PC: Ostfront Vs CM: Normandy

[Enigma6584]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

CM had gone to a modular form of release for their game series and PC is moving towards more of a theater form for it's series. So, while you should get a bulge gamette from BFC, you more than likely won't be getting one for PC4. What you will more likely getting with PC4 will be the entire Western Front; with the Bulge just being one of the battles/campaigns/operations included in the whole.

At some point, and I figure that to be after the release of PCO and CMBN, the two game systems will be seen by the gaming public to not be in the same category.

But we are not getting the entire theater with PCO. Correct? If I'm not mistaken, there are no Italian, Romanian, Hungarian or Finnish units in PCO. Will Matrix games include these in and upgrade or patch? Perhaps call it a module?

[Mad Russian]

Correct. You're not getting the entire theater with regards to any of the Axis Minors. They are the one missing piece of the theater. Those can be added with xml files by anyone. There are a few vehicles, etc. that aren't coming yet either. But it does cover 1941 through 1945 now with 99% of the equipment used during that time period.

We figured that it was better to release the update NOW than wait another 3 or 4 months adding the Axis Minors.

I'm not sure it's been decided on about the time scale for PC4. If it's to be June 44 and later or September 1939 and later.

I do know it's to be in Western Europe and will cover no less than NWE.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Joseph_Nevsky

And you´ll win for sure "in your battle vs. Battlefront" if you work on this!! [;)]

The only real battle we're in is the one with the P/L chart attached.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
If I'm not mistaken, there are no Italian, Romanian, Hungarian or Finnish units in PCO. Will Matrix games include these in and upgrade or patch? Perhaps call it a module?

A few years ago I made some data tables for light weapons and infantry of Romanian, Italian, Finnish and Hungarian. So if anyone wants to make the models they can be included.

You don't need to wait for Matrix to make the modules. Using the included tools and with the open system you are welcome to build these yourself.

For example:

Code: Select all

<gun caliber="8" type="Schwarzlose 07/31M">
   <ammunition destruction="9" stun="16" type="AP">
   	<tohits>
   		<tohit number="1" range="0"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="1" range="100"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="2" range="200"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="3" range="250"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="4" range="300"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="5" range="400"></tohit>
   	</tohits>
   	<penetrations>
   		<penetration number="0.5" range="100"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.4" range="200"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.3" range="300"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.2" range="400"></penetration>
   	</penetrations>
   </ammunition>

[Ratzki]

Will Matrix be releasing some data .PDF's or whatever, to keep the stats consistent that everyones games will use as the visual MODs are created? It is one thing to build the graphics and another to make sure that the weapons being built are consistant with their historical conterparts.

[Enigma6584]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
If I'm not mistaken, there are no Italian, Romanian, Hungarian or Finnish units in PCO. Will Matrix games include these in and upgrade or patch? Perhaps call it a module?

A few years ago I made some data tables for light weapons and infantry of Romanian, Italian, Finnish and Hungarian. So if anyone wants to make the models they can be included.

You don't need to wait for Matrix to make the modules. Using the included tools and with the open system you are welcome to build these yourself.

For example:

Code: Select all

<gun caliber="8" type="Schwarzlose 07/31M">
   <ammunition destruction="9" stun="16" type="AP">
   	<tohits>
   		<tohit number="1" range="0"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="1" range="100"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="2" range="200"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="3" range="250"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="4" range="300"></tohit>
   		<tohit number="5" range="400"></tohit>
   	</tohits>
   	<penetrations>
   		<penetration number="0.5" range="100"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.4" range="200"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.3" range="300"></penetration>
   		<penetration number="0.2" range="400"></penetration>
   	</penetrations>
   </ammunition>

I only hope Matrix puts out official modules for the Axis minors. I would rather pay money for an official module/upgrade than rely on an "unofficial" modification. I've always enjoyed playing the Axis minors in CMBB. There was one mission I remember which was a blast. It involved an Italian Infantry battalion taking two bridges from the Russians. Never knew too much about it, starting reading what-ever I could about Italians in Russia. It was a lot of fun. Of course playing Finish was a blast, Hungarian TO&Es were interesting to play with. You guys have got to include at some point in time Axis minor modules.

[Mad Russian]

If you give us enough time we'll do it for you. But somebody will more than likely want them before we get around to doing them.

The good news is that the game won't play H2H unless all the data for the game matches. So your opponent has to have the same data that you're using.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
There was one mission I remember which was a blast. It involved an Italian Infantry battalion taking two bridges from the Russians. Never knew too much about it, starting reading what-ever I could about Italians in Russia.

Italian squads are really hard to do in platoons. They actually have very large squads of about 14-20 men. To work in PC they would have to be broken into two different 7-10 man sections. One that contain both LMGs and the other just rifles.

For example the Bersaglieri squad would be composed of two sections or groups:

Code: Select all

<infantry month="1" morale="+1.9.2" points="5" side="Italian" type="Bersaglieri Fucilieri" year="40" movetype="0">
  <guns>
    <gun gunid="Rifle M91 Gruppo/41" rof="8"></gun>
  </guns>
 
  
 <infantry month="1" morale="+1.9.2" points="9" side="German" type="Bersaglieri Mitraglieri" year="40" movetype="0">
  <guns>
   <gun gunid="Rifle w/2LMG Gruppo/41" rof="11"></gun>
  </guns>
 

[Mad Russian]

I don't see that as a problem. We have vehicle platoons that can 20 vehicles in them. I see no reason that an infantry squad couldn't have more or less than 10 men.

The FS/FJ squads are big too and there are going to be lots of them in PC4.

Good Hunting.

MR

[diablo1]

What I don't understand is why the move away from random maps generated by the computer? As much power as computers have today I don't see why this isn't a standard feature anymore. You got random battles and random campaigns and you can't make random maps? At least this one has random campaigns over CM:NM which doesn't have any random campaigns. BF wants you to buy every single idea they have now with that module system and I'm just not going to buy into it unless Paradox picks up the line and sells it for $4 like they did CMSF. I don't like BF's elicense DRM either. Just more hoops to jump through to buy, install and play a damn game.

[Mad Russian]

Random maps has always been an issue. One of the biggest issues I see with games that offer random maps is the ability of those maps to be reasonably "believable".

There was no editor in the original two games of the series. Providing an editor the strength of MM is a tremendous step forward. It's quick and easy to use. BUT it still won't make a random map right before your eyes.

I think what causes random map generators to be going out of favor is the "believable" factor. When I can make a map in a few minutes of a real piece of real estate somewhere, that pales to whatever a computer program could do with the same coding time, resources and time allowed to generate both.

And if you don't want to make a quick map we provide some for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I don't see that as a problem. We have vehicle platoons that can 20 vehicles in them. I see no reason that an infantry squad couldn't have more or less than 10 men.
The FS/FJ squads are big too and there are going to be lots of them in PC4.

When you abstract groups of elements they have to be roughly the same numbers or the abstraction goes south. The proportions have to be about the same.

[diablo1]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Random maps has always been an issue. One of the biggest issues I see with games that offer random maps is the ability of those maps to be reasonably "believable".

There was no editor in the original two games of the series. Providing an editor the strength of MM is a tremendous step forward. It's quick and easy to use. BUT it still won't make a random map right before your eyes.

I think what causes random map generators to be going out of favor is the "believable" factor. When I can make a map in a few minutes of a real piece of real estate somewhere, that pales to whatever a computer program could do with the same coding time, resources and time allowed to generate both.

And if you don't want to make a quick map we provide some for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Combat Mission has them, Steel Panthers has them, the Total War series has them and I just don't see any unbelievable maps generated in any of them. Even so if it generated just 10 bad ones in a hundred it only takes seconds for the computer to generate one. I've seen 1000's of random generated battle maps and they look quite believeable to me and quite plausible. All I really see for not having them is lazy programmers who just don't want to write the code to implement them. There's been too many games for too long that have random generated maps, battles and campaigns to use that excuse they don't make believeable maps.

[Ratzki]

I don't know about the map generators in the other games that you mentioned, but the CM maps that the AI would make were nothing short of terrible. I mean, they would do in a pinch but they really had nothing going for them. The landscape often looked like some olympic mogul course. Clumps of trees scattered all about, sections of fence and walls here and there, buildings that appeared to be just dropped on the map, fllag locations that made no sense whatsoever, and setup zones that were too shallow. As well the maps were always too wide and not deep enough. I think that we lived with them, because there was no other option, but they are not good. Heck they are not even bad, more like terrible.

[Arctic Blast]

Beyond that, what would you rather those 'lazy programmers' devote their time to? The game engine itself, how the AI plays the actual game, tools for people to use to make really good material down the road...or random map generation.

Want random maps? Pick what other element of the game you don't want. And yes, that is what it comes down to, because development resources are finite.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: diablo1
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

Okay. You can disagree with me. Everybody has their own opinion. I gave you mine.

Good Hunting.

MR

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: diablo1
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

You can disagree but a lot of games have not random maps so I am not able to see where is the problem. personally, I prefer to play historical situation so random maps are quite unnecessary to me.

[diablo1]

Want random maps? Pick what other element of the game you don't want. And yes, that is what it comes down to, because development resources are finite.

Ok I will the "waste of time creating grasses for the game". This whole patch/update has been delayed because of "grass" which is really ridicuous and unwarranted. Grass could be modded in by the players if any were so inclined or cared. So, I'll take my random battle maps created by the computer any day over silly grass modifications.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: diablo1
Ok I will the "waste of time creating grasses for the game". This whole patch/update has been delayed because of "grass" which is really ridicuous and unwarranted. Grass could be modded in by the players if any were so inclined or cared. So, I'll take my random battle maps created by the computer any day over silly grass modifications.

The grass system begot a change in the LOS system. So they aren't just added eye candy. They do change the play of the game. Each grass type has a LOS blocking that goes with it. So that required all the maps with scenarios to be re-tested. We couldn't just drop it on our users without knowing what the results would be. Maps could use the default values or had to be changed to make the grass work better with the map. I also took the time to cut gun pits into the terrain mesh. So now there are real dug-in guns and tanks not just those behind ground level sand bags as CMN has.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: diablo1

Ok I will the "waste of time creating grasses for the game". This whole patch/update has been delayed because of "grass"...

Yes it was but nothing like it would have been if we'd been waiting for the coding to be done to create random maps.

which is really ridicuous and unwarranted.

Apparently not everybody feels the same way you do.

Grass could be modded in by the players if any were so inclined or cared. So, I'll take my random battle maps created by the computer any day over silly grass modifications.

So could everything else we did. It could all have been done by somebody. Was that somebody going to be you? We did the best we could with the time and resources we had. I think the product will speak volumes for itself.

Now, having said that, PCO won't be for everybody. It may not be for you. We'll have no way of knowing that until you actually play it. Speculation is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Good Hunting.

MR