn't burn more often than other tanks (i.e. German ones), but he never offered a reason why.

He said:



Then he said:



Someone did, however, offer this up at BFC:

View attachment 31680

Elmar was talking out of his ass, basically. Shermans statistically caught fire more than other tank types once hit.

As I mentioned above. The point of his post was not to give a history of Shermans and what does or doesn't make them brew, although for sure he voices his opnion on that subject, it was to question how this will be modeled in CMN. Saying that jbw3 and Elmar both would prefer that the brewing up be done by the mechanics of the game and not a randomly generated result is all I was saying and agreeing with.

I don't have the expertise to comment on the brewability (coined..now my word..copywrite pending) of Sherman. I have called them Ronsons for as long as I can remember but it wasn't because of any research on the subject. Additionally MR has created a seperate thread on the subject.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As I mentioned above. The point of his post was not to give a history of Shermans and what does or doesn't make them brew, although for sure he voices his opnion on that subject, it was to question how this will be modeled in CMN. Saying that jbw3 and Elmar both would prefer that the brewing up be done by the mechanics of the game and not a randomly generated result is all I was saying and agreeing with.

I don't have the expertise to comment on the brewability (coined..now my word..copywrite pending) of Sherman. I have called them Ronsons for as long as I can remember but it wasn't because of any research on the subject. Additionally MR has created a seperate thread on the subject.

The point here, is that if Shermans don't burn in CM:N, it doesn't matter how or why, the game will be inaccurate. I don't personally care if the game tracks every shell through the path of every leaf on every tree, maps out every butterfly's flight path, and stacks each shell within each tank, or if it just "rolls a d20" when the Sherman gets hit. I do, however, expect some sort of realistic combat results to arise when tank shell meets armour plate. At the end of the day, the percentage of burning tanks over the course of 100 games should equal what is generally known about the tendency of these things to burn in documents such as the one cited, above.

I'm not saying games should pander to what we "think" we know about the historical realities of the war, but if you're missing out on actual, demonstrated data points, it does become a weakness.

Why does it matter how often a tank burns? Certainly in campaigns it does have an impact - a captured crew is worth something different than a live one or a dead one; a burned tank cannot be put back into action, etc. Plus, I expect FOW and the death clock will have an impact on in-game gunners and a burning tank is an obvious KO whereas one that isn't burning is still a possible threat.

etc.

 

[Elvis]

The point here, is that if Shermans don't burn in CM:N, it doesn't matter how or why, the game will be inaccurate.

Ummm..No. That wasn't anyones point until now. When it become yours.

As we have seen with CMSF kilt vehicles can and do burn. So having burning vehicles in CMN should already be a given. It is not for me to say what may or may not have been removed going from CMSF to CMN but I think it's fair to say an educated guess would probably be correct.

 

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Uhm, if people feel they wish to discuss something with me, I would invite them to do so. With me. And/or do so with a modicum of decorum and with greater accuracy.
Pretty much each time I'm not directly quoted but my position summarized that summation is inaccurate.

I've not seen any evidence so far that gives any explaintion as to why a Sherman might brew up more easily then a comparable tank. Ammo storage was much the same as any other tank. Indeed I've not seen any numbers that compares for instance Cromwell brew ups with Shermans that would justify this heightened chance. I'm not saying that a Sherman should brew up at the same rate as German tanks, I in fact emphatically said the opposite, but that the game mechanics behind brew ups should be equal. I do not understand why I should be insulted for any of that.

Anyway.... I promised myself I wouldn't post here but you guys just keep mentioning my name at about the time I registered here to voice my happiness at the future removal of DRM from the SES products. Amongst them Jutland, in which British battlecruisers blow up more then their counterparts, but we know why and I don't have a problem with that. *ahem*

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Ummm..No. That wasn't anyones point until now. When it become yours.

What do you call this?

I'm of the strong belief that there wasn't all that much in the design of the Sherman that made it catch fire any easier then other tanks.

His words, not mine.

 

[Elvis]

What do you call this?

I'm of the strong belief that there wasn't all that much in the design of the Sherman that made it catch fire any easier then other tanks.

His words, not mine.

Well, now you've lost me. I don't see in that quote where he is voicing any concern at all about "if Shermans don't burn in CM:N".

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, now you've lost me. I don't see in that quote where he is voicing any concern at all about "if Shermans don't burn in CM:N".

Of course not. He was discussing it because Christmas is coming, and he wanted to make sure he didn't buy the wrong thing for his kids. Would be tragic to buy your daughter a Tiger and find out it burns just as easily as a Sherman.

 

[Elvis]

Of course not. He was discussing it because Christmas is coming, and he wanted to make sure he didn't buy the wrong thing for his kids. Would be tragic to buy your daughter a Tiger and find out it burns just as easily as a Sherman.

Your last 3 posts have been making less and less sense. You may want to step away for a while and return and reread what everyone has been saying. You will find you have misread much of what is being said.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Your last 3 posts have been making less and less sense. You may want to step away for a while and return and reread what everyone has been saying. You will find you have misread much of what is being said.

If you're done trolling, I'll restate the obvious.

The point here, is that if Shermans don't burn in CM:N, it doesn't matter how or why, the game will be inaccurate. I don't personally care if the game tracks every shell through the path of every leaf on every tree, maps out every butterfly's flight path, and stacks each shell within each tank, or if it just "rolls a d20" when the Sherman gets hit. I do, however, expect some sort of realistic combat results to arise when tank shell meets armour plate. At the end of the day, the percentage of burning tanks over the course of 100 games should equal what is generally known about the tendency of these things to burn in documents such as the one cited, above.

I'm not saying games should pander to what we "think" we know about the historical realities of the war, but if you're missing out on actual, demonstrated data points, it does become a weakness.

Why does it matter how often a tank burns? Certainly in campaigns it does have an impact - a captured crew is worth something different than a live one or a dead one; a burned tank cannot be put back into action, etc. Plus, I expect FOW and the death clock will have an impact on in-game gunners and a burning tank is an obvious KO whereas one that isn't burning is still a possible threat.

etc.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Saying that jbw3 and Elmar both would prefer that the brewing up be done by the mechanics of the game and not a randomly generated result is all I was saying and agreeing with.

This is particularly laughable, incidentally. You're suggesting - what exactly? That the software generate physics calculations for the burning of tank shell propellant? How far do you want to take it?

I don't have the expertise to comment on the brewability ... of Sherman.

Neither does Elmar, but that didn't stop him from discussing it.

I have called them Ronsons for as long as I can remember but it wasn't because of any research on the subject. Additionally MR has created a seperate thread on the subject.

No one is claiming the title of "expert" here. But there is a certain observation of results on the battlefield that is too large to ignore, and as pointed out - twice now - will have an impact on how the game plays if simply ignored, or left to an imperfect "physics engine" that doesn't have all the correct variables fed into it. You can spend the next two years designing an "ammunition exploder" program, or just add a "+2" to your burn chance and get on with it already. Elmar doesn't think there is enough data to support the latter. Fine. He doesn't have a leg to stand on, as far as the literature on that goes. If he does, he needs to present some data of his own as to why he should think that way.

 

[Elvis]

More to the piont of what was being spoken about. The effects on AFVs by enemy fire and in game feedback. It reminded me of the PBEM game I recently finished with Yossarian.


I'm not copying over all the screen shots but they are in the first post of this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92467

As a player when seeing that I would, without a kill, not expect track damage (Elmar made a joke to that effect) or turret damage. I would hope/expect damage to optics or communications. As it turns out Yoss reported it sustained no damage (I did end up eventually knocking it out). But when watching AFVs get hit, looking at where it was hit will give you a very good idea of what about the hit killed the vehicle or what systems may have been damaged. In CMx1 you were given text information about where a vehicle was hit and some information about the result. While I enjoyed the information I always felt it was too much. 600m away you hit a Mark IV and get a message saying "ricochet, internal flaking" as if a tank commander 600m would have any idea of what is going on inside the Mark IV.

Regarding the recent topic, I would not expect a Sherman taking a front track hit to brew up very often but I would expect a penetrating hit in the arse and the white star on its back to brew up 100% of the time. CMSF currently models damage effects based on where on the vehicle is hit. This kind of info is very important when playing as Red vs Blue (playing as Blue vs Red more often results in dead tank).

 

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Elvis
Saying that jbw3 and Elmar both would prefer that the brewing up be done by the mechanics of the game and not a randomly generated result is all I was saying and agreeing with.

This is particularly laughable, incidentally. You're suggesting - what exactly? That the software generate physics calculations for the burning of tank shell propellant? How far do you want to take it?

I am not suggesting that the software is there. Please do not put words in my mouth and then call them laughable. I said:

as computers become more powerful the demand, by many, for results to be generated from a more accurate simulation will become greater.

and

A "cardboard counter with die rolls that are modfied" type result will not be as widely accepted as the techology increases.

To advance toward this is not a bad thing or one that should simply be "let's just use modifiers, it'll be close enough". That does not move anything forward. If that were the way people wanted a game to go we would be playing top down games with icons. Which are fine for some people. But not fine for others.

 

[Elvis]

If you're done trolling, I'll restate the obvious.

Insulting and being dismissive does not help your point. Which I am still not seeing. Is your point really that Elmar and jwb3 were concerned about whether or not Shermans will burn in CMN? I'll let you in on a secret......(All vehicles will burn in CMN...not just Shermans. Here look at this :

. See thos 2 smoke plumes...I'll just say "they aren't campfires" and leave it at that...I have already violated my NDA enough saying this...Don't tell anyone OK? Just between us. )

 

[dalem]

Uhm, if people feel they wish to discuss something with me, I would invite them to do so. With me. And/or do so with a modicum of decorum and with greater accuracy.

Sorry, that's my fault. I wanted to post over at BFC but ...didn't. Chalk it up to my frustrated Sherman groggity.

-dale

 

[dalem]

but I would expect a penetrating hit in the arse and the white star on its back to brew up 100% of the time.

Really? 100%?

-dale

 

[Elvis]

Really? 100%?

-dale

Ok....maybe not 100% of the time (I have been speaking in absolutes a lot in the last 24 hours haven't I?)...but far more than a front mantle hit or something like that. And from what I have read in the last day not too far away from 100% (I did say "penetraing hits" [that just sounds dirty] on purpose)

 

[Elvis]

Why does it matter how often a tank burns? Certainly in campaigns it does have an impact - a captured crew is worth something different than a live one or a dead one; a burned tank cannot be put back into action, etc. Plus, I expect FOW and the death clock will have an impact on in-game gunners and a burning tank is an obvious KO whereas one that isn't burning is still a possible threat.

etc.

And don't forget that abandoned vehicles can be remounted and the best way to know if a vehicle not remountable is if you see it burning (touchy point for me as I recently finished a PBEM game where my opponant had three vehicles that I thought I had knocked out...until he remounted them and started harrassing me again. It ain't easy being Red.

 

[thewood]

IIRC a gamey expoit of the remounting function is bailing a crew, hiding them, after opponents units have passed, remount and you have a unit in the rear.

I don't think you can target abandonned AFVs to make sure they are out of action.