Matrix Games Forums

The new combat system is a major increase in level of detail over the original. I happen to think its a major improvement:-)

Unfortnaley my desingers notes in teh manual were assembled too late at night to be as readable as I'd have liked.

The original SP system factored the vertical slope of the armor into an "armor factor" that was essentially "geometric" armor thickness (base/cos vertical slope) divided by 10.

Now the angle in the horizontal plays a role in this also, but because you don't know the vertical slope, the "composite" angle can't be determined. SO teh encounter geometry plays only a limited role (A "bonus" for quartering aspects was added in SP3 and I believe the last patch to SP2) but for teh most part, rounds are assumed to impact at a perpendicular to the face struck. That is why it is so easy to get "flank" kills on many tanks like Panthers, from what should be difficult angles.

Also with elevation, the effective angle in the vertical obviously changes, so looking down from 30m at a target 50m away gives you a significant angular advatage in addition to a chance to hit "top" armor.

Now the vertical angle can cause problems in some cases becasue tanks do not "tip" on slopes. this is something i hope to fix in a patch. For now it has some side effects on reverse slope defenses, making units on hills, somewhat too powerful vs units very close. The "bottom" vulnerability was added to help address that, but might have a bug in it.

The bottom line is encounter geometry was a key driver of tactics. Hilltop positions were deathtraps before, now they are important positions to be fought hard for.

A 30 or 40 degree flank exposure used to be enough to get a good chance of a flank kill, especially on tanks Panthers with vulnerable flanks, now you mustactually get deep into an enemy's flanks get such an advantage!

That is a start at least on why the changes were made. I'll do my best to answer any questions!

I think SPWAW combat Resolutions are much better than any previous SP. In terms of method only (NOT to compare two very different games) is there any similarity to the approach taken by CM and SPWAW. I ask because the resolution seem very close. Especially in light of your comments on armor hits on hill top targets.

This interests me: if the shell hits at extreme angles i.e. 89 degrees vertical and 89 degrees horizontal, how many times will the armor be "amplified"?

Do larger (heavier) shells hit at bigger angles because they fly a higher trajectory?

Would it be possible to see from the targeting screen which armor you are targeting? It's sometimes difficult to know whether you are targeting side, rear, front, top or bottom armor.

Shouldn't bottom armor hits only happen on some extreme cases, like when the front of the tank goes suddenly higher than the rear, like when coming on top of a hill or driving over a tree trunk?

Like this:

//_
/

An unmoving tank's bottom armor should be pretty well protected by the ground

[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited 05-15-2000).]

I don't have any idea how CM does it, just that they use an "effective" not straight geometric armor by some method that is similar, but more detailed, becasue of their full 3D vehicle modleing.

Richocet likelyhood caps the angle at a bit over 80 degrees, at about the 95% ricochet probability point. ie there is always a 5% chance at least that the shell will "Bite" that also prevents crashes do to the angle "blowing up". The "theory" also tends to break down at the extremes - another reason to cap it.

The armor hit is random based on the aspect angle, the narrower teh angle, the lower the probability of hit. So at 89 degrees the odds of hitting that face are very small. So you are more likely to hit the armor. There a factor for the crews "aiming" for vulnerable spots if they are out classed.

The vetical angle is skewed upwords, but shell size is not a factor. For most AT guns the variation in the vertical face of the armor by driving over uneven gorund is much more a factor than trajectory.

The only time you can hit the bottom armor is when you are shooting form very close range at a tank cresting ahill, or when a tank comes over an unbreached wall or bocage. In all other cases you can't hit the bottom...

I ran into one particular problem with the system I am not sure why but I fired at a tp7 and hit the turret destroyed its gun according to the hit/result messge but that tp7 still fired back its main gun back at me. Can the crew fix the guns once damaged.

So if I'm targeting a tank that is facing 45 degrees to the left of me and 45 degrees down (arctan[height dif/range]=45) and I hit it, I have 25 % chance to hit side armor, 25 % chance to hit front armor, and 2*25=50 % to hit top armor?

[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited 05-16-2000).]

The hit distribution is a function of length to width ratio not just angle. The old SP3 hit distribution is still used, since we didn't change the database structure to add a "length to width" ratio.

If the length to width ratio is 2 then at a 45 degree angle you awould have a .3 chance of hitting the front and a .7 chance of hitting the side. Assuming a 'center of mass' aimpoint would skew that slightly more toward the side.

As I said in discussing the "plateau effect" things don't "tip" in SP so everything moves around parallel to the ground, so there is no way to get a 45 degree vertical angel, (30m height at 50m away = ~ 31 degrees) that angle is used to adjust the slope, (ie shooting down on a Panther in such a case reduces its front hull slope from 55 to 24) but again for now, assuming all things are parallel to the deck.

There is a lot of refinement that is possible, both with the system itself, and the data in the OOBs. Trying to assemble such data on literally every tank it seems anybody every heard of, is a task that will take some time to complete! We offer the present package as a "first cut" and intend to work with those of you who are interested, to improve it!