The tank combat is outrageous.

[Grobut]

Guys, please remember that TW is not done with the tanks by any means, they have stated on numerous occations that they want to add more depth to them, details are sketchy as allways, but im very sure we'll be seeing stuff like crew kills and even optics getting damaged eventually.

So lets not blow this out of proportion..

 

[Witzig]

Guys, please remember that TW is not done with the tanks by any means, they have stated on numerous occations that they want to add more depth to them, details are sketchy as allways, but im very sure we'll be seeing stuff like crew kills and even optics getting damaged eventually.

So lets not blow this out of proportion..

QFT

Some things they want to implement are:

-Ready Racks
-More Damage Zones
-More Tanks
-Other Stuff they don't want to tell us yet...

Though they said they release their Roadmap for ContentUpdates / Booster Packs for Ostfront in the future (when its ready).

 

[The Beast (nl)]

I have read a book about the battle at kursk.
Man that tiger was feared. It was unbeatable at the front.
You had to flank it or go around to put a shell in his ass.
Tactic was that the tiger stayed further back to support the orther
kind of tanks. And when the tiger drove it was flanked by other tanks
to protects his sides.
And in this game you have to put the tiger 20%.

The T34 was very moveable. They made use of that. (you can use
it also in the game). Make profit of your speed.

I have played cmb2 and yes i have learned much with this game.
Strongness, weakenesses etc of tanks.

I must say (i am very sorry to say) i am almost number one in the score
finally. Because i use the speed of the T34 for example and go around a tank when i can and i flank much, i always have hull down when i stand still.
When a tiger or panter is dueling with a teammate i try to flank or drive
around to kill that bastard. And my gunning is very well. Shoot for the weak
points.

And when i am a driver and mostly the gunner yelling stop etc. Then i think,
man then we are a sitting duck and go to a lower part of the landscape.
And then i see how many players play. The whole tank on a mountain. no movement no shelter ect. Everybody sees you.
And then you have the gunner who shoot with the mg to another tank.
Man i hate that. It give away your spot.

Btw great game and i am amusing alot.

 

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

And the most important thing to remember is that they've already said many of the things they want to do CAN'T be done with the current engine. We'll have to wait for the UE3.0 build for much of what they want to do. For now we have to take what we have and learn to love it. That way when we DO get the "better" features we'll have that much more to love.

As an aside, I spent untold hours (and WAY too many dollars) playing WWIIOnline, which (supposedly) models tank armor and penetration better than anything else out there. Of course things such as the differences between face hardened armor and rigid homogenous armor aren't modelled, nor are the properties of cast iron or rounded surfaces. I tend to take ALL armor (tank) modelling with a grain of salt, and accept it for what it is - a representation based on the limits of game engines and current computer technology, nothing more.

 

[Cleft_Asunder]

The demo should be enough of a judgement of the full game, for any game. That's what demos are for. Unless you want me to download the full game, but I won't.

The interface is incredibly clunky. It seems to me that some people think that the less user friendly or harder to use the interface is, the more realistic the game is.

I'll give it a bit more time, but I can already see that there are so many things in Combat Mission that Red Orchestra does a LOT better.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I never, and I mean NEVER felt that the interface was clunky. It may take a little bit of getting used to, but once you have memorised the essential keyboard shortcuts --and I'm sure you haven't-- the control is seemless. I have high standards and I consider the CM controls and interface to be tops.

CM is lightyears ahead of RO in terms of accuracy.

 

[Cleft_Asunder]

How big is that file ?

2.13 MB

 

[Phoenix-D]

Another vote for the CM interface being clunky.

I should be able to host that file- email it to phoenix-d (at) cox.net and I'll try and put it on my webspace tommorow.

 

[OfficerMeatbeef]

I'll give it a bit more time, but I can already see that there are so many things in Combat Mission that Red Orchestra does a LOT better.

Ok, seriously, this comment makes my head hurt. And I'm not saying that hyperbolically to be rude or insulting, it really, honestly boggles my mind, as I can't see how nearly ANYTHING RO does is something that CM does. And vice versa. And that's fine, because neither one is trying to do virtually anything the other is. The only correlation I can draw between CM and RO is what was originally being discussed here, penetration data/modelling, and to say something like the above just sounds ridiculous.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I never, and I mean NEVER felt that the interface was clunky. It may take a little bit of getting used to, but once you have memorised the essential keyboard shortcuts --and I'm sure you haven't-- the control is seemless. I have high standards and I consider the CM controls and interface to be tops.

I agree, there is pretty much nothing wrong with the CM interface. For the amount of commands and information it provides, it is streamlined, fairly elegant, and very well suited for the type of game CM is; turn-based squad-level strategic command. Again, I am utterly confused as to how anyone could ever seriously compare these two interfaces.

CM is lightyears ahead of RO in terms of accuracy.

I'll concede this one as well. However, CM is also not a real-time multiplayer first person simulation. CM has the luxury of computing all those fancy ballistic coefficients and armor hardness values and penetration angles all at once, before playback of a turn. RO is operating per-shot, on-the-fly, and it needs to be done immediately or damn close to it, PLUS all that data needs to go flying across vast and far-reaching networks as well in that same instant of time. That is an enormous difference. It's such a huge difference that it almost needs to be stated again how ENORMOUS it is. I'm even tempted to put that in some kind of huge ridiculous font, but for once I will let my better judgement win out.

I would love to see RO have an armor model as detailed as CM's. It's probably what I look forward to most in this game, and I hope the devs keep working at it and refining it for a long time to come, until it is as detailed and accurate as the realities of current technology will allow. Because goddammit, at least they're TRYING to do it, which is more than can be said for ANY other game out there. Save WWII Online, which also has plenty of its own flaws and foibles.

 

[Witzig]

CM is lightyears ahead of RO in terms of accuracy.

Though CM does some things wrong:

-Combat only happens on ridiculous short distances (RO has double the distance)
-Smaller Guns (37mm etc) are overmodelled
-Russian 76mm Guns bounce of the Front of the Stug, and the Sides of the Tiger, what they shouldn't do on those Ranges.
-All Tanks change direction while standing = wrong, cause thats neutral steering which wasn't used without need, and not every Tank had it back than.
-Experienced Crews don't hit anything on those short Ranges, which is rediculous. And than you can't even let the Crew aim for specific Spots. Random Conefire ain't realism.
-Either the Scale of the Avatars is wrong or the Animations for the Infantry are really weird.


So even though i agree that there is much in terms of features and a bit of fine tuning needed with the Tank System. You should also try to agree that CM ain't the end all to Combat Simulators.

I don't want to tell you to stop posting, but don't exagerate that much, everytime you do that David Hasselhoff kills a Kitten !!!

P.S.

send that File to Witzig [at] jakdo.de and i will upload it.

 

[Teapot]

To knock out a track, you must plant the shot where the track meets the ground.

 

[Sgt.Rock]

-Combat only happens on ridiculous short distances (RO has double the distance)

This made me laugh, double the distance? I havent seen any maps for RO that I can engage tanks at 8000m on, I dont even think there are any that I can engage at 2000m.

 

[Witzig]

I have only seen Tank Combat in CM at 500m...

And the Engine is limited to 1,000m Drawdistance (a few meters more actually).

 

[Sgt.Rock]

well, in CM you can see drawn in tanks/units out to 4000m, and if you have a LOS to any enemy unit that far, you can shoot at it (I made a map once to see if my on map artillary would/could shoot at LOS targets that far, I was pretty fun to watch)


I knew the maximum draw on RO was around 1000m and thats why I said it.

 

[Witzig]

Well if you have LOS is the thing which is the problem ain't it ?

Not that the Tanks can hit each other at 500m Distance with any sort of regularity...

And lets not talk about the lethality of MGs against Infantry in CM...

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Without getting into the discussion much, if you are going to angle your tank, angle it at around 11 or 1 o'clock in relation to your enemy. I think most of us can agree 45 degrees opens up too much of a side shot on you.

 

[Rameusb5]

I have to agree somewhat with the OP, although I can't confirm the "side on" phenomenon.

I recently hit a T34/76 with a Pz III twice from close range (75m circa), directly on the rear of the tank, no angling, and the shells bounced off.
The T34 then went around a house, and when it came out on the other side I hit it on the rear of the turret at about 100m, shell bounced off.

So I backed up the Pz III and from a distance of about 300m hit the T34 in the right upper hull while it was moving at speed, and it went up in flames.

In the same engagement I hit a T34 dead on its front armour several times (including the driver's hatch) from 150m - 100m (it was advancing and I had a height advantage) with a StuG III, and each shot bounced off. It stopped about 50m from me and destroyed me with the first shot even though I had reversed behind the crest of the hill.

Then I disconnected from the map and haven't played the tank maps since.
Anyone who says this tank combat is realistic is smoking something. I fired up CMAK afterwards and noted the huge differences, and the sheer quality of CMAK's armoured combat modelling. In RO you get hit and your tank damage icon turns red, like in BF2...as if you had "hit points" or something similar. The next hit, seemingly regardless of where it comes, destroys the tank instantaneously. I don't know where RO got its tank combat model from, but it seems very different and vastly inferior to CMAK, IMO.

My issue with the tanks in RO isn't the Penetration system, which I think is OK (though overmatching isn't modelled which is probably the cause of the angst in this thread).

It's the damage system, which Paulus's story highlights pretty well. First of all, you can't kill the crew inside any tank if they're buttoned. I believe this is the single biggest reason people are frustrated with the penetration system. If you were to penetrate the front of ANY tank where the driver is positioned, that driver would PROBABLY be hamburger. Not so in RO. Instead, if you penetrate a tank in RO and not hit the ammo storage box, then the tank simply turns yellow or red. What the yellow or red is supposed to signify exactly I don't know.

Secondly, there's really only 3 damagable components on tanks... The Engine, the Ammo, and the Tracks. Even engine hits don't always disable the Tank, and track hits are extremely difficult to achieve.

Finally, point blank combat ranges in tanks are EXTREMLY frustrating. It becomes completely random whether your shots are going to do anything or not.


I hate to say it, but the DAMAGE system in RO for tanks needs a complete overhaul, starting with the ability to injure or kill crew inside tanks. I would also recommend removing the "yellow" and "red" tank hitpoint system, because I don't see how that actually works (what is it supposed to represent).


RO's infantry game is, as far as I am concerned, the new gold standard for FPS's. But their tank combat system is just to over-simplified for my tastes.

Oh, and by the way, using another game to represent what should happen in a "realistic" manner is flawed logic. Any other game is simply going to represents the coder's OPINION on what should happen. And let's not forget coding limitations on top of that. Some games may be (or seem) more realistic than others, but using them as a yardstick for reality not a good way to go.

 

[genghis]

well i tried it and i got caned. [the original thread starter 's claims] if u do it in t34 u can find sweet spots if your 'exposed' side is up or down of horizontal, perched on a hill or looking out of a dip. but otherwise i got caned really good. especially in german tanks. i've discovered that if you're front on to the enemy in a panzer, just get out and run. the physics r working ok now, if you think it's bad now you shoulda been here a few months ago......

 

[Nimsky]

Great interface, indeed. Can't see ***** sir!

And yes, many things in CM, RO does a lot better. Infantry combat (there is basically none in CM), sounds (I felt like I was in a bad spaghetti western with the silly "pcheeeeng!!" deflection sounds), level design, etc etc. Armor system? Questionable.

Besides, real war isn't turn based.

True, RO has its flaws but CM is hardly "the better game" when it comes to tank combat.

But let's stop comparing CM to RO now please, they're both totally different games. Let's stick to real world data, okay?

 

[Sgt.Rock]

The reason why all the lettering is whited out is because you have Anti Aliasing forced on. I sometimes leave mine on.


Infantry combat may not be on a single unit basis, but its definantly there and important.

Its not turned based either. Yes there is a period when everything is stopped and it lets you give orders, but theres also 60 seconds of unpredictable and uncontrollable combat in real time.

I would definantly say that CM's armour system is extremely more in depth than RO's.


On topic. The fact is, the average engagement ranges in RO are small enough that even if a T34 angles, its armor is to weak (45mm is very thin) to keep rounds from penetrating. Angle me at your 11, I should be able to put a round into your front side, angle me at a 45, I should be able to put a round through your side.

The IS2's should be able to be penetrated in the front turret easier. Anything in the center and lower should penetrate because of its shot trap.

Immobilization should occur much more, tracks are not the only thing that can be hit to cause immobilization. Roadwheels, suspenion, anything that has to do with the engine. If I put an HE round anywhere down there, something is bound to blow off, and if I put an AP round down there, Its going to penetrate and tear through enough to stop the tank.

 

[Solo4114]

I haven't played CM, but as a longtime Steel Panthers player (well, long time in the sense that I played the original version and play World at War here and there, but not longtime in the sense that I'm really GOOD or anything ), I can tell you CM isn't exactly turn based. Traditional turn-based games are "I go, you go". CM is "we pause the game, issue orders, then WE go". A true turn-based game can be "gamed" in terms of things like reloading. You can still sort of do this in CM, but it's a lot harder to get a "perfect" result if you're using a "We go" system where you don't incrementally select a unit and have it fire.


Now back on point. Here's a quick SAT question:

Combat Missions is to Red Orchestra as:

(a) apples are to apples
(b) apples are to oranges
(c) apples are to pie
(d) apples are to 1968 Dodge Chargers

If you said (d) you're right. Go read OfficerMeatbeef's post for a better explanation. CM does nothing that RO does except in VERY broad terms. The two games function in drastically different ways.

As for the tank damage system, it's got its quirks, no question. We desperately need specific damage locations for buttoned and unbuttoned commanders and drivers. Track damage seems to be modelled strangely, currently, which may be a result of invisible portions of the model extending too far (like what can happen with unbuttoned commanders -- at least that's my theory).

And point-blank or short range combat seems improperly modelled currently (IE: two tanks can be at point blank range and can fire shots that ricochet off each other).

Some of this may be due to abstract data being fed into the program resulting in odd occurrences like the point-blank ricochet. Some of it may also be due to things you don't consider in the moment like VERTICAL angling. Yes, this happens too.

Case in point. On Orel76v88, I was driving a T-34. I was on a hill angled so that a Tiger was at my 11:00. I was also slightly raised so that the vertical slope of my already sloped armor was even more close to horizontal. The Tiger fired multiple shots at me, repeatedly ricocheting off me. He was probably smashing his keyboard in frustration because no less than 5 shots bounced clean off and did no damage. What he didn't understand probably was the fact that not only was I angled horizontally, but also vertically, and with my tracks hidden. Stuff like that can happen sometimes, so don't immediatly condemn the system as "OMG!! BROKEN!!"

That's not to say that there are improvements needed, but the TW guys get that and will do their best to improve things. The pre-patched version of tank combat was much much worse and they fixed it. The infantry combat is doing extremely well, so hopefully it doesn't need that many fixes. That's all good news because it suggests that they'll develop tank combat further.