Want to get it but three questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Panthers in the Fog



Message

heyhellowhatsnew -> Want to get it but three questions (11/29/2012 7:57:42 PM)

Hi I want to get this but I just have two quick questions:

1) How is the tutorial? Is there one? I am a baby wargamer

2) Can I play in windowed mode?

3) Is there a PBEM option? Thanks!



Scott Parrino -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (11/29/2012 9:57:28 PM)

Hello HHWS (hope you don't mind the shortened name :) )

1.) Tutorial is pretty good to get new players started. There are 5 separate tutorials: a quick tour, using the toolbar, viewing terrain, infantry tactics, and armor tactics.
2.) Yes, you can play in windowed mode.
3.) There is a multiplayer lobby to connect with other players, as it is real-time and not turn-based, so a PBEM system isn't used.




Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (11/30/2012 2:53:01 PM)

Same situation as OP [:)], so:

1- Iīve only played CC2 many years ago, how is the strategic part of this latest installment? Are casualties more important now, or truces automatically refill troops all the time therefore making casualties not very relevant?

2- Many people say the fog actually isnīt a very good improvement, is that true?

3- Are the UberGreyhounds of Death still able to kill tanks from 500 meters? Yes I know it was already said Panthers can be penetrated in close range by side or rear hits, but what about other distances? Also is that historically accurate?



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (11/30/2012 6:08:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag

1- Iīve only played CC2 many years ago, how is the strategic part of this latest installment? Are casualties more important now, or truces automatically refill troops all the time therefore making casualties not very relevant?

2- Many people say the fog actually isnīt a very good improvement, is that true?

3- Are the UberGreyhounds of Death still able to kill tanks from 500 meters? Yes I know it was already said Panthers can be penetrated in close range by side or rear hits, but what about other distances? Also is that historically accurate?


1 - Losses are not replaced after every battle. Instead you receive replacements every night (assuming the battle group is not cut off from supply). The number of replacements you get is almost never going to be enough to return a unit to full strength (especially for the Germans) so you will typically see a loss in strength over the course of a day, then a bump up overnight that makes good some of the losses. Replacement soldiers are also 'green' troops.

2 - The feedback on the fog that I've heard is that some people do not like the visual effect and would like a way to hide it. This is something that will probably be added, since it is easy to do, but that's the only complaint I've heard about the fog.

3 - Armor penetration is pretty accurate, and based on available historical data and post-war analysis. The 37mm gun on the Greyhound can penetrate Panther side and rear armor. The chance of an outright kill isn't automatic, since it's a relatively small projectile, but it can happen. While the Panther's front armor was thick, it really was vulnerable to most enemy AT weapons from the side.




JFFulcrum -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/3/2012 4:12:04 PM)

quote:

The 37mm gun on the Greyhound can penetrate Panther side and rear armor.

But in CC games 37-mm projectile also easily pierces PzIV front armor, and PzIV`s in game are usually a last models like G-series, with more than 50 mm front armor. I think that 37-mm ammo way overpowered in game. Stuarts, Greyhounds - all are definitely not an AT-units in the end of WWII.



jwduquette1 -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/3/2012 6:06:34 PM)

I'm curious if compound angle of impact is considered within the games armor penetration model. A lot of guns -- on paper -- look to have the ability to perforate this or that level of armor thickness. However in reality attack angles are most often the compounded effect of actual plate obliquity, orientation of shooter to target, as well as terrain gradients of both shooter and target -- 'cant'. And of course the final compounded angle of attack isn’t always a net plus for the target -- ala effects of terrain gradient on orientation of armor to the impacting projectile. But in reality most attacks will not be a perpendicular shot angle to the armor orientation.

And not to delve too heavily into what's become an amazingly obtuse volume of internet forum discussions on plate perforation, but in the case of 37mm projectile vs. Panther, the projectile is slightly overmatched by the thickness of the side armor of both hull and turret. The higher hardness of typical German Armor was actually at an advantage when the projectile caliber is overmatched by the plate thickness (plate is thicker than the caliber of the impacting projectile) -- this includes higher hardness armor that is attacked both capped or uncapped projectiles. This advantage becomes progressively more pronounced as obliquity increase. Part of the importance of compounded angle of attack when considering something like 37mm AP or APC vs. a Panthers side armor.

Conversely the opposite becomes true for higher hardness armors when the plate thickness is over-matched by projectile caliber. Moreover 57mm APC is going to be more effective than what your typical plate perforation tables will tell you when this particular projectile is impacting side armor of a Panther.

Of the numerous battle damage assessment studies I've looked at over the years, I haven't come across any instances of a Panther being killed by a 37mm from a Stuart or Greyhound or the like. This isn't to say it was impossible for 37mm AP or APC to kill a Panther with a side or rear shot. It's just that I haven't seen a detailed BDA report of such a thing. I have seen personal accounts of such a thing occurring. But unfortunately the personal accounts are not always reliable -- for a number of reasons -- not the least of which boils down to misidentification of target vehicle type by the shooter\s. BDAs typically include photos of the destroyed vehicle and/or detailed description of vehicle type such that there isn't any doubt as to what vehicle was KO'd as well as a pretty good estimate of what caliber of projectile did the KO'ing.

And of course behind armor effects as a function of projectile caliber is an important consideration in target effects -- although it sounds like from the comments above that behind armor effects may be considered within the current game engine.



WoT -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/3/2012 9:19:09 PM)

Now Jeff.. your sounding like a beta tester of old.



Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 12:01:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

I'm curious if compound angle of impact is considered within the games armor penetration model. A lot of guns -- on paper -- look to have the ability to perforate this or that level of armor thickness. However in reality attack angles are most often the compounded effect of actual plate obliquity, orientation of shooter to target, as well as terrain gradients of both shooter and target -- 'cant'. And of course the final compounded angle of attack isn’t always a net plus for the target -- ala effects of terrain gradient on orientation of armor to the impacting projectile. But in reality most attacks will not be a perpendicular shot angle to the armor orientation.

And of course behind armor effects as a function of projectile caliber is an important consideration in target effects -- although it sounds like from the comments above that behind armor effects may be considered within the current game engine.


Yeah, good points. Also one nasty thing is that the game sinīt intuitive. Unlike Steel Panthers were all units had armor ratings and also the degree of sloping, as well as the AT power of each weapon, here we have to guess. Itīs simply isnīt intuitive. Sure we all know a Firefly gun is better than a 75mm Sherman or Tiger has better armor than Panzer IV - but how exactly better?

So Iīd suggest the devs to make an addendum to the manual with armor and AT ratings. Also, is it possible to mod armor and AT values?



SapperAstro_MatrixForum -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 1:55:20 PM)

The green circle usually tells me if a gun has a good chance...

As a lover of Steel Panthers (well, the first part, and WW2) I understand your desire for info, but it isn't really necessary in Close Combat due to the helpful circle provided when taking a shot. No such system was around in Steel Panthers where you could see at a glance, without looking at other box outs, whether a shot would do the deed.




Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 3:09:32 PM)

The gameplay difference is minimal. After some playthroughs you know the armor piercing capabilities of the guns, specially because, well, the 88 of the Tiger is equal to the 88 AA and the 7.5 PAK was present in many vehicles. Also, since there really isnīt that vairiety in tanks as well, you soon learn what will penetrate a T34 or wonīt. The problem is when dealing with less common guns and armored vehicles.

And since the game was turn based, there was zero problem in checking the unitīs values. You had all the time in the world to do that. The difference is that SP system and data had precision, CC forces you to guess. The Greyhound killing Panther is the classical example - in SP we have the armor and AT values to know if the shot had a chance or not. CCīs circle system, while useful, isnīt as precise; you simply donīt know WHY the gun can penetrate, just that it can. SP also modelled behind armor effects and weapon damage better. Here, it seems there are only 3 outcomes for a shot - no damage, immobilization or destruction. Other outcomes like weapon damage and partial loss of crew virtually arenīt present.

Same with small weapons fire, you have to guess their killing power by using real life knowledge that not everyone has, instead of data. If a player never read about the .30 and MG 42, they wouldnīt be able to know how different they are in the game. Or why the 76mm gun on the M10 was better than the 75mm of the M4. So as I said it wouldnīt hurt to give some extra data on the weapons and armor.



JFFulcrum -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 3:41:36 PM)

quote:

seems there are only 3 outcomes for a shot - no damage, immobilization or destruction

It was not in previous games. The vehicle may take some damage after penetration, some crewman get killed, some weapons lost (main gun, for example) - but still movable. Although such outcomes was rare - unfortunate shot from gun or bazooka rocket from far distance.

quote:

Also, is it possible to mod armor and AT values?

Yes, data files is open and you can use previous games Excel Workbooks as reference. PiTF Workbook also promised.



Southernland -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 5:29:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JFFulcrum


It was not in previous games. The vehicle may take some damage after penetration, some crewman get killed, some weapons lost (main gun, for example) - but still movable.



Yeah that still happens, especially loosing crew



Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/4/2012 10:04:02 PM)

Good to know, so maybe the problem is that things happen so fast that thereīs not time to check the tank status after some hits heh.



Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/5/2012 2:58:39 PM)

Oh forgot to ask, but does the game take in consideration if the armor is in an oblique angle when considering if the shot can penetrate or not? For example, if AT gun impact will be from a 10 degree angle instead of 90 degree, will the chance of penetration decrease as it should?



JFFulcrum -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/5/2012 5:20:51 PM)

Beag
The game take third dimension in count, for example, height of weapon turret on vehicle define LOS (ability to shoot over obstacles), infantry in tall buildings have wider field of view. But it is unknown whether angles is taken into account in armor penetration calculations, according to Workbooks - unlikely, there was no angles of armor plates or their material in vehicle definition.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/5/2012 7:20:27 PM)

On the question of angle of impact for armor penetration -- the short answer is yes, angle is taken into account in the CC engine.

The long answer is that it is somewhat abstracted. There are no slope ratings for individual armor plates, but rather an 'averaged' armor thickness rating depending on the angle of attack (from a lower level, from the same level, or from a higher level) and the relative facing (square on from the front, angled from the front, angled front/side, angled side/front, angled from the side, square on from the side, and so on around the vehicle).

As for the 37mm gun in the Stuart and Greyhound, it had the penetrating power at close range (which in CC is most tank combat) to penetrate the Pz IV turret front.  It could also come close to  penetrating the hull front (80mm), so that's not impossible for a square-on shot.  The Pz IV just wasn't a well-armored tank by 1944 standards -- it was a pre-war tank design soldiering on.



Beag -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (12/5/2012 9:39:44 PM)

So a bazooka firing from a building will have a better chance of penetrating than one fired from a slope?

Thanks for the info, it helps with planning moves.



CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (2/20/2013 1:10:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beag

the problem is that things happen so fast that thereīs not time to check the tank status after some hits


... as in real life.



Misconduct -> RE: Want to get it but three questions (2/21/2013 4:31:07 PM)

I've learned to keep Panzer 4's hidden, if any chance I merge Panzer 4 units with others for example - Panther Units, and keep Panzer 4's STRICTLY for support i.e Against halftracks and infantry.

Panzer III's for example were in support of Tiger Tanks, at this stage in the war the Panzer 4 was the best money per tank - however as said earlier they were a prewar design, the armor was bad, only thing going for it was a half decent gun which was suitable for the eastern front and western.

I've been fortunate to only lose one Panzer 4 right now, I merged it with a stug unit and they basically just sit and not move foward, 57mms and armored units simply will murder both.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625