I'm just not feeling the love.

[Biffa]

I have a lead 25mm Hincliffe English Civil War dragon with a limp wrist (bad molding), he's never died and he's fought for me for 10 years, sure he's run away from a bad fight but he's never died, I love him like a family pet.

Also I'll never forget the last German called 'Stein' in a Close Combat 3 battle, who from a ruined building knocked out the last 2 Russian T34's and won the battle almost single handed even shooting most of the crew who fled from the burning wrecks.

I'm on my fifth battle now in a campaign and as yet I'm not bothered if any of my guys die and it's starting to bother me, you see at the moment I have no attachment to any of my 'core' squad guys and I know by now I should.

I really want to stare at my monitor in utter disbelief when 'Hans' takes a bullet and then spent the next 20 minutes fighting with the desire to reload the last save, start again and keep him at the back out of harms way so he lives to see another sunset.

Maybe it's me, maybe after years of war and countless deaths of characters like 'Limpy' and 'Stein' I no longer care. Frontline Command I could lose whole armies without giving a damn but in Close Combat every man that died was felt personally...(almost), I want this feeling back.

The medals and special abilities havent really kicked in yet maybe they will help, maybe if I can stay away from the russian AT rifles I'll keep the odd tank crew for more than one or two battles I don't know, do our guys need names or something or is it just me, have I become a mindless digital Lord Kitchner?

[rickier65]

I know what you mean - I recall that feeling with SL way way back -

But as I've gone through the Bootcamp campagin, I did find myself getting attached to my Grenadiere platoon - maybe not quite to the extent I did with SL but myabe thats just the result of not having that tactile connection you get when you physically flip a counter (or put it in your 'dead pool').

But like I said, I did get a little of this with the Platoon - I think I'll probably name some units with the editor when I get a little smarter. I know you can name them just haven't taken the time, but if I start on a long campign - I think I'll have to try that.

Rick

[z1812]

Hi All,

Yes the "personal factor" shoots way up when you start to recognize your little pixel truppen. I call it immersion. My Wife calls it mental illness.

Regards John

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Biffa,

ORIGINAL: SAF_Biffa
I'm on my fifth battle now in a campaign and as yet I'm not bothered if any of my guys die and it's starting to bother me, you see at the moment I have no attachment to any of my 'core' squad guys and I know by now I should.

Well, you are still fairly early in the campaign. I hear you, but once those medals and abilities start kicking in your interest in individual squads should significantly increase. At least i does for me.

The medals and special abilities havent really kicked in yet maybe they will help, maybe if I can stay away from the russian AT rifles I'll keep the odd tank crew for more than one or two battles I don't know, do our guys need names or something or is it just me, have I become a mindless digital Lord Kitchner?

I think adding some names for squad leaders/officers will also help and I have that pretty high on the wish list. But give it more than five missions, the medal and abilities system is really designed to work best for campaigns with at least 10 missions.

[PDiFolco]

Frankly I feel the same, the game has many good things but immersion isn't that good.
After a game of PzCK I started a couple CMBB scens, one Finnish ambush and a desperate Reich Defense, and man, I was enthralled from turn 1, yelling when my Finn ATR or Pzschrerk found their target, crying when a #{[] Sturmovik killed my baby Hetzer !! And the sounds ... many orders are given, men yell, each weapon has its sound, you know when you're in range of the infamous PPSh SMG  ! With that I forgot about the dated grahics (mods still helping).

Nothing like that in PzC, currently everything feels a bit too generic, squads, sounds... There's not even names for commanders, SL had that !
Sorry to make a CM-ad-like post but the comparison is really telling.

[Erik Rutins]

Out of curiosity, how many Panzer Command campaigns have you played so far? Keep in mind CM is like an old shoe at this point as well, you know it well and understand its ins and outs. It's going to fit comfortably any time you put it on. Panzer Command still needs some breaking in.

Noted again that the sounds need improvement.

[Grell]

Erik I feel for you having to put up with silly things like this thread.

Regards,

Greg

[PDiFolco]

Erik, sure PzC is newer, I've only played a couple campaigns, but I've also played WS before. And I didn't refer to "features" comparison, only immersion/identification as perceived when discovering the games'battles, I still remember the awe from CMBO tutorial [:D].

Grell,
Thanks for trolling, who's posting silly things here ? If you disagree explain why...

[Mobius]

PDifolco post shows people see a game through different lens.  Some will see it as a problem solving experience. Some will see it as a little bit of history they can view first hand.  Some see it just fun playing with pixel tanks.  All are equally are vaiid.  The drive should be that all are satisfied.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think adding some names for squad leaders/officers will also help and I have that pretty high on the wish list. But give it more than five missions, the medal and abilities system is really designed to work best for campaigns with at least 10 missions.

Just a little dissension here on this. I don't like phoney names given to squad leaders and officers in games. It's cheesy to me. It was that way for me in ASL and it's that way in other games that have it. How realistic was it to have, say, "Lt. Stahler" in every single one of your ASL battles? If you want to allow players to name these things if they choose, that's fine. Allow them to write one in and save it. But I have enough "attachment" to my units as units and don't need some phoney name to give me immersion. In fact, saying that the lack of phoney names precludes immersion in this game is, quite frankly, preposterous.

This is a platoon level game and so far, leaders are implicit rather than explicit. I accept that and it doesn't concern me. I'm immersed by the action on the screen conveying a realistic picture of combat. I don't need a RPG character to feel the attachment to my veteran units.

A lot of this comes off to me as whining about some personal fantasy thing; not a legitimate "issue" of the game.

Sorry to sound harsh about this; I just don't want the impression to be given that everyone is clamouring for this and that it's a legitimate game criticism.

[helm123456789]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I think adding some names for squad leaders/officers will also help and I have that pretty high on the wish list. But give it more than five missions, the medal and abilities system is really designed to work best for campaigns with at least 10 missions.

Just a little dissension here on this. I don't like phoney names given to squad leaders and officers in games. It's cheesy to me. It was that way for me in ASL and it's that way in other games that have it. How realistic was it to have, say, "Lt. Stahler" in every single one of your ASL battles? If you want to allow players to name these things if they choose, that's fine. Allow them to write one in and save it. But I have enough "attachment" to my units as units and don't need some phoney name to give me immersion. In fact, saying that the lack of phoney names precludes immersion in this game is, quite frankly, preposterous.

This is a platoon level game and so far, leaders are implicit rather than explicit. I accept that and it doesn't concern me. I'm immersed by the action on the screen conveying a realistic picture of combat. I don't need a RPG character to feel the attachment to my veteran units.

A lot of this comes off to me as whining about some personal fantasy thing; not a legitimate "issue" of the game.

Sorry to sound harsh about this; I just don't want the impression to be given that everyone is clamouring for this and that it's a legitimate game criticism.

Agree. Never played Close Combat (Hate RT) so I know nothing of the game. But played CCBO, CCBB & CMAK way more than I should have and have found my attachment to single units in that game the same as PCK. The attachment is not emotional, but of strategic importance. So in retrospect, Pvt Stahler is still a private and I'd happily sacrific 50 of them to take out a important objective with no ill feelings.[:D]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: helm123456789

Agree. Never played Close Combat (Hate RT) so I know nothing of the game.

You missed out. I played a CC2, Arnhem Campaign against a friend, and it was the best computer gaming experience that I've ever had.

But played CCBO, CCBB & CMAK way more than I should have and have found my attachment to single units in that game the same as PCK. The attachment is not emotional, but of strategic importance. So in retrospect, Pvt Stahler is still a private and I'd happily sacrific 50 of them to take out a important objective with no ill feelings.[:D]

Helm, do you find yourself more focused on one unit-type as regards "strategic importance," either armour or infantry?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Erik Rutins]

Honestly, in my experience when you get further along in a campaign and one of your squads becomes Elite and gets an Iron Cross, a Veteran Sergeant and a Sharphooter, you get pretty darn attached to it.

With that said, I wonder if difficulty level is part of what makes this different for some than others? It's definitely harder keeping units alive (and thus advancing) on the Historical Level and Normal/Hard level. I'd suggest trying to play on Easy and/or Generous/Maximum replacements if you'd like to have an easier time advancing units and keeping them alive.

Regards,

- Erik

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

It's definitely harder keeping units alive (and thus advancing) on the Historical Level and Normal/Hard level.
- Erik

That's just the way it was. Ground combat was a bloody-affair. Everyone that's seen "Band of Brothers" and watched Easy-Company get chewed up over the course of ten months of intermittent fighting has to recognize that.

In the context of PCK, if you've managed to develop some veterans, they'll help you win the scenario at hand. Having those same forces survive the battle intact, however, will be more of a challenge.

Depending on the terrain and situation, perhaps toward the end of a campaign, even the best of forces can get whacked. Even the bravest, best-trained troops can face defeat (and elimination). Their destruction can come as a result of either bad luck or opposition which is simply to formidable to overcome.

Folks who played Close Combat for any length of time in campaign-mode will readily grasp this. It wasn't uncommon at all in a multiplayer campaign to develop an uber-elite force of men and guns, only to have the core of the company wasted when you drew the wrong map and/or objectives.

That loving feeling? My advice to aspiring cyber-commanders is that you not get too attached to all those medals, as they'll more than likely accompany the wearer to an early grave. And that's as it should be, at least in a game about WW2 field operations.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[British tommy]

LOL! well Mobius summed it up nicely. Just take a look at the postings above!
We all what something out of the game be it names or numbers on the side of our panzers [:)]
No game will ever be perfect but a game with lots of options will keep 99% of the players happy... well almost![;)]
I hate coming back to CM but for me, I never bother with the names of each squad. Yes it's there but it's simple enough to ignore it.
Grell, the more the players talk about the game and how they see the game, the better it is for all of us. Remember, there are players reading this forum who are sitting on the fence before taking the plunge and buying PCK. So let's continue posting even if it's about little things found while playing (be them good or bad). It also makes interesting reading for the rest of us [:)]

[Biffa]

Agree with Tommy, a vibrant community can only be great for the future of the game and the series! It's when people don't care that we have to start worrying.

Nothing better than an evening playing a few battles then popping over here to see what ppl are talking about.

Btw if you're reading this get off the fence and buy the game, you won't regret it! [:)]

Got lots of wound badges, going for platinum atm.

[helm123456789]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: helm123456789

Agree. Never played Close Combat (Hate RT) so I know nothing of the game.

You missed out. I played a CC2, Arnhem Campaign against a friend, and it was the best computer gaming experience that I've ever had.

But played CCBO, CCBB & CMAK way more than I should have and have found my attachment to single units in that game the same as PCK. The attachment is not emotional, but of strategic importance. So in retrospect, Pvt Stahler is still a private and I'd happily sacrific 50 of them to take out a important objective with no ill feelings.[:D]

Helm, do you find yourself more focused on one unit-type as regards "strategic importance," either armour or infantry?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

POE,

It really depend on if I'm attacking or defending which unit I get attached to the most as a strategic important asset to accomplish the mission. On the defense I find myself drawn to spending more time watching over my Field and AT guns and hating to see one go down. Nothing like a nicely placed defensive line of those babies to break up a attack. Prefer interlacing lanes with cover to the front. Presents a lot of side shots.

When on the attack It's armour that I hate to see go down the most. Hard to take an objective with just infantry .

Heck I might be part russian because the human wave attack seems like a resonable tactic to me.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: helm123456789

When on the attack It's armour that I hate to see go down the most.

Yeah, armour just has so much firepower relative to infantry that the latter will really suffer if it has to cover any ground at all. And the effect is magnified in a game like CM or PzC because infantry moves so slowly, not only relative to vehicles, but also in terms of its ability to traverse the map.

From a design point, I think that the apparent "snails-pace" that infantry moves has important implications for how it fits in to the game. A while back, James Dunnigan commented that in order to be successful, to be "popular," that is, games had to provide players with the "illusion of movement." If you do a search of the name Dunnigan at the CMAK forums, you'll find this:

ORIGINAL: James Dunnigan

The "illusion of movement" bit came from factor analysis we did on all the games. Those with smaller movement factors were the ones that were less popular and sold less well.

He was making reference to market research indicating that there was actually a preference among gamers for titles that had units featuring large movement allowances.

Obviously, this would present a challenge for WW2 tactical games in that the disparity in mobility between vehicles and ground-pounders is so dramatic. I have a hypothesis of sorts that it's this disparity that leads some players to prefer armour over infantry play in games where the scaling between the infantry's movement increment and the map size becomes (too) great.

This doesn't mean that it's not possible to design a game with great, squad-level gameplay. In CC or SL (the boardgame), infantry can quickly transit the map because the map-scales are smaller. And because friendlies start in such close proximity to enemies, it's much more likely that the lighter weapons possessed by infantry can effectively be brought to bear on more powerful tanks and other vehicles.

The negative to scaling-down the map-size to accentuate infantry play is that armour play will suffer as the maps are (often) too small to adequately showcase the strengths of AFV, their speed, firepower and protection from so much of the havoc that can impact that which is unmotorized/unarmoured.

While I'm really enjoying PCK, I can't help but think that it's more of a tanker's game than an infantry game, as was Combat Mission before it. There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. I can play and enjoy both. There's plenty more room in my life for good wargames, wherever they may fall across the spectrum that I've suggested above.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Stridor]

Well said POE. I agree.

Your observations are (partly) why I wrote the boot camp series, which seems to have been (mostly) well received. So it is possible to have fun with a predominately pure infantry battle, it just gets harder to balance (the fun factor) when you have a vehicle/infantry mix because of the "movement scaling" factors involved.

I think Erik included some infantry only random campaigns again for this reason. In my experience playing with infantry is really a different game experience alltogether.

[pad152]

[font="arial"]I don't think this thread is silly SAF Biffa, if fact this is the stuff that makes a good campaign vs. just a bunch of linked missions. A good campaign systems makes you care for your units and use them a little more wizely in the next battle. Infantry still needs to be fleshed out a little more, down to the individual man level, names, and better animation. This type of campaign, I think is still the missing peice ([/font][font="arial"]attachment to units)[/font][font="arial"] in the CM series of games.
[/font]