Impressions...

[Bil H]

..from the Demo

I want to go through my first impressions, and perhaps give a few thoughts on how certain areas might be improved. If this stuff has been discussed before please forgive me, I haven't read every thread, nor do I have time to go through the search function with all this stuff. All my thoughts are on gameplay and realism... my expertise I'm afraid [;)]

1. First of all I love the lighting model... I get a very good feeling that it seems to be a sunny winter day. I wonder how the lighting might change if it is overcast, dawn, or dusk... again, I have only seen the demo, and really only played one scenario.

I did notice that the normal or bump maps used on the models seem a little too strong... that is a minor matter though and doesn't ruin the immersion for me but more subtlety to the bump maps would clean up the models a bit.

2. Formation commands. Finally! I tried to get Battlefront to include formation commands in the CM series but I was poo-pooed for some reason.. guess they like their micro-management over there. I think this is one of the strongest parts of the game, allows me to use Platoons more realistically and eases the burden on the player.

However, I do think we need to add a few formations to the few you have included... here is a lst of formations used by WW2 Platoons:

(bold face formations are in the game)

• Wedge
• Column
• Line
• Vee
• Echelon Right
• Echelon Left
• Line of Sections

Also for formations I would love to see some sort of spacing control. Spacing for these formations could be adjusted by the Platoon Leader based on tactical situation and/or terrain restrictions. It is hard for me to get a good guage of distance in this game for some reason... but be as that may, here is a list of what the formation spacing should be (I have a feeling that the formation spacing presently in game is way too close):

NOTE: The spacings listed here are from the US Army Field Manual for Tank Platoons (WW2 version), I understand that they might have been far different in action.

• Wedge - 200m - 400m
• Column - 200m - 800m (long)
• Line - 200m - 800m
• Vee - 200m - 400m
• Echelon Right - 200m - 400m
• Echelon Left - 200m - 400m
• Line of Sections - 50m - 200m

3. Movement Commands. I think these are excellent, I especially love the bound comand... however I would like a little more control, like being able to move waypoints (yes we do need waypoints even if you restrict the number available during the orders phase) in order to place the overwatch position in better terrain.

The actual implementation could be cleaned up a bit to make it more realistic... but really to do this right you need to be able to break the Platoon into teams.

4. Artillery. Again I think the implementation is excellent... the only thing I would add is the ability to choose different round types (like smoke, and perhaps air or ground burst), although perhaps this capability should be restricted to Forward Observers (are FO's in the full game?).

5. Phases. I really like the way the game plays out with an order and then a reaction phase.. I wasn't sure I would like it, but I think it is very clever and adds to the uniqueness of the game especially allowing ambushing units a few seconds of hassle free shooting.

6. Buy units. Jury is out on this feature... is this in for every scenario in the game? I think if you are looking for a quick battle then it is a good thing.. otherwise I would rather not have the choice, especially for campaign play, or especially if historical scenarios are created.

7. Tracks in snow. Very nice. Anyway to make them permanant? There are tactical reasons for this, as well as for immersion.

8. Jump Map. Not unique to this game of course, but I appreciate it being included, very useful.

9. OB Screen. Only needs to scroll to account for large battles. Again, very useful.

I would like to see the ability to create battle groups, or even seperate teams from this screen though (or by simply selecting the units and assigning them a team). I would like to see these created groups have order giving capability like a Platoon element. So if you have a team of 2 tanks, then the team leader should have perhaps a limited Platoon order ability. Though this ability should perhaps be restricted for the Soviet side.

Use of teams within the Platoon (or even within the infantry squad) was SOP for most armies in WW2.

10. Place unit. I find this feature at game start to be too restrictive. I would like to be able to mount infantry and assign formations (with the units popping into correct position) before I start the game clock.

11. More independant thought... from units. I understand that a lot of time a tank might not be able to see what is firing at it as it advances.. in fact I would argue that the majority of time it won't know immediately, so giving the firing unit a few free shots before I can reply is great. However.. this same tank that is under fire will continue to advance like nothing is happening. I would like to see the unit in this situation either stop and face the direction of fire, or withdraw perhaps... perhaps even pick up speed to get under cover. I don't really care, but some sort of reaction instead of blindly and stupidly going towards it's movement waypoint.

Perhaps it won't even know its under fire at first... but these options should at least be available within the Reaction Phase.

Similarly I think obstacle avoidance, while pretty good, needs a little work. I would like to see vehicles start their avoidance a little earlier, instead of having to stop, turn, move, turn, etc... until they are around the obstacle, I would rather see them adjust their movement further back, move cleanly around the obstacle and then smoothly move back into position.

12. Fog of War. There is no way that when identifying enemy units I should ever know their unit down to which vehicle or squad they happen to be in a specific platoon. This should be a lot fuzzier than it is now. Also, I would like to see some mis-identifications and have the vehicle remain unidentified (to a type only) until a good LOS can be achieved. Which should require you to get fairly close.

13. Heavy Woods. No vehicle should be allowed in heavy woods.

14. Firing at buildings? For the life of me I can't figure out how to fire at buildings, or even at units in buildings. Is this possible? If so please enlighten me. I keep getting LOS blocked by terrain message.

15. Vehicle MG fire. Why choose MG ammo when giving a fire command? Could save a step there...


I think that's enough for now. This is a very good game, and I am really looking forward to seeing where you guys go with it. Whatever you do, don't let it become another CM, it can stand on its own. I hope it develops that way.

Regards,
Bil

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your comments.

Apart from the particulars, it seems to me that the game is at kind of a crossroads in terms of command and control. The developers can incorporate all the micromanagment tools into the game that are present in other games, or they can work on the Platoon AI with an eye to making it "smarter." Do you have a preference in this regard? In considering the proposition, it's important to remember that resources are scarce. It's been my experience that developers can't focus on one component of design, without giving up something from another.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Bil H]

PoE, I would of course vote for improving Platoon AI with an emphasis on C2 and realism.  I do not want to see too much micro-management incorporated in this game.. would ruin it IMO. 
 
Making the units "act" more realistically should be job one.
 
Bil

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hi Bil,

A little quick feeback on some of your comments about the game...

10. Place Unit: If you place the infantry next to an AFV during the setup phase, they can immediately mount the vehicle at the beginning of the game.

12. Fog of War: I'm not sure how this plays out in the demo, but in the full version, a "?" appears above units whose identiy and/or type are uncertain. You are right, though, as soon as a unit type and location are positively ID'd, its OOB is displayed. There might be situations where this would be harmful, but I can't think of one.

13. Woods really aren't woods in the context that we've known them in other games, an area. It's my understanding that they are individual trees. Hence, those squiggly lines that the game draws to maneuver vehicles and troops around them.

14. You can't fired into an unoccupied building. If it's occupied and observed, figures will appear inside and the building will appear partially transparent. The units within the building can be engaged by any direct fire weapon that's in range and has and LOS.

I'm glad that you're enjoying the game,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Bil H]

PoE are you involved with this game?
 
Thanks for the feedback.  10, yeah I'm aware of that, not a killer for me.  12, it's an immersion thing for me.  I'm more concerned about how quickly unit "type" is positively IDed.  13, then they need to add more trees  [;)]  14, I should be able to place area fire on a building if I "suspect" it might be occupied.  I could not fire in even occupied buildings in my few plays through the game, I'll play with that some more to double check though.
 
A few more points:
 
16.  Roads.  Do roads only turn at 90 degree angles?
 
17.  Resolution Config at game start.  Does not hold all of my selections from previous play.
 
Bil

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

PoE are you involved with this game?

Bil

Nah, I'm a 24-karat RAMF on this one. I like the game, though. It's sort of a blank-slate, and really begs to be modded, as was the developers intent, I believe. Laryngoscope is working on a Panther that's looking really sweet.

And I did think of a problem with your #12, Fog of War. Because the units contain different numbers of vehicles, knowing which unit that you've sighted also provides a powerful clue as to how many of his buddies are nearby. This is probably something that could be turned "off" as an option by the developers.

As to those guys in the houses, if you can sight on one figure, you've got the whole squad or section targeted.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Erik Rutins]

Bil,

First, I'm glad you enjoyed the demo! Thanks for the detailed feedback, I'll address it below.

ORIGINAL: Bil H
1. First of all I love the lighting model... I get a very good feeling that it seems to be a sunny winter day. I wonder how the lighting might change if it is overcast, dawn, or dusk... again, I have only seen the demo, and really only played one scenario.

Yes, there is different lighting in the different scenarios. I believe the store and games page has a dawn shot and some different day lighting as well.

I did notice that the normal or bump maps used on the models seem a little too strong... that is a minor matter though and doesn't ruin the immersion for me but more subtlety to the bump maps would clean up the models a bit.

We felt we had this about right, but it's definitely an art rather than a science. Can you point to any particular unit where these seemed too strong to you? In many cases, it's unit-specific rather than universal as far as the necessary adjustments.

• Wedge
• Column
• Line
• Vee
• Echelon Right
• Echelon Left
• Line of Sections

Based on our research, the first three were by far the most common for German and Soviet platoons. In fact, we didn't give Soviets the Wedge formation since it seemed at this point they generally used Column or Line and tried to keep things simple. I'd be interested to hear info on whether those other formations saw a lot of use on the East Front in '42 or if these were mainly used by the US and UK on the West Front. If they were used by Germans and Soviets, we can absolutely add them to the near future to-do list, otherwise they will have to wait until Panzer Command gets to the other fronts.

Also for formations I would love to see some sort of spacing control. Spacing for these formations could be adjusted by the Platoon Leader based on tactical situation and/or terrain restrictions. It is hard for me to get a good guage of distance in this game for some reason... but be as that may, here is a list of what the formation spacing should be (I have a feeling that the formation spacing presently in game is way too close):

Yep, good point. We did consider this, but went with somewhat tighter than historical spacing to keep things manageable with respect to the map size. I'm concerned that widening the spacing out again would make the command too unwieldy for most players.

3. Movement Commands. I think these are excellent, I especially love the bound comand... however I would like a little more control, like being able to move waypoints (yes we do need waypoints even if you restrict the number available during the orders phase) in order to place the overwatch position in better terrain.

Waypoints are on our list, but they've proved somewhat challenging to work in because of the original design. We want to get support for at least one waypoint in there as soon as we can though, but right now we're working on the first expansion as a priority.

4. Artillery. Again I think the implementation is excellent... the only thing I would add is the ability to choose different round types (like smoke, and perhaps air or ground burst), although perhaps this capability should be restricted to Forward Observers (are FO's in the full game?).

FOs are abstracted - we felt that was the best way to handle it in this case to keep things less complex. While it's good historical chrome, it works fine to say that "this HQ has contact with a FO" and work from there. Artillery and Tactical Smoke is scheduled for the first expansion and after just seeing the first implementation, may I say it is awesome.

6. Buy units. Jury is out on this feature... is this in for every scenario in the game? I think if you are looking for a quick battle then it is a good thing.. otherwise I would rather not have the choice, especially for campaign play, or especially if historical scenarios are created.

A designer can absolutely limit the list to only the units he wants and only give you enough points to buy those, no more. The default scenarios do allow some leeway to add to replayability. In the German campaign, which starts with the same battle you just fought in the demo, the core group remains the same throughout - so in the first battle for example, you start with a pre-bought core group of 2x Pz IIIL, 5x Pz IIIL, 4x Pz IVF2, 6x SdKfz 251, 6x PzGren Squad and fill in from there with forces that are with you just for that scenario (auxiliary forces). That core group then carries forward with you while the auxiliary units change.

7. Tracks in snow. Very nice. Anyway to make them permanant? There are tactical reasons for this, as well as for immersion.

They could be made permanent, but I believe they are temporary for performance reasons. In theory, we could make a number of temporary effects more permanent as system specs increase and our time to add performance options increases as well.

I would like to see the ability to create battle groups, or even seperate teams from this screen though (or by simply selecting the units and assigning them a team). I would like to see these created groups have order giving capability like a Platoon element. So if you have a team of 2 tanks, then the team leader should have perhaps a limited Platoon order ability. Though this ability should perhaps be restricted for the Soviet side.

We felt that mixing on the company level would be fine for Panzer Command, but I think that supporting something like this is a good idea for the long-term list.

Supporting splitting platoons/squads into teams is already on the long-term list as well, but re-combining them in new formations was not.

10. Place unit. I find this feature at game start to be too restrictive. I would like to be able to mount infantry and assign formations (with the units popping into correct position) before I start the game clock.

I agree that it would be great to pre-mount infantry in vehicles. We'll get to this in the future, for now just put them close and mount them up on the first Orders phase. The insta-formation idea is an interesting one, will see what we can do on that. We've already decided to expand the placement distance default to 250m from 100m, but the enemy distance check will be kept in.

11. More independant thought... from units. I understand that a lot of time a tank might not be able to see what is firing at it as it advances.. in fact I would argue that the majority of time it won't know immediately, so giving the firing unit a few free shots before I can reply is great. However.. this same tank that is under fire will continue to advance like nothing is happening. I would like to see the unit in this situation either stop and face the direction of fire, or withdraw perhaps... perhaps even pick up speed to get under cover. I don't really care, but some sort of reaction instead of blindly and stupidly going towards it's movement waypoint. Perhaps it won't even know its under fire at first... but these options should at least be available within the Reaction Phase.

Yep - it's good to see that you understood the interplay between Orders and Reaction and how that works for ambushes and such. We are planning to improve the tactical AI and will be putting some time into that for the first expansion as well. The goal is to make it have a bit more independent thought without taking decisions away from the player that we want to keep there and without making it smarter and faster than a historical vehicle, squad or team would be. Your example about it stopping once fired on is a good one, but balancing this with player intent is where the design gets interesting. I think some kind of basic "stance" would have to be implemented to help guide the AI in this case, so that an "aggressive" unit would keep moving, but a "cautious" one would stop.

Similarly I think obstacle avoidance, while pretty good, needs a little work. I would like to see vehicles start their avoidance a little earlier, instead of having to stop, turn, move, turn, etc... until they are around the obstacle, I would rather see them adjust their movement further back, move cleanly around the obstacle and then smoothly move back into position.

Yeah, collision detection can be tricky. I agree on the earlier avoidance, but we have to get through some higher priority items before we'll have time to work more on that.

12. Fog of War. There is no way that when identifying enemy units I should ever know their unit down to which vehicle or squad they happen to be in a specific platoon. This should be a lot fuzzier than it is now. Also, I would like to see some mis-identifications and have the vehicle remain unidentified (to a type only) until a good LOS can be achieved. Which should require you to get fairly close.

We deliberately raised the fog of war a bit here to help the player distinguish units. We felt that seeing a bunch of "T-34" messages would get pretty confusing, so letting you see the enemy designation would save time over trying to get the equivalent of "that T-34 over there on the right, 500m east of 1st Platoon, just stopped moving". Increasing the fog of war in this case can absolutely be done, so that you'd see "Medium Tank" then "T-34" then "T-34 Model 1941" etc. Since we haven't had many requests for this yet though, it's starting out fairly low on the list.

13. Heavy Woods. No vehicle should be allowed in heavy woods.

These should probably be re-named "Woods" as opposed to "Light Woods". They're not really intended as the super-heavy thick woods that would block all vehicle movement entirely. If they were, I would agree.

14. Firing at buildings? For the life of me I can't figure out how to fire at buildings, or even at units in buildings. Is this possible? If so please enlighten me. I keep getting LOS blocked by terrain message.

Absolutely. First, if it's unoccupied just target area fire right next to the wall you want to hit. The blue box should overlap part of the building. If it's occupied and you can see a squad inside, you can target that squad directly.

15. Vehicle MG fire. Why choose MG ammo when giving a fire command? Could save a step there...

It's a consistency thing - MGs are guns like the cannons and the menu system allows each ammo type to be selectable. We could tell it not to bother if there's only one ammo type available. Probably a worthwhile minor improvement.

I think that's enough for now. This is a very good game, and I am really looking forward to seeing where you guys go with it. Whatever you do, don't let it become another CM, it can stand on its own. I hope it develops that way.

Thank you very much, Bil!

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
16.  Roads.  Do roads only turn at 90 degree angles?

17.  Resolution Config at game start.  Does not hold all of my selections from previous play.

16 - Nope, though they do on a few of the maps.

17 - Odd, probably a contest demo issue. In the full game, it does save your settings.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
(bold face formations are in the game)

• Wedge
• Column
• Line
• Vee
• Echelon Right
• Echelon Left
• Line of Sections

The tanks tend to stay in the formation that they start out in unless they run into obstacles. So you can place them in whatever formation you want and platoon order them to move. You can use sub-orders to get them back together if they ever get out of formation. For the most part because of the close terrain tanks don't move that far before encountering something that shatters their formation.
I thought regroup would let you reform platoons from the remains of others.

ORIGINAL: Bil H
12. Fog of War. There is no way that when identifying enemy units I should ever know their unit down to which vehicle or squad they happen to be in a specific platoon. This should be a lot fuzzier than it is now. Also, I would like to see some mis-identifications and have the vehicle remain unidentified (to a type only) until a good LOS can be achieved. Which should require you to get fairly close.

Might be shown a boxy vehicle when it can't be clearly identified. Still when someday the game gets around to encountering vehicles like fireflies, CS tanks or Sherman Jumbos (or maybe just a JagdPanzer from a JagdPanther) you want to obscure this until the observer can definitely tell.

[Yoozername]

As far as CM and the micromanagement; its a reflection of the civilian staffed company.  They are a bunch of chairborne commandos with keyboards.  I argued that the game they were making was a PLATOON level command game and a battalion level modeling.  Its like pissing up a rope trying to argue with buffs or wannabees.
 
They really did not want to improve CM past CMBB. 

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
As far as CM and the micromanagement; its a reflection of the civilian staffed company.  They are a bunch of chairborne commandos with keyboards.  I argued that the game they were making was a PLATOON level command game and a battalion level modeling.

The game seemed too engineered for my taste. There's a point in game design when precision diverges from accuracy.

[Yoozername]

  Many people, including myself tried to get them to see past their 'individualistic-self-centered-civilianistic'' view of battle participants.  It didn't take.  They really believed that just because they thought it could happen that groups of units MIGHT just do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to, and that it somehow also magically coordinated with all the other whatever/whenever's, that it must be modeled as such.

It does not surprise me that they would go for some futuristic battle setting for the next round. They are seeking a new realm of hyper-coordination (with guys with shades).

[Erik Rutins]

Let's keep the discussion on Panzer Command rather than CM, please.

[blastpop]

Someone mentioned the demo for the game- where is it posted so I can download?

Thanks!

[Erik Rutins]

The Intel Contest Entry Demo is available at http://www.intel.com/cd/ids/developer/a ... 264351.htm

This is not our official commercial demo, which is in the works, but does effectively demo the first battle in the German campaign as a separate set battle. For those who are interested in giving it a try and seeing what we submitted to Intel, feel free to download and try it out.

Regards,

- Erik

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

  Many people, including myself tried to get them to see past their 'individualistic-self-centered-civilianistic'' view of battle participants.  It didn't take.  They really believed that just because they thought it could happen that groups of units MIGHT just do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to, and that it somehow also magically coordinated with all the other whatever/whenever's, that it must be modeled as such.

It does not surprise me that they would go for some futuristic battle setting for the next round. They are seeking a new realm of hyper-coordination (with guys with shades).

Not wanting to argue on CM, but I differ from this opinion - and it refers to PzC as well : I think the issue is not that some designers absolutely want to give total control/coordination, but IMHO rather that if you don't give the player "too much control" in a tac game it ends up with a totally messy and frustrating game with units running everywhere, tanks getting killed, AI making obvious bad moves... Maybe this mess will be more realistic as it will give a sense of the real mess war is, but it'll be often a ridiculous mess and most important that's not fun !
I don't know of any tac wargame which solved that satisfactorily. OTOH at a more operational level the RDoA-HttR-CotA series rather succeeds in this "hands-off" approach.

[Yoozername]

What I truly believe is that all the micromanagement of (game that we can't mention) made the AI of that game awful.
 
I argued loud and long about platoon drills.  That's how things are done in the military.  Orders come from above, not from the squad level.  But that game was more like Soccer than US Football.  If that makes sense.
 
The AI in that game could not possibly keep up with the gamey human.  Only another gamier human could.  And a whole legion of gamey fans love that omni-control now.
 
So it is exciting to see a tactical game that has real platoon mechanics.Likewise, I would expect a AI that could use realistic battlefield tactics now that platoons act realistically.
 
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

I think the issue is not that some designers absolutely want to give total control/coordination, but IMHO rather that if you don't give the player "too much control" in a tac game it ends up with a totally messy and frustrating game with units running everywhere, tanks getting killed, AI making obvious bad moves... Maybe this mess will be more realistic as it will give a sense of the real mess war is, but it'll be often a ridiculous mess and most important that's not fun !

It's not just the designers. A lot of players really do want wall-to-wall control of everything that's theirs on the map. It's all that they know (or are comfortable with). This is a residual impact of decades of boardgame and miniatures development in which there was no alternative. Players had to do all the thinking.

Computers were supposed to deliver us from that, but exploiting their strengths has comes in fits and starts. At one end of the spectrum you have those silly, RTS games like Sudden Strike, and at the other, Take Command: 2nd Manassas. The cool thing about TC2M is that players can take control of a Bde or Div in a larger overall engagment, and the friendly AI typically acquits itself quite well. The same sort of comment is applicable to the Panther Games parachute titles.

I'd really like to see the emphasis in PzC placed on the platoon AI, have it be to this game what the brigade is to TC2M. As for micromanagment, perhaps a player could give sub-orders to all squads/sections and vehicles within a certain, relatively small radius, take command of a platoon locally, if you will. Meanwhile, the other platoons would carry out their orders/routines as previously directed by Oberst Winter. [;)]

Anyway,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Bil H]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I did notice that the normal or bump maps used on the models seem a little too strong... that is a minor matter though and doesn't ruin the immersion for me but more subtlety to the bump maps would clean up the models a bit.

We felt we had this about right, but it's definitely an art rather than a science. Can you point to any particular unit where these seemed too strong to you? In many cases, it's unit-specific rather than universal as far as the necessary adjustments.

It is an art... as an artist I'll give you my thoughts [;)]

First of all, I think normal maps should only be really used (or primarily used) for bolts, grating, tools, other attached items, etc... what I am seeing a lot and what really looks off to me is where dirt and scratches, which should have very minor bumping, or none at all, seem very deep and overdone. Look especially at the T-34 and T-60 (for starters). I haven't gone through the entire model set yet so can't give you a vehicle by vehicle breakdown (yet).

Based on our research, the first three were by far the most common for German and Soviet platoons. In fact, we didn't give Soviets the Wedge formation since it seemed at this point they generally used Column or Line and tried to keep things simple. I'd be interested to hear info on whether those other formations saw a lot of use on the East Front in '42 or if these were mainly used by the US and UK on the West Front. If they were used by Germans and Soviets, we can absolutely add them to the near future to-do list, otherwise they will have to wait until Panzer Command gets to the other fronts.

I have to trust your research. I do think that the Soviets should have wedge formation capability... I admit I don't have any research material on Soviet tank formations.. so if you can point me to where it is stated this wasn't used by them...

Yep, good point. We did consider this, but went with somewhat tighter than historical spacing to keep things manageable with respect to the map size. I'm concerned that widening the spacing out again would make the command too unwieldy for most players.

Well, pehaps not widen them to the levels I mentioned, but the ability to choose, close, normal, or wide spacing would be great.

Waypoints are on our list, but they've proved somewhat challenging to work in because of the original design. We want to get support for at least one waypoint in there as soon as we can though, but right now we're working on the first expansion as a priority.

Yeah, at least the one waypoint is needed...

FOs are abstracted - we felt that was the best way to handle it in this case to keep things less complex. While it's good historical chrome, it works fine to say that "this HQ has contact with a FO" and work from there. Artillery and Tactical Smoke is scheduled for the first expansion and after just seeing the first implementation, may I say it is awesome.

Well I think your implementation is good. Commanders should have IF targeting ability.. howevr, did the Soviet commanders down to Platoon have this ability too? Perhaps this is where an FO at least for the Soviet side would be nice, and take away the calls for fire they currently have at Platoon.

A designer can absolutely limit the list to only the units he wants and only give you enough points to buy those, no more. The default scenarios do allow some leeway to add to replayability. In the German campaign, which starts with the same battle you just fought in the demo, the core group remains the same throughout - so in the first battle for example, you start with a pre-bought core group of 2x Pz IIIL, 5x Pz IIIL, 4x Pz IVF2, 6x SdKfz 251, 6x PzGren Squad and fill in from there with forces that are with you just for that scenario (auxiliary forces). That core group then carries forward with you while the auxiliary units change.

Cool, look forwardto seeing it in action.

They could be made permanent, but I believe they are temporary for performance reasons. In theory, we could make a number of temporary effects more permanent as system specs increase and our time to add performance options increases as well.

I agree other items should be further up the priority list.

Supporting splitting platoons/squads into teams is already on the long-term list as well, but re-combining them in new formations was not.

Splitting squads and Platoons would be enough for me, glad to hear its on the list.

I agree that it would be great to pre-mount infantry in vehicles. We'll get to this in the future, for now just put them close and mount them up on the first Orders phase. The insta-formation idea is an interesting one, will see what we can do on that. We've already decided to expand the placement distance default to 250m from 100m, but the enemy distance check will be kept in.

Have you considered setup zones?

Yep - it's good to see that you understood the interplay between Orders and Reaction and how that works for ambushes and such. We are planning to improve the tactical AI and will be putting some time into that for the first expansion as well. The goal is to make it have a bit more independent thought without taking decisions away from the player that we want to keep there and without making it smarter and faster than a historical vehicle, squad or team would be. Your example about it stopping once fired on is a good one, but balancing this with player intent is where the design gets interesting. I think some kind of basic "stance" would have to be implemented to help guide the AI in this case, so that an "aggressive" unit would keep moving, but a "cautious" one would stop.

Sweet. I like the stance idea, sort of an SOP-light.

It's a consistency thing - MGs are guns like the cannons and the menu system allows each ammo type to be selectable. We could tell it not to bother if there's only one ammo type available. Probably a worthwhile minor improvement.

Yeah I think that would feel smoother and less cluttered.

Thanks for the reply Erik.

Bil

[AlvinS]

Greetings

I am having a blast playing Panzer Command, but wanted to add a suggestion.

I am all for item 10 below as it would make it easier to place units during setup. I would also like to see Units in the HUD highlited after I have given them orders. I could tell at a glance what units I have missed.

Of course these are minor issues for a very enjoyable game. I look forward to more in this series.

10. Place unit. I find this feature at game start to be too restrictive. I would like to be able to mount infantry and assign formations (with the units popping into correct position) before I start the game clock.