Will it be better than Combat Mission

[tiger111]

I imagine that the graphics will be better than Comat Missiom Afika Korps. But in gameplay and realism how much of an impovement am I likely to get?

I like the idea of having a core unit eg Company of tanks and going though the war with them-souns like Steel Panthers to me??? What`s the largest unit mix you can have for a custom campaign?

Looking forward to this game a lot-when might we see a release -in vague terms-Xmas or 1st.Q 2011 or......

[Mad Russian]

Or...the release time has always been 4Q 2010.

Only you will be able to determine how realistic you think PCO will be.

Personally, I would say in terms of armor battles I like it better, in terms of infantry combat it should be better with PC4. The emphasis so far for PC has been tank combat. In PC4 that will change to a more balanced approach. There are those that like the infantry combat model now so it's not MIA. IMO, it could just use the same kind of improvements that the armor combat model just got.

Better is a personal point of view. PCO is going to be different than CM. Whether you find it better or not will be determined by your own gaming style.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Augustas

...I like the idea of having a core unit eg Company of tanks and going though the war with them-souns like Steel Panthers to me??? What`s the largest unit mix you can have for a custom campaign?

I think the Random Campaigns I've loooked at have a mixed force of around maybe a company and a half of combined arms. You can create your own Random campaign using the Random Campaign editor, but you will need to be familiar with the scenario editors and campaign editors that are included with PCO. if you design your own Random Campaign, you could increase that. I'm not sure what the upper limit for your core force would be in that case.

Just as an experiment I attempted to create a division sized core force and I can tell you that that did not work.

Thanks
rick

[Mad Russian]

I've put a regiment together but whatever size core unit you use, company/bn/rgt all the units must be in every battle to be tracked in the campaign.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

PCO has a more detailed and more flexible armor model. The front of a AFV can have 10 different armor factors while in CM you may have one factor for turret and one for upper hull and lower hull. In PCO things like StuGs have several armor panels of differing factors on their superstructure.

[Mad Russian]

All the issues with say, a "Super StuG", shouldn't happen in PCO. And if it does the data can be changed to reflect a more realistic model. The data in PCO isn't hard coded into the game as in CM. It's read by the game from files that can be changed. Very little in PCO is set in stone.

Good Hunting.

MR

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

All the issues with say, a "Super StuG", shouldn't happen in PCO. And if it does the data can be changed to reflect a more realistic model. The data in PCO isn't hard coded into the game as in CM. It's read by the game from files that can be changed. Very little in PCO is set in stone.

Good Hunting.

MR

What about the PZ IV? I once did an analysis of how badly CM modeled the PZ IV due to the limited number of armor areas that could be modeled in the engine vs. how many different angles and thicknesses the projected frontal area of the PZ IV actually had. See this post over at Gamesquad for the details of my analysis.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
What about the PZ IV? I once did an analysis of how badly CM modeled the PZ IV due to the limited number of armor areas that could be modeled in the engine vs. how many different angles and thicknesses the projected frontal area of the PZ IV actually had. See this post over at Gamesquad for the details of my analysis.

You missed the cupola on your analysis there. When you include it the turret tips to 3 locations in 10. Also the transmission covering plate is included in your assessment as part of the upper hull. It is a separate location in PCO. But it is so highly sloped it factors almost the same as the vertical front hull. PCO gives most of the turret 5cm of armor except the mantlet near the gun which has a slight angle giving it about 55mm of armor which PCO rounds to 6cm.

In the end PCO values are almost the same as CM values for this vehicle.

[RocketMan]

I didn't miss the copula, I ignored it because I figured a hit there would be unlikely to actually take out the vehicle. It might cause crew causalities, but it probably wouldn't effect the actual operation of the vehicle.

The biggest problem I saw with the CM modeling of the PZ IV was the large area modeled for the turret as 50 mm @ 10° when in actuality, that area was probably less than half of the project area as can be seen inside the green area in the turret from the picture. I don't know how thick the highly angled areas armor was in the turret (the areas between the orange and green on the turret), but that area is a non-insignificant part of the total area.

Also, the hull area that is highly sloped (where the hatches are) was ignored in CM. I don't know the armor thickness in this area, but as part of the projected area of the hull, this section looks to be about 20-25% of that area.

Edit: I should also point out that modeling the copula as having 50mm of armor @ 10° is not very accurate either.

[Mad Russian]

One of the quotes from that thread got my attention right away...

It should be noted that CM waters down the German tank modeling, considerably IMO in both CMBB and CMAK.

From my experience that's not uniformly true.

I see things like the Super StuG and the Tiger I. Where the armour is almost invulnerable to Soviet AT rounds. And where the PzIV turrets are uniformly weak. Where the German AT rounds are too powerful.

Neither game has the ability to have the inferior shoot for the weak spots...YET.

I want a PzIII gunner at 300 meters to fire at the tracks of a  T-34. Or the turret ring. Or the, well you get the picture. I want to target the weak areas of the tank if I can't penetrate his armour. Actual gunners did it as their only way to survive the engagement.

It would be good to have in PC as well. Once PCO is out and you guys get to play with it for awhile then we can do the next wishlist. There should be some interesting things on that wishlist.

Good Hunting.

MR

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

One of the quotes from that thread got my attention right away...

It should be noted that CM waters down the German tank modeling, considerably IMO in both CMBB and CMAK.

From my experience that's not uniformly true.

Not something I said. I was only looking at the PZ IV. I really have no idea if other tanks were modeled better or worse in CM.

[Mad Russian]

I know It just caught my eye.

TBH, I have been so busy learning the new map maker and editor system plus how the game plays to balance my scenarios I've not done any testing. The system.

Your testing was done PzIV vs the Sherman which we don't have just yet. So, it's hard to do a direct comparison between the two games when we are missing one of the pieces.

I'm all for making a 2km test map though and that's probably one of the first things I'll do when we get the update released.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Mobius is gunner/penetration guru....he'll be the one with the answers.  [&o]

It will be the rest of us that do tests to see if his answers bear out.  [8D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Mobius is gunner/penetration guru....he'll be the one with the answers.  [&o]

I'm sure he knows a lot more than I do about the whole subject then!

[Mad Russian]

I don't know, sometimes things need to be abstracted so the game "feels right" too. First and foremost it's a game.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
I didn't miss the copula, I ignored it because I figured a hit there would be unlikely to actually take out the vehicle. It might cause crew causalities, but it probably wouldn't effect the actual operation of the vehicle.

If the shell had any kind of burster the fragments might take out the tank or the turret crew. If the crew is KO'd it is a destroyed but not burning tank in PCO.

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
The biggest problem I saw with the CM modeling of the PZ IV was the large area modeled for the turret as 50 mm @ 10° when in actuality, that area was probably less than half of the project area as can be seen inside the green area in the turret from the picture. I don't know how thick the highly angled areas armor was in the turret (the areas between the orange and green on the turret), but that area is a non-insignificant part of the total area.

The small welded bits are 50mm too. That they are not exactly at 90° perpendicular is offset when you consider that all the welds and small parts are weak points to an armor scheme. Tank gunners would target welds, edges, holes, etc. as they believed the armor there would be 15% weaker then the middle of a plate.

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
Also, the hull area that is highly sloped (where the hatches are) was ignored in CM. I don't know the armor thickness in this area, but as part of the projected area of the hull, this section looks to be about 20-25% of that area.

That is the highly sloped transmission access plate that I mentioned as giving the equivalent protection as the vertical front hull plate.

[freeboy]

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: freeboy
are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!

The majority of the maps are 1 km. But there are a number that vary .5km, 1.5km or 2km.

[spellir74]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!

2Km!

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

are we still locked into a 1 km square?
This one issue killed my previous PC experience!

I'm about to light up your PC world then. At least two of the release scenarios will be on 2k maps. Others will be all different sizes from 500 meters and my personal favorite 1.5k maps onto the big boy 2k maps.

Good Hunting.

MR