My impressions

[Larsen]

First of all I should say that this game will always be compared to CM series. There are quite a few reasons for that. First, both games are set during WWII and both games deal with tactical battles fought at the company level. Second, the WEGO battle system. There are very few games that I know of that use this system. To think of it I can name only three games that use WEGO system - CM series, Alfa Antiterror (a russian squad level game published by MistLand in Russia) and Panzer Command Operation Winter storm. The two factors I describe will always bring comparison to CM games. The standards set by CMBB and CMAK are very high. Any game that simulates WWII tactical battles on the company level will have to compare favorably against CM otherwise what's the point of getting a game that is worse than the one that is well established?

Here are my impressions based on the demo.
The things that I liked a lot.
1. Relative spotting. A big, huge step forward compared to CM. I made a post about 3-4 years ago on CMBB forum that it would be nice to have spotting realtive to the unit. In PzC my dreams came through. I would only suggest that if a friendly unit is selected to show on mini map only the units visible to that one unit. Otherwise it's a bit tedious to keep targeting the tanks only to find out that they can's see the unit I want them to shoot at!
2. Event viewer. Thank you very much for this feature. It is such a pain in CM to keep track of what's hitting where. Especially I find it hard to look for that pesky spotting round. In PzC that is easy.
3. The unit display. It's easy to select a unit (no need to pan the map looking for one) and it's easy to see what unit is under fire!

Now the thing that I didn't like and I think need to be changed/fixed.
1. Waypoints. Well, there were enough posts about waypoints on the PzC board. I just want to make a suggestion. Give green units one waypoint, veteran two and elite three. Or something of that type.
2. All Engage commands and Withdraw command have to be available in the reaction phase. As of right now reaction phase is not really a reaction phase but "let's wait for 40 sec to be able to give some orders" phase. Withdraw command has to be put under Engage. Maybe it should be availabe only to unbutton tanks but it should be there.
3. Target command for one unit should not cancel automatically movement orders to the other units in the platoon. Right now if I give a target command to any unit in a platoon (not nessesseraly the HQ one) all the movement orders (except maybe Move) for other units are canceled. I'm not sure if that is what was intended by design but that's how is works and I think that needs to be addressed.
4. Tehre should be an equvivalent of a CM Hunt command when an armor unit slowly moves forward looking for a target adn once it spots a target it stops and starts shooting at it.
5. Infantry. It should not be able to shoot if mounted and it should not take casualties if it rides armored halftracks.
6. Destructable buildings. Again there were enough posts on the forum on this subject.
7. HE area fire on the units that are spotted but not by the firing tank should have more effect. At least it should have a pinning or routing effect. As of right now if tank shoot with HE at the infantry squad that is spotted by a friendly unit the effect is zero.
8. Routed units should run away from the field. They should not be able to go back to normal at the beginning of the next phase. Maybe be they can go back to pinned but not rally 100%. The progression should be normal, suppressed, pinned, routed and other way around. Sometimes squads will try to run away but not always.
9. When tank or gun targets a tank it would be nice to see 2 numbers. A chance to hit and a chace to penetrate. Those don't have to be exact numbers, poor, fair, good and excelent will do. But there should be two numbers.
10. Accuracy and firepower tables. What the hell those 1,2,3...10 supposed to mean? What am I playing here - a board game? No, I am playing a computer game finished in 2006. There is no need to invent a weel. CM got that more or less right. Gun has to have penetration and accuracy numbers based on distance nicely assembled in a table.
11. Tank armor tables. Same as 9. Give me a picture and tell me what is what on the picture. This is 21st century after all.
12. Artillery and CAS. I still have to see a single instance when artillery or planes make any damage. I'm not sure if that is what was intended but that's how it works. No need to spent points on artillery or CAS since they are so useless.
13. Onboard mortars. Since there are guns there should be mortars to kill them.

As of right now I just don't see me spending 40 bucks on PzC. 10 maybe. 40 no way. CMBB is so much superior in many respects that I just fail to see whay I would want to get PzC. Of course if most of the issues that I listed are addressed then the whole perception will change.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Do you see any value in the platoon orders, or do you feel that plotting all actions is the way to go, for each individual vehicle or squad?

I ask because if too much emphasis is put on the latter, PzC will end up being CMME.

That'd be kind of sad in that even the other game's developer acknowledges that it's at a dead end, tits-up, the fat-lady has sung, so to speak.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Larsen]

Well, I don't mind giving commands at the platoon level. In fact if the tactical AI would choose the right facing based on the situation and would widraw from combat if odds are against it then I don't think the individaul adjustments would be that important. In fact in CM I end up usually playing at the platoon level. Infantry squads act together support each other and move as a whole usually. Same goes for armor if there is enough armor of course. But for that to work tacai has to be quite good. I think it's much easier to give player more freedom in choosing how individual units should react to a particular situation than to code a heavy-duty tacai. Maybe I am wrong. I just don't think the behaviour where units cannot retarget on their own, cannot adjust facing and can't withdraw based on the changing battle situation is the way to go. And in this case I would like of couse to have more options for what to order them to do.
On a different note I don't think there is anything wrong in taking what works in other game and implimenting it. For example if you take the CMBB or CMAK and add relative spotting to it, add a window of event log, add the OOB like in PzC I would pay 40 even 50 bucks for it because it would play differently than the original game and would be a lot of fun for me.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hi Larsen,

Thanks for responding.

ORIGINAL: Larsen

Well, I don't mind giving commands at the platoon level. In fact if the tactical AI would choose the right facing based on the situation and would widraw from combat if odds are against it then I don't think the individaul adjustments would be that important.

I'm positive that the developer appreciates your being open-minded to the possibilities of the platoon-based AI. It has a lot of potential, IMO.

In fact in CM I end up usually playing at the platoon level. Infantry squads act together support each other and move as a whole usually. Same goes for armor if there is enough armor of course. But for that to work tacai has to be quite good.

Indeed, programming "intelligent" routines is quite a challenge for any developer. I'm not sure where it will lead Koios, but I'd like to see them given some latitude in this regard, freedom to experiment.

I think it's much easier to give player more freedom in choosing how individual units should react to a particular situation than to code a heavy-duty tacai. Maybe I am wrong. I just don't think the behaviour where units cannot retarget on their own, cannot adjust facing and can't withdraw based on the changing battle situation is the way to go. And in this case I would like of couse to have more options for what to order them to do.

Often times, it seems to me that giving a player the ability to micro-manage units across the breath of the map is really a capitulation on the part of the designer/programmer of the game. The message seems to be, "we couldn't make this stuff behave, so you take care of it!" That's just my opinon, though.

Likewise, if the underlying computer-player AI is lousy, then that assisting the human player is likely gonna be lame as well, often bordering on the non-existant.

Have you ever thought about why AI "cheats" are programmed into games? Well, its essentially a cop-out on the part of the developers. Although rarely acknowledged, they're corset-lacing the game-code with devices that will allow the software to hold it's own against human foresight, our ability to see the forest for the trees, as it were.

If you want to build a better mousetrap, its my opinion that you do so by making the AI smarter, not by pushing all of the decisions off onto the human player, or by endowing his computer opponent with wiz-bang-borg-death-beams-from-hell. Those just strike me as easy ways out.

On a different note I don't think there is anything wrong in taking what works in other game and implimenting it.

I agree completely. And I hope that everyone will be willing to embrace that which is to be admired in PzC, whatever those qualities might be in the long run, those that have already evidenced themselves, and those that have yet to emerge.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[EagleMountainDK]

ORIGINAL: Larsen

For example if you take the CMBB or CMAK and add relative spotting to it, add a window of event log, add the OOB like in PzC I would pay 40 even 50 bucks for it because it would play differently than the original game and would be a lot of fun for me.

Then I wouldn't have bought it and joined the beta team. I don't want a new CMxx...

[Mobius]

Larsen is entitled to his impressions.[/align]I can't contest impressions.[/align]Others are likey to have different impressions.[/align] [/align]

[Larsen]

PoE, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is extremely difficult to program a good, challenging AI. But that is a completely diffent subject. I was not talking about creating a good AI that would give you a run for your money. I was talkng about tacai which is completley different. It just has to take care of reacting to the current situation for a particular unit and not to plan many turns ahead.
Cougar, I am a bit confused with your post. You wouldn't have bought what? What beta testing are you talking about? Can you please elaborate what do you mean by "not wanting another CMxx"?
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Larsen

I was talkng about tacai which is completley different. It just has to take care of reacting to the current situation for a particular unit and not to plan many turns ahead.

Nah, I was talking about the ability of individual units to behave somewhat more intelligently than they do in other games, albeit within the context of supporting the parent unit, its platoon.

Have you ever played Sid Meier's Gettysburg?

Yes, I know it's dogsville among a lot of wargamers, but the game had a fantastic little AI-routine for Bde combat. The individual regiments fought as subunits of the parent brigade. The interior units would move to fix the enemy line, while those on the ends of the line would maneuver to flank. It was very, very cool, to watch play out. What made me crazy about the game was that MY regiments, the ones controlled by the human-player were as stupid as those found in most games. There was no nifty little AI routine to manage part of the fighting for me. About all you could count on them to do was return fire or retreat. Does that last part sound familiar?

BTW, I consider what I've described above in regard to SMG to be an AI-supporting cheat, just as I consider micro-plotting moves a form of cheat that favors human over computer. What's sauce for the goose, ought be sauce for the gander. And it seems to me that there are games that have a more or less level-playing field, Take Command: Second Manassas comes to mind. The game features what most folks consider a cheat-free AI, particularly for its "Open Play" component. I'd like to see Koios take a stab at pulling off the same sort of affect with PzC, lest they simply reinvent the wheel, a thoroughly unsatisfactory outcome, IMHO.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Larsen]

I remember SMG. I played it for a little while and still have the game somewhere. I don't remember exact detail but AI was quite competent there. Regiments would weel in the direction of the incoming fire, would retreat if low on morale, try to flank you and so on. I didn't play Take Command. From what I read the AI is quite competent there. But that is an operational level game and at that time the variety of units was less than in WWII and their tactics was not as complecated as in WWII.
I agree with you it would be nice to have a good, robust AI at least on the tactical scale. But while that is not there I would like to have an opportunity to macromanage my units.
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Hi Larsen,

Thanks for you comments. They strike me as well thought out, expressing your gameplay preferences, as do mine. I was wondering, though, have you had a chance to play the patched version of the full game?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Larsen]

I just played a demo. I don't feel like shelling out 40 bucks for PzC. While it most probably would be fun to play on a weekend or two but knowing myself I can say for sure that my interest won't last. I am not sure if demo includes the patch modification but in any case there are just too many problems with the game. I didn't even mention in my list adding a base to the units. As of right now I need a good magnifying glass to find all those infantry squads in the trees.
There side of the game. All things that I mentioned are just basic thing on the level of interface and order menues. I never said anything about the AI as an opponent. CM for me is a game to play against another human being. Those battles were a lot of fun. I am not sure if there will be such a community for PzC. Time will tell. And I dislike PBEM. For me TCP/IP is the way to go.
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Larsen

I just played a demo.

I kinda figured that by reading your original post. The comment isn't intended as a criticism, but is born out of some of your observations about PzC.

For instance, you indicated that artillery and air support produce no casualties. In my experience, artillery is very effective against infantry. It doesn't always "K" the units that it impacts, but, more often inflicts casualties and causes them to become ineffective.

And air support is absolutely devasting to AFV that are attacked. In Laryngoscope's Hell's Gate scenario, I absolutely depend on a Stuka strike taking out a couple of Soviet T-34's. Without that strike, I likely couldn't win the scenario.

I've got a suggestion for you, as relates to the game, and it won't cost you a dime. Try and get your hands on a copy of the game's e-manual and read the sections about the orders, suborders and combat carefully. You have nothing to lose, excepting a little time spent pouring over a .PDF.

Again, don't take one word of the above as an implied criticism of your not having played the full, patched version of the game. I haven't played the demo!!!

Take it easy,

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Larsen]

I'm not sure if the manual is available on the net. I understand that the demo is a technical demo so the game itself is probably better but there are a few basic things about the game that I don't like that most probably (judging by the posts) were not changed in the game. I really don't like their infantry model. The squad could be routed one turn and at the beginning of next turn it's normal again. The way indirect HE fire work is not what I expect. Taking casualties from small arms fire while riding a half truck. The tank control. And so on. The game has a potential but it needs quite a substantial work I think. I don't think they have the manual on-line in Matrix. If it were avaialable I would be very curious to take a look at it.
 
 

[rickier65]

he manual is available with the demo. At least it was with the technical demo I downloaded.

Rick

[Larsen]

My bed. I just checked and indeed there is a manual in pdf format. I don't know how I missed it earlier. I'll check it out today.
 

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I don't know if the game manual is "patched" in the demo or not, as it was when the game was patched to version 1.12. Anyway, the patched version includes the following changes to the game, some of which are reflected in the manual:

Scenario Editor:
-----

Special thanks to John "Laryngoscope" Sestan, who granted his permission for the inclusion of his Scenario Editing tool and Scenario Description Import tool. You will find these now linked in your Start Menu folder and also in your installation folder. There is a new readme file which explains how to use these tools to quickly create and modify scenarios.

Fixes and Changes:
-----

1. Fixed incorrect message log message that displayed deflection result message for some shots that penetrated but did no damage. These will now be reported as "penetrated, but caused no damage" rather than "deflected". This caused there to appear to be more deflections than were actually occurring.

2. Fixed bug where retreat paths may in some circustances veered toward enemy units, particularly in multi-phase retreats.

3. Routing units no longer count toward ownership of objectives that they happen to be near.

4. Infantry units now default to kneeling instead of standing when idle and/or firing (except when advancing and firing)

5. Fixed a bug that made Direct Area HE fire less effective against field artillery in some cases. This bug also made Direct Area HE fire less effective against unspotted units.

6. Removed 50 point reduction for Player as Defender. On Normal difficulty, the player will not get exactly the points listed in the scenario file. At Hard Difficulty, the player gets 75% of the points listed, but never less than what is needed to purchase the core battle group. At Easy Difficulty, the opposing side gets 67% of the points listed.

7. Fixed a problem that prevented the main menu music from playing correctly.

8. Fixed a missing morale failure message for infantry surrendering, which would display as "???" in the event log rather than with the intended surrender text.

9. Fixed a bug that in rare cases would return an incorrect facing aspect from turret to target when at a specific angle.

10. Fixed a rare bug where tracer fire for infantry firing when mounted could get misplaced and show up firing from a map edge.

11. Added support for intro movies.

12. Fixed a rare bug that could prevent fire at infantry in buildings at a few very specific angles.

13. Improved the behavior of building transparency, as this was sometimes not making a building transparent when a new unit in the building was sighted. Buildings should now consistently become transparent when sighted enemy or friendly infantry are inside and be non-transparent when no one is inside or when those inside have not been sighted.

14. Infantry in buildings are now more vulnerable to Direct HE fire. Direct HE fire now has a chance of penetrating a building and affecting infantry inside at its full firepower.

15. Fixed an artillery bug where offboard shots could endanger units in other parts of the map

16. Fixed a glitch where destroyed squads could still take up a mount point in a building after replay or reload, preventing new squads from mounting.

17. The SdKfz 222 and T-60 received their supply of HE and their firepower is now significantly upgraded.

18. Corrected some minor data issues, adjusted the infantry data to better show the differences in firepower between the various squads and teams.

19. Fixed a bug that would cause a crash if attempting to load a unit without a custom model (i.e. with the model set to "generic")

Improvements:
-----

1. The game manual has been updated to include the v1.12 changes and the v1.00 update to the PBEM play.

2. A new bonus set battle scenario, "Welcome to Kotelnikovo" is included in this update.

3. A new bonus single scenario campaign "Hell's Gate", by John Sestan, is included in this update.

4. Added more detailed infantry casualty modeling. We now track casualties to infantry units in several steps. Each time an infantry unit takes fire, it may be destroyed or may take casualties. The first time it takes casualties, it will be marked as having taken light casualties. The second time it takes casualties, it will be marked as having taken heavy casualties. If it takes casualties a third time, it is destroyed. It is still possible to destroy an infantry unit in one attack, but unlikely. Units that have suffered light casualties have a 50% chance of -1 Firepower each time they fire. They also have -1 to Close Assault, -1 to Rally and -1 to Suppression Recovery rolls. Units that have suffered heavy casualties have a 100% chance of a firepower adjustment of -1 and a 50% chance of a firepower adjustment of -2 each time they fire. They also have -2 to Close Assault, -2 to Rally, -2 to Suppression Recovery rolls and -1 to Base Morale. These different states are shown by a new indicator. Gray = No Casualties, One Medkit = Light Casualties, Two Medkits = Heavy Casualties, Skull = Destroyed.

5. Added more detailed infantry suppression modeling. Infantry that are already suppressed can now be pinned down if suppressed again. Infantry that are pinned down have to unpin before they can unsuppress. A unit that is pinned down takes an additional -1 firepower modifier (on top of being suppressed) and a -2 Close Assault modifier. Pinned units cannot move until they are unpinned. These different states are shown by a new indicator. Gray = Unsuppressed, Yellow Kneeling Soldier = Suppressed, Yellow Prone Soldier = Pinned Down.

6. Added new Defend sub-order: Defend->HoldFire - There are 3 hold fire options: Hold unless good shot, Hold unless Close Assault, and Hold All Fire - only infantry units can use the hold unless close assault.

7. Added a new immediate order for Cancel Target - this command will order a unit that has an existing target to no longer target. Unless otherwise targeted, the unit will autoselect a target during planning. This is useful if you want to cancel an existing target and let the AI pick a new target for the unit or if you want to halt direct area fire.

8. Added a Line of Sight (LOS) tool to the order menu. It works similar to the existing target rubberband. However, the LOS tool will show you the current maximum LOS distance (based on terrain/sighting factors along the line of sight) and will tell you why LOS is blocked once the rubberband turns translucent. This new information appears on the second line of the readout next to the mouse pointer in the format [Maximum LOS Distance] [Reason for Blocked Line of Sight]

9. Adding Facing as sub order to the Engage menu. Units that are under Defend or Engage orders can now choose to change facing during the reaction phase. Doing so will change the unit's facing during the reaction phase but cancel any other movement the unit had previously assigned.

10. Added additional support for modding unit data. The scenario XML files now have a tag for 'models' (assignment is to 'default'). Unit data files now have a new tag for 'set' structure with an element tag setid. (assignment is to 'default'). Under 'set' is a list of all the in-game models to use. Now, to use different models, just add a new 'set' and assign it a custom setid. Update any scenarios with the new setid for the 'models' tag and the new models will be loaded instead of the default models. If new models do not exist for a given unit, the game will load the default models. This will allow modders to add entirely new models and/or meshes without having to overwrite the existing data. Please see modification guide for more details.

11. The targeting line has been improved to now show the maximum line of sight distance in meters when a shot is unobstructed or, when obstructed, to note the reason for the obstruction or blockage. This will also now tell you when a shot is out of your sighting arc, which means you need to change unit facing in order to shoot.

Like I said, I haven't played the Intel demo, so I'm pretty ignorant of what it contains.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Erik Rutins]

Larsen,

Thanks for your feedback, sorry it's taken me a while to reply. Technically, I'm still on vacation and my wife and I are still learning how to take care of our newborn son, so free time is very variable and limited!

ORIGINAL: Larsen
First of all I should say that this game will always be compared to CM series. There are quite a few reasons for that. First, both games are set during WWII and both games deal with tactical battles fought at the company level. Second, the WEGO battle system. There are very few games that I know of that use this system. To think of it I can name only three games that use WEGO system - CM series, Alfa Antiterror (a russian squad level game published by MistLand in Russia) and Panzer Command Operation Winter storm. The two factors I describe will always bring comparison to CM games. The standards set by CMBB and CMAK are very high. Any game that simulates WWII tactical battles on the company level will have to compare favorably against CM otherwise what's the point of getting a game that is worse than the one that is well established?

I agree that we can't avoid the comparison, but part of it is also a mindset. CM has been on the market for years and with not much competition on the 3D side of things. There are plenty of 2D tactical games to compare it too, but very few 3D tactical games. As far as WEGO, you may want to also check out Crown of Glory and Forge of Freedom, Combined Arms, the old V for Victory games and I'm sure there are a few others. If you meant in the tactical strategy scale only, then I would only add an old favorite (albeit not historical) - X-Com.

Here are my impressions based on the demo.
The things that I liked a lot.
1. Relative spotting. A big, huge step forward compared to CM. I made a post about 3-4 years ago on CMBB forum that it would be nice to have spotting realtive to the unit. In PzC my dreams came through. I would only suggest that if a friendly unit is selected to show on mini map only the units visible to that one unit. Otherwise it's a bit tedious to keep targeting the tanks only to find out that they can's see the unit I want them to shoot at!

We've been discussing this and we've added it to the list. I hope we'll be able to get something like this into the expansion. Right now, the LOS tool will show you exactly who you can and can't see, but we agree that this could be made even easier for the player.

2. Event viewer. Thank you very much for this feature. It is such a pain in CM to keep track of what's hitting where. Especially I find it hard to look for that pesky spotting round. In PzC that is easy.
3. The unit display. It's easy to select a unit (no need to pan the map looking for one) and it's easy to see what unit is under fire!

Thanks, I like the mini-map too and I don't know if you noticed, but ALL the data is open and moddable/editable. The manual goes into this in some detail as well.

Now the thing that I didn't like and I think need to be changed/fixed.
1. Waypoints. Well, there were enough posts about waypoints on the PzC board. I just want to make a suggestion. Give green units one waypoint, veteran two and elite three. Or something of that type.

We took a shot at adding in waypoints and realized it would be a bit more work than we initially thought, so we plan to take another shot at it as time allows. They're on our list and we've seen the feedback that makes this a very requested feature.

Right now, part of the adjustment coming from CM is that you want to really plot your next 40-80 seconds of movement rather than going beyond that if possible. Generally, that will keep things rolling along without any pathfinding issues and managing forces with an eye towards historical spacings will avoid giving the collision detection too much of a workout.

2. All Engage commands and Withdraw command have to be available in the reaction phase. As of right now reaction phase is not really a reaction phase but "let's wait for 40 sec to be able to give some orders" phase. Withdraw command has to be put under Engage. Maybe it should be availabe only to unbutton tanks but it should be there.

We've heard and agreed to do something about adding in Withdraw. However, I disagree with the rest of this suggestion. Making the Engage sub-commands available to someone who has Engage orders is already there - similarly for Defend. Other order types signify that the commander was not expecting immediate contact and combat. Part of the game system is that in these cases, the most you can do in reaction is halt and return fire. Since we're dealing with 40 second phases, this is not too much of a penalty and allows for some ambush situations and penalizes careless play.

3. Target command for one unit should not cancel automatically movement orders to the other units in the platoon. Right now if I give a target command to any unit in a platoon (not nessesseraly the HQ one) all the movement orders (except maybe Move) for other units are canceled. I'm not sure if that is what was intended by design but that's how is works and I think that needs to be addressed.

There's no "Move" order, so I'm not sure what you meant with that one - unless you mean Engage -> Move. A target command will generally only cancel movement for the whole platoon if issued by the HQ. I'll check and see if it's working otherwise.

4. Tehre should be an equvivalent of a CM Hunt command when an armor unit slowly moves forward looking for a target adn once it spots a target it stops and starts shooting at it.

In general, that's using Advance orders, followed by Halt and Target in the Reaction phase. The suggestion is a good one though and it's something we've considered making easier through the use of "stances" to guide the tactical AI so that it can divine the player's intent. Right now, since the AI is not (yet) telepathic, it leaves the decision to you in the Reaction phase.

5. Infantry. It should not be able to shoot if mounted and it should not take casualties if it rides armored halftracks.

I have to disagree here. Infantry often shot while mounted, particularly from open-topped halftracks. It won't be extremely accurate, but it would be able to shoot. Also, halftracks were not impervious to all small arms fire, so making mounted infantry units immune to fire would not be realistic. We do reduce firepower directed at a unit mounted in a halftrack as a way to model the protection, but it's definitely still possible to cause casualties to or destroy a mounted unit. Tank riders are a different story - we actually give a bonus to firepower against those, for obvious reasons.

Historically, PanzerGrenadiers generally attacked dismounted from what I've read, usually to avoid losing too many halftracks.

6. Destructable buildings. Again there were enough posts on the forum on this subject.

Yes, this is a major feature addition though and will be some time coming. I regret we couldn't do this for the first release, but given what we accomplished with a limited budget and one year of development time, I'm fairly proud and also optimistic about the future of the series.

7. HE area fire on the units that are spotted but not by the firing tank should have more effect. At least it should have a pinning or routing effect. As of right now if tank shoot with HE at the infantry squad that is spotted by a friendly unit the effect is zero.

Area fire does have an effect - I'm not sure how many tests you did, but it works here. With that said, I agree with you that it should have more of a pinning/suppressing effect. We already have a boost in that area on the drawing board for both direct area fire and artillery fire.

8. Routed units should run away from the field. They should not be able to go back to normal at the beginning of the next phase. Maybe be they can go back to pinned but not rally 100%. The progression should be normal, suppressed, pinned, routed and other way around. Sometimes squads will try to run away but not always.

They don't always rally in one phase - there's a check based on their rally value. I've had units retreat for multiple phases and turns, though if they are in good shape (i.e. no casualties) they will generally rally.

Note that Pinned/Suppressed and Routed are different conditions. If your unit was Pinned and then Routed, it may recover from the Rout but not from the Pin and thus rally but still be Pinned. Units that are not suppressed or pinned can still Rout in Panzer Command and recovering from a Pin or Suppression is not automatic either, so all of these effects can and do last more than a phase.

9. When tank or gun targets a tank it would be nice to see 2 numbers. A chance to hit and a chace to penetrate. Those don't have to be exact numbers, poor, fair, good and excelent will do. But there should be two numbers.

Ok, we discussed this and decided against it for one reason - which armor value do you use? There are generally 10+ hit locations and they can vary widely in terms of protection on many tanks. You can also have a chance of a side deflection, a critical hit, a variable penetration that knocks the penetration value down, etc. While we can do some kind of "average" value, I'm not sure how useful that would really be, so we decided to leave that out for now.

10. Accuracy and firepower tables. What the hell those 1,2,3...10 supposed to mean? What am I playing here - a board game? No, I am playing a computer game finished in 2006. There is no need to invent a weel. CM got that more or less right. Gun has to have penetration and accuracy numbers based on distance nicely assembled in a table.
11. Tank armor tables. Same as 9. Give me a picture and tell me what is what on the picture. This is 21st century after all.

Reading the manual would definitely have helped here. The numbers are in a table based on distance and basically based on a d10 roll, so a 1 is pretty much an auto-hit and a 10 is a 1 in 10 chance. I haven't really seen any criticism on how the data is presented before now, so I have to wonder if this is really something most people find to be difficult to read or if it's just a matter of it being different from how it's presented in CM. I don't recall CM giving any accuracy values by range for its tank guns, though it does have penetration and armor ratings displayed as you describe, at least since CMBB.

12. Artillery and CAS. I still have to see a single instance when artillery or planes make any damage. I'm not sure if that is what was intended but that's how it works. No need to spent points on artillery or CAS since they are so useless.

That's not how it works at all, though I believe you had this experience. I think this is more an issue of bad luck and limited play, since it works fine in general.

13. Onboard mortars. Since there are guns there should be mortars to kill them.

Agreed - we ran out of time for the first release (hence, off-board mortars, which work well at killing guns too), but these are definitely in for the first expansion.

Thanks for your feedback and I hope you'll take a second look at Panzer Command continues to improve and evolve.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Larsen
My bed. I just checked and indeed there is a manual in pdf format. I don't know how I missed it earlier. I'll check it out today.

Please do - lots of good info in there which will help you master even the demo version.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Like I said, I haven't played the Intel demo, so I'm pretty ignorant of what it contains.

The Intel contest demo, IIRC, was based on the v1.12 version, but it's just the first level of the German Campaign and nothing else. It has the game manual included, but no tutorial or such.

Regards,

- Erik

[Larsen]

Eric, thank you very much for replying to my post. Ireally didn't expect any reply. But it is always a bonus to a developer if such a reply occurs. Again big thank you for that.
I will answer you in 1.2.3... manner since that way I know I will not miss anything.
1. I am not familiar with Crown of Glory, Forge of Freedom, V for Victory and Combined Arms but a quick search on Yahoo game me an answer that they are turn based, CA is hex based and are either operational or above level. I take your word that they are WEGO but the scale scares me - I guess I was not born to be a general.
Which x-com are you talking about? The original series were all turn based and the first game in the new series was RTS with a smart pause if I remember correctly. I loved JA series and Fallout. I loved 101 in Normandy and Wages of War. I wish I could find a decent squad level game.
I played CM extensively (multiplayer of course) from 2000 (or was it 1999? I don't remember) to 2004. That is one fun game. Yep. No shame to make somehting like that but better. Check the forums there. It's been 3 years since the last game in the series and the boards are still very much alive. Not too many games can show that up.
2. Waypoints is a must. That's were the strategy kicks in. One has to maneuvre his/her forces. It should be harder with green and soviet units but the opportunity should be there or make the phases shorter. Say, 20 sec the order phase and 10 sec the reaction phase. Otehrwise one has only one waypoint for 120 sec of combat. That sucks.
3. In reaction phase there should be an opportunity to halt, to change facing, to retreat, or to move forward until some target is spotted. As of right now I can't even chage the unit facing in reaction time. That is definitely wrong.
4. Engage->Target command for ANY UNIT IN THE PLATOON (AND NOT ONLY HQ) will cancel all the movement oreders for the untis that are moving. At least that how it works for me and I think that is a wrong.
5a. There were extensive discussions about ability of mounted units to fire on the Battlefron forum. People were doing all kind of historical research. The eventual consensus was that the although unit had such an opportunity they never or very rarely used it and almost never rode halftruck into combat. I guess I can do a search on the BTS forum and find out those threads if you want. I remember one of the posters was Michael Dorosh who also posts here. You can send him an e-mail and I am sure he will give back the details.
5b. Soviet small arms fire should not be able to penetrate german halftrucks unless at a very short distance thus any infantry riding in those halftrucks should not suffect any casualties or being suppressed unless the distance is very close and the fire comes from the side.
6. I have seen a few instances when I ws fring indict HE fire at a squad and not only causing 0 casualties but also having 0 effect ont eh squad's morale.
7. Hm. I think the progression of units morale should be OK-Suppressed-Pinned-Routed. If unit is routed it runs away, pinned or not. Period. If pinned it just keeps heads down and does not return fire. the way your model works is unless I kill infantry squad I can't be sure that it won't get up and start shooting back next phase. That is not right. The way it works now you have 2 checks. So if the squad is piined and routed it will stay put. If the morale check succeeds twice next phase it will go to normal and start shooting. Not good. Basically routed if piined is the same as pinned. Morale checks suceeds and it's OK to shoot.
8. I think there should be 2 numbers. You have all the CPU power. Calculate the chance to knock the unit out. The chance to hit some area multiply by the chance to penetrate that area and multiply by the chance to kill if penetrated. Add all the numbers for diffent areas and that will give a chance to kill. Should not be hard. The second number should just give you a chance to hit the target. CM gives two numbers and that is convenient.
9a. Again this is 21 senture. What 10 sided dice? I play a computer game and don't roll any dices. What you do under the whood is not my business. And any graphical representation of the armor is much better than tables. I know that much since I spent some time in software development. The time of tables are gone like in away.
9b. CM does not give accuracy tables but it gives the initial velocity for the shell and penetration numbers for the shel of different armor angles at diffent distancies. You can do better. Instead of velocity just give the probability to hit something of certain size.
Well, Eric, one more time big thank you for finding time to read my post and to answer to it. I really mean that. Sorry for typos. It's getting late here.